Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Ridcully

Win95 vs. Win98

Recommended Posts

with w2k released, is there anybody still out there with win95? i am asking because i don''t have win95 on any testplatform and therefor don''t know if my apps will run on it smoothly. so are there still a lot of ppl with win95 out there? and what are the major differences from win95 to win98? my main problem i think will be dialog and other control handling, i think... thanks ridcully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still use Win95. The differences between 95 and 98 are FAT32, Internet Explorer built into the Win98, USB support and some other minor stuff.

I've never seen a reason to upgrade to Win98. My system works fine, and I've never seen a program/game that I wanted that requires Win98. I have Win95B, which means I get FAT32, USB support and some of those things that comes with Win98. Of course, I can get Win98, but until I really _have_ to upgrade, I won't.

I think Win95 has a cleaner interface (I hate having all those Internet Explorer extras, and in Win98 there's no easy way of removing them).

But of course, Linux is way better than both Win9x

/. Muzzafarath

Edited by - Muzzafarath on 4/8/00 2:13:36 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm, differences, eh? Win98 is a bit more bloated and inefficient .

IMHO, the only reason to upgrade to Win98 is the that hardware support is better.

--TheGoop

Edited by - TheGoop on 4/8/00 3:39:38 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
In my experience, if you''re developing for 95/98, 95 is the way to go. A company I worked at was using 98 because the animators wanted dual monitor support, and it was pretty horrible, I had to reboot probably ten to fifteen times a day. I believe MSVC5.0/6.0 may have issues with 98, since everyone in the programming department was experiencing this.

-goltrpoat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Muzzafarath,

There''s an life simulator called Framesticks, and in its page is said that it can only run in Win98...(The window version... the console version can run on win95) well, my friend has Win95 and tried to install it anyway, but he couldn''t, because "This program must run only on Microsoft Windows 98."... well, since I have Win98 (and I agree with The Goop, benjamin bunny and that anonymous above me...) , I installed it in my computer, and then gave to my friend the program files... which run PERFECTLY in his win95... strange, heh? That makes you think...

Nicodemus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I stuck with Win95 (b), and I think it was a good choice, Win98 is hugely inefficient, and I don''t need any of it''s so called improvements.

Win2K looks quite good (an improvement at least)

I would probably convert to Linux, but I''m learning DirectX, and it would all have been wasted time if I started using Linux

George.

"Who says computer games affect kids, imagine if PacMan affected us as kids, we'd all sit around in a darkened room munching pills and listening to repetitive music....uh oh!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m using Win95, and I have support for USB in it. At least it says so on the CD :-)
We used Win98 at work, and we had to restart several times a day, and we were only running Frontpage and Internet Explorer.

//Rickard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I use Win95 at work. It seldom crashes on me (two, three times a week). I have several "big" applications installed: PowerBuilder, Visual Studio 6.0, IE 5, Netscape 4.7 and 6. Most of the time, I have several of the above apps running at the same time for hours on end with no problems.

I use Win98 SE at home. It seldom crashes on me as well. I have all of the above on that computer (except for PowerBuilder and Netscape 6) and I usually run several of them at the same time.

I used to have Win98 first edition at home. My computer was crashing three-five times a day. Both Netscape and IE crashed repeatedly, *EVERY* time I tried to use them.

I also have Linux and I''ve never had it crash on me


Josh
http://www.jh-software.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Forget Win95 and Win98. Try WinNT!
WinNT is much better, ''cause it seldomly crashes.
It''s right that there is no support for DirectX Apps (except these up to version 3), but if you''re a programmer and want to work for several hours without crashes, you''d better use WinNT, ''cause it''s the best platform to do such things.



Charlie McSow /Paradigm Game Design
www.rarebyte.de.st

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Nicodemus

Hey Muzzafarath,

There''s an life simulator called Framesticks, and in its page is said that it can only run in Win98...(The window version... the console version can run on win95) well, my friend has Win95 and tried to install it anyway, but he couldn''t, because "This program must run only on Microsoft Windows 98."... well, since I have Win98 (and I agree with The Goop, benjamin bunny and that anonymous above me...) , I installed it in my computer, and then gave to my friend the program files... which run PERFECTLY in his win95... strange, heh? That makes you think...

Nicodemus.


About the quote about. I reckon Microsoft do a check in the setup to see which OS you have and if its not 98 aborts in a unfair attempt to get people to buy 98. If this happens it should be illegal!

I am using win 95...seems better than 98 to me.

//--- Created by Tom Oram ---
// tom.oram@vodafone.net

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's nice to see that other people like 95b better than 98 just like me. I usually get flamed for saying that 95 is better than 98. I have 98 @ work and it crashes about 2-3 a day, 95 @ home maybe twice / week, but in all fairness I use the work one more. What is really bad is that I use a shell replacement, so I don't even see all the new improvements that 98 is supposed to have, but it makes it a lot more lightweight. From an end user standpoint, there really isn't enough reason to upgrade from 95 to 98, w2k for that matter if you're just running a desktop. (btw has anyone heard that w2k won't allow you to install your own printer driver?)

Edited by - Jim_Ross on 4/13/00 8:38:19 AM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nothing wrong with win98. its not just usb support, all its hardware support is much better, 95 didnt know a heck about AGP etc. I tried to use one old Xircom PCMCIA etherned card on my laptop (win95b with all upgrades) , which i knew worked fine on another similar laptop. I wrestled with it whole day, tried all sorts of drivers and registry editing and cleaning and stuff. finally i just upgraded to 98 and it worked immmediately. And, i just love all these little extras, that 98 has. Toolbars that you can make out of any folder, FIXED start menu, inet connection sharing in SouthEast edition etc.

