Big Swappout?
in [Windows 98]
|
Prev: Install on 4MB RAM?
Next: Windows 98 - A Decade Later
From: Beauregard T. Shagnasty on 17 Apr 2010 07:33 In 24hoursupport.helpdesk, DemoDisk wrote: > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote... >> Win2K was the last good OS from Microsoft. > > That include the new Windows 7? In my opinion, yes. :-) And is why W2K was my last Microsoft OS. I moved to Linux four years ago. -- -bts -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
From: 98 Guy on 17 Apr 2010 09:12 "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote: > > The NT family of OS's was a complete joke. It should have never > > been used as the OS for home and soho use. > > I started using NT with version 3.50. It was a lot better than the > DOS-based versions (95, 98, ME). Not for home or soho users it wasn't. > > Win2K was so bad that when you installed it and then connected > > it to the internet to install updates and patches, that it > > almost always became infected by something before you could > > patch it. > > Most of that started with XP. Wrong. The first version of XP had the same vulnerabilities that win-2k had. XP was not ready for home / soho use until at least SP-2 in mid-2004. From an internet-vulnerability POV, it was a horrible OS for the first 3 years of it's life. 2K did not get as much of a negative perception because very few home and soho users ran it. It was a national-security crime to foist XP upon the public in the fall of 2001, and Microsoft should have been charged for treason because of it. > But if you activated a firewall prior to accessing the 'net, > none of that ever happened. Most home and soho DSL users back in 1999 - 2003 were running DSL modems that didn't do NAT. And XP didn't have it's own firewall until SP1. For home and soho use, NT-based OS's were a complete joke, and they are responsible for the huge explosion of spam that started in 2003 and botnets soon after. Win-98, on the other hand, was never vulnerable to *any* of the 5 or 6 network worms that have emerged over the past 10 years. You can take a fresh installation of win-98, attach the PC to a non-firewalled internet connection, and it will not be vulnerable to any exploitation. That's true today, and has been true for the past 10 years.
From: Beauregard T. Shagnasty on 17 Apr 2010 12:35 In 24hoursupport.helpdesk, 98 Guy wrote: > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote: >>> The NT family of OS's was a complete joke. It should have never >>> been used as the OS for home and soho use. >> >> I started using NT with version 3.50. It was a lot better than the >> DOS-based versions (95, 98, ME). > > Not for home or soho users it wasn't. I was a home/soho Win2K user and I thought it was great, and far more stable than any of the DOS-based Windows OSes. I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree. I hope you remain happy with your Win98. -- -bts -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
From: 98 Guy on 17 Apr 2010 17:26 "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote: > >>> The NT family of OS's was a complete joke. It should have never > >>> been used as the OS for home and soho use. > >> > >> I started using NT with version 3.50. It was a lot better than the > >> DOS-based versions (95, 98, ME). > > > > Not for home or soho users it wasn't. > > I was a home/soho Win2K user and I thought it was great, and far more > stable than any of the DOS-based Windows OSes. The adoption rate of win-2K for home or non-institutional "tech" user was initially not very high, owing to cost of the OS and it's significantly higher hardware requirements compared to 98/ME. Also, various hardware drivers were slow to come to 2K - most notably for sound cards. Many tech and IT people got the impression that 2K was more stable than 98, but if they tried running 2K on the same hardware, with the same paltry amount of ram and buggy video AGP drivers that was common in 1999 / 2000, then they'd have a different impression. Win 9x was severely handicapped by the cost of RAM and bad hardware drivers when it was introduced, and tech / IT people quickly stepped over it on their way to 2K and XP, never to revisit it and install / run it on more capable hardware. > I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree. I hope you > remain happy with your Win98. I have access to tons of Microsoft software products via MSDN and technet subscriptions that I have access to, and have had this access since around 1999. I would not tolerate an OS that was flaky or would not allow me to perform various tasks on my PC. I stayed with 98 because I did not believe the Microsoft marketing hype about XP, and I watched as XP suffered one security catastrophe after another over the years. The combination of win-98 and Office 2K continues to be a competent and capable platform for the vast majority of home and soho and office situations even today. I know this because I manage the IT infrastructure of a small sci-tech company with a mixed computer infrastructure, and the win-98 systems do their job and they do it well, be it in admin, accounting, sales and production roles.
From: kony on 18 Apr 2010 08:42
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 22:46:18 -0400, 98 Guy <98(a)Guy.com> wrote: >"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote: > >> Win2K was the last good OS from Microsoft. > >The NT family of OS's was a complete joke. It should have never been >used as the OS for home and soho use. > >Win2K was so bad that when you installed it and then connected it to the >internet to install updates and patches, that it almost always became >infected by something before you could patch it. Complete nonsense. |