The phasing out of Windows 98 has begun...NT4 too.

[pmistry 0]

Saw this over at HardOCP, http://www.hardocp.com and Rage3D http://www.rage3d.com

 

Please read the following statement from Microsoft, "WHQL will no longer accept certain submissions".

Beginning 01 July 2002, at 12:01 A.M. PST, WHQL will no longer accept submissions for all hardware devices and systems for the following operating systems. This includes all submission types for all devices and systems.

 

Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition (SE)

Windows NT 4.0 Workstation

Windows NT 4.0 Server

 

As a reminder, WHQL previously stopped accepting submissions for Windows 98 Gold in the latter part of 1999.

 

This shows that MS is beginning to phase out Win98, which is still quite the popular OS among gamers. I think after DirectX 9, Windows 98 will no longer receive future updates of DirectX anyways just like Windows 95 and DirectX 8.0.

 

I am not ranting here, just wanted some people to know that 98's life is nearing its end....but then there is always Millennium

[Admiral LSD 0]

The 9x fanboys are in for an interesting couple of years...

 

I wonder how long it'll take hardware manufacturers to stop making 9x drivers altogether? If M$ stop supporting the OS and in the process WHQL stops accepting driver submissions for it how long is it going to remain financially viable to maintain 9x support for their products?

[DosFreak 2]

I'm not happy there are still MANY programs that do not have an NT equivalent. MANY games that still do not work in NT.

[vern2 0]

9X is DEAD, who cares.!

 

 

 

 

 

16 bit applications/games need to go away

[Helshad 0]

Finaly... Its about time they buried this garbage called Win9x...

I dont think I hated any OS more than 95, 98 and ME...

The last one I didnt even installed... When win 2000 came I grabbed it and never looked back...

 

I tossed out any game that wouldnt work in NT enviroment and was happier than ever...

 

Well... thats how I feel about it... :x

[Jerry Atrik 0]

whats win98?

[pmistry 0]

Windows 98 is the follow up to Windows 95.

[BladeRunner 0]

Oh don't get me wrong, the death of Win9x is like the death of an old friend.

I was on the beta test team for Win95, my first every copy of the said OS was an Alpha copy that shipped to me on some 30+ floppy disks.

I watched this OS take shape, sure we were all aware that it's feet were still firmly in DOS.

We were still looking at essence at a 16bit OS, but it was nice.

I remember installing the final version once MS had sent me my free copy and loving it, I felt computing had evolved on the day Win95 was released.

 

Win98 was a great set of bug-fixes for Win95, Win98 was an excellent Service Pack - please don't get me started on WinME, thankfully my PC never saw that OS.

 

With Win2k it was a similar feeling as to when I first started with Win95.

Again I was beta testing Win2k from the days when my latest betas still booted up under a Windows NT5 logo.

Once I'd moved totally over to Win2k (again on release day, I never stayed dual-boot with Win98 like so many others) I again saw it as a step forward.

If a game didn't run under Win2k I chucked it.

If an application didn't run under Win2k I chucked it and looked for a replacement.

 

From a personal point of view I really wont miss Win9x that much.

When you look back at it and compare it to the WinXP Professional installation I'm currently running it was dismal to say the least, but Win95 made computing fun again, especially as I managed to pick up my MCP in it about two months after it was released and everybody wanted me to answer their techy questions on it

[Jerry Atrik 0]

Quote:

Windows 98 is the follow up to Windows 95.

i was joking

[pmistry 0]

Quote:

Quote:

Windows 98 is the follow up to Windows 95.

i was joking

I know

[pmistry 0]

I must admit I was a big fan of Windows 95. I remember using Win 3.1 with my 486 and I hated the fact I couldn't run my DOS games under it, I always had to reboot into DOS Mode. When 95 came out I could run all my programs under one 1 shell, it was great. The new interface was nice and it was heck of a lot more stable than 3.1.

 

I became interested in NT, when MS released 4.0. But the lack of good game support, a biggey for me back then made it less appealing. I just couldn't get sound from DOS games. Also some of the DirectX titles failed to run. When I learned that MS wouldn't incorporate AGP, full DirectX or FAT32 for NT 4 I dumped it, moved to 98 and waited for NT 5.0 (2000).

[Davros 0]

We still have many Win98 workstations, and even a few Win95 worstations. I can't wait to get them replaced, but it takes time and $$$, especially for some of these users whose pst file is 2gb on a 4gb drive!

