Win9x Patch , you can play XP games and use programs


Recommended Posts

Stop it! You made the milk shoot out my nose! :laugh:

In all my experiences the regular 2D xwindow systemr equires more resourcesand is slower than XP's displlay/gui, and the non accelerated one in Vista.

As for Accelerated desktops on linux, sure they may run on lower hardware than Vista's Aero... but you sure as whell shouldn't, graphical qualiy is definately lower, it also suffers from actual performance reductions to Aero. And that's not even counting stability issues and other minor bugs across an overly complex interface engine that tries to do to much.

oh well at least you can make your desktop pretty with lots og plugins... :)

I still strongly disagree that Linux has higher resource demands than Vista.

Lower CPU. Lower RAM. Lower drive space. Compare: Ubuntu to Vista

Please tell me which resources you are talking about, and how you measure these resources. I'll let you pick the Linux config, as you seem to indicate regular 2D X-Window is a beast, so I assume that is what you are measuring.

And if you are bringing anectdotal "stability issues" into play, I will counter with my anectdotal "no problems" here, and raise you a wife fed up with Windows. :p (yes, anectdotal stories are interesting, but don't prove diddly-squat, do they) ;)

How much electron waste do you dispense yearly?

...

This is my new favorite term.

And Aero vs. Compiz, I've always found OpenGL to perform quicker for me, but i can't tell a difference speed wise between Aero and Compiz (and what basis do the claims about quality have?)

I find that old versions of Windows have better graphical functionality than any of the older linux distros with same sys spec requirements. Most modern linux system have resource deamands on par or higher than XP or Vista.

LOL I would disagree buddy by miles....I have Ubuntu 7 installed on a p3 600 laptop with 256mb of ram and it runs rings round XP pro on the exact same machine. I have also had OpenSuse 10, 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 previously installed on this laptop and each distro has felt quicker and booted quicker than XP on the same machine.

  • 2 weeks later...

I have an old Dell from 2000 that still runs great, but would be very slow with XP (tried it) or Ubuntu (tried it). It's fully patched - used the Unofficial 98 SE Service Pack and Windows Update. It's behind a hardware firewall and I run a virus scan regularly. It's fine for general surfing and old games from around that time (especially Glide ones - has a Voodoo card). I won't get rid of it - it's fine. That said, I wouldn't install 98 SE on a machine that was capable of running newer games even if I could use a patch to make it work with ones that require at least XP. Have a new machine for that. ;)

  • 4 months later...
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN...y=4&p1=6513

Windows 98 Standard Edition

Mainstream Support Retired 6/30/2002

Extended support Retired 7/11/2006

Paid incident support is now available through July 11, 2006. Extended hotfix support for Windows 98 and Windows 98 Second Edition ended on June 30, 2003. Extended hotfix support for Windows Millennium Edition ended on December 31, 2003. Online self-help support will continue to be available until at least July 10, 2007. For more information about the type and length of support provided, review the Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Millennium Edition Support Extended Announcement Web site. Critical security updates will be provided on the Windows Update site through July 11, 2006. Microsoft will not publicly release non-critical security hotfixes for Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, or Windows Millennium Edition. However, customers may request a non-critical security hotfix through On-Demand Security Hotfix support. This support is offered for these products through July 11, 2006. When a request is received, Microsoft will investigate the issue and try to provide an appropriate response to the customer

Hey type this in a command prompt on your win98box

cd c:\con\con

cd c:\prn\prn

Fun website code for windows 98 users

<A href="file:///c|/con/con/con">Crash!!</A>

<FRAME src="file:///c|/con/con">

<IMG src="file:///c|/con/con">

<META http-equiv="Refresh" content="0; url=file:///c|/con/con/con">

Time to upgrade either get a new MS box or switch to linux ..

Microsoft released a patch for the flaws right after the Second Edition came out.

