Talk:Windows 9x

Boot Process

Shouldn't Windows 9x have at least a section on it's boot process? After all, NT has an entire article on the subject.

Dustin 16:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Windows '9x'

When the term 'Windows 9x' is used, it doesn't always include Windows Me (at least in common usage), although Win95 and Win98 are universally included. That's why another term "Windows 9x/Me" is very commonly seen, if the authors want to explicitly include Windows Me.--Wengier 18:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Windows -9x is NOT a dos-based operating system (!)

It is patently incorrect to call Windows-9x a "Dos-based" operating system, and such a phrase should be removed from the main article UNLESS the author (or anyone else) puts forward an explanation as to why they believe windows 9x is "dos-based".

In reality, it is. However, Microsoft had tried hard to hide this fact. The reason had been explained in many technical documents.--Wengier (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If the fact that Windows 9x is Dos-based is given in "many technical documents", why are none of them used as sources? I can only find one reliable source for what extent DOS was used in Windows 9x: Raymond Chen, who was part of the Windows 95 development team; who states, on being asked "What was the role of MS-DOS in Windows 95?": "MS-DOS served two purposes in Windows 95. - It served as the boot loader. - It acted as the 16-bit legacy device driver layer.". That seems clear enough to me. -- simxp (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not very clear at all. Many people simply assume that because DOS is transiently booted during win-9x startup, that 9x must be "dos-based". Of course, such thinking is a total crock. Win-3.x was "dos-based", but not 9x/me. Dos is used as a boot-loader for 9X, just as all NT-based OS's are transiently booted while the CPU is in real mode. Again, because you can interrupt a win-9x boot (by pressing F8) and force it to boot (and stay in) DOS leads some people to believe that DOS forms some basic foundation above which win-9x/me operates. Another aspect which throws people is that they equate FAT-32 with DOS, and hence they link win-9x/me with DOS in the same way. Such thinking is, of course, incorrect. Win-9x supports DOS apps in pretty much exactly the same way as NT-based OS's do - with a virtual DOS emulation environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.125.101 (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Win-3.x was "dos-based", but not 9x/me." - Windows 3.1 was much closer to 95 than you'd think. An interim release called Windows for Workgroups 3.11 was widely used prior to '95, and it included an early release of the 32-bit networking drivers from Chicago. The reason this was possible was because Windows 3.1 already had the same multi-threaded 32-bit kernel, based on loadable modules called VxDs. Chicago just made the use of that kernel more widespread and so lessened (but without totally removing) the dependencies on older 16-bit code. Also: "Win-9x supports DOS apps in pretty much exactly the same way as NT-based OS's do - with a virtual DOS emulation environment." True, but then so did Windows 3.1! Ironically that was the only way to reveal the time-sliced multi-threaded capability of the kernel: by running two DOS apps simultaneously, and watching them smoothly share the CPU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.84.94.254 (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

WfWG could load VxDs but was not anything near "the same kernel" as Windows 95. Win3.1 and later loaded the CPU in protected mode. This allows you to do a number of "32-bit" (this is a totally wrong wording) things but it doesn't mean you have a 32-bit OS or kernel. The only reason DOS apps ran time-sliced is because they didn't have any code for cooperative multi-tasking. This may be true even before Win3x; it has nothing to do with showing off some special capabilities. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The above is partially incorrect...

That section "Overview" needs to be completely re-written, if it contradicts itself like that. I personally don't know jack about how the Windows systems work or if either statement is true; maybe somebody else does? --Gafaddict 21:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Awful English

I once edited and rewrote most of the Windows 98/SE article, for it was full of errors both in language and content. Seemingly, the same user that wrote the problematic parts back then wrote 'Practical application' on this page. Therefore I'd like to ask someone to rewrite that section. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.128.246.197 (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Direct hardware access

Can someone mention and elaborate on direct hardware access which is a 9x exclusive feature and which NT doesn't allow? (for the better) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.181.112 (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It simply means that any application can communicate with the hardware in the computer without going through the OS. IOW applications could use hardware without resorting to kernel mode drivers. The advantage of this is performance and convenience - at the cost of stability and security.:-Anss123 (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Crash after 49.7 days of uptime

statement

Due to a timing error, Windows may crash after continuously running for about a month and a half. This affected unpatched versions of Windows 95 and Windows 98.

Does this refer to the total run time, or uninterrupted runtime? --Roadstaa (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Uninterrupted, but including time spent in standby. An internal tick counter failed to rollover. It was a fairly minor bug, but received a lot of attention. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Windows 97

I seem to remember my school in Hong Kong installing copies of "Windows 97", which was basically Windows 95 with chinese input support. I can find this forum discussion in support of that, but nothing more authoritative. Anybody else heard of this release? --Spudtater (talk • contribs) 12:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

IIRC the so-called "Windows 97" is an informal term referring to Windows 95 OSR2, released in 1997. The HK installing copies of course have non-English input support. --Wengier (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Haha... 'These "Windows 97", are actually pirated copies of OSR2'; good to see my school took a firm stance against software piracy, then... 8^)   --Spudtater (talk • contribs) 15:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Windows 9x/ME

I have already listed examples that in actual usage the term "Windows 9x" may or may not include WinME (an example of the latter include this). That is why "Windows 9x/ME" is commonly seen (e.g. here and here). Wikipedia is for describing the actual usage, and not for stating opinions or other views. --Wengier (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Windows 9x. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100619175630/http://users.iafrica.com:80/c/cq/cquirke/win95ver.htm to http://users.iafrica.com/c/cq/cquirke/win95ver.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)