Funny why I find so much support pages like:
http://www.w98upg.net.tf (wupg98-Upgrade Pack)
or newsgroups where many people want to have help for Windows 98.
I think I speak for all Windows 98 users if I say that Microsoft should support Win98 for
"4 more Years!".

It all comes down to the end user taking personal responsibility. This has nothing to do with the OS. I use 98se simply because I believe it to be safer at this point. Even though I do understand it's pitfalls and it's weaknesses. I've seen too much from xp's multiple avenues giving remote control to others and IE6's ability to let a webpage take full control of a computer. You can have all the MS updates and support you want.

MS updates generally mean nothing but more problems and more vulnerabilities. I can actually do alot more with my 98se than most people can even dream of on their xp. lol....but then, most people buy a computer and never really understand what all that computer can really do in the first place. This doesn't even account for the fact that most new computers are infected right out of the box.

No one, not even my wife touches my computer. That's the way it should be. We built her one for her to use. If security is what you want, YOU as the end user/owner should take the most appropriate steps to insure that the right thing gets done and the wrong thing never does.

I am in the tech bussiness and I see the computers that people have in their homes on a daily bases. I have a small network at home, own a website, build computers, and I also run 98se on my most important pc along with redhat on another pc. This discussion of Microsoft ending support for these older OS's is pointless. In the end, it really doesn't matter at all if they continue to support it or not. Win98se has only two real problems....one is continued driver support and two is IPV6. Aside from that, 98se will last forever. Inspite of what Microsoft claims, 98se is NOT all that dangerous. In fact, XP is ALOT more dangerous than 98se ever could have been. Now you people can ramble on about all the wonderfull security "features" built into xp, but most of that ends up meaning very little and what does mean something ends up meaning nothing more than a more complicated way of doing things. I for one, would NEVER want support from microsoft on anything.

I read something on another site that I'd like to repeat here: "How long do you expect Microsoft to give you free support when you haven't paid for the product in over 7 years?". Makes sense to me.

"Now could someone please tell me WHY Win98 is insecure?"

Huge gaping holes in the VXD driver model, a password infrastructure that was a joke, no type checking in the code, no internal rights authentication for ANY functions, FAT file system of any description...

...and on and on and on.

DUH!!!!!!!!!

in 98, windows sees the name with the password. change the name ( even by adding or subtracting a character) & you can get in the system. passwords on 98 are a joke.

Those passwords are not for security, they never were. Of course you can just click cancel, no one ever said they would keep people out. The purpose was simply to allow different people to have their own personal settings such as wallpaper and so on.

The point to the username and password on bootup was meant for "network logon". If you click "cancel", you can still bootup the pc, you just can't get into any network.

Now could someone please tell me WHY Win98 is insecure?

All problems, from Blaster to that pic-dll vulnerability were 2k, XP or sometimes ME-problems.

In some ways it is more secure today than it ever has been--but only because it is old and viruses are written for the biggest OS in use--Windows XP.

However, if we all used Win98--it is greatly inferior to XP in security. There's probably hundreds of security holes in 98 that nobody has found yet. No need to anymore though. Very soon, Windows 2000 will appear to be much much more secure than xp. That's because even the US military is moving to XP now. Market share determines "hackdrive"...

Good riddance.

After reading all the posts, am disappointed in many of them. As a tech that runs my own business, I see all operating systems, though I have to admit, I have not seen Win95 in about two years. Being the only tech in my area that services computers in the home, many of my customers are over the 60's mark. Many of them picked up a computer from a school sale or given to them from their children. Is $400-$500 at lot to these people. Yes, when they are paying $800 plus a month for medication to keep them alive, can't afford a car, and living on Social Security that only raises between $5-8.00 per month, $400 plus is a lot of money.

I have a lot of respect for these people. They are tackling at completely foreign technology that they are scare to death that they are going to mess up just to try to keep up with the times. These people live on an income that far too many of who wrote sarcastic posts would not be able to last 30 days on, let alone year after year.