Are u really thinking that this works on all 98 machines...thats a standard patch that nearly everybody has installed.

i left 98se years ago,i was glad to go to xp once it had it's first sp as 98 se would bog down and go slow,if you have an ancient system use 98 but a new one xp is the better one and maybe eventualy vista.

idoia:me was crap move to xp.there aint alot of support for 98 now but some stuff works with it still,i bet that wont ever change.

traitor lol^^

Eyh the Windows 98 Upgrade Pack (w98upg) really exists on http://www.w98upg.net.tf

if you can't download it, check the filefront or an other download mirror.

And if this is Windows 98 SPAM, why there even exists an Win98 category are u really thinking the NT OSes are the only systems!?!

You got a patch that works the other way? I wanna play Driver on XP, but it don't work. Worked a treat on 98SE.

You proabably could try to make your own patch. With the ACT kit to get it to run.

Or the easier way may be MS Virtual PC and install Win98SE as a VM though.

ACT kit...

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...;DisplayLang=en

Lower CPU. Lower RAM. Lower drive space. Compare: Ubuntu to Vista

Please tell me which resources you are talking about, and how you measure these resources. I'll let you pick the Linux config, as you seem to indicate regular 2D X-Window is a beast, so I assume that is what you are measuring.

If we're talking about the recommended settings for the full experience, with what in Vista is called "Aero" and in Ubuntu "Visual effects", I can see that Ubuntu has an ugly wiki page listing a few hundreds major incompatibilities with video cards, making its requirements, in effect, much more difficult to fulfill than Vista's. Aero will run on any "Direct3D 9 compatible graphics processor with a Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) driver, Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware, and a minimum of 128 MB of Video RAM".
If we're talking about the recommended settings for the full experience, with what in Vista is called "Aero" and in Ubuntu "Visual effects", I can see that Ubuntu has an ugly wiki page listing a few hundreds major incompatibilities with video cards, making its requirements, in effect, much more difficult to fulfill than Vista's. Aero will run on any "Direct3D 9 compatible graphics processor with a Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) driver, Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware, and a minimum of 128 MB of Video RAM".

I could run Aero on an onboard card with only 8 MB VRAM allocated.

Eyh the Windows 98 Upgrade Pack (w98upg) really exists on http://www.w98upg.net.tf

if you can't download it, check the filefront or an other download mirror.

And if this is Windows 98 SPAM, why there even exists an Win98 category are u really thinking the NT OSes are the only systems!?!

Microsoft released an official Windows 98 patch that makes all XP games/programs work on it and generally makes Windows 98 super-awesome. It's called Windows XP Upgrade Edition. It's pretty sweet.

-Spenser

If we're talking about the recommended settings for the full experience, with what in Vista is called "Aero" and in Ubuntu "Visual effects", I can see that Ubuntu has an ugly wiki page listing a few hundreds major incompatibilities with video cards, making its requirements, in effect, much more difficult to fulfill than Vista's. Aero will run on any "Direct3D 9 compatible graphics processor with a Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) driver, Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware, and a minimum of 128 MB of Video RAM".

? ATI is known to have problems with Linux, but they recently opened up there driver, so those incompatibles are slowly going away. Nvidia is pretty much flawless as I cant tell the difference between my XP and Ubuntu installation. Basically your trying to make it look like almost no one is capable of running compiz, when in fact only a minority is having troubles, and i enabled it with ease on a 5 year old crappy e-machine with on-board graphics, works just as fine as my graphics card.

If we're talking about the recommended settings for the full experience, with what in Vista is called "Aero" and in Ubuntu "Visual effects", I can see that Ubuntu has an ugly wiki page listing a few hundreds major incompatibilities with video cards, making its requirements, in effect, much more difficult to fulfill than Vista's. Aero will run on any "Direct3D 9 compatible graphics processor with a Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) driver, Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware, and a minimum of 128 MB of Video RAM".

Holy quoting a 6-month old post, Batman!

Let's do a quick refresher and see what I posted:

I still strongly disagree that Linux has higher resource demands than Vista.

Lower CPU. Lower RAM. Lower drive space. Compare: Ubuntu to Vista

Please tell me which resources you are talking about, and how you measure these resources. I'll let you pick the Linux config, as you seem to indicate regular 2D X-Window is a beast, so I assume that is what you are measuring.

which was in reply to
In all my experiences the regular 2D xwindow systemr equires more resourcesand is slower than XP's displlay/gui, and the non accelerated one in Vista.

