Windows 98 Options

[mrreizor]

I made a post a few weeks ago about loading Linux on an old ThinkPad 765ED. I tried loading the Live CD's but it would error out and wouldn't complete loading. I tried Damn Small Linux's and Knoppix's Live CD and they both failed.

I have given up on Linux for now for that machine. However, what options do I have with Windows 98? Is there any use for a Windows 98 machine on a local home network?

If not, it'll go up for sale or it'll turn into a huge paperweight.

 

[spherrod]

you can use 98 as a basic machine, browse the web, email, office etc. It's perfectly capable for that

 

[mrreizor]

is there anything else Windows 98 can do other than that? Some kind of server maybe? I use my new lappy as my surf/email machine. I have a desktop that mainly functions as a Tivo.

I guess i'm asking my question wrong. What else can I do with a Windows 98 machine other than surfing/email?

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: mrreizor
is there anything else Windows 98 can do other than that? Some kind of server maybe? I use my new lappy as my surf/email machine. I have a desktop that mainly functions as a Tivo.

I guess i'm asking my question wrong. What else can I do with a Windows 98 machine other than surfing/email?

There are no other options for WIndows 98 because it is a POS OS. Simple things like surfing, e-mail and running non-resource intensive legacy applictaions are all such a POS OS like Windows 98/ME can do. WIndows 98 and server don't belong in the same sentence.

 

[jlbenedict]

What are the specs on your "old" laptop?

Windows 98 will run fine on older hardware. If all that you are doing is basic web browsing, email, etc.. It will be perfect. You can also run the latest and free office suite, OpenOffice for your office needs.

Depending on the specs though, don't entirely rule out Linux. I have an "older" laptop also, and older versions of Red Hat Linux run great on mine.


And to the OP; a piece of advice: Basically ignore 99% of Link19's comments. This guy constantly bashes Windows 98. You almost think that the developers of Windows 98 molested this poor guy as a child. If you do a search in the operating system forum on "Windows 98" you'll notice every thread being "crapped" in by Link19. Mostly garbage about Windows 98 not being a 32-bit operating system and how it is such a POS.
I am willing to bet he keeps quotes in his clipboard ready to paste at the blink of an eye for every Windows 98 thread in existence.

 

[mrreizor]

I'm an old schooler, so I know how good Win98 was in its day. I listened to his opinion of the OS, but didn't offer a rebuttal. That's his opinion and that's fine with me.

As far as Linux goes, I'm confident it'll run it once I work out kinks with the display settings. I think the video chipset causes issues with the Live CD starting. I don't know where to start to tweak settings in Linux....

 

[spherrod]

I guess you could make it some kind of storage device - just have it as a networked machine and use it to backup files or hold media? Can you post the laptop specs?

 

[spikespiegal]

Mostly garbage about Windows 98 not being a 32-bit operating system and how it is such a POS.

Actually he's correct, and any time you want to compare our resume's and support experience be my guest. I've probably deployed over 10,000 Win95/98 systems, and equally as many Win2K and NT4. No question the later is superior in every regard, except running poortly written DOS/Win 3.11 apps using direct hardware calls.

Windows 95/98/ME, for lack of a better term, are what I call 16-bit operating systems that run 32-bit subsystems. They make lousy print/file servers, have corrupt prone file systems, and have to be rebooted to fix basic problems that NT4/Win2K/XP can fix by simply restarting a service. I'd have two divisions in a company I was supporting, one running Win95/98, and the other NT4. The NT4 division required 1/10 the support resources.

FYI - NT 3.51 predates Win98, and is a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000x more stable. The only reason Win95/98 were written so poorly in the first place is MS wanted losers running DOS based Lotus 1-2-3 and other garbage to still be able to use their same apps.

Sysedit - {snort}

 

[spikespiegal]

I am willing to bet he keeps quotes in his clipboard ready to paste at the blink of an eye for every Windows 98 thread in existence

At least I don't have to load HIMEM.SYS to even use clipboard in the first place, dork.

