9x isn't dead!

[SufferWell1396]

Being myself, and being beyond bored, i decided to mess around with my Windows Me install.
Granted, i had to install Windows Me on this PC at least 3 times before it would work correctly, because of my large amounts of RAM.
Either way, now that i have it running with all the tweaks i apply to any of my 9x installations, it's running like a champ.

First things first, most popular software these days doesn't support 9x.
This is true for drivers, if you have a new system, don't even think of putting 9x on there.
But, for a system like mine (see "Compy" specs below), Windows 9x will run magnificently.

What i did was prove that modern software, such as Firefox 3.0.x and above will work on the Windows 9x platform.

http://i42.tinypic.com/2r6nt47.jpg


Mozilla Firefox 3.0.5; with the advent of 3.0, Firefox is said to only run on systems running Windows 2000 or later.
Frostwire 4.17.2; The Frostwire team officially dropped support for Windows 9x when they dropped support for Java 1.5, somewhere in the version 4.16.
Java; Their website claims the last version of Java to work with Windows ME and 98 is 1.5 Revision 15 or something, but yet 1.6.0_07 works like a champ.
Open Office.org; OOo officially said the last version to have support for Windows 9x was version 2.4.2. But here it is running on Windows ME.


The amazing thing? When i took that picture i had 51% free system resources! that even surprised me.

This is a really geeky thing that i doubt anyone cares about, but if anyone has a moderately old system, Windows 9x would be a great candidate.

Windows 9x isn't dead, just forgotten :p.

[123456]

o_O How did you get FF3 to work on 9x? I still use FF2 on 98SE...

[SufferWell1396]

i used KernelEX.

download it. install it.
then you gotta edit the KEXVER.ini file in the Windows folder.
add the line Firefox Setup 3.0.(version number here).exe=winxp
then save it, run setup.
everything will work from there.

[123456]

Hm, I've done that before on my 98 machine and FF3 didn't display certain things correctly.

[SufferWell1396]

hmm. i'm not sure then. maybe it has something to do with Windows ME having updated system files. In Win ME, FF3 renders everything correctly.

[123456]

Yeah I figured.

[mjc]

Two things...you aren't running a 'vanilla' install of 9x, so while, the base install is 9x you aren't really running 9x.

Second...there is a method of 'updating' 98 with large chunks of ME...it then provides almost all of the actual improvements of ME to 98 without the useless crap that ME was known for...

I have run the 98->ME update for quite a while, but over the last year or so I have pretty much abandoned 9x entirely (the last time I booted into 9x was probably Nov of 2007...on a desktop, still have a laptop here running 'vanilla' ME).

I might go ahead and give it a try on the laptop...along with changing the shell...it could be fun.

[123456]

I'm keeping my 98SE install as it is, since it's stable and reliable.

[SufferWell1396]

mjc, i'd recommend you give it a shot.
i think it is fun.
in the end, and though some might find this hard to believe, my Win Me install rivals that of my Win 2k and Win XP installs.
in the respects that

Windows Me boots faster than both XP and 2k
Windows Me runs apps faster than 2k and XP
Windows Me isn't downtrodden by system resources anymore, so stability is top notch.
Due to the hacks I've used, the new versions of software I use run on my Me install. (excluding FF3, i only ran that as an example, Opera 9.6 ftw!)


i think it'd really be worth your time.

[SufferWell1396]

Two things...you aren't running a 'vanilla' install of 9x, so while, the base install is 9x you aren't really running 9x.

waiiiit.
what do you mean?

[mjc]

KernelEx makes it a sort of hybrid install...it wraps/replaces/otherwise alters plain old 9x files to make the system capable of running NT based programs.

[SufferWell1396]

hmph. well dang.

[mjc]

It is more like 9x on steroids than anything bad...in a way, it shows what 9x is capable of, had MS decided to actually update the dang thing, properly.

Now if someone can figure a good way to add full NTFS support to 9x (adding ext2/3/4 support too, would be nice)...hmm, I wonder could the FUSE project be adapted for 9x...

[123456]

For me, 9x is still very much usable for everyday use. You can still do browsing, edit images, audio, video, burn CDs/DVDs, etc. Windows 3.x isn't due to the fact that browsers for it cannot view most pages w/o errors.

[Fruss Tray Ted]

OK, you talked me into it. I'm going to reboot into my dual boot menu into 98 (and attempt to update it) which hasn't been booted to for over a year (possibly 2).

