Windows 98 vs Windows Me
1 - 20 of 60 Posts
G
Guest
·They both suck.
Joined
·
201 Posts
the reason i chose these os's is i am a frequent DOS mose user :emb: and i preffered win98 version 1 when i could restart the system and boot into real mode (yes, i did have it once). then my motherboard died and along with a complete tower upgrade on my old pc i got window me preinstalled on my new hard drive...
G
Guest
·WinMe has NO form of DOS emulation, DOS is just 'hidden'
Now, Win2K and XP, those have DOS emulation.
There's a real-mode DOS patch for it...try http://www.the-ctrl-alt-del.com
Now, Win2K and XP, those have DOS emulation.
There's a real-mode DOS patch for it...try http://www.the-ctrl-alt-del.com
Joined
·
201 Posts
u r right about the dos patch CD, but it tends to create file config errors and problems (mainly with autoexec.bat and config.sys) and old legacy dos mode drivers - the cd-rom and sound card - were being loaded in windows instead of the 32-bit ones.
as a result of this, my cd-rom has a yellow errror over it in Device Manager and i've had to disable my onboard sound in favour of my yamaha ds-xg card.
after i applied the patch, it would not boot up into windows at the 'boot to dos or windows' menu - just a flahing cursor at the top-left corner of the screen...
maybe its because i have a non-american copy of ME?
as a result of this, my cd-rom has a yellow errror over it in Device Manager and i've had to disable my onboard sound in favour of my yamaha ds-xg card.
after i applied the patch, it would not boot up into windows at the 'boot to dos or windows' menu - just a flahing cursor at the top-left corner of the screen...
maybe its because i have a non-american copy of ME?
>Once you try Win2k, there is definitely no going back!
I completely agree. The problem being that quite a few companies seem to be of the belief that since you're using a 'business class' OS you don't deserve to have drivers for their products. I've seen a great many products that could very easlily provide support for Win2k but don't (game controllers and printers, but they're not the only culprits).
With DirectX having a Win98 controller driver should mean you automatically have one for 2000. That's one of DirectX's goals, to create a framework where devices could be put in any sort of DirectX supporting machine and work correctly. Of course, I have an unused Gravis gamepad that won't let me reconfigure its buttons since the company that created it seems to feel they know more about my choice in OS than I do.
My theroy this this: companies just want to get away with sloppy programming and generally don't care about their customers. If they were at all concerned about them they'd submit their drivers to Microsoft for testing and become part of the WHQL. I'm not about to say that M$ is a good company, but I can't ever think of a time when a certified driver has given me any sort of problem. Hell, even drivers that are being *considered* for certification tend to work better.
It just seems to me that given that XP is based on NT technology alot of said companies are going to have some problems when their once happy customers call and demand that some new device they purchaced work with their previously "unsupported, business" OS (yes, I know that XP is supposed to have a compatablity layer, but I'm sure we all know that XP will probably only work best with 'native' (read: NT) drivers)
Hehe, sorry about my little rant, but after a morning of looking for Win2k support by default (that is, not added as an afterthought) I'm a bit upset with hardware vendors on the whole.
I completely agree. The problem being that quite a few companies seem to be of the belief that since you're using a 'business class' OS you don't deserve to have drivers for their products. I've seen a great many products that could very easlily provide support for Win2k but don't (game controllers and printers, but they're not the only culprits).
With DirectX having a Win98 controller driver should mean you automatically have one for 2000. That's one of DirectX's goals, to create a framework where devices could be put in any sort of DirectX supporting machine and work correctly. Of course, I have an unused Gravis gamepad that won't let me reconfigure its buttons since the company that created it seems to feel they know more about my choice in OS than I do.
My theroy this this: companies just want to get away with sloppy programming and generally don't care about their customers. If they were at all concerned about them they'd submit their drivers to Microsoft for testing and become part of the WHQL. I'm not about to say that M$ is a good company, but I can't ever think of a time when a certified driver has given me any sort of problem. Hell, even drivers that are being *considered* for certification tend to work better.
