And is it really worth it in avarge type apps. Nothing really SUPER DUPPER

I am looking to stay within a certan range so that when i build it will at lease keep the 9x people happy also. It will be quite a while before everyone buy the nutty, over blotted, customer tracking XP anyway... I thing MS is going to trash it personally and move on. But we still got to know what is what.

I don't have XP or 2000 yet but i want build and BE at lease 99% ready for all Windows OS for now so no one will be left out.... I don't worry about speed... I get it... As far as size "look at XP" :) .. my app stay small as it should in asm and i don't wont to be force to add blottt when not needed, so....

Example XP and 2000 don't support ________ , or do it

What api's are still supported from 9x and up and what are not.

Thanks
Posted on 2002-09-07 22:45:33 by cmax
Better to ask the one and only who knows the answer - than asking an 8-ball

My guess is XP is downward compatible, which means that if it runs on 95,98,ME it should run on XP if it's written correctly.
Posted on 2002-09-07 23:20:45 by JimmyClif
What XP and 2000 got that 9x don't

Lots of security holes and bugz and other dirty tricks that Microsoft have not yet told you about. :tongue:

I have win2k set up for compatibility testing on one box and it runs OK and can be set up to avoid most of the tacky user interface delays but I would not trust it as an internet accessed OS as it has too many things that can be abused to trust it.

Regards,

hutch@movsd.com
Posted on 2002-09-07 23:49:00 by hutch--

What XP and 2000 got that 9x don't

Lots of security holes and bugz and other dirty tricks that Microsoft have not yet told you about. :tongue:

I have win2k set up for compatibility testing on one box and it runs OK and can be set up to avoid most of the tacky user interface delays but I would not trust it as an internet accessed OS as it has too many things that can be abused to trust it.

Regards,

hutch@movsd.com


That's exactly why I stuck with 98. I didn't even go 98 Second Edition. No access to DOS? :mad: I think not.
Posted on 2002-09-26 09:18:59 by Kydwyn
Most of the problems in XP that have sprung up since its release are the security holes and whatnot in Internet Explorer, MS Messenger, Media Player, Outlook Express. I don't use ANY of those programs and all of them but IE aren't installed on my machine.

The OS itself seems to be pretty stable. I haven't had a system-wide crash yet and my longest uptime was two months, only going down when I shut it down.
Posted on 2002-09-26 09:48:00 by iblis
XP has fancy buttons :tongue:

Oh yeah, and cleartype :grin:
Posted on 2002-09-26 12:09:46 by Eóin

Most of the problems in XP that have sprung up since its release are the security holes...


There is always the one highlighted at this site is you dont know about it:
Gibson Research Corporation
Posted on 2002-09-26 12:39:13 by huh
E?in,
ClearType is available for Win98. And ever heard of WindowBlinds? :)

huh,
AutoUpdate usually fixes those holes before I read of them :) I was pretty surprised that MS didn't have SP1 Autodownloaded, thereby missing a chance to screw all the illegal users.
Posted on 2002-09-26 13:00:22 by Qweerdy
Qweerdy, I never knew cleartype was available for win98. By Cleartype in winXp I mean the way it smooths screen fonts, Win98 did something similar but only for sizes above 14. Cleartype on XP works with smaller sizes so I use it when programming.

If such a feature were available for win98, or better yet 2k I wouldn't bother with XP at all.

As for window blinds, well it asways seemed slow to me.
Posted on 2002-09-26 14:09:39 by Eóin
That's exactly why I stuck with 98. I didn't even go 98 Second Edition. No access to DOS? I think not.


Actually 98se and ME have DOS access.
Posted on 2002-09-26 15:39:38 by Asm_Freak
glad to see another being who still "stucked" with win98 fisrt edition.... :) ... those over are too much overbloating to me!

but i plan to get rid of M$ one day... maybe linnux, i dunno... til then... 98 in the head. :) ...

things I HATE WITH ALL MY HATRED about newer versions of that system: ... time is off... basicly it tries to keep its user as ignoranrt as one can be... that AWFULL.... i was using ME at a place I worked... i was fu**ing around with HTT files... the explorer just wouldn't show them even if you tell it to show all files! (system and hoidden too!) ... i had to find it with DIR command in DOS... :-\ ... but I know NO normal user would ever do that... and XP do much more of those... AWFULL!!

