Windows 95/98/ME Fanboys? Yes, they do exist.....

[Kernel Sanders]

Firefox 3.0 will not support Windows 95/98/ME (http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=8887)

After reading that announcement, and seeing so many whining Windows 95/98/ME users, I decided to do a bit of googling, and it appears that there are still many many users who refuse to upgrade from their "beloved" Windows 95/98/ME?

They believe it to be way more secure than Windows 2000+ OS's was one arguement I saw, and even more weirdly, they believe it to me much faster and more stable (Yes really!) than any Microsoft operating system since!

The only encouragement I can find from this bizzare form of fanboyism (Its more like Stockholm Syndrom tbh :p) is that many are still using Windows 95/98/ME because they are too principled to give Microsoft another red cent.

If the discussions i'm seeing are anything to go by, many of them have been introduced to Ubuntu, and several has affermed their commitment to switch! \o/

So..... heads up community, INCOMING!! \o/ :razz:

What do you all think about this?

John :)

[bruce89]

I see a lot more daft questions appearing.

[RavenOfOdin]

ME?!? What the heck?

[bruce89]

ME?!? What the heck?
Millenium Edition, the one that was the most rubbish.

[G Morgan]

Correction, Mistake Edition :)

[23meg]

Some people live with their heads buried in sand; it happens. It happens in other areas of life as well.

The good thing is that with decisions such as this, the chances of people getting their head out of the sand and migrating their old machines running 95/98/ME to free operating systems increases. They'll maybe finally notice that their platforms are rotting while the most modern free OSes can run pretty nicely on those old machines (the machines are perhaps just about as old as the OS) and still do anything they want.

[Brunellus]

non-trivially, there are many institutions which bought computers (and thus Windows licenses) during the heady days of "irrational exuberance," but do not now have the budget to buy new licenses or hardware. Naturally, they don't have the know-how to move to a lower-cost operating system, either, so they fight ferociously for their Win 95.

[bruce89]

Correction, Mistake Edition :)
Indeed.

[G Morgan]

Personally I see Vista as almost being ME 2. There will probably be a second release very quickly.

[bruce89]

Personally I see Vista as almost being ME 2. There will probably be a second release very quickly.
Possibly "Windows Panorama", silly names I have to say.

[cstudent]

Correction, Mistake Edition :)

No. Major Error.

.

[bruce89]

Mabye we should have a thread for backroynms for ME?

[G Morgan]

How about Massive Exploit. Then again Windows: Massive Exploit is far too truthful to ever come from MS.

[bruce89]

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1138138

[blueturtl]

Windows 95/98/ME Fanboys? Yes, they do exist.....

They believe it to be way more secure than Windows 2000+ OS's was one arguement I saw, and even more weirdly, they believe it to me much faster and more stable (Yes really!) than any Microsoft operating system since!

I'm a Windows 95 fanboy and proud of it. Obviously older incarnations of Windows are more fast on the same hardware then newer ones, that's not unheard of. What people many times take with a grain of salt is that Windows 95 would be more stable or secure.

A lot of people will probably question my competence for saying this, but there are ways Windows 95 is actually safer than Windows 2000/XP. Locally Windows 2000 and XP beat the ol Win9x series, because Win9x had no local authentication or real user accounts.

I wouldn't plug Windows 95 into an internet connection without a firewall, but I have to say it probably is more secure than Windows 2000/XP out-of-box. I base this on the amount of crap MS has added to later versions of Windows. Internet Explorer, DCOM, ActiveX and other craptacular features that are the cause of most leaks are not present in Windows 95 at all! I've seen plenty of machines with Win95 infected by a separately installed IE or end-user stupidity, but only after Win2K/XP did I start to see machines infected all by themselves. This is what the Win9x fanboys see also. Less features equals less bugs and better security. Especially Windows 95 shines in this, Windows 98 already had IE and all sorts of new "features".

The stability of Windows 95 isn't anything to brag about, but with good hardware and drivers it wasn't any worse than what Windows is today. The added IE in the shell is what ruined Windows 98 and ME, thus Windows 95 remains my favorite up to date.