Microsoft's decision is just another nail in the coffin for many of these people. Think about it, and shame on your parents for not raising you right!

What are you saying, that Microsoft should have to support all of their old products forever? I think that's a bit silly. Besides all these old people with their old computers probably aren't even aware Windows Update even exists so it's not like they're going to care. Most of the computers I work on have no updates at all installed; I get XP computers in all the time that don't even have SP1 installed.

You make a very good argument, I admit. In all seriousness though... ignore the cost and look at the technical side of this. How many of those people actually take the time to update and maintain their computers in the first place? Think before you answer that... if people were more self-sufficient about maintaining their computers, they wouldn't need us tech guys as often as they do aside from training and hardware repair (not that that would be bad).

I don't recall the last Security Bulletin that actually referenced a Windows 98 or ME patch was available as well. I have 98 systems here at work that haven't had an Update installed since August... and I have yet to experience a problem aside from user error. At this point, for those users, I am not sympathetic to the lack of bulletins... there are other inexpensive alternatives available.

First off, keeping a decent firewall program running should protect most of those users from their own mistakes, as well as a good antivirus program... and keeping those up to date. Second, teaching those users some safe surfing habits rather than just fixing it and sending them on their way will improve their odds too.

Third, for the people who just inherited a PC from someplace... chances are good they're going to be able to do that again. XP systems that were purchased in 2002/2003 are being replaced in a lot of businesses and schools, so they can just as easily pick one of those up.

Fourth, these users aren't going to be running Vista on those old machines anyway.

Think about your own business... if you keep developing for a product that is no longer sold... how much revenue are you really going to be making? Not much, if anything. You're going to be spending time and money on your product and getting nothing in return. That is not a good business model.

Before you go judging and shaming all of humanity for not doing what makes sense in your personal little world, I suggest you remember that this isn't some malicious act of saying, "screw those old people, they're gonna die soon anyway!" I admire your sense of responsibility and compassion, but it's not what this is about.

I wouldn't exactly say that's a good thing... just proof that most users are uneducated about good computing responsibility. Tech people are the ones responsible for teaching people how to be safe, and too often we fall short of accomplishing that.

Yes that is exactly what Microsoft should do and it isn't at all silly, infact that type of desision is what would set a fantastic company in favour of its consumers compared to a standard company in favour of profit apart. I believe from the billions of dollars Microsoft have made over the years from their customers, they should support their products until the consumers feel 'ready' to move onto an updated product. This is an open and closed case, Microsoft isn't interested in the advancement of software, but rather their profits (as usual), i thought this was common knowledge?

They keep their product support available for quite some time. I don't recall exactly when ME came out, but 98 is now 8 years old. That's a long time to stick with an OS. I'm sure part of Microsoft's basis for ending support is based upon their call volume on these products as well as typical product life cycles.

think about what you just said. these "old"people are never going to feel ready to move on, and microsoft is losing money keeping these products running. does motorola still offer support on a car/cell phone they made 8 years ago? i dont think so..

and of course microsoft is concerned with their profits they are a corpetarion idiot, not some morally driven non-profit organization out to save humanity. nor do they pretend to be anything but what they are,
and really the idea is to get people to upgrade so they spend more money, thats what corperations do, and there is nothing wrong with that. they never said in the agreement that they would even support it for a set amount of time. they even say in the eula that support may be terminated at any time. so there

OK, so dropping support for it... how much will that affect the folks you're talking about? How much do they use MS support?

While I think it's a shame as well, at some point you have to move on. They don't make parts for lots of cars now, too. The OS won't suddenly stop functioning, but time marches on. I have sympathy, but at some point you get what you pay for. People used to say that about $3000 machines, and people got a bargin box at $1000. It's all relative.

You're calling me the idiot?

You just wasted your time, my point still stands.

Sorry but your point is dumb. A company can't spend money supporting an old product that hardly anyone uses anymore and that they'd lose tons of money on. Microsoft is a business, not a charity organization. Besides Windows 98 will still work the same as it always has and all these old PC illiterate users that still run it aren't going to notice one thing different.