:-p

:-b


... see y'all!
Posted on 2002-09-26 18:59:04 by wicr0s0ft
Doesn't ClearType work only with LCD's?
Bye
Posted on 2002-09-26 20:33:47 by GogetaSSJ4

Doesn't ClearType work only with LCD's?
Bye
ClearType is best on LCD's, but you can use it on CRT's - just not as effective.
Posted on 2002-09-26 21:09:48 by bitRAKE
Hrm, security flaws in 2k/xp not in 9x? Most security flaws
are based around IE/outlook, and are mostly caused by na?ve
users ("geeh, let's click this attachmenth"). Sure, there's
genuine bugs, but they're not *that* common anymore. As for
"real" problems, I'd say win2k is rather stable now, and XP
is maturing. 9x might have more problems patched, but the "os"
is rather unstable (as in "piece of shit" opposed to "hackable").
As for "things that can be abused" on NT, set up your services
properly, set up a firewall, and have fun. Sure, NT isn't meant
for dummy users, so what? Are *we* dummy users?

Kydwyn, who needs dos? winternals ERD Commander for the NT fix
jobs, a dos bootdisk when you need to config lowlevel drivers.
vmware or bochs for those old games ;). 98 instead of 98SE? Ewww.
98SE fixes a lot of bugs, and lets you run apps right out of
the cache system, saving a bunch of memory. Really, 98SE is
probably the most stable+feauterefilled 9x - haven't looked
at 95c (95 w/ usb and stuff), though.

huh, http://www.grcsucks.com/ . While gibson have some points
here and there, he's... well, I wont say any more. Do some
research and read his stuff again. It's interesting and fun,
but he's not all he's cranked up to be. Quite a lot less, really.
Perhaps if he used less bold, less people would laugh at him.

I wish there was some more control in windows. The NT kernel
is rather superior to any other windows, and (imo) to most of
the other OSes as well, but the whole package... sigh. A lot
of good coders at ms, and a shitload of lame ones. Oh well.
wicr0s0ft, if you can't show all files, something is wrong.
There's a few "really hidden" folders, but those are stuff
like recycled files and stuff. 99% of your files should be
available with "real names", if you enabled the right options.
I definitely never had trouble with .htt on any boxes.
Posted on 2002-09-27 18:45:49 by f0dder
What XP and 2000 got that 9x don't
XP = Purely Alphabetical
2000 = Purely Numerical
9x = Mixture of an Alphabet and a Number

XP and 2000 got pure contents while 9x ...

Case Solve. :grin:
Posted on 2002-09-27 19:37:49 by stryker

Kydwyn, who needs dos?


I don't believe I said anyone *NEEDED* DOS, what I said was,

"That's exactly why I stuck with 98. I didn't even go 98 Second Edition.
No access to DOS? I think not."

I like 98. I like DOS.
I've never had a system crash.
I've never had memory problems.
If it ain't broke, and I'm happy with it, I don't fix it.
If it's someone else's and they're happy with it I figure that's their business ...
Posted on 2002-09-27 23:57:44 by Kydwyn
Actually, XP Professional has never crashed with me. And as for missing DOS, the XP cmd.exe is much more powerful than the old 16 bit command.com. I see no reason to use command.com anymore, except of course in the case winXP won't start at all. In those cases, it IS possible to start with a DOS boot disk (of course if you've converted your disks to NTFS you won't be able to read them, but you don't have to do that).

E?in,
About the smoothing of smaller fonts, I seem to remember this had something to do with the quality settings you used while loading the font... not sure though.
Posted on 2002-09-28 01:26:04 by Qweerdy