Win 98 on newer PCs?

[grid001]

Didnt someone create a transformation pack for Win98 (or was it Win95). I dont remember if it upgrades the install files as well or not...but it looked and felt (not sure if it ran..) like XP (so he said).

I cant seem to remember what he called it..Anyone remember?

[Shadrack]

I tend to only like jokes that are funny so get over yourself.

dang dude. sorry for being such a jerk. i feel awful.

[Angel Blue01]

I would definitly say Win2000. Its old, but its very very fast with only 512 MB of RAM and certainly will run on your machine.

Didnt someone create a transformation pack for Win98 (or was it Win95). I dont remember if it upgrades the install files as well or not...but it looked and felt (not sure if it ran..) like XP (so he said).

I cant seem to remember what he called it..Anyone remember?

Revolutions pack on MSFN

[Quillz]

Didnt someone create a transformation pack for Win98 (or was it Win95). I dont remember if it upgrades the install files as well or not...but it looked and felt (not sure if it ran..) like XP (so he said).

I cant seem to remember what he called it..Anyone remember?

Yeah, the revolution pack is what you're talking about. When I last used it not too long ago, it wasn't all the great. It was clearly just a Vista-like skin for 98, it wasn't more of a minimal UI update like I was hoping for.

Funnily enough, I also installed all the new Vista fonts on 98: Calibri, Cambria, Candara, Segoe UI, etc. They actually don't look too bad. I also replaced all the icons with Vista icons, but they looked terrible since 98 doesn't handle transparency and what not very well.

[RAID 0]

I would run Windows 2000.... or Ubuntu.

[EnzoFX]

1. It's probably possible to run win98, but it'll take a lot of work, and probably outside the scope of the OP's Knowledge, No offense, but It'll mean A LOT more work.

2. You could stick with XP, and TWEAK it. There are forums on here on Tweaking XP like you won't believe. People have their startup time reduced to like 12 seconds. This is the best option for usability, because Hell, its XP. It should also be blazing fast with that hardware (Trust us). The effort you save into trying to setup win98, will be better put to use on tweaking XP.

3. Lastly, if it's for pure nostalgic reasons (doesn't seem like it). Then do run 98 in a safe environment, a Virtual environment. Having your computer dedicated to 98 doesn't sound as a viable solution due to instability.

[Richardarkless]

lol why would you want 98 on your laptop/computer with them type of specs plus you will have many problems

1.you will need drivers to some of the components if they aint compatible

2.blue screen every time a program crashes

3.plus hardly any software still work with 98

use 2000, way better with devices

[Shadrack]

2.blue screen every time a program crashes

Careful. C_Guy is sensitive about blue screens.

[DigitalE]

Yeah... If you don't want Vista or XP, go with 2000.

[MtnDewCodeRedFreak]

Latest software that would work under 95 OSR2.5:

AIM 4.8

Don't have Firefox support

MSN Mess ? (dunno)

Yahoo Mess ? (dunno)

Office 2000 SP3, all apps (even Visio and Project Professional 2000)

IE 5.5 SP2

WMP 6.4

Norton 2001 products (ugh) (or whichever AV you use)

ZoneAlarm pre-6.5 (or whichever firewall you use)

Extremely limited support for hardware drivers - worse than Win 98

Already went the way of the Dodo on December 31st, 2002

Latest software that would work under 98/98SE:

AIM 5.9.6089

Firefox 2.0

MSN Mess 7.5

Yahoo Mess 7.5 (I think)

Office XP/2002 SP3, all apps (even Visio and Project Professional 2002)

IE 6 SP1 (not SP2)

WMP 9 Series (for 98 SE only)

Norton 2005 products (ugh) (or whichever AV you use)

ZoneAlarm pre-6.5 (or whichever firewall you use)

Extremely limited support for hardware drivers

Already went the way of the Dodo on July 11th, 2006 - originally planned for January 16th, 2005

Latest software that would work under 2000 with SP4 and its Update Rollup 1:

AIM 6.5.12.1

Firefox 2.0

MSN Mess 7.5

Yahoo Mess 7.5

Office 2003 SP3, all apps

IE 6 SP1 (not SP2)

WMP 9 Series

Norton 2006 products (or whichever AV you use)

ZoneAlarm 7.x (or whichever firewall you use)

Most hardware driver support

Will go the way of the Dodo in June 2010

Latest software that would work under XP with SP3:

(all of those listed below would work fine under Vista SP1.)