 

[JonnyBlaze]

Originally posted by: jlbenedict

And to the OP; a piece of advice: Basically ignore 99% of Link19's comments. This guy constantly bashes Windows 98. You almost think that the developers of Windows 98 molested this poor guy as a child.

:laugh:


98 wasnt bad at all. you could run a local web or ftp server (apache, g6)

i dont see why you couldnt setup shares and use it as a file server. im about to install 98 on some brand new dell systems at work because we have some OLD software that wont run in XP or 2000.

 

[spherrod]

Originally posted by: JonnyBlaze

Originally posted by: jlbenedict

And to the OP; a piece of advice: Basically ignore 99% of Link19's comments. This guy constantly bashes Windows 98. You almost think that the developers of Windows 98 molested this poor guy as a child.

:laugh:


98 wasnt bad at all. you could run a local web or ftp server (apache, g6)

i dont see why you couldnt setup shares and use it as a file server. im about to install 98 on some brand new dell systems at work because we have some OLD software that wont run in XP or 2000.

A 98 machine can still be useful - I'd set it up as some kind of centralised storage

 

[jlbenedict]

Originally posted by: spikespiegal

Mostly garbage about Windows 98 not being a 32-bit operating system and how it is such a POS.

Actually he's correct, and any time you want to compare our resume's and support experience be my guest. I've probably deployed over 10,000 Win95/98 systems, and equally as many Win2K and NT4. No question the later is superior in every regard, except running poortly written DOS/Win 3.11 apps using direct hardware calls.

Windows 95/98/ME, for lack of a better term, are what I call 16-bit operating systems that run 32-bit subsystems. They make lousy print/file servers, have corrupt prone file systems, and have to be rebooted to fix basic problems that NT4/Win2K/XP can fix by simply restarting a service. I'd have two divisions in a company I was supporting, one running Win95/98, and the other NT4. The NT4 division required 1/10 the support resources.

FYI - NT 3.51 predates Win98, and is a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000x more stable. The only reason Win95/98 were written so poorly in the first place is MS wanted losers running DOS based Lotus 1-2-3 and other garbage to still be able to use their same apps.

Sysedit - {snort}

 

[jlbenedict]

Originally posted by: jlbenedict

Originally posted by: spikespiegal

Mostly garbage about Windows 98 not being a 32-bit operating system and how it is such a POS.

Actually he's correct, and any time you want to compare our resume's and support experience be my guest. I've probably deployed over 10,000 Win95/98 systems, and equally as many Win2K and NT4. No question the later is superior in every regard, except running poortly written DOS/Win 3.11 apps using direct hardware calls.

Windows 95/98/ME, for lack of a better term, are what I call 16-bit operating systems that run 32-bit subsystems. They make lousy print/file servers, have corrupt prone file systems, and have to be rebooted to fix basic problems that NT4/Win2K/XP can fix by simply restarting a service. I'd have two divisions in a company I was supporting, one running Win95/98, and the other NT4. The NT4 division required 1/10 the support resources.

FYI - NT 3.51 predates Win98, and is a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000x more stable. The only reason Win95/98 were written so poorly in the first place is MS wanted losers running DOS based Lotus 1-2-3 and other garbage to still be able to use their same apps.

Sysedit - {snort}

Do we care? Go pump your chest and resume boasting elsewhere. The OP asked if there were any uses on using Windows 98 on his laptop..
not the opinions on how Windows 98 is not a 16-bit or 32-bit operating system.
It gets old seeing Windows 98 threads being crapped on by the numerous "There are no other options for Windows 98 because it is a POS OS" quotes..

 

[spherrod]

Originally posted by: jlbenedict

Originally posted by: jlbenedict

Originally posted by: spikespiegal

Mostly garbage about Windows 98 not being a 32-bit operating system and how it is such a POS.

Actually he's correct, and any time you want to compare our resume's and support experience be my guest. I've probably deployed over 10,000 Win95/98 systems, and equally as many Win2K and NT4. No question the later is superior in every regard, except running poortly written DOS/Win 3.11 apps using direct hardware calls.