As for Accelerated desktops on linux, sure they may run on lower hardware than Vista's Aero... but you sure as whell shouldn't, graphical qualiy is definately lower, it also suffers from actual performance reductions to Aero. And that's not even counting stability issues and other minor bugs across an overly complex interface engine that tries to do to much.

oh well at least you can make your desktop pretty with lots og plugins... :)

We were talking about hardware requirements for any desktop, 2D or 3D-enabled. And the original point that started it all was:

...

Most modern linux system have resource deamands on par or higher than XP or Vista.

Did you think that Vista has lower resource/system demands than Linux? Or higher? I offered to participate in a "how low can you go" type of thought experiment (I don't have a Vista license floating around to install on test PCs).

Was your point to quote a Gentoo (you mis-identified it as "Ubuntu" ) wiki page only to say it was "ugly"? Or did you have some facts you wanted to test and explore?

Not really, because it doesn't know what to do with them.

So it wouldn't be able to take advantage of the extra RAM and CPU speed?

I'd love to test this for my self, but I really can't be arsed. lol

Windows 95 and 98 simply can't address large amounts of ram and use multicore cpus ect..

at the whole linux debate, I use vista. Vista runs fast as hell on my pc. I like vista a lot and prefer it to linux. Linux IS lighter on hardware than vista. I would put the modern gnome or KDE distro in between XP and vista for resource usage.

With compiz enabled is a whole different experiance for me all together. I have tried compiz on many video cards both nvidia and ati. compiz makes the desktop very slow and unresponsive compared to aero for me. Animations are often jerky and laggy, scrolling and window resizing is simply awful and slow. Sync to vblank simply doesn't work on half these cards either which makes for a lot of tearing which completely defeats the purpose of running something like compiz.

x1950PRO

x300

x200

9600GT

7600GS

7600GT

These are all the cards I have used compiz on and haven't had a very good experience on any of them. While using vista with aero is always smooth.

IMO compiz should not be enabled by default in any distro, it's simply not ready whether it is the fault of drivers or compiz.

Edited by ViperAFK
I sent my old windows mellinum computer to my local meusem they happily replied that it will be put on display very shortly.

If you go to see it on display, you probably will find something in the description like:

Windows Vista was not the first time Microsoft released a backwards version of Windows that was overbloated and broadly incompatible... Windows Me was. And just like Windows Vista, the Windows Me fanboys still somehow thought it was greatest OS ever created.

:p ;)

Windows 95 and 98 simply can't address large amounts of ram and use multicore cpus ect..

at the whole linux debate, I use vista. Vista runs fast as hell on my pc. I like vista a lot and prefer it to linux. Linux IS lighter on hardware than vista. I would put the modern gnome or KDE distro in between XP and vista for resource usage.

With compiz enabled is a whole different experiance for me all together. I have tried compiz on many video cards both nvidia and ati. compiz makes the desktop very slow and unresponsive compared to aero for me. Animations are often jerky and laggy, scrolling and window resizing is simply awful and slow. Sync to vblank simply doesn't work on half these cards either which makes for a lot of tearing which completely defeats the purpose of running something like compiz.

x1950PRO

x300

x200

9600GT

7600GS

7600GT

These are all the cards I have used compiz on and haven't had a very good experience on any of them. While using vista with aero is always smooth.

IMO compiz should not be enabled by default in any distro, it's simply not ready whether it is the fault of drivers or compiz.