Please pray for my safe return... :(

[123456]

Good luck FTT. Here's my 98SE desktop.

http://i40.tinypic.com/144cjt.jpg

[PhilXP]

I found that windows 2000 and xp are more stable
9x is very useful for dos gaming

[SufferWell1396]

PhilXP,
understandable. most people view it that way.
but, with proper upgrades and hacks (these "hacks" should have been implemented by M$, as mjc said, but they weren't) cause 9x to become a very impressive, stable operating system.
it's capable of a lot more than people think.

EDIT: i'm going to search for a free alternative to have 9x support NTFS volumes, though i don't use them myself, i'm all FAT32, but i know they'd be helpful at the forums.
Disk Internals NTFS Reader (http://www.diskinternals.com/download/NTFS_Reader_Setup.exe) - Allows Windows 9x of any version to view and read NTFS volumes, but doesn't support writing to them.
Paragon Software NTFS Support for 9x (http://kb.paragon-software.com/paragon/download?id=gkm9YwGmJfRiUZt9EE7u7bqN8ghDQm) - Allows 9x to read and write NTFS. Hurry though, link can only be used 10 times!
Sysinternals NTFS Reader for 9x (http://web.archive.org/web/20061115225457/http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/NtfsWindows98.exe) - Somehow i found a version of this still hosted on the WebArchives site, it may only be Read-Only, but i'm not sure.

[PhilXP]

Some people think vista is bad, but I don't have problems with vista
My acer has a few compatablility issues but those are from it being 64 bit

[123456]

Sysinternals NTFS is read only.

[mjc]

The old Sysinternals NTFS was read only, unless you paid for it...and the price wasn't cheap.

The Paragon one seemed to be pretty much a clone of Sysinternal's...and if I recall, it couldn't do full read/write support under all NTFS versions.

[classicsoftware]

Only a fool or a gambler will be using Windows 9X these days. This is a non-supported OS. That means there are NO security updates for this OS.

This is unsafe computing. It's one thing to play around as a geek. But don't kid yourself, this puppy is as dead as door nail.....

[PhilXP]

I read that vista has the better security than 2000 or 9x
I use vista on my gaming computer
The major flaw vista has is its bloated system requirements
thats why its not on my laptop
I would recommend vista or xp

[SufferWell1396]

classicsoftware,
i must be both, just because it doesn't have any more updates doesn't mean it can't be secured. theres still security apps for it, and all i have is a Firewall and Opera 10 running, i'm clean, and safe.

PhilXP,
Vista's main priority was security, so in effect, it is more secure than any version of Windows previous to it. 2000 was extremely safe at one time. 2k is dated today, and isn't as safe.
9x, of any flavor, is actually pretty safe. Since the OS has fallen into obscurity ever since support for it was dropped in 2006, people who write the virii normally don't write them for 9x anymore, because few people use it.

[classicsoftware]

No you cannot secure it. When a flaw is discovered in the OS, it is never ever ever fixed for 9X, only XP and 2K. That flaw is there and can be exploited and it probably will.

It's not safe to run a PC with 9X. Period. Unless you unplug from the Internet, it is NOT safe. FF with NoScripts make it safer than IE, but by definition, it is not safe and can never be made safe.

[SufferWell1396]

I won't argue with you on this, because you're right.
but 9x isn't very insecure as it is.
Secunia has the ratings here.
The ratings for Windows Millennium Edition (http://secunia.com/advisories/product/14/) (misspelt Millenium) is only 9%. Windows 98 Second Edition (http://secunia.com/advisories/product/13/) also has 9%, along with its predecesor Windows 98 First Edition (http://secunia.com/advisories/product/12/) recieving a 10%. Windows 95 (http://secunia.com/advisories/product/393/) has 43%, but only because there are only 7 vulerabilites, 3 unpatched.
Compare these to Windows 2000 (http://secunia.com/advisories/product/1/) rated "extremely critical", along with Windows XP (http://secunia.com/advisories/product/22/) also rated "extremely critical".
Props to Windows Vista (http://secunia.com/advisories/product/13223/), recieveing a low score compaired its NT based couterparts.

[123456]

Okay, I installed 98SE2Me and KernelEx. It's actually a little faster, seems to be stable, and I got Firefox 3 running with no problems. :D

[PhilXP]

Vista is actually very stable if you have all the right patches
Infact it is more stable than the xp installation on my laptop
Vista is only recommended for computers with large hard drives
On my acer the OS take 16 GB of HD space

[SufferWell1396]

another success story! :)
i wonder how FTT is doing with 98 :D

[SufferWell1396]

http://i44.tinypic.com/107q82o.jpg

just to all the critics here that said this wasn't possible :D, thats my UpTime on Windows ME.
took that cause now i gotta restart to apply some updates.

[123456]

xD "Log off Br00tal"

[PhilXP]

I think I'll try expirimenting with my 98 SE disk on VMware

I have VMware on my acer