Windows 95/98/ME, for lack of a better term, are what I call 16-bit operating systems that run 32-bit subsystems. They make lousy print/file servers, have corrupt prone file systems, and have to be rebooted to fix basic problems that NT4/Win2K/XP can fix by simply restarting a service. I'd have two divisions in a company I was supporting, one running Win95/98, and the other NT4. The NT4 division required 1/10 the support resources.

FYI - NT 3.51 predates Win98, and is a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000x more stable. The only reason Win95/98 were written so poorly in the first place is MS wanted losers running DOS based Lotus 1-2-3 and other garbage to still be able to use their same apps.

Sysedit - {snort}

Do we care? Go pump your chest and resume boasting elsewhere. The OP asked if there were any uses on using Windows 98 on his laptop..
not the opinions on how Windows 98 is not a 16-bit or 32-bit operating system.
It gets old seeing Windows 98 threads being crapped on by the numerous "There are no other options for Windows 98 because it is a POS OS" quotes..

Agreed, we would all agree that NT/2000/XP are more stable than 98/ME but there are still many people using 98 systems and the OP has a legitimate question. No point just slagging off a particular OS.

 

[stash]

98, 98SE and ME reach End of Life on July 11th, 2006. This means there will no longer be critical security updates made available for these products. Using them to browse the web or do email would not be such a great idea.

 

[Noema]

My dad has a PIII with 64 megs of RAM (old Toshiba laptop) with Win98SE on it.

He only uses it to check his mail with outlook and browse the net, as well as the occasional Word document or Powerpoint presentation. I installed Firefox and it runs well.

It's on at least 12 hours a day and it hasn't crashed once in months. So I gather that as long as you don't expect too much from the machine and the OS, tasks such as simple net browsing or email clients shouldn't be too much trouble.

 

[kylef]

Originally posted by: Noema
He only uses it to check his mail with outlook and browse the net, as well as the occasional Word document or Powerpoint presentation. I installed Firefox and it runs well.

It's on at least 12 hours a day and it hasn't crashed once in months. So I gather that as long as you don't expect too much from the machine and the OS, tasks such as simple net browsing or email clients shouldn't be too much trouble.

I agree with this 100%. It is rare anymore that people find remote exploits in the OS itself. Most security vulnerabilities these days are in applications (like IE). So if you choose your applications carefully and keep them updated (assuming future applications will support Win98, which is another possible pitfall) then I don't see a problem with using Win98 for the foreseeable future. Just stay behind a good firewall and run a virus scanner if possible.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: stash
98, 98SE and ME reach End of Life on July 11th, 2006. This means there will no longer be critical security updates made available for these products. Using them to browse the web or do email would not be such a great idea.

but you can run Firefox, which can be patched. Combine that with a SOHO firewall/router for access, and you shouldn't have problems with worms of web exploits.

 

[thegorx]

I'm not a linux expert but some I've tried with old laptops seem like they just can't run the GUI, just not enough memory or video memory or something with the chipset like you said.

With windows 98, you could use it as a remote, perhaps you could stream media to it
If you're gonna use it for internet or email, you should make a image of the drive after you get it setup, because you might not be able to run bloated anti-virus or firewall programs and like was said you won't be able to get patches for IE soon, that way you can just restore the image every day and it will stay fine.

another thought, you might try dyne:bolic

http://www.dynebolic.org/

I've seen that work even when damnsmall didn't, that is if you're thinking of using it for multimedia.

these are just thoughts, I don't know if they're helpful

 

[MadRat]

Okay, the OP asked how to load an OS on the machine IF I"M UNDERSTANDING HIM CORRECTLY.

I'd remove the harddrive, use a converter for running the hard drive on a regular IDE cable, install the OS on a desktop. Blank out the hardware settings in the registry, then transfer the harddrive back to the laptop and boot it up. The OS will reload drivers for the laptop. The key is to have a reliable network card supported by Win98/ME so that you can run updates and find drivers on the internet if need be. Just my 2 cents.