Get your facts straight matey, there are 'lots' of people that still use these older operating systems and why is everyone around here defending the big corporate companies and their money grabbing schemes, are you guys stupid or do you all just work for Microsoft? ;)

That's a retorical question, please don't answer it with any more stupidity, i think i've had my share of that for the day.

USA?

Not sure what you're welfare deal is like there, but for $800 you'd be collecting nearly 200 prescriptions a month in Australia. Welfare recipients get massive discounts on medicine, so it has little impact on their paltry income. (everything costs a little over $4, regardless).

I don't think this is the point, however. Discontinued support isn't really going to have any affect on these people anyway - they probably wouldn't know there WAS a support line, and prefer to just ring the local computer shop for help. Microsoft's decision is a good one, in that it gives the industry another shove to evolve and develop.

The only stupidity has been your arguments, which are well, just stupid. You think just because some people still use an old outdated version of Windows that Microsoft should spend time and money maintaining it for them. Any person who ran a company that way is a moron and would soon go out of business. As for money grabbing schemes, isn't the entire point of a company to make money? You sound like some kind of hippy communist ranting about the evil corporations. You don't have to upgrade you know, stick with 98 or switch to Linux or something and quit whining like a little girl about it. You have clearly lost this lame argument, if you can even call it an argument.

¿En menos de 10 años desaparece windows 98? Todo para que todo el mundo se "actualice" y Micro$oft se lo lleve a la "saca"
papelitos.net

Es ocho no dies. ¿crees preguntas, amigo?

Es no mala. Es bueno! Nuevo anos, nuevo cosas.

A PC with preloaded Windows XP can be purchased these days for $300 - $400. If you can't afford to pay $300 every couple of years to stay current with your hardware and OS, you'd best spend this precious time collecting your welfare check, rather than moaning about evil MS on this forum.

So your saying old people who are poor shouldn't be on the internet? Bet you are or were some spoon feed little rich kid who doesn't know the definition of the word poor. Get some compassion. Don't just post your comments to be a prick.

no he is saying that if people are poor they should be spending their money on the things they need to live before they waste it on entertainment or things they dont really need, like a computer, and if they do choose to spend it on things they dont need then they shouldn't b**** about it. and yes i know what it is like to be poor, and my family didnt waste their money on buying or upgrading a computer when we couldnt afford the rent. so maybe you should refrain from commenting on people's posts when you dont understand what they mean, prick.

Yes, I am saying old people should stay the hell off the super AND interstate highway. They go WAY too slow.

I know the definition of the word poor, its meaningless. Rich people can be poor, its a relative term.

This is Betanews, not a betazoid site, we dont' have to show compassion. Are the poor old sick decrepit senial bed ridden bas****s in here? NO! So I don't care.

If they are old, chances are, they won't care what they are using.

No one is stopping them from keeping what they have. There are plenty of web based stuff, they won't need much in the way of applications anyway! So why don't you get some sense. And quit acting like you are some champion for old people. This isn't about them, its about people that WANT to move to Vista. This isn't going to be forced. It's *IF* you want to move, they aren't dropping Win98/ME from the planet, and demanding you turn in your software, and this isn't logon's run. No one is going to die. Calm your silly a** down.

About time. Although it will change little. Home or small business users upgrade when their PCs die, rarely before - and generally those with machines capable of running XP already are.

Security concerns? Most people still don't realise how serious the risks are, so I doubt that argument will sway them either. :P

I'm runing Windows ME. I have been waiting for VISTA. I was hoping to dump this machine and skip right to dual-core 64 hardare and Vista. So, either I run a number of months without security patches or I have to jump to XP and then jump again to Vista. That sucks. I'm betting quite a few others were planning to make the same jump.

When was the last security patch released for Win98/ME anyway? I haven't seen them even discussed in the monthly security bulletins for a few months now.

If you're a safe web browser... i.e. you're not an idiot that clicks on every link you receive without knowing where they come from or why you're getting them... and you stick to trusted web sites... I'd take my chances if I were you. Just make sure you have a decent antivirus program and a good firewall.