AIM 6.8 Beta

Firefox 3.0

Windows Live Mess 8.5

Yahoo Mess 9.0 Beta

Office 2007 SP1, all apps

IE 8 Beta 1

WMP 11

Norton 2008 products (or whichever AV you use)

ZoneAlarm 7.x (or whichever firewall you use)

All hardware driver support

Will be supported into the next decade - for XP, April 14th, 2014 .... for Vista, January 2017.

So, to the OP, the choice is yours. For me, I'd rather use those that work on XP/Vista.

[Richardarkless]

Careful. C_Guy is sensitive about blue screens.

lol betta keep quiet then in future

[aussiefloyd_fan]

imo I would stay away. why not install xp then install vmware and emulate win 98..

One thing I might mention is that Bill Gates said he's not going to let the ms team support 98 anymore... windows 98 is no longer supported for updates and fixes\\\

\\

just my :2cent: try vmware

[markwolfe Veteran]

imo I would stay away. why not install xp then install vmware and emulate win 98..

<snip>

just my :2cent: try vmware

He said he wanted Win98 for the speed. Kinda defeats that purpose if you install XP and run 98 through VMWare, doesn't it? ;)

[eilegz]

virtualization its a way to go for this...

[aussiefloyd_fan]

He said he wanted Win98 for the speed. Kinda defeats that purpose if you install XP and run 98 through VMWare, doesn't it? ;)

not really my vista emulates faster throu xp than native vista

go figure ill post my specs in a sec

[Olemus]

Either use XP/Vista or get a linux distro, if your doing this for speed then linux is the way to go, if its for nostalgia then get VMware/VirtualPc

[.tony]

Simply reformat...

I have the same processor and only 512MB RAM, and it's fine for me.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

not really my vista emulates faster throu xp than native vista

go figure ill post my specs in a sec

So Vista runs faster in a virtual machine than when it talks directly to the hardware?

Forgive me if I doubt that.

[+Frank B. Subscriber²]

not really my vista emulates faster throu xp than native vista

go figure ill post my specs in a sec

Bollocks.

[ViperAFK]

I wouldn't install 98 on that... It wouldn't really even be significantly faster and probably can't utilize the hardware to it's full potential anyway. Then there is the issue of security ect.. Stick with XP, or use 2000.

[Jay!]

Just to let you know, your computer is not a "newer" pc, its very outdated. Especially your Pentium 4.

So Vista runs faster in a virtual machine than when it talks directly to the hardware?

Forgive me if I doubt that.

It probably does as he didnt install drivers, and the VMWare drivers are better than the default Vista drivers :)

[Rudy]

Just to let you know, your computer is not a "newer" pc, its very outdated. Especially your Pentium 4.

Just to let you know, this is an old thread that didn't need to be revived (it's not that old but you didnt really add anything to it)

[Ajapi]

Windows XP is a far superior operating system. If it is running slowly on your specs, the problem lies somewhere in your installation. The fact that it is taking up 10GB is a good indicator of this; it's not supposed to be so large.

I would recommend you format your PC, reinstall XP and install the latest drivers for all your devices. With your computer, it should offer excellent performance unless you bloat it with unnecessary software or infest it with malware.

[Gotenks98]

I am going to go with what the others have said, why do you want to install this crap? Its just not worth the time or effort to do this. Its not worth our time and effort to help you even do this. Seriously dude just load 2000/xp/vista and be done with it. Hell I could sooner see him asking for help with windows me before I would put anyting into 98SE.

[soldier1st]

you won't get alot of speed outta 98 on new hardware and virtual hardware is up to 50% slower than actualo hardware as it uses emulation which is slow.