OSNews

Boo hoo, you can't run DOS games..

Why would ANYONE want to Run Windows98..it's a horrible OS. Any application has read/write access to kernel memory. Let's kill it off MS, I propose we stop supporting anything Pre Win2k

This is rediculous, Microsoft is one of the biggest names in backwards compatability and they dont make one patch for one of their OLDEST software and you guys bitch..

I bet if this article said "Microsoft should drop Windows 98.." you all would go "OH YEA THEY SHOULD MOVE ON LINUX DOES IT XX WAY AND MACOSX DOES IT XXX WAY"

Find something else to complain about, jeez.

Why would ANYONE want to Run Windows98

Because I paid for it.

it's a horrible OS.

So's XP. The only difference between us is I'm saying it now, and you won't admit it until MS drops support for it.

I repeat, the problem is not that the newest versions of Windows are unable to run older software, though that does come up quite a bit. The problem is that you can't run any Windows software without up-to-date hardware (at least not with any acceptable degree of speed and security). And why wouldn't I just get up-to-date hardware, I can practically hear you ask? Because I've already invested in this platform. I shouldn't have to keep throwing money in the fire just to get the same product year after year. Windows 98 should have been secure out of the box, and it certainly should have been secure after 7 years of patching.

Even Microsoft is stuck in its own upgrade cycle. I netcrafted microsoft.com out of curiosity, and none of their Windows servers is pre-2k3. Of course, the software upgrade was free for them, but it doesn't speak well of their confidence in anything less recent. Look at sun.com, on the other hand, and you've got lots of services on Solaris 8.

Even if a Microsoft product's official term of support is exceptionally long, its useful life is extraordinarily short, and the next upgrade will require much more powerful hardware.

Full backward compatibily? You must be jocking... We can hardly run old DOS games on any recent Microsoft OS. In Linux I can run virtually any software, as older as it can get.

As long as you have the source, a compatible glibc and possibly an older version of gcc... Success is definitely not assured with a dynamically-linked binary.

I would love to run Win98 inside WinXP for free...

Most Win98-era apps will work in WinXP, just like most OS9 apps will work in OSX.

Also Windows 98 was released in 1999. How can you tell us Microsoft supported it for 10 years?? We are still in 2006 you know...

It was released in mid-1998. However, it was pretty much an update of Win95, which was released in 1995.

I'd like to add that Apple dropped support for OS X 10.2, which was released not even four years ago.

I have a dislike for Microsoft and their products but let's be fair.

Most Win98-era apps will work in WinXP, just like most OS9 apps will work in OSX.

I'm not talking about Win98 apps, I'm talking about DOS apps. Win98 was the last OS from Microsoft that could run any stuff I had on DOS.

It was released in mid-1998

True, sorry for that. Still doesn't make 10 years...

I'd like to add that Apple dropped support for OS X 10.2, which was released not even four years ago.

Again the same question. Why would Apple support 10.2 if 10.3 is actually better and faster on older hardware? You can run 10.3 on any G3 Mac except the beige.

We are biching because we care for our computer's security.

If you are running windows 98 you do not care about security. It was never on your radar to begin with.

Full backward compatibily? You must be jocking... We can hardly run old DOS games on any recent Microsoft OS. In Linux I can run virtually any software, as older as it can get. Also in OSX I can run almost any app designed since 1997.

Dude listen to yourself. You are complaining that you can't run DOS games from the late 80s to early 90s but you can run software on OS X from 1997 ? What kind of comparison is THAT?

What can you run on XP from 97? Almost everything with the exception of maybe security software that sp2 causes to break.

Did you know you can run OS9 for free on any PowerPC version of OSX? I would love to run Win98 inside WinXP for free...

Well then download an HD image of Win98 and get VMWare's free player. All of this is floating around on the web and you don't even need the original install CDs.

Apple supports OSX 10.3 on any G3 Mac except the beige. The first G3 was the iMac 233 released in 1998. My iMac is running 10.3 (released in 2004). Try running WinXP on a 1998 PC...