The alternative is that most likely Microsoft will announce free upgrades to Vista for XP purchases within a certain period of time before the release. They've done it for every prior release. So you might also consider looking for a sweet deal on the hardware, and buy the XP with the free upgrade to Vista upon release.

This month actually. 3 critical and 1 important updates were released for 98/98SE/Me.

It's hard to believe that people could still be using an OS which is 8 years old!

Software is the only arena that things become ancient after such a short time.

People drive cars, 20, 30 years old.. the fact that an OS is ancient after merely a half decade, is absurd. ITs the sign of the times.

Frankly, there are probably lots of people, and companies, that STILL have Win9x platforms running.. They just won't admit to it..

It wouldn't surprise me in the least.. There are still companies that DON'T have 32 bit apps! ITs astonishing.. At least to me.

There's a video rental store where I live that runs their rental software on a 386 with MS-DOS. Why not? They just need the one program, it works fine so why buy an expensive new PC and install a complicated operating system for just one program? Lot's of business still run old operating systems. OS/2 is very common for banks.

I run Windows 98SE on one laptop and Windows 95(probably C) on another, don't use them much but I can't really upgrade them either.

Until 2005 the at least one chunk of the Canadian Government was still on DOS. They finally upgraded to windows-based when they (subcontracted? O_o ) everything out to an American company from Texas.

Now all our personal information is on your hands. Hehe...snoops. :P

I totally agree.

Just because Bill Gates says support ends doesn't mean people stop using it.

People are not rich like him and if the software works why upgrade to something else?

Windows NT still kicks butt. We have some servers that NEED to only run Windows NT 4.0 at work and they are rock solid.

Too many people get into this whole "I need the latest and greatest" BS.

Use what works.

http://fileforum.betanew...mall_Linux/1132675282/1

Most banks use Windows NT 4.0 on their desktop computers, although the ATM machines might use OS/2.

BUT...

if cars had advanced at the speed computers have, we would all be driving around in car that can do...

10,000 miles per hour
1,000 miles per gallon

...and cost #0.50 :-)
...and would be disposable, upgradable, and run on several different fuels (OSs !)

(many) of the 'original' home computers cost +#2000, several months wages (based on an average annual salary of #8k (1980s))
Now a PC can be bought at #200-300 and average annual salary is #30k

Actually there is an initiative that banks have to be secure, so windows NT 4.0 is NOT what MOST banks are using, the federal reserve even mandated they ALL must upgrade, so you should check that statement.. NT 4.0 isn't as secure as XP.

ATM machines run on many O/S, not just OS/2.

OS/2 isn't being developed anymore, that's different from Windows, because developers won't program for an entire platform that's gone. The Windows platform isn't gone, its just reduced to a couple of flavors.

I very much doubt, even contest, that OS/2 is in large part in use across the country. Otherwise IBM would not have put in the back room, they would still be trying to get license fees from people.

I think you will find many banks use machines, that utilize all kinds of OS. They outsource their support, and go with whatever recommendation the contract calls for. Whatever works, they dont' care how you do it, just do it.

Windows, I would wager, is up to date at a bank. They won't risk security running on older software, this includes 98/Me/NT 4.0 AND OS/2.

Its not worth the risk and ire of the Department of Treasury.

DOS is also a relative term. They may have been on a system that was TEXT based or CHARACTER based, but its not the same as DOS.

I hightly doubt they were running systems on DOS, maybe a green screen, connected to an AS/400 which APPEARED to be DOS, but it wasn't DOS.

I do know that from 2000-2003 there were a significant number of banks using Windows NT 4.0. Maybe things have finally changed for the better since then though.

I still use DOS 6.22 to cruise the internet play games and run WfW 3.11. DOS RULES
senbt from Arachne DOS web browser.