[bruce89]

I'm a Windows 95 fanboy and proud of it. Obviously older incarnations of Windows are more fast on the same hardware then newer ones, that's not unheard of. What people many times take with a grain of salt is that Windows 95 would be more stable or secure.

A lot of people will probably question my competence for saying this, but there are ways Windows 95 is actually safer than Windows 2000/XP. Locally Windows 2000 and XP beat the ol Win9x series, because Win9x had no local authentication or real user accounts.

I wouldn't plug Windows 95 into an internet connection without a firewall, but I have to say it probably is more secure than Windows 2000/XP out-of-box. I base this on the amount of crap MS has added to later versions of Windows. Internet Explorer, DCOM, ActiveX and other craptacular features that are the cause of most leaks are not present in Windows 95 at all! I've seen plenty of machines with Win95 infected by a separately installed IE or end-user stupidity, but only after Win2K/XP did I start to see machines infected all by themselves. This is what the Win9x fanboys see also. Less features equals less bugs and better security. Especially Windows 95 shines in this, Windows 98 already had IE and all sorts of new "features".

The stability of Windows 95 isn't anything to brag about, but with good hardware and drivers it wasn't any worse than what Windows is today. The added IE in the shell is what ruined Windows 98 and ME, thus Windows 95 remains my favorite up to date.
That is all true, but I'm sure Xubuntu would work better on this kind of hardware.

[blueturtl]

That is all true, but I'm sure Xubuntu would work better on this kind of hardware.

Well obviously Linux is even better, but I thought we were comparing different versions of Windows. :P

[CronoDekar]

The good thing is that with decisions such as this, the chances of people getting their head out of the sand and migrating their old machines running 95/98/ME to free operating systems increases. They'll maybe finally notice that their platforms are rotting while the most modern free OSes can run pretty nicely on those old machines (the machines are perhaps just about as old as the OS) and still do anything they want.

Interestingly, that's kinda why I tested out U Breezy. With an old WinME that would take more effort to fix than to reformat, I tried out this "Linux" thing. Loved it, now have U Dapper on my main system, and put Xu Dapper on my old computer and gave it to my parents, and they're both running better than ever.

So in a way, you could say WinME was responsible for helping me discover Linux! Thank you WinME! :D

[G Morgan]

Less features equals less bugs and better security. Especially Windows 95 shines in this, Windows 98 already had IE and all sorts of new "features".

If you feel this way then why not install Gentoo, its hard work but you will have personally installed every piece of software on your system. Even KDE can be brought into 'not loaded with features' territory this way. I do agree that in some ways the older versions of Windows were better than XP (they had a command line for one) but generally I'd say XP was an improvement if not enough so given the price tag and the activation nonsense.

[ikilledclown]

Windows
Is
Not a
Decent
Os
Whatever is
Said

It's a fact, I know moest of these people dont know there is other OS's, I have managed to intruduce at least 5 of my friends to ubuntu who didnt even know linux existed, these people need telling about linux, then people will love it.

[bruce89]

Mind you Windows 9x looked like GNOME 1.0. Also, didn't 95 not support USB, of course not an issue if that particular computer doesn't have it.

[Kernel Sanders]

IMHO anyone using Windows 95/98/ME needs to either install Linux, or upgrade.

The day to day features just arnt there, such as compatability, stability, security etc.....

Its like still running Dapper in 8 years time. Why would you want to? :confused:

[blueturtl]

If you feel this way then why not install Gentoo, its hard work but you will have personally installed every piece of software on your system. Even KDE can be brought into 'not loaded with features' territory this way. I do agree that in some ways the older versions of Windows were better than XP (they had a command line for one) but generally I'd say XP was an improvement if not enough so given the price tag and the activation nonsense.

I'm actually an Ubuntu user. The only place I use Windows anymore is an old PC of mine. I have it loaded with nostalgic games and Windows 95 happens to be the OS this system runs more than adequately. I could run Linux on it, but I only have the system for the games so it wouldn't really make sence.


Mind you Windows 9x looked like GNOME 1.0. Also, didn't 95 not support USB, of course not an issue if that particular computer doesn't have it.

Windows 95 had USB support, at least revisions B and C did. However Microsoft was eager to push people to use Windows 98 instead and as a result I cannot recall a single piece of USB hardware that would have had Windows 95 compatible device drivers.

