User:Actin/Windows 98

Windows 98

I'm pretty sure upgrading to a new OS won't help much. They simply have too much security holes to plug, but now that Windows 98 is no longer supported by Microsoft (do they still provide the support files they've built up so far?) my computer has become a sitting security hazard. The Windows XP article doesn't give any system requirements, but that's probably the next one to lose support. What is the latest Windows OS one can still run on a 366 MHz system without slowing it down unneccesarily? Can Microsoft legally drop support for a program millions of people use and force them to upgrade (and pay) for a new operating system when they already have one? Is some outside microsoft denouncer planning on providing support so people won't have to switch?

Yes, I probably should switch, but I don't have the cash to buy a good book let alone an overprized operating system. And no, I can't use Linux instead because the programs I use are not compatible with a Linux system. - Actin 07:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you may have a problem - while support for Windows XP won't stop for a while yet (Windows ME and Windows 2000 have to go first), I severely doubt it will run well on a 366MHz machine. The official system requirements say it will, but I would be very doubtful as to how well it will run (and not do things like take two minutes from a click to the start menu opening up). Why not go for Windows 2000? The system requirements are more reasonable, it won't run well on a 366MHz, but it ought to at least run. Windows ME is also an option, however, it's a seriously lousy operating system, so I would strongly recommend against it unless you have no other choice. Another advantage of 2000 or ME is that you're likely to be able to get them at a fraction of the price of XP.

In general, however, a 366MHz is so old that it won't run any modern OS, let alone much modern software, well. I would recommend you stick with Windows 98, and accept the occasional holes in your system's security - as long as you're careful, run a firewall, don't surf on too many dodgy websites and use a good browser, you should be okay. IMO that's a much better solution than trying to upgrade your OS. — QuantumEleven 07:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Switching to Windows ME won't help; it has reached end-of-life at the same time as the rest of the Windows 98 family, and in many ways it's a worse system. Software developers seem to be able do almost anything they like as far as support goes, unless they made some legally binding promise. This is not strictly a software issue. Can you still buy new parts for a Ford Model T? I don't think so!

I have sucsessfully installed XP on a machine slower than 366MHZ. It is a little sluggish, but it is functional. Using the windows powetoy TweakUI (available from the msft site) you can improve performance by diabeling fancy graphics and amnimations. It certainly is a viable option. 48v 20:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, not factories can't make old parts forever, but you can offer phone support on an operating system if you want. - Actin 12:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

But are you sure your programs cannot be run under a BSD or Linux system using Wine? Or better still, can you use free alternative software like OpenOffice.org or GIMP instead of some of your Windows apps? You might be pleasantly surprised.

Quite sure. Some will work on a Linux system, but some programs are made specifically for windows. And if I need to run a windows emulator on top of Linux I'm positive my system will crack under the pressure. Besides, I don't think I would be able to make a network connection with the other computer in my home that does use Windows XP. - Actin 12:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

So long as you are running Windows 98, it would be wise to avoid Microsoft apps like Word and Excel, and absolutely avoid Internet Explorer and Outlook; these tend to act as an open invitation for computer viruses. Try Opera or Firefox instead of IE, for example; they are much newer, much nicer, and much safer. Be sure to use virus protection, such as the free AVG Anti-Virus; and also use firewall software, such as the free Zone Alarm.

I can't get certain plugins to work in firefox. Movies and Shockwave games still go dead and a firewall gets in conflict with quite an important piece of software. - Actin 12:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

(Warning: POV!) Finally, start saving your pennies to purchase a Mac mini, with which you can run Mac OS X, Windows Vista, FreeBSD, or a Linux. --KSmrq^T 08:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for the feedback. - Actin 12:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• I feel for you, Actin. I can't believe they are actually allowed to do that without providing free alternatives. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I use to run Windows 2000 a slower processor (266, I think)--upgrading from Windows 95 (for some reason). I found it to run at a speed pretty close to Win95. I think there were enough improvements in the virtual memory handling to make up for the extra bulk. —Bradley 16:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There is an advantage to an old O/S, not many people will bother writing viruses for it, either (except for Microsoft, who will probably write viruses to get you to upgrade). I am running Windows 98 on two computers, and intend to keep on doing so. Just turn your security settings up and avoid questionable downloads (like porn), and you should be fine. StuRat 20:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as you have a decent amount of RAM (read: 192Mb+), you can run Windows 2000 rather well. Just as long as you don't bloat it with programs in the background. Our old school computers used to run Windows 2000 on 233/266Mhz processors with 256Mb of RAM and an 8Mb graphics card. x42bn6 Talk 02:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I work on computers like yours. I always recomind Windows 2000 for it's superior stability and security.

Do you also recommend the spell checker ? StuRat 15:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)