Also Novell Linux Desktop or SuSE linux iis a very viable and useable replacement for Windows

Yeah, but read Ford's admonition of Gates & MS from a coupla years back, to give the 'complete' picture,,,

Windows 95C? Oh, you poor thing... I wouldn't run anything but 98SE on ANYTHING from a 486 on up. Windows 95 was good for it's time, but it truly is the Windows 3.1 of it's day.

Yo, Joe, can ya count?

Jan 2004 -> Jan 2005 = +12
Jan 2005 -> Jan 2006 = +12
Jan 2006 -> July 2006 = +6

12+12+6 = 30

Actually, it's 31.

Jan 2004->Dec 2004=12
Jan 2005->Dec 2005=12
Jan 2006->Jul 2006=7

Except that the support phase was extended from January 16, 2004 -> July 11, 2006. Your added month isn't actually a full month - infact, 15 days from January and 11 from July doesn't even come to a month either, which means it's closer to 29.92 months.

Yes. Running 98SE means your running on a old, half crappy machine. But 98SE is pretty damn stable for an OS. If your not doing a whole lot of multimedia stuff when your surfing, then 98 systems are fine. Especially for 2nd & 3rd computers. Also, there are alot of people out there that can't afford a new computer, or a new OS even. They have enough trouble trying to keep their system free of viruses. Normally paying for it from a tech like myself. Does it really cost that much for them to keep suport running?

I also have a question. Does this mean the updates that are out there now will no longer be available? If say on the 12th of July I need to reinstall a customer computer, will there not be any updates to do at all?

Not at all, you can still download updates for Windows 3.1 from Microsoft to this day. It is just that there won't be any new updates released and no more tech support.

I'll be ever so grateful when they stop supporting 9x. I am sick of having to tell my techs how to install usb on a cust pc and then after getting screamed at by the cust because the last tech says " we do not support usb on 98" because windows 9x has this huge issue with usb that if the comp driver gets installed you have to uninstall the comp driver to load anything otherwise it consistently loads the default drivers...

IF your using ME, that was your first problem. I know a few people who run '98. Most of them are over the age of 60 and have no need to upgrade to XP. At least there still suporting 2000.

Nope. Windows 2000 was dropped last June.

June 2005 was the final support from MS for Windows 2000.

Wow!!! didn't know that ...
So support for Windows 2000 was dropped a full year before windows 98????? That's so NOT fair ...
Anyway, I'd rather use an unsupported win2000 than an unsupported win98 aaaanytime ...

No no, that's not right; Microsoft has two periods of support: the first is "mainstream support" (during which they may add features) which lasts ~5 years and then it switches to "extended support" (basicaly just bug and security fixes) which goes another ~5.

Win2K ended mainstream support last year, but is now into extended support until *2010* (see http://support.microsoft...13&y=12&p1=3071), so you still will get bug and security fixes for another four years.

Win98 is about to end its *extended support* (and thus not be supported at all).

MS does not need any potentia negative backlash with such a move and/or announcement: sorta like announcing the same re Dos with win9x on the way-- folks will anyway wish to gravitate to 64bit WHEN Vista is stable, hardware w/ say-4/8/16/32 gb ram is out there AND software is compiled to take advantage of it(nt platform can't practically take advantage of more than 2gb ram anyway).
As it is right NOW, today-- win9x is still pretty useful-- it runs on on 64bit systems & can run all modern hardware w/ proper drivers & patches- both the unofficial & hacked kind; in fact, there're a coupla projects that allow some xp/2k only apps to run within it.
Just let time run its natural course anyway-- avoid any potential backlash if say- vista has problems longstanding into 2008, while trying to get rid of 9x/nt/2k/mce...I can just picture the headlines...

Dude. Do some reasearch. support.microsoft.com. Look up NT/2000 Whitepaper.

You will CLEARLY see it supports WAY more than 2 gig. NT 4.0 can support like 16 gig..

*nt platform can't practically take advantage of more than 2gb ram anyway). *

..is a TOTALLY incorrect statement.

Win9x ALSO does *NOT* support 64-bit. 2000/XP can make that claim, but not Win9x.