Lookswise I have to agree Windows was, and still is ugly. You can't get around that, but at least Windows 95 isn't cluttered (unless of course you install IE).

Man, I do sound like a fanboy. Everyone just remember I use Ubuntu Breezy (soon Dapper) on my primary desktop and we'll be just fine. :D

[bruce89]

...(unless of course you install IE).
What! It's optional in '95?

[blueturtl]

What! It's optional in '95?

Sure is. In fact revision A didn't even ship with IE. Revisions B and C had IE bundled on the disc, but it was possible to install a system without IE just by modifying a few .inf files. MS came up with the whole integration thingy around Windows 98 when they needed to get rid of Netscape. Come on now? Everyone knows IE isn't really a part of the OS. The checkbox from the Add/Remove applications was simply removed. Well they did go a bit further than that, but the whole thing was unnecessary and they could have made IE uninstallable if they wanted to (the original versions of IE were uninstallable).

[picpak]

If Linux didn't exist, I would use 98 SE. I can do the same things on a 95/98 box (internet, listen to music, check email, play games, etc.) that I can do on XP, without all the unneeded bloat. It's like Linux: if you configure it well enough, it can work pretty good.

And if it weren't for ME and having to wait 10 minutes to open C:\Windows, I wouldn't have tried Linux. So you can thank it for that.

[Kernel Sanders]

If Linux didn't exist, I would use 98 SE. I can do the same things on a 95/98 box (internet, listen to music, check email, play games, etc.) that I can do on XP, without all the unneeded bloat. It's like Linux: if you configure it well enough, it can work pretty good.

And if it weren't for ME and having to wait 10 minutes to open C:\Windows, I wouldn't have tried Linux. So you can thank it for that.

I see your point, but surely Windows 2000 is the latest OS without all the bloat, activation WGA etc...

Why go for an earlier OS? :confused:

[opensourcerocks]

Trust Me! If anyone is still running WIN98, they should seriously look at linux. Just recently I moved my dad's old laptop that ran 98 to SUSE linux, you can do way more stuff on it know than he ever could.

[djsroknrol]

I'm running 98SE dual boot on my rig, and the only reason I still have it is for the games the kids still play occasionally. I haven't booted into it in a few weeks now, and don't really miss it...what I need from the MS side runs fine for me in VMware. The girls went to 2000pro recently, and I refuse to upgrade with Billy boy any further....he's seen enough of my green over the years....

As for the OS, I think that 98se was the best of them all in being a robust and bloat free platform.... 3.0 was useless, 3.1 was too imature, 95 lacked alot but was an improvement over 3.1, ME was horrible, XP is too bloated, and vista looks like more of the same...

Why should anyone have to upgrade their rigs to take advantage of the latest "bling, bling" ? Why can't the average Joe (Josephine) be able to use the latest and greatest without upgrading?

[BoyOfDestiny]

I'm running 98SE dual boot on my rig, and the only reason I still have it is for the games the kids still play occasionally. I haven't booted into it in a few weeks now, and don't really miss it...what I need from the MS side runs fine for me in VMware.

Wouldn't these old games work fine in WINE anyway? Well I haven't tested it for more than a few minutes (don't have wine installed currently), only game I tried was Castle of the Winds (formerly shareware, now public domain), it was win16... Worked though. :)

[djsroknrol]

Wouldn't these old games work fine in WINE anyway?

You can only get one person at a time in front of the screen anyway :) .....

And no, they don't all work in Wine (which I had bad luck with anyway...VMware worked great right from the gate )... I have a middle east sim called Conflict, which I use to love to play, but became too slow for the rig as I progressed up the upgrade ladder. It got to the point that it just stopped responding (?).

Besides, they play:

1) Sims 2
2) midtown madness I & II
3) Various Barbie games (youngster)
4) Jumpstart (little one at home learning)

they don't play well with Linux...:(

[RavenOfOdin]

Millenium Edition, the one that was the most rubbish.

I know what it was!

I just wonder why the heck anyone would be a fan of that . . .thing.