Currently doing it and it runs surprisingly well for such old hardware.

What are you talking about? Ubuntu is free. When support for 6.06 is over, you can upgrade for free.

He is talking about support for old operating systems, which is what the entire thread is about. Where have you been?

Again Microsoft shouldn't decide when its time to trash my PC. If I can run a decent, modern, robust and secure OS like Linux or OSX on my old PC or Mac, why would I send my PC/Mac to the garbage? I'm not, I just cleaned Win98 from my hard drive and installed Linux.

Agreed. Linux is a great option for old hardware. OS X ? Can't say I agree. Apple drops support within 2-3 years max.

Windows is getting bloated with every new release, while Linux and OSX seem to be running faster and faster with better support.

Actually with the development of gnome and KDE most GNU/linux distros are becoming bloated also. OS X has done great but apple will be dropping PPC support soon so enjoy the hardware that has no upgrade path from apple soon.

First, Windows 98 was rls'ed on June 25, 1998.

Second, XP has a compatibility mode that works really good. Most DOS games runs perfectly with it. The games that doesnt run under the compatibility mode are really old or used some old hardware hacks (x86 memory hacks, video memory hacks, etc). Hacks that arent emulated by the compatibility mode.

Third, why would you run Win98 under XP? Microsoft included Win98 compatibility directly in XP. No need to run the old OS over the new one. Apple did it because it was the easiest way to go.

Fourth, let's talk about Apple. I dont wanna know how fast OSX is on your G3. Tell me how fast Photoshop is on your x86-based Mac under Rosetta. ROFL. I know some people that started using PC for that kind of stuff because they know it will take forever to compagnies like Adobe to fully support x86 based Macs. Why would they anyway, it's Apple's problem, not their.

Oh finally: Linux. I know it's free. But I'm talking about "support". In 5 years from now, it will be pain in the *** to maintain Ubuntu 6.06 by hand, no? And I completely understand why they wont care patching it anymore because it will be old and phased out, just like Windows 98. I use Ubuntu myself, by the way.

You don't have to agree with me, but you don't need to be childish. I can act childish too... lets see:

First, Windows 98 was rls'ed on June 25, 1998

Yes, it was a typo. Anyway 2006-1998=8 years , not 10.

Second, XP has a compatibility mode that works really good.

Not it doesn't. I use XP myself, by the way.

I dont wanna know how fast OSX is on your G3. Tell me how fast Photoshop is on your x86-based Mac under Rosetta.

I don't wanna know how fast Photoshop on a x86. But would like you to run Photoshop on WinXP running on a P266 against Photoshop running on OSX 10.3 on a PPC233. 'ROFL' for you too.

Oh finally: Linux. I know it's free. But I'm talking about "support". In 5 years from now, it will be pain in the *** to maintain Ubuntu 6.06 by hand, no?

Update Manager. Click 'Update' and voila, Ubuntu '7.07' is there.

or

Insert '7.07' CD. Click 'Upgrade' and voila, Ubuntu '7.07' is there.

No money lost, no old PC in the garbage.

I use Ubuntu too.

Full backward compatibily? You must be jocking... We can hardly run old DOS games on any recent Microsoft OS. In Linux I can run virtually any software, as older as it can get.

You must be delusional, or on crack, if you think linux is better than XP for running old 16-bit apps. Your perception of reality is somewhat distorted.

Please don't joke. You can't run 3 year old software on some distroes even if it was compiled on the same distro. And you can't run 1 week old binaries on older linuxes because the latest libc version isn't there. This is actualy a big bad gnu lamery problem.

The point is, linux has one of the worst abi and compatibility situations of all OSes out there and NO forward compatibility at all.

So please, give credit where it's due. MS is greatest compatibility company/group out there. I can still compile stuff on latest xp and run it on 95. Try this with linux, you'll fail even with months difference.