Hmm i've actually had the opposite happen for me, compiz is always smooth, my graphics card is a 6800gt but i have ran it just fine on onboard what i think was intel. But I do agree, it should be disabled by default.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • My father still uses a programme written in dbase3. Still manages to work with a little help from dosbox. 
    • Microsoft hides these secret Windows 11 performance boost settings available on every PC by Sayan Sen Windows enthusiasts often look for ways to extract as much performance out of their systems as possible, and it's often the case that they try and do so while trying to minimize the heat and power consumption. This is especially relevant in the case of mobile Windows PCs since laptops and notebooks tend to get hot and management of that heat and power is harder in such a form factor. As such users often turn to techniques like under-volting which can be used to squeeze out the maximum capabilities of a chip while also maintaining lowered power levels. There are official apps from AMD and Intel with the likes of Ryzen Master and XTU (Extreme Tuning Utility). While these are quite handy, most enthusiasts probably prefer to dig into the BIOS and play around with settings there like Curve Optimizer on Ryzen, which lets users set various frequency-voltage scaling values. These are essentially called P-States. If you are not familiar with them, Processor Power Management is done through Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) P-states and C-states. While P-states or performance pwoer states handle CPU voltage-frequency scaling, C-states deal with CPU sleep states so that some of the CPU functions, which are not necessary at that moment, can be disabled. The P-states and C-states work together to make the processor run more efficiently. It helps the OS and apps determine which cores can be parked and which should be boosted. Of course not every user is an enthusiast or knows the technicalities and integrities of how things like overclocking or undervolting work. Thankfully for them Windows itself offers something pretty cool, though it is hidden by default on all systems. By default, Windows only has two P-States, "Minimum Processor State" and "Maximum Processor State." However, this can be changed with a Registry trick to expand the options under a secret "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown. This essentially enables the HWP or hardware P-States available on a device, and these are not controlled just by the OS itself as the underlying hardware gets involved too. In total there are five Processor Performance Boost Mode profiles that control how Windows requests and allows CPU turbo/boost behavior under the different power policies. They are: Disabled: In this mode, processor boosting is effectively turned off. The CPU will avoid entering turbo or boost frequencies and instead operate closer to its base frequency ceiling. This can significantly reduce power consumption and heat output, but at the cost of reduced burst performance and responsiveness in short workloads. Enabled: This is the standard behavior where boost functionality is allowed under normal conditions. The processor can opportunistically increase frequency when workload demands it, balancing performance gains with power and thermal constraints as managed by the system. Aggressive: Aggressive mode favors performance more heavily, allowing the CPU to enter higher boost states more readily and sustain them longer. This should in theory improve responsiveness under bursty or heavy workloads but increases power draw and thermal output compared to the default enabled behavior. Efficient Enabled: This mode still allows boosting, but with a stronger bias toward energy efficiency. The system attempts to use boost more selectively, avoiding unnecessary frequency spikes when the performance gain is marginal. Efficient Aggressive: This is a hybrid approach where boost is still performance-responsive, but the system continuously weighs efficiency more heavily than in Aggressive mode. It aims to deliver noticeable performance improvements while reducing wasted power in less demanding scenarios. Here's how to enable the Processor performance boost mode: Open Registry Editor: Press Win+R, type regedit, and click OK. Go to: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Power\PowerSettings\54533251-82be-4824-96c1-47b60b740d00\be337238-0d82-4146-a960-4f3749d470c7 (where HKLM stands for HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE_) Modify the value of Attributes from 1 to 2 (you can find modify option by right-clicking) After that, exit Registry, you should now be able to see the new "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown menu: As you can see there are now five new P-States or CPPC states or power profile available that help define the boost mode processor setting on your PC. Wrapping it up here's a quick run-down of the settings as defined by Microsoft itself. Setting Description Disabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is disabled. Collaborative Processor Performance Control (CPPC) behaviour is disabled. Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Efficient Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Efficient Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows calculates the desired extra performance above the guaranteed performance level, and asks the processor to deliver that specific performance level. Efficient Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows always asks the processor to deliver the highest possible performance above the guaranteed performance level. In the next part we shall be comparing these settings to explore how much of a benefit or regression they can provide in terms of performance and power efficiency. If you decide to change the values on your system and are experiencing problems like crashes or an overheating PC, make sure to revert the steps back to the original state.
    • I think he means you haven't reviewed previous UFC games. Of course it doesn't matter... Every time you just report on something that involves the President even if just simply what happened you guys usually get accused of being anti-Trump. We live in fun times.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      rolfus earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Leroy Jethro Gibbs earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Conversation Starter
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      AndreaB earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      agatameier earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      518
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      198
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      147
    4. 4
      ATLien_0
      93
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      78
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!