[grsing]

For certain uses and on certain hardware, I can see their point (95/98 are a lot better than a typewriter and an accounting ledger for word processing and spreadsheets, things that XP and Ubuntu haven't substantially improved on since about Office 97, for example, and even for more complicated stuff 95/98 could work just fine, and possibly better than a mainstream modern OS on the likely antiquated hardware). But those uses and hardware don't particularly lend themselves to web browsing (being online on an OS without new security updates just scares me), so I'm not sure what they're complaining about regarding firefox.

[bvc]

I still have 98 installed. It's by far the most useful all around OS I've ever used and the most secure of the ms family, and still is. I still use it for music/cd burning...media stuff, and my kids games...and not long ago my games before I gave them up.

[fuscia]

ME was great. i can't believe a forum full of supposed geeks had so much trouble with it.

[lucia_engel]

ME was great. i can't believe a forum full of supposed geeks had so much trouble with it.

I mostly agree.
I wouldn't say ME is great, but it's still usable. My parents still use it on the 9yr old computer. Why? Well, I can install Linux on it, but either way I'll STILL have to maintain it (ie, check for cookies-spyware, defrag for win once in awhile; incompatible hardware/software problems for linux) for them and since I'm more knowledgeable in Windows, I can still easily fix any problems I find.

Frankly though, I've never encounter any major problem with ME. It boots up faster than my XP AND Ubuntu partition...yes you heard that right. But of course, it's not for power users. For my parents though, who surf, email, use tax software, webcam, scanner, it's good enough for them.

[RavenOfOdin]

ME was great. i can't believe a forum full of supposed geeks had so much trouble with it.

I hope that was sarcasm?

[oyvindaa]

Don't think I've ever had any serious problems with any of the Windows versions.

You can't use more than 512mb of RAM with WinME, which is pretty annoying and useless.

I do have favourites though, and it's definitely the NT-part of the family.

[fuscia]

I hope that was sarcasm?

only the degree of enthusiasm. i did tweak the **** out of it, but when i got done, it ran very well. i just got bored with it after six years.

[AlphaMack]

Correction, Major Excrement :)
.

[beniwtv]

Hmm. Strange. I used WinME over much much years. And I never had problems. In fact, I have more problems with XP since I upgraded (forcefully).

Anyway, I'm using Ubuntu 99% of the time. :p

[Yossarian]

ME was very hit or miss. It completely depends on your hardware and drivers.

I use to think ME was amazing: it flew on my Dell, never crashed, and gracefully detected all the different hardware I added over the years. I used it until October of this year. I reinstalled every now and then, but my last installation was two and a half years old, and as fast as the day I installed it. I automated all the maintainance (reg cleaner, updates, disk cleaner, disk defrag, spyware scans, never had use for virus scans) with the task scheduler, so that I never had to touch it.

However, I've seen some people with super unstables OEM MEs out of the box, most likely due to shoddy OEM drivers. Which is why ME gets such a bad rap.

[anaconda]

Well I have to admit, that I still have win98 on my old laptop 266Mhz 144MB RAM. I dualboot it with DamnSmallLinux, which is perfect for that old machine..

Installing ubuntu would be too much hasle, because it has'nt got a CD-drive anymore, and I think ubuntu would really be to heavy for that laptop. Even xubuntu could be too heavy....

DamnSmallLinux on the other hand runs completely from RAM, so it is incredibly fast even with 266MHz..

Yep and I still need the win98, for old games, and there is also one aplication that I sometimes need for work, which newer worked properly in win2000 or XP..

ANd win2000 and XP were waaaay too slow with this laptop... Win98 with Unoffical servicepack2 and USB autodetection is suprisingly good, and it doesn't need drivers for usb-keys, -hd:s or -CD:s

[fuscia]

Originally Posted by G Morgan
Correction, Major Excrement .

excrement is in the eye of the beholder.

[wmcbrine]

ME was great. i can't believe a forum full of supposed geeks had so much trouble with it.I think more people have disparaged ME than have actually used it. Its reputation precedes it.


excrement is in the eye of the beholder.Ew, I hope not.

[fuscia]

I think more people have disparaged ME than have actually used it. Its reputation precedes it.

they were all at woodstock too.

[Brunellus]

I disparage ME. Its total failure is what pushed me onto Linux. And no, I don't mean in a "Im' sick of this" sense--I mean in the "system no longer boots" sense.