It just seems to me that given that XP is based on NT technology alot of said companies are going to have some problems when their once happy customers call and demand that some new device they purchaced work with their previously "unsupported, business" OS (yes, I know that XP is supposed to have a compatablity layer, but I'm sure we all know that XP will probably only work best with 'native' (read: NT) drivers)
Hehe, sorry about my little rant, but after a morning of looking for Win2k support by default (that is, not added as an afterthought) I'm a bit upset with hardware vendors on the whole.
G
Guest
·I completely agree.
Companies who refuse to support NT/2000 right now are going to the be fucked when XP hits, no matter how crappy of an OS it is.
Companies who refuse to support NT/2000 right now are going to the be fucked when XP hits, no matter how crappy of an OS it is.
>Poorly written drivers are one of the main reasons the Win9x
>series is so unstable.
And poorly written drivers are the reason companies continue to write for Win9x while eschewing Win2k. Since they're not willing to make an effort at efficient code that fits MS' specs, they simply don't bother with it.
>i've seen some pretty high minimum specs for running the beta2
>of xp
Everything I've read has stated that the specs of an XP system are going to be quite high and it's actually Microsoft's plan not to offer alot of Win9x->XP upgrades, but to get people to buy all new computers to run it.
If you're not aware, there's also quite a bit of controversy regarding some privacy and "fair use" issues with XP. Namely, to register you have to provide MS with your key by phone before it becomes usable (there's a delay, I've heard, where it'll work. But after that time is up, it'll fail to boot) and they've limited their MP3 encoder to support only low bit rates, favoring instead to support WMA fully, seeing as how MS is quite willing to bend over for the RIAA (WMA supports digital use management, which is just another word for Big Brother-ware, so far as I'm concerned). Of interest to PSX emu writers is the fact that I've heard direct reads via the CD-Rom driver will no longer be supported, since direct reads are used by audio rippers to convert CDs into MP3s. Please note that the above is just what I've been told by some fairly reputable sources, but, as with anything you see on the Internet, please take it with a grain of salt.
>series is so unstable.
And poorly written drivers are the reason companies continue to write for Win9x while eschewing Win2k. Since they're not willing to make an effort at efficient code that fits MS' specs, they simply don't bother with it.
>i've seen some pretty high minimum specs for running the beta2
>of xp
Everything I've read has stated that the specs of an XP system are going to be quite high and it's actually Microsoft's plan not to offer alot of Win9x->XP upgrades, but to get people to buy all new computers to run it.
If you're not aware, there's also quite a bit of controversy regarding some privacy and "fair use" issues with XP. Namely, to register you have to provide MS with your key by phone before it becomes usable (there's a delay, I've heard, where it'll work. But after that time is up, it'll fail to boot) and they've limited their MP3 encoder to support only low bit rates, favoring instead to support WMA fully, seeing as how MS is quite willing to bend over for the RIAA (WMA supports digital use management, which is just another word for Big Brother-ware, so far as I'm concerned). Of interest to PSX emu writers is the fact that I've heard direct reads via the CD-Rom driver will no longer be supported, since direct reads are used by audio rippers to convert CDs into MP3s. Please note that the above is just what I've been told by some fairly reputable sources, but, as with anything you see on the Internet, please take it with a grain of salt.
Joined
·
55 Posts
After windows I am thinking about going back to DOS...
>But after that time is up, it'll fail to boot) and they've limited their
>MP3 encoder to support only low bit rates, favoring instead to
>support WMA fully, seeing as how MS is quite willing to bend over
>for the RIAA (WMA supports digital use management, which is
>just another word for Big Brother-ware, so far as I'm concerned).
But they're really doing it because WMA is better than MP3 quality! Heh, you know, like Pintos are better than Mustangs.
>MP3 encoder to support only low bit rates, favoring instead to
>support WMA fully, seeing as how MS is quite willing to bend over
>for the RIAA (WMA supports digital use management, which is
>just another word for Big Brother-ware, so far as I'm concerned).
But they're really doing it because WMA is better than MP3 quality! Heh, you know, like Pintos are better than Mustangs.
1 - 20 of 60 Posts
