Linked by David Adams on Sat 3rd Mar 2012 00:26 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y On the heels of yesterday's launch of Windows 8's preview, new statistics show that Microsoft's decade-old Windows XP again plummeted in usage share and will be surpassed by Windows 7 in June.
Thread beginning with comment 509425
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: I wonder ...
by MOS6510 on Sat 3rd Mar 2012 06:49 UTC in reply to "I wonder ..."
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

The maintenance company that does our cooling system has placed 2 PC that control their system and they run Windows 98.

They aren't connected to our network, just to the cooling system and are accessed by modem.

Still, it does seem strange to have Windows 98 being used as a server OS, but apparently it stays up 24/7.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: I wonder ...
by lucas_maximus on Sat 3rd Mar 2012 16:35 in reply to "RE: I wonder ..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

My father has informed me that they have 386 DOS machines at his workplace for certain CAM machines ... apparently these machines have survived 20 years of living in a workshop an are regularly cleaned of filth such as oil, filings etc.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: I wonder ...
by MOS6510 on Sun 4th Mar 2012 11:56 in reply to "RE[2]: I wonder ..."
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I think about these things on a semi-regular basis.

Because I don't think we always need these multi-core multi-Ghz machines loaded with 64 bits operating systems.

A DOS machines runs very fast on a, well any CPU I guess. There are a number of computers around that only perform a single task, DOS can do that quite nicely.

A few years ago I came across a magazine in the attic that reviewed the first 386. The reviewer didn't really see the need for a 386, because it wasn't that much faster and the 286 was going to be developed way in to the late 1990s.

Well, he got that wrong, but the 286/386/486 CPUs were pretty fast depending on what they needed to do.

Imagine how fast DOS would run on a 33 Mhz 386 and a solid state disk.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: I wonder ...
by Laurence on Sun 4th Mar 2012 17:43 in reply to "RE[2]: I wonder ..."
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

The rail network near me uses networked DOS systems to manage all the information screens across every station owned by them (which is several hundred stations alone - let alone the number of display screens on each platform of each station).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: I wonder ...
by smashIt on Mon 5th Mar 2012 01:25 in reply to "RE: I wonder ..."
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

Still, it does seem strange to have Windows 98 being used as a server OS, but apparently it stays up 24/7.


correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't the dos-version in win98 the best they ever released?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: I wonder ...
by MOS6510 on Mon 5th Mar 2012 05:41 in reply to "RE[2]: I wonder ..."
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

It may very well be considering Windows 98 was the last version to run on top of DOS (I think).

For years I assumed 6.22 was the last DOS version, but apparently they went up to 7.x.

While Windows still features a DOS prompt it seems you can do less and less with it. Favorite commands like 'telnet' and 'edit' seem to have been dropped.

I still prefer to do file management using the CLI, certainly if it involves moving files using wild cards. It's not a Windows thing, I do the same on OS X and Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: I wonder ...
by gfx1 on Mon 5th Mar 2012 19:42 in reply to "RE: I wonder ..."
gfx1 Member since:
2006-01-20

Well you'll have to apply the cure for the 49 days bug.

Early versions of Windows 98 crash every 49 days like Windows 95. If you used it as a desktop you would never notice it but when it runs only one program 24/7 it lock's up eventually

Edited 2012-03-05 19:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: I wonder ...
by SumGuy on Tue 6th Mar 2012 01:37 in reply to "RE[2]: I wonder ..."
SumGuy Member since:
2010-10-24

Regarding win-9x hanging after 49 days:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/216641

This was an issue for win-95 and win-98FE (first edition aka standard edition). This kb article gives a fix for win-95/98. Win-98se did not need the fix because it did not have this problem.

Oh - as for the comment about 95 or 98 being "dos based" - that's an urban myth. The 9x/me line were full win32 OS's that put the CPU in protected 32-bit mode (something DOS doesn't do). 9x/me is *launched* or started / booted from DOS, but immediately puts the CPU into protected mode and wipes DOS from memory (or, more specifically, it creates a virtual environment for DOS so it can run as a virtual process that can be used by any legacy software that needs to run 16-bit code).

Win-9x/me itself will use 16-bit DOS functions if called for by any hardware drivers - but this is a "handicap" or deficiency of the driver not the OS. It was anticipated that during the transition from DOS and Win-3.x that Win-9x would have to be compatible with legacy 16-bit software - including drivers. Naturally this situation disappeared in a few years as all code became 32-bit.

Reply Parent Score: 2