[Setenza]

Microsoft officially withdraw support as of today. Is anyone still running a PC with this O/S? How does it cope with barrage of security issues that face the modern user.

[mjn]

About time!

Win98 doesn't even work properly, with most modern hardware.

[Bat-man]

We have two computers at work running 98.
They are only used for word processing, email and the web.
They sit there, do their job and we are happy with them.
All the other computers run XP Professional Service Pack two.

[ush flynn]

Originally Posted by mjn

About time!

Win98 doesn't even work properly, with most modern hardware.

maybe thats why they made ME, 2000, 2000pro, xp, xp pro, mce, and making vista.....

[Nick_UK]

Originally Posted by Xusia Of Delos

Microsoft officially withdraw support as of today. Is anyone still running a PC with this O/S? How does it cope with barrage of security issues that face the modern user.

There's a lot of people still running Win98 (and Win95 for that matter). Some old software used on scientific equipment won't run on WinXP. If a PC isn't connected to a network, a virus checker is all the security you need.

[mjn]

Originally Posted by ush flynn

maybe thats why they made ME, 2000, 2000pro, xp, xp pro, mce, and making vista.....

ME, well, that never replaced Win98.
2000 and 2000 pro are the same.
XP Home, XP Pro and MCE are each meant for different environments.

[Nick_UK]

The only reason why we need faster and faster PC's is to feed resource-hungry Windows. PC programmers these days are extremely lazy - the first PC used 64k of RAM - nowadays if you don't use at least 250MB or RAM, it won't work properly.

[overkill]

Originally Posted by Nick_UK

The only reason why we need faster and faster PC's is to feed resource-hungry Windows. PC programmers these days are extremely lazy - the first PC used 64k of RAM - nowadays if you don't use at least 250MB or RAM, it won't work properly.

Rumour is Nick, and going on the beta testing this may be true, is that Vista will need at least 1gb of ram, and 2gb if you want to run games. Is it me, or is this getting silly? As you say, you could happily run Windows 3.1, with powerful applications (for the time) on 128mb of ram!

We still have Windows 98SE, it is used for the kids learning apps, and games that still cannot run on 2K or XP. As it's behind a good hardware firewall I'm not getting to fretful about it being hacked. As for viruses, no downloading is allowed on that partition, so no problem.

[dng007]

Dunno about Win98, but our office still has a few Win 3.1 machines.

Actually now I think about it, my home PC dual boots between Win 98 and XP (for compatibility with some older apps/games).

What's wrong with DOS6.22? Solid as a rock!

[mjn]

Originally Posted by Dr Diversity

What's wrong with DOS6.22? Solid as a rock!

But people like the "point and click interface"

[midiman]

Originally Posted by mjn

But people like the "point and click interface"

Theres always windows 3.1(or 3.11 for workgroups)

[stu232]

Originally Posted by mjn

ME, well, that never replaced Win98.

WinME was nothing more than a service pack for Win98 but MS wanted to release something 'new' for the millenium and tried to sell it as a new OS.

[Joe90sDad]

I've got a few old laptops lying around with windows 3.1 on them. There was no point selling them as you wouldn't get squat for them.
I don't want to sound like a country singer, but back in those days applications used to work a lot smoother with far less crashing and hassles, or is it just my imagination?
I tried to upgrade my system recently with a new USB card, as I was running out of slots. Half the USB stuff stopped working including my MS Pro Keyboard's USB hub - XP now claims it doesn't recognise the device even after removing the card. So much for XP.

[mjn]

Originally Posted by stu232

WinME was nothing more than a service pack for Win98 but MS wanted to release something 'new' for the millenium and tried to sell it as a new OS.

Exactly.

[ush flynn]

but offered better usb support (compared to none)
And mjb if you want to be picky then you could argue that xp is based off NT anyway

[mjn]

Originally Posted by ush flynn

And mjb if you want to be picky then you could argue that xp is based off NT anyway

Not being picky, just pointing out facts.

[MartinImber]

We have two 98 machines at work ME was rubbish - you try changinf FILES statement.

XP is a hog

[overkill]

Originally Posted by MartinImber

We have two 98 machines at work ME was rubbish - you try changinf FILES statement.

XP is a hog

ME was too Martin. ME took massive amounts of memory to run, which is a joke considering it's just a tarted up verson of 98SE with better multimedia support.