-kertropp

C:\Projects\rg_clue\ph_opt.c(185) : error C3142: 'PushAll' :bad idea
C:\Projects\rg_clue\ph_opt.c(207) : error C324: 'TryCnt': missing point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I use 95. I don''t want 98. I will not use an OS that looks like internet explorer. I won''t do it. Fuck them.

I''ve used 2000, and programmed some DX7 on it. It sucks BAD. I don''t know if it was the hardware that was unsupported or if DX7 just isn''t done well in 2000, but none of the pro games I ran worked at all, and my games had weird bugs and crashes, even though they worked fine in 95/98. If you like to play games, stay the hell away from Win2K!!

So far, the most stable Windows I''ve ever used has been WinNT server and workstation. Too bad there''s bad DirectX support for that platform or I''d be using it in a jiffy.

One glorious day, linux may have nearly the same hardware and software support as Windows, and we can all finally give Microsoft the collective finger and start working with a real OS! :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have Win98 on both machines at home because Win95 simply refused repeatedly and vehemently to accept the fact that I have 2 CD drives (48x and a CDR/W) Yes, I tried everything to fix it. Win98 install and the thing came up and has never had a problem again.
I think in general Win98 probably has a few problems. I''ve gotten to the point where I simply reinstall windows every time I put in new hardware, because I''m going to have to anyway, and if the thing keeps mapping my video card IRQ to my sound card IRQ randomly when I reboot, I''m going to break something, but at least it fixes it if I reboot repeatedly, eventually.

-fel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
Im sorry, but i just find that "seldom crashes on me (two, three times a week" is just about the funniest thing i have ever heard. I have never had a system crash in linux, nor in BeOS. But anyway:

W2K is an upgrade to NT, comparing 9x with NT x is not possible, both were designed with different purposes in mind. WinME (Millenium Edition (Don''t ask where they got the name)) is an upgrade to the 9x series.

Win 95 crashed much less than 98 has.
I had 85 for 2 or 3 years, and i have had less crashes on it than in the (less than a year) while i have had 98.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by felisandria
I think in general Win98 probably has a few problems. I''ve gotten to the point where I simply reinstall windows every time I put in new hardware, because I''m going to have to anyway, and if the thing keeps mapping my video card IRQ to my sound card IRQ randomly when I reboot, I''m going to break something, but at least it fixes it if I reboot repeatedly, eventually.

Heres a tip that you might try to make your life a bit easier. Set all your hardware resources in BIOS, and tell it you have non-PnP os. Then win wont be able to reassign any irqs. I do it this way -> leave all settings on auto. put in all hware, and let it POST, after POST it displays BIOS hware configuration screen, hit PAUSE fast to examine it, and if i see anything i dont like ( video card not using irq9, ethernet card not using irq11 or 10, sound card on lpt irq etc. ) dont even let it boot, just force irqs for PCI slots in BIOS so they are correct. I never had to reinstall 98 just because adding/replacing hware.

-kertropp

C:\Projects\rg_clue\ph_opt.c(185) : error C3142: 'PushAll' :bad idea
C:\Projects\rg_clue\ph_opt.c(207) : error C324: 'TryCnt': missing point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''ve got Windows95b and I''ve upgraded to windows98 @ job, I''ve far less crashes with win98, and best hardware support.
I think it depends on the hardware date.

I''ve tried Linux and I''ve crashed it many times
I''ve tried BeOS and never crashed so I go to BeOS5...

Will buy the BeOS5 edition as soon as available here


-* Sounds, music and story makes the difference between good and great games *-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
quote:
Original post by Ingenu

I''ve got Windows95b and I''ve upgraded to windows98 @ job, I''ve far less crashes with win98, and best hardware support.
I think it depends on the hardware date.

I''ve tried Linux and I''ve crashed it many times
I''ve tried BeOS and never crashed so I go to BeOS5...

Will buy the BeOS5 edition as soon as available here


-* Sounds, music and story makes the difference between good and great games *-



How did you crash linux? Maybe you can list off 1 or 2 of the ways you crashed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, first of all, I''m going to say that I prefer Win98 over Win95. I have used both extensively, as the computers at the school I work at have either Win95 or Win98. (I''m an assistant computer/network technician...my school hires the "best" person for this particular job from the current batch of seniors passing through.) Overall, I have noticed that Win98 seems to keep running longer than Win95, but Win95 is faster on the slow machines. On the faster machines it doesn''t make a noticable difference.

I like Win98 for its quick launch bar and for being able to manage its start menu with the mouse. Too many times I have gone back to work on Win95 machines and had to explore to the place where I want to put a shortcut, instead of just dragging it to the start menu in the first place. Also, the single click option is now a necessity for me. And, with the second edition, internet connection sharing is very handy for setting up a small network.

Win95C does have some of Win98''s features (and yes, I''ve used this one, too), but it looks more like an operating system made to test out features, not implement them. It just doesn''t have the same feel that Win98 does, and it even seems to be different from Win95''s general feel. To me, it''s kinda sitting there off by its self. Which is where it can stay, IMHO.

The one good thing I can say about Win95 is that it does seem to be less bloated than Win98. That wouldn''t give me enough reason to go back to it, though, on my home computer. About the only reason that would make me go back would be if I prefered Win95''s methods over Win98''s, which is definitely not the case.

Anyway, that''s my $0.02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I prefer Win98 over 95 pretty much for one reason only: that it doesn''t
let programs grab the focus whenever they want. It just sets the taskbar
button flashing letting you know that it wants your attention. Since I
always use loads of programs at once, this is a godsend.


=> Arfa <=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites