Enough software for Window 98 users?

Will there be enough software for Windows 98 when Vista will be the mainstream OS?

 

I've moved on from Windows 98 so all the software I have now is compatible with the current OS, that is, Windows XP. I think many more users have switched also.

 

W98 is my OS.
Quicktime 7 and Comodo firewall for instance are not made for w98.
You would think that large company`s especailly would make their software suitable for the large number of people who have windows 98 installed on their pc.
Elementary schools also have a lot of machines with w98.

 

Many of us, have a whole host of reasons for being bound to our Wins98.


There are also some of us, [myself included], who are of the opinion - that the windows "$tuff" -- is being rammed down our throats - marketed before new versions are 'market ready' -- and are driven more by "capital gain" then by the science, and/or need for new software -- the grey-haired "hippie" in me -- just plants my feet and thumbs my nose at the little 'money-man' -- and will never buy another version! I am open-source as much as possible!


Besides, Windows 95 was the best and last thing Mico$teal ever did right!

IMO - software should follow all versions -- NOT just some!

Wow, that just hit a cord - sorry to be so negative -- but,

 

Win 98 being no longer supported should be upgraded to XP. Xp is easier to use ,more secure and supports almost all of the software available for windows. productivity in xp is almost unlimited. And the most important reason is that there is no way to secure Win 98 to make it relatively safe where as XP is safer out of the box (sp2) than 98 can be made with what little security software is available for 98.

 

When your pc still runs smooth on W98 why should you upgrade?
Older pc`s with W98 preinstalled often don`t handle XP very well.
On the pc I am working now 256mb is the max. amount of memory that is supported by the motherboard.
I will buy a new pc in the future but why should i not enjoy working with this one as long as it works well?
Big firms have enough money and knowledge to make software for all windows versions.
And it should be a service that you can count on from mature company`s.

 

Its been Microsoft's dream to throw away Windows 9x since 1999.....Its time for all 9x users to upgrade. Windows Me is the last 9x-based OS to be somewhat supported (WHQL testing is only done on ME now, 98 drivers are not tested).

Besides, Windows 9x is a very old technology which was not very reliable. Developers cannot keep on coding for older operating systems, especially after Vista is released (because developing for Vista is quite a lot more difficult than coding for XP was back in 2001).

And since 9x users are pretty low out there, companies may continue developing, but not offer technical support for Windows 9x. And they may only just test it on ME.

Either way, the time to upgrade has come.

 

People have said since XP came out how it's supposed to be safer than 98SE, and in some ways it can be. So why are there so many people out there, and in forums such as this, having all the problems they are doing day in and out using XP ?

Forget about browsers, i'm talking about the OS. If they mean it's safer in non admin, then that's not much of a revelation. So why didn't MS make XP Way safe in admin as most people want to use it in that mode. If it was then there wouldn't be any need for Black Vipers excellent info and Samuria etc etc on how to disable all those wide open and for the most part totally unneeded services etc that allow malware in and to run ? Not to mention all the fine Apps we know and love, to help to make it much more properly securer !

Yes XP can be made a lot safer than out of the box, but then it needs to be, as it's not the panacea some people think it is !

There are lots of Apps around for 98, and if you save all your favorourite programs etc to CD, then you won't worry if they are not always to be found out there. Some vendors are quite happy to support 98 into the future, like Online Armor for eg and most AV's etc. I'm more than happy running 98SE, and don't plan on changing any day soon. You can do lots of Black Viper etc type tricks to secure it, and i don't have any security issues with it at all. I think at some point more people will be glad of 98SE as the years move on !!!

I don't think Vista will be all some people hope it might be or want it to be, for lots of reasons including DRM etc. If you have seen the requirements just to run Vista, you might be very shocked, think bloatware ! How much more stuff do you think is going to be in there that a lot of people don't want or need. If you think XP is full of unneeded stuff etc, just wait till Vista hits the streets !

StevieO

 

I done a lot of hijackthis work with myriads of users and predominately WinXP versions, occasionally 98/Me. The malware writers particularly focused their efforts exclusively to attack XP after it was released. Some malware continues to updates at 98/Me but majority are XP.

Now that being said i also have read most all those many reports that 98/me is just a lost cause when it comes to security compared with XP and perhaps that is been a true statement during the time, but i now beg to differ with that view with all these new introductions into the HIPS programs being released that can effectively address matters BEFORE! any possiblity of attack by communicating with the system. If the malware cannot send it's signal to the OS (HIPS intervention) then for all practical purposes it's no more a threat than any simple text file and also because it can't latch onto a process to join the system it can't really protect itself from being nuked as in fully terminated.
Plus there is also prevention against rootkit techniques begininng to come to light as researchers delve into that area more now.

I added a little piece at suzi's in reply to a post announcement that MS was completely ending support for 98 this year.
http://spywarewarrior.com/viewtopic.php?t=19642

btw, i have enjoyed Windows 98 for some years now and also IE with tightened security measures. I keep 98 on an alternate d:\ drive along with XP Pro which is used most, but when it comes to outright speed and performance 98 offers the most encouragement IMO.
Because of some of that, and the fact that Microsoft could do themselves, and everyone of us a big favor by proving itself a Real and not imagined Leader in the industry, i continue to make a fuss over how i feel they should revisit BOTH 98/Me and completely re-write them again.

Jumping head over heels to Vista with the intentions of turning their back on XP just like they are already announcing they are doing to 98/Me just doesn't sit too well when they are supposed to be capable of setting some standard in this business.
IMO, MS would better gain from the added expansion of software developers base if they would re-introduce 98/Me again because frankly who knows if Vista and 64 bit computing are going to be fully realized by as many in the market as they are expecting it to be.
Plus how can you place any real confidence or trust into a company that proves to avoid and abandon their own work (98/Me) like they are the black plague instead of readdressing them again?

With the introduction of the new HIPS prevention programs that also are compatible with 98 (System Safety Monitor) for one, that statement simply is no longer true IMHO.

 

If they want users to go to windows xp pro, or for gods sake vista, they should offer free updates.. but alas microsoft is more into businesses and not the home user.

 

I can't help but laugh when I hear how vulnerable and obsolete 98 is supposed to be. Maybe the big name software vendors aren't releasing much for 98, but not all of them are M$ puppets. I've managed to find quality Open Source or freeware for 98 that enables it to do whatever I ask of it, and do it on hardware that XP is too bloated to function on at all.
All the talk about how undefendable 98 is supposed to be is nothing more than an attempt to part you from your wallet. How many 98 units were affected by the WMF exploit? After reading all the "experts" opinions saying this was supposed to be a watershed moment for 98 users, turns out it never was vulnerable. This is no isolated incident. 98 isn't vulnerable to many of the exploits that were trashing XP units. 98 didn't need to have a "patch day set for it. Care to compare the quantity of patches released for each? How many 98 units have rootkits? In many circles, it's being questioned if an XP unit can truly be cleaned up after one of these get in. How does 98 rank more insecure than that? Aside from the argument "no one's bothering to write rootkits for 98", there's another good reason why 98 is better against rootkits, DOS. A rootkit may hide its files from windows, but it would be very hard to hide one from DOS, loaded from a floppy. DOS can even be used to protect the registry and core system files. A simple batch file that runs at startup can restore them at every reboot. Try that with XP. DOS is the biggest reason M$ is pushing people away from 98. It gives a user that knows how to use it too much control and access for their liking.
Easter mentioned using HIPS on 98. While many vendors have chosen to bow to the wishes of M$ and not make their software compatible with 98, the developers of System Safety Monitor chose to support it. I've used SSM for some time, long before Max sold it to its present developers. Since they've also stated that it would remain 98 compatible, I've beta tested every release. Now it's close to an official release. Using my 98 box with just SSM and an "obsolete" firewall, Kerio 2.1.5, no resident AV, I've been visiting every site on both Webhelpers and the AGNIS site lists, trying to find one that can infect this box, even using IE6 on default settings. Haven't found one yet that can, still looking. IF XP had any security advantage, it's only because most of the vendors of security software either made theirs incompatible with 98 or so bloated it to the point it couldn't run on 98. It only takes a few good pieces of software (like SSM) to level the playing field. When used with well coded software and stripped of the useless bloat M$ and others like to add and have autostart, 98 can be very stable. Mine runs 24/7 with no problems.
Rick

 

It's good to know that i'm not the only one who lives very happily and safely with 98SE, and knows how to properly secure it. I have every confidence in it as has been proved time and time again. If i had ever found that i was insecure and/or it had let me down, i wouldn't use it.

Locking any OS down is advisable, both on it's own and with various Apps too, and most of the ones i use are Freeware. 98SE runs much lighter than XP too, so if it's made secure as well then so much the better. Granted not everybody knows how to do it, but then the same applies to XP etc, and it's a lot of those people who have all the constant problems.

It's also nice to know that there are many vendors and individuals who also see the merit in supporting 98SE, for which i am very grateful.


StevieO

 

I would just like to add for the record that if Microsoft would take some positive initiative as in giving 98/Me and it's MANY users the proper attention that they deserve and re-write those OS platforms again, that would go a long way in returning some trust they have obviously have lost over time. I don't think that point can be stressed or expressed enough.

We already know that they have the capability and resources to address such a project plus now that all the data returns are fully in on what does and doesn't work on 98/Me regarding performance & security, i can't imagine why not?

AFAIK any MicroSoft OS, including not even released yet Vista, will also become nothing more than a dinasouar to be neglected and ignored. It just doesn't make any sense whatsover IMO for ms to turn tail and run from 98/Me when it's already proven world-wide to still hold some very useful properties for it's users and also software developers. Imagine what a complete re-write would mean to not only it's world-wide end users and developers but to the company that acclaims itself by the name of Microsoft!

It's definitely a turning point for many if they do follow up on that recent announcement of ending all support for 98/Me. It's a dirty rotten shame that they as an industry have no more sense or backbone then to avoid or dismiss entirely their own works, efforts, and products that way. Especially after reaping and enjoying the successes and popularity which came from it courtesy of the millions of businesses and consumers worldwide who gave them their popular support & start.
How can any business or consumer now expect any confidence with such a practice as this latest announcement?
I find it quite ironic that expert software developers today can fashion very fine and effective security for those OS's but microsoft can't or won't take on any ambition to address those concerns/issues themselves. Totally ludicrous if you ask me.

In any case should they remain foolishly stubborn in that announced decision then any next new OS for this consumer will certainly indeed become APPLE! or other. I will also highly encourage the same.

 

Setting up a fast, stable and tweaked PC
http://www.antiphon.co.uk/kirkwood/software.htm
***A must read for 98SE enthusiasts***
Here's an excerpt from article originally produced in 2002, updated: 17 aug 2005:
...My recommendation is to use Windows 98SE. For a home/office PC you do not need to upgrade to XP or 2003, particularly if your PC is over two years old....

 

I've never subscribed to this "update to the latest and greatest" craze. This appears to be a mutual agreement between hardware and software vendors, each doing as much as possible to create a demand for the other. The sad part of it is that most of what a PC is used for doesn't need all that power or memory. Gaming and video editing take more power than most 98 units have, but most of the daily or practical usage doesn't. At times, it almost seems that PCs were given all this power just to accomodate all the adware that infects the vast majority of them, and with new PCs being sold with adware installed, this gets even more believable.
I'm still using a 366mhz Celeron. It'll run P2P, burn CDs, run an office program, and do what I want on the net. Don't get me wrong. I'd love to have a 3 ghz processor, nearly unlimited RAM and a few hundred Gigs of hard drive space. If I did, I might even put a copy of XP on it, but it definitely wouldn't be the default OS.
There is plenty of software for 98, but it's getting harder to find all the time. Make backup copies of the programs you use while they're still around. Better yet, if you have a complete 98 system that runs the way you want it to, copy the whole thing. Acronis is excellent for this. While you're at it, get backup copies of all the 98 patches and updates from M$ while they're still there. Most of them can be downloaded as installers. Even those that can't be downloaded as installers can often be captured from their temporary download locations.
Rick

 

There is so much passion, information, and sense being expressed in this thread -- it makes an old hippie hound like me -- feel GREAT!


I am glad to see that there may still be some leaders of the pack left when ancients like me pass!

 

I'm thinking about the "complete rewrite" thing.....Most of Windows 9x's problems came from its 16-bit parts, real mode DOS etc.

In order to remove those issues, the rewrite would have to be done such that the new OS is entirely 32-bit with no trace of 16-bit code like DOS anywhere.

However, the Windows NT core is exactly that, isn't it? Maintaining compatibility becomes a problem when 16-bit code is removed, and some of the compatibility issues still were not solved with XP.

So basically, rewriting Windows 9x to be stable would pretty much mean a Windows NT clone anyway.

Just my thoughts, and I don't think I'm 100% correct on this.

 

Windows 98? You have got to be kidding right?

Do yourself a favor and upgrade to XP Pro (if you are on Windows). Yes I know there are still people out there running 98 (which to me is crazy). XP is much better and more stable than 98. Not to mention that that it is no longer supported (Win 98 that is).

I don't think it's a matter of software that is compatible with 98. I think it's a matter of upgrading your O/S to get with the times.

 

Roughly translated, do M$ and the distributors of new hardware a favor and spend your money to replace something that works fine. Then panic every time a new exploit is found and hope M$ bothers to release a patch in time. Getting stuck in this rut is crazy, not using 98. What M$ calls "support" is of very questionable value. Depending on whose figures you use, between 66 and 91 percent of all PCs are infected with something. What does this say when the vast majority of these are XP units, allegedly so much more secure?

"The times" as defined by Microsoft are not worth getting with. I want an OS I can control and does what I tell it to do, not one that tries to control me. My next OS will not be windows. Windows would not be in the position they are if it wasn't installed by default on nearly every new PC, save Macs. It's easy to be number one when you're the only one sold in most places. When compared to other systems, the Microsoft OS is bloated, insecure, and uses more system space and power to perform a given task. It's planned obsolescence to an extreme for no sensible purpose, other than to part you from your wallet and to control/monitor users as much as they can get away with. Would you buy a car or major appliance from a manufacturer that deliberately made it unservicable after 5 years, and did so for the sole purpose of forcing you to buy an even more expensive one? Why is this behavior embraced when it comes to M$? No, I will not "get with" these times. Not on these terms, especially when my "obsolete" PC works fine, runs smooth and stays clean.
Rick

LambChop,
From one old hippie to another.

 

Well written post!

 

Thanks for sharing.

It's always important to note that 98/Me programs and accessories are still available.

Strikes me odd but guess it shouldn't now since Microsoft is issuing outright official weak speculation in mentioning and suggesting that current 98/Me users should update to XP? Because those older OS CAN expose customers to security risk?

Like XP doesn't?

Thats the same age-old microsoft excuse that when interpreted means that they don't intend to ever exercise the ambition it takes to honor any loyalty to those businesses and customers who selected those systems and those that still do.

Come on Microsoft, you're really getting sloppy now. Makes the case even stronger IMO that they should go ahead and make the right choice in re-writing 98/Me doesn't it.
Of course they don't need to now that some thoughtful and business-wise security software vendors is stepped up to stand in that gap for them.

For anyone wondering, i have and use XP Pro as well as a lightning quick Windows 98SE that makes XP look like a turtle. The only thing faster on XP is at the point of where the ISP dialer engages the online service at log in and thats where it quickly ends. Everything else about 98 is much faster in response. I tolerate XP Pro as my personal system of choice used most only that it better equips me to handle, learn, & test local issues and software programs & effectively help others. The looks are a plus too as in the window frames decoration but graphics/images is definitely a handicap for microsoft development engineers to overcome. I've tried to overcome that limitation by investing in a good Video Card but any real improvements are somewhat negligible IMO, aside from upgrading to a top CPU.