Those products that claim XP/2000 only, are for support purposes, not a claim that it *WON'T* run on Win9x, just that if you have problems, they won't support it.

Actually you're wrong. Windows NT 4.0 only supports 4GB of RAM, as does Windows 2000 and even Windows XP Professional. This is because the 32-bit architecture itself is limited to 4GB of addressable memory, although some versions of Windows get around this through the use of virtual address extensions, allowing a 36-bit address space and up to 64GB of RAM. These are usually the higher end server versions.

Second I believe he was simply saying Windows 98 will run on 64-bit systems, which is true. You can install and run Windows 98 on an Athlon 64 for example just like any other 32-bit OS.

I agree! :)

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555223/en-us

Processes and Address Spaces

All processes (e.g. application executables) running under 32 bit Windows gets virtual memory addresses (a Virtual Address Space) going from 0 to 4,294,967,295 (2*32-1 = 4 GB), no matter how much RAM is actually installed on the computer.

In the default Windows OS configuration, 2 GB of this virtual address space are designated for each process’ private use and the other 2 GB are shared between all processes and the operating system. Normally, applications (e.g. Notepad, Word, Excel, Acrobat Reader) use only a small fraction of the 2GB of private address space. The operating system only assigns RAM page frames to virtual memory pages that are in use.

Physical Address Extension (PAE) is the feature of the Intel 32 bit architecture that expands the physical memory (RAM) address to 36 bits (see KB articles 268363 and 261988). PAE does not change the size of the virtual address space, which remains at 4 GB, just the amount of actual RAM that can be addressed by the processor.

The translation between the 32 bit virtual memory address used by the code running in a process and the 36 bit RAM address is handled automatically and transparently by the computer hardware according to translation tables maintained by the operating system. Any virtual memory page (32 bit address) can be associated with any physical RAM page (36 bit address).

Here's a list of how much RAM the various Windows versions and editions support (as of Nov 2004):

Windows NT 4.0: 4 GB
Windows 2000 Professional: 4 GB
Windows 2000 Standard Server: 4 GB
Windows 2000 Advanced Server: 8GB
Windows 2000 Datacenter Server: 32GB
Windows XP Professional: 4 GB
Windows Server 2003 Web Edition: 2 GB
Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition: 4 GB
Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition: 32 GB
Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition: 64 GB

Isn't that what I said? :P

I said "PRACTICALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Support for x amount is NOT the same as FULLY taking advantage of said amount!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Unless if one's multitasking w/ large files-- photoshop, access, videdit, etc., the sweet spot is 1gb, w/ a small improvement when doubling that. Anything more yields only negligible or at best minute improvements.
One of the reasons why lots of boards only come with two slots, why Dell & others got away for so long with providing only 128/256 until very recently. Otherwise, esp. with current low prices(specials for 1gb@$50 aobund-- less if willing to withstand the rebate game)everyone'd have loaded up by now.
Now, you wanna talk Linux, that's a different story.

The interesting thing about it is that 9x has everything in it that most people need except for the ability to play high end games, dealing with more than 32 gigs of harddrive space, and speech synthesis/recognition. All three of which are things that the average person doesn't get into. Alot of people do, but most don't.....and since downloading music and movies is supposed to be illegal, 32gigs of space should be plenty. As for ram, 256megs ro 512megs will satisfy most users.

It really is about time people with Windows '98 swapped to something more upto date, not that I'm suggesting that they upgrade to Windows XP.

The mess they get into - no idea of updates, no security - virus infested.

Sat on a floor for 8 years - when you open them up all sort of things are growing inside.

I do technical support - and often suggest scrapping an old ill PC, since the cost of repair is often higher than the cost of a new PC.

Can pick up a cheap (base only) for around £250.

You call for people to be more "up to date", I'm saying that newer does NOT mean better. It just means newer. The thing that needs to happen most is for people to "learn" a bit more about the equiptment they own. What ever it may be. The problem is that so many people either will not do this or just simply don't care to. It is those people (whatever age they may be) that ends up calling tech support and is also the ones that maybe shouldn't have a computer.