Erm', XP is an NT system. It's a more successful attempt at an 'ME' really, as it's 2k 'under the hood' with (far) superior multimedia support.

[Uridium]

It should have happened long ago, MS only kept supporting it because too many people complained.

Win2000Pro mainstream support actually ended over a year ago in June 2005 but as most W2k users are corporates who paid for extended support until 2010 it all went pretty unpublicised

[Reign-Mack]

got an old laptop than ran 98se and got upgraded to ME, like person above says support was suppose to end a few years back but ms extended it because of complaints.

[JohnG]

In the good old days we used to write our software to run on multi-user DOS (which then became Real-32) with one central computer and up to 7 dumb terminals all using the computing power of the central computer which would have 16Mb RAM. Before that we had people running 5 or 6 screens from a computer with 512Kb RAM - that's half a meg
This was true multi-user processing long before Windows could do anything like that and each of the dumb terminals had 4 virtual consoles which meant that they could be running 4 independent processes.
Nowadays you can't see the contents of your hard drive without having more RAM in you graphics card than the whole system used to have if the reports I've been reading about Vista are correct !

Edit - you can stop humming the hovis advert music now

[Reign-Mack]

the Hovis advert

[JagoPlasma]

Originally Posted by overkill

Rumour is Nick, and going on the beta testing this may be true, is that Vista will need at least 1gb of ram, and 2gb if you want to run games. Is it me, or is this getting silly? As you say, you could happily run Windows 3.1, with powerful applications (for the time) on 128mb of ram!

We still have Windows 98SE, it is used for the kids learning apps, and games that still cannot run on 2K or XP. As it's behind a good hardware firewall I'm not getting to fretful about it being hacked. As for viruses, no downloading is allowed on that partition, so no problem.

that must of cost silly money! i dont think i've seen a 3.1 machine with more than 32MB in it, and it was more common to have 16MB in it!

Hell i think my first PC (P2 233, 4MB ATI, 95revB) only had 32MB ram and cost a fortune! (£1.5k i think!)

the way ram gets used now youd think you could make it from sand!.... oh wait but seriously, since 256MB was a standard in new PC's RAM usage has gone thru the roof, and the biggest culprit was winxp! my 95/98/2K pcs never gave me problems when it came to ram, and ME i didnt have time to find out about its ram usage as it was off quicker than you can say peadophile caught in a shed.

then again the only thing against the rules is my main work pc, its NT4 with 128mb ram and it runs like a turtle in treacle

[Bat-man]

Anyone still got an green screen Amstrad 256?

[Nick_UK]

No, but I've got a BBC Model B and a Tatung Einstein up there in the loft

[mjn]

Originally Posted by JagoPlasma

that must of cost silly money! i dont think i've seen a 3.1 machine with more than 32MB in it, and it was more common to have 16MB in it!

Did Win3.1 even support 128mb of RAM?

[MartinImber]

Originally Posted by JohnG

In the good old days we used to write our software to run on multi-user DOS (which then became Real-32) with one central computer and up to 7 dumb terminals all using the computing power of the central computer which would have 16Mb RAM. Before that we had people running 5 or 6 screens from a computer with 512Kb RAM - that's half a meg
This was true multi-user processing long before Windows could do anything like that and each of the dumb terminals had 4 virtual consoles which meant that they could be running 4 independent processes.
Nowadays you can't see the contents of your hard drive without having more RAM in you graphics card than the whole system used to have if the reports I've been reading about Vista are correct !

Edit - you can stop humming the hovis advert music now

I have used Real/32 as well - pretty clever O/S

If you want to slow down the PC to run a game start up a couple of sessions of Windows - that works well - I had the server!

[overkill]

Originally Posted by mjn

Did Win3.1 even support 128mb of RAM?

Well, the PC's at work had 128mb of ram, and used 3.1 so I suppose they must have! Jagoplasma, that wasn't my own PC! A 486 or P1 with a 128mb of ram and 250mb hard drive! Are you kidding! On my wages at the time (civil service) I could've just about afforded a ZX (spectrum!) - a 286 at a pinch! I hasten to add the PC I normally used wasn't so well endowed. 32mb was it's lot. The 'big' PC's were for management or 'task specific'.

[mjn]

I can't imagine a PC having 128mb of RAM AND a 250mb HDD.......i don't think any PC i've ever seen, have twice as much HDD space as RAM.