Still using Windows 9x? Which one?

[pmistry 0]

Dual boot or normal installation, just wanna know in the year 2003.

[Tomay 0]

w98 was the greatest till 2000 came. The SE sucked.

[pr-man 1]

hehe if someone answers WinMe im gonna get real sick LOL

[CyberGenX 0]

if someone answers 95a I WILL BE SICK TOO

[pmistry 0]

I still have an old Intel Pentium 166 MMX running Windows 95, it has 24 megs of RAM, a 1 gig hard disk, and 12x CD Drive, 28.8 Modem, ATI 2 meg PCI video, and Sound Blaster AWE64. Was great for running DOS games, and MS Office 95. In fact it still is good at that.

 

 

Also have an old AMD Athlon 750 Slot A, with 512 MB RAM, running Windows 2000 SP4 with Windows Millennium dual boot.

[felix 0]

Osborne 486 DX2/66mHz running win95a for DOS games.

SB16, 420mb hard disk, 16mb RAM. Runs my favourite Flight Sim ever - Wings of Glory. Also my favourite RTS - Horde.

[el_vago32 0]

Quote:

hehe if someone answers WinMe im gonna get real sick LOL

I second you, though today I'm going to a friend's place to install that crap on her machine ;( ...., but I warned her, DON'T CALL BECAUSE OF A BSOD!

[dano97058 0]

Hello. This is my first visit to this or any forum, but I respect the links that got me here and saw some interesting dialogue, so I decided to jump in. I run WIN98 4.10.1998 and love it. I don't think Microsoft is thinking beyond the near future in their decision to end support for win98. It is still the most used system ever, and when and if I decide to change, I will defineately consider an open source browser and office suite. Then, at least, I can be part of the solution without worrying about some megagiant corporation jerking the rug out from under me when I really like something. I don't like being forced into anything, and I know there are many that feel the same. Adios for now, Dano

[jmmijo 1]

Actually I still use them *all*

 

There was no option for this as I still do some testing even on Win 95a, yes I still own a floppy version of this one too along with the Upgrade CD version and the upgrade CD version of 98.

 

I have full versions of 98-SE, ME which I liked a lot

 

The fun thing to do with Win 95 however is to install it along with QEMM 8.xx, twas a sight to behold 8)

 

Since I still run a couple of DOS boxes too I suppose that makes me a retro phreak, but hey so be it :x

 

I have to get my Doom 2 audio fix on my Ensoniq Soundscape and MT32/General MIDI music now and again...

[dano97058 0]

After that tour through the archives, I repeat, Microsoft should support every OS they ever sold. Also, I admit that I have a 386 with win95 on it. I built it from pieces of other computers to see if I could. It works pretty good-even cruises the net. I am 45, but didn't get my first computer until about 2 1/2 years ago. I recently assembled and went online with my first site. I have been told that I have made pretty good progress. Check it out at http://thedallestaxi.com and send me feedback.

[jmmijo 1]

Hey dano, just noticed you be up the river from me in da Gorge

 

Well, I be 40+ myself and have been into Mainframes, Minis and Micros since the mid-70's.

 

My retro collection is growing cause I'm such a packrat

 

Have fun computing and try out OS/2 if you have a copy

[Brian Frank 0]

It hurts to think about using ME. I'm scarred for life, dude.

[EnigmaOne 0]

Originally posted by jmmijo:

Quote:

The fun thing to do with Win 95 however is to install it along with QEMM 8.xx, twas a sight to behold 8)

 

Ya ain't seen nuttin until you run 95 on top of DR-DOS!

 

[jmmijo 1]

Are you sure ?!?

 

How about running it on top of MS-DOS 5.xx instead

[EnigmaOne 0]

Originally posted by jmmijo:

Quote:

Are you sure ?!?

 

After a hundred-or-so installs? ROFLMAO!

Yup! 8)

 

(Much better than MS-DOS 5.X - 6.X.)

 

 

http://www.devicelogics.com/

[zen69x 0]

Quote:

I repeat, Microsoft should support every OS they ever sold.

This is impractical. Also, I think that MS has probably the longest support around in regards to software. See how far back any type of linux distro or open office is supported.

[EnigmaOne 0]

Originally posted by zen69x:

Quote:

This is impractical...

Yeah. If you're going to keep the stockholders--instead of your customers--happy.

(Customers - the people who possess the money you want for yourself.)

 

Originally posted by zen69x:

Quote:

...I think that MS has probably the longest support around in regards to software...

Only recently something you could call support--we'll ignore longevity of same--and not willingly, of course.

It certainly needs it desperately, with all those security holes that still need to be filled-in with spit-balls and duct tape.

 

Originally posted by zen69x:

Quote:

...See how far back any type of linux distro or open office is supported.

Hmmmmmm.....

Yeah. OOo, as a project, is at least as old as ms office.

 

Maybe you should install a mainstream Linux distro sometime, and use nothing else for a couple of years.

 

The rates of maturation of the respective OS platforms are not the same--Linux is evolving more rapidly--hence, you're comparing apples to oranges.

[clutch 1]

I have used many Linux distros, and I have lots of opinions about them. However, with the topic of support and longevity at hand I'll just comment on that. I work as a contractor for the military, and we have been working with lots of stuff from the *nix-based vendors. Right now, the most consistent thing is a short lifespan for the given product. SuSE, for instance, only supports a specific distro for two years. Apple is bragging about having a new release every year (btw, congrats to Apple for having one of the worst, most bug-ridden OSs to every grace an enterprise), while Sun is just now coming out with its own distro for Java Desktop (and not a rebadge of RedHat, but rather a rebadge-ish of SuSE with that two-year cap on it). Since it can take two years or more to upgrade all of the systems on the bases (more like 5+, as we are phasing out all of the 9x and NT client systems right now for AD) a two-year lifespan for an OS is not very helpful for us.

[zen69x 0]

Originally posted by EnigmaOne

Quote:

Yeah. If you're going to keep the stockholders--instead of your customers--happy.

(Customers - the people who possess the money you want for yourself.)

 

Show me where I can get a 1.x release of any distro of Linux patched? Not upgraded, but patched. This is not only about $$ to finance the support, but also the time you take away from current products/projects. What I'm getting at here is that this is not an MS exclusive issue. Unfortunately for the sake of evolution of a product you have to drop off support for some of the older stuff; the resources that you need to survive as a company just aren't there to support things ad infinitum.

 

Originally posted by EnigmaOne

Quote:

Maybe you should install a mainstream Linux distro sometime, and use nothing else for a couple of years.

 

The rates of maturation of the respective OS platforms are not the same--Linux is evolving more rapidly--hence, you're comparing apples to oranges.

 

This is where you will find issue in a corporate environment. Clutch has already touched upon this; you will find that rollouts take considerably longer, moreso in larger companies with installed bases.

 

Also, just telling them that the OS is "evolving more rapidly" and hence to just upgrade to the latest pretty much quashes your argument of support for one and additionally, who knows what types of incompatiblities or problems with dependencies that may introduce, most especially with legacy and / or in-house code that was developed to meet a certain need of the company. Not to say that service packs or other critical updates may not cause same with MS's software either, but at least I know how long I can count on support and updates for problems that may arise.

 

For a home user being able to upgrade to the latest might well work as they don't tend to have custom code, but they may have a legacy app they need, true in Windows as well. But this discussion is not aimed there so I will leave it at that.

 

Bottom line is that whatever misgivings you have about MS and their support of their OS's, there isn't a single Linux distributor out there that I've seen that can even come close to touching the longevity of support that MS offers.