"Timing is unfortunate given Windows Vista's delay," he added. "Consumers with Windows 98 or Me will be looking at new Windows XP PCs -- or even a Mac -- instead of Windows Vista."

Unfortunate for whom? Someone with a computer THAT old isn't suddenly going to stop using their PC and run out to buy whatever is on the market at that particular second because support has ended on Windows 98 and ME. They probably have no idea that support stopped, or that there was even any support from anyone other than their grandson anyway. And if and when these people upgrade (probably in 2008 or '09), they'll get whatever OS is out there at the time, and by THEN it will be Vista.

Unfortunate for Microsoft? Hardly. If someone gets a new PC with XP SP2 on it, they get to book the sale. If that person's (grandson, presumably) convinvces them to upgrade their OS to Vista some time (probably years) later, then MS gets to book yet *another* sale.

Funny, I read that, and thought the same thing. My first thought was "not really".

Its not unfortunate at all.. Windows XP is great!

They'll still work after July, I promise. For older PCs that aren't even on the internet there is no need for security "hotfixes" anyway.

Well, that's it for the Win9x platform OS. 32-bit and 64-bit is now the only TRUE ones left.

Windows 9x is 32-bit.

Windows 9X is 32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a 2-bit company that can't stand for 1 bit of competition. :-)

without counting my own posts, this has been the stupidest thing i have read all month

It's an old joke back from the Windows 95 days. I think I remember it being a favorite of OS/2 fanboys of the time.

LOL. Yes, its 16-bit, not true 32-bit.

That was funny!

No. Look up Windows 98 Mutex.

That will explain it. Windows 98 is a 16-bit OS, that has a wrapper for 32-bit apps. ITs not a TRUE 32-bit OS.

I love how people point out someone else's shortcoming's with bad grammar to point out how stupid they look..

stupidest is really poor english. Its *dumbest*.

this has been the *dumbest* thing you have read all month

You got it backwards. Windows 98 controls all of the PCs hardware with 32-bit drivers, the kernel is 32-bit and Windows 98 programs are natively 32-bit. What it actually has is a 16-bit subsystem for backwards compatibility with old programs and hardware and it is initially loaded from a 16-bit environment. It is probably most correct to call it a hybrid, but it's more 32-bit than anything. It's certainly NOT a 16-bit OS though.

TO: MoonDogg: that's a fantastic sentence you wrote. Extremely clever and catchy, not to mention (perhaps) correct. I'd like to quote you in our High School Newspaper. Is that OK ? I will state the comment came from an internet person named MoonDogg. Is this OK with you ? thanks, April S.

rijp posted:
"I love how people point out someone else's shortcoming's with bad grammar to point out how stupid they look.."

Shortcomings has no apostrophe. It is the plural of one shortcoming.

He's not the first to ever come up with that statement. I've heard it plenty of times before.

Fine. One shortcoming. Two shortcomings. Better?

*Shortcomings has no apostrophe. It is the plural of one shortcoming.*

Is a dangling participle. The second sentence is incomplete by itself, there is no attachment to the first sentence. I may make a few typing errors, but I know grammar! I just can't type.

Shortcomings has no apostrophe; it is the plural of one shortcoming.

"Stupidest" is a perfectly cromulent word.

Get a mac and run windows too... :P

Heh, I ran Win98SE fine for years until last September. Then I archived everything and moved across to Ubuntu, which although tricky to get used to at first is getting more understandable everyday.

As of yesterday, I managed to get Win XP Pro working via VMWare Player, so if I really needed anything completely stuck in the Windows area I can now access it as well.

Ubuntu is still my main OS though. I do miss Win98SE still on occasion. I never upgraded after the debacle that was Win ME... urgh!

Speaking of old OS's, I'm a technology director at a high school. I had a parent bring in their computer and had just purchased a copy of Windows XP Pro. They wanted to know if I would install it on their computer. One problem, their computer was running Windows 3.11.

Yeah, Ubuntu rocks.

LOL: you shoulda just switched logo/screensaver on them!