 

[kylef]

I think the OP isn't really sure what he wants to be able to do with the spare laptop.

You could convert it into a great digital picture frame! I was actually thinking about doing that with my old laptop.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: mrreizor
I'm an old schooler, so I know how good Win98 was in its day. I listened to his opinion of the OS, but didn't offer a rebuttal. That's his opinion and that's fine with me.

As far as Linux goes, I'm confident it'll run it once I work out kinks with the display settings. I think the video chipset causes issues with the Live CD starting. I don't know where to start to tweak settings in Linux....

Windows 98 was not good in its heyday. Compared to what we could and should have had, Windows 98 was never good in its heyday. OS/2 WARP would have been so much better than POS Windows 9X. But it was never given a chance only because MS has the control and IBM did not, even though IBM had a superior OS.

Windows 2000/XP are light years ahead of Windows 98, even for their time. ANotyher words, In no way was Windows 98 as good even for its time as Windows XP is today for its time. You can't even compare how WIndows 987 was for its time to how Windows 2000/XP are today because Windows 2000/XP are so much better for their time than POS Windows 98 could have ever dreamed of being in its time.

I know lots of people that are old schoolers in the computer industry that hate anything Windows 9X based. It has nothing to do with what is older and what is newer. It has all to do with what is good and what is bad compared to what we could and should have had. Lets just put it this way. The mid 90s were known as a time where mult taksing and 32-bit opertaing systems became mainstream. Guess what. Windows 9X was falsely advertised and touted to be as such. But all it really was was a front end for DOS that emulated 32-bit computing and multi tasking. The whole computer market that sold PCs to home consumers should have been selling those computers with a true 32-bit and multi tasking OS since 1996. Not a fake OS that was just a GUI for DOS which is all Windows 9X.

It has nothing to do with me hating older hardware and software. It is anything Windows 9X based that I hate. OS/2 WARP 3.0 was released in 1994, but I thoought it was a great OS for its time because it was a true 32-bit and multi tasking OS. It was so much more efficent than POS Windows 98/ME could have ever dreamed of being. But it was never given a chance and thus very little software and drivers were made for it. Had there been a large amount of software and drivers written for OS/2, the performance would have been so much better than it ever woudl have on POS Windows 98/ME.

 

[kylef]

Originally posted by: Link19
It has nothing to do with me hating older hardware and software. It is anything Windows 9X based that I hate.

The OP was asking how to make Windows 98 do something useful, and you can't get off the subject of how bad you think Windows 98 was.

Your rant is not constructive to the thread. Please let it go.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Link19, we all know you were raped as a young child by the developer of Win98... you've established this with your unending, never tiring pursuit of every thread with Win98 in the title and your countless, maddening, obsessive-compulsive behavior to bash anything and everything having anything to do with Win9X in any of it's various forms.

Okay... we get it... you hate Win9X and will go out of your way to badmouth it with extreme prejudice at every opportunity. You should really see a doctor about it... no seriously... you've got some mental stability issues because you lose all links with reality whenever "Win9X" is mentioned... you really need to relax and stop your endless, neverceasing attacks on a piece of software.

Really... it's just sad Link19... really, really sad.

***NUFF SAID***

To the original poster... Win98 has it's uses (especially with software that simply doesn't run under Win2K/XP). I have a dual-boot system with both Win98 and WinXP on it (I primarily use WinXP of course), but there are times with certain software where I'll use Win98. Another thing to think-of concerning support and patches, there are a few "unofficial" Service Packs for Win98SE (you can find them on Google). Goes a long way in getting updates for Win98 and a good time-saver too.

Enjoy, and don't let the obsessive-compulsive disorder people bother you.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: kylef
I think the OP isn't really sure what he wants to be able to do with the spare laptop.

You could convert it into a great digital picture frame! I was actually thinking about doing that with my old laptop.

yea i saw that. i don't think its quite worth the electricity it would use though.