[pcdoctor 0]

hi,

 

so win98 is being phased out eh ?

 

There is always linux right ? The all doing free alternative with commercial quality apps and games not too mention the capability of running my Win98 stuff from linux without having to have 98 installed...

 

hmmm, me thinks that when w98 support stops, linux will be my saviour. I dual boot at the mo but i can setup my fat32 as a ext2 no problem.

 

I still get to use dos (dosemu) i can run 98 games (directx ones also and the best bnit of all, it costs me nothing to upgrade.

 

As for you saying that 16bit needs to go away, maybe so, but the apps themselves will always be around.

 

Too quick to slag off the low end of the market some of you. Let me tell you that one of my clients paid over 12000 UK pounds for a spe[censored]ed application that was designed for w98. Linux can take this in hand and save my client thousands in the long term whilst being able to keep up with the latest software technology without having to purchase damn expensive license solutions.

 

As for dos, i also have a set of images for Dr-Dos 7.03

 

Maybe the days of xtree have gone. Just remember that in ten years, your 2.2gb ath xp with xp pro is going to look like a damn calculator.

 

Damn you for slagging off the old systems.

 

<rant off>

 

regards,

Tim - PcDoctor

;(

[BladeRunner 0]

Where do you think we would be in the world of computers if both hardware manufacturers and software houses's had always thought "Oh we must think of the old systems" when they developed their new products?

We saw this with Windows, it took an age to evolve, from Win3x to WinME we were stuck with old true 16bit support.

We were forced over many years to have a sub-standard OS because we ahd to keep "thinking of the old systems".

 

Do you know what happens when Microsoft stop supporting Win98 & WinNT?

What doesn't happen is that all current installations of the OS self uninstall.

All installation CD's explode, this doesn't happen.

What does happen is that Microsoft take all the people who are currently working on the old OS's and reassign them to the new supported ones.

 

I cannot believe that MS have continued to support Win98 for so long, the OS is coming up to five years old, nowehere else in the computer industry could you expect to still get full manufacturer support on five year old equipment.

 

16bit is dead, long live 16bit.

[pcdoctor 0]

Quote:

Where do you think we would be in the world of computers if both hardware manufacturers and software houses's had always thought "Oh we must think of the old systems" when they developed their new products?
We saw this with Windows, it took an age to evolve, from Win3x to WinME we were stuck with old true 16bit support.
We were forced over many years to have a sub-standard OS because we ahd to keep "thinking of the old systems".
<snip>
16bit is dead, long live 16bit.

ok, so i saw red and posted what i felt :>

XP and others (2k) are good server systems (never thought i would hearmyself say that BUT the backwards compatability thing is somethinbg that a lot of people want (me included). I cant afford to keep on the upgrade path of MS because my essential stuff just wont work with it. NOT a limitation of the stuff i use but the underlying os calls etc...

I have a client who spent over 11 thousand pounds (sterling) on a certain piece of software that can be hosted onANY peer / shared drive type setup. This means that if i wanted to, i can install PcDos (license free) and then the commercial program (already paid for) and of course no special hardware is required to run it so long as its of reasonable spec (min of 133m cpu and 16mb ram) i dont recall what XP operating requirements are of hand but i am sure its something larger than this, and for what? to do the same thing but with optional downtime

Dont get me wrong, the whole windoze thing is a good thing, evolution does take time but then look at the speed at which linux is evolving not to mention the other 29 FREE operating systems that can read fat32 drives and map / share etc......

I was quite happy with my 60gb drive and my os taking just 130mb (98) then i upgrade to XP Pro and the bleeding thing wants a gig !

I am sure that there are many arguments for and against, not just o/s bashing but pros and cons like my webcam and scanner dont like being plugged in at the same time (usb) but under XP they work like a charm.
Question is, why wont they work under 98 when 98 drivers are fine !!

Lets face it, XP and other NT stuff would be nice if only i could get my 16bit exec's to function properly. If it wan't for that i dare say i would be in front of my kbash.

When i write an application (dos) i allways make sure that the bleedin thing works with older versions. What if i told you that in one place (a communications leader in the south of england) i was awarded a contract to Y2K check some old dos stuff (one of the systems, a 486sx 25) was responsible for operating a helium cable joint box (joins two cables under atlantic). I asked why i was awarded the final contract. They said that their own staff, allthough damn good people, didnt know squat about dos.

best regards,
Tim

sticking with 16 bit, long live 8 bit