Announcement

**Gurm** · 22 December 1999, 06:05

No no, this is in response to all those idiots who are complaining because they can't make "Thing X" work in Win95. One of them even got into an argument with me about how there was NOTHING that he couldn't make work in Win95... and now, of course, there are games which are crashing and whatnot.

It's just funny. When we tell them they really need Win98 they get all upset, and say "There's no difference, I'm not paying $100 for Internet Explorer!" (as if that's the difference between 95 and 98). *sigh*

So a little friendly MOCKERY, to get the day started right.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

**Pertti** · 22 December 1999, 06:36

...what the heck, it's the last working day before Xmas anyway, and I'm just killing time here.

Gurm, if you can not get devices, programs or the OS it self working (or performing) in W95, that doesn't mean it is the fault of the OS...

I am using W95B, W98SE and NT4 on my machines at home and at work, and when comparing the W95B and W98SE, the latter is all show and no go, even after lots of tweaking - it does what is needed, but...

Pertti

**Bixler** · 22 December 1999, 06:50

Pertti:

I am using W95B, W98SE and NT4 on my machines at home and at work, and when comparing the W95B and W98SE, the latter is all show and no go, even after lots of tweaking - it does what is needed, but...

98 does have a few driver upgrades that make some difference. But I do sympathise with all of us who have had to shell out another c-note to the OS gods for what is essentially nothing but a package of bug fixes with IE bolted on, along with a lot of other trash that just slows the system down. But if you've already shelled out the money for 98 SE and want the best OS out there, download a piece of shareware called 98Lite. http://www.98lite.net/ You get all of the improvements to the OS Kernel and drivers, and can keep the MUCH speedier 95 version of Windows Explorer, with several different browser options. Gives seriously improved speed and performance for those of us who don't have the fastest/greatest processor, and you can keep upgrading your drivers. I highly recommend this program.

**Gurm** · 22 December 1999, 07:12

Ye gods.

Ok, once and for all, let's talk differences between 95 and 98, shall we?

1. Windows 95 has "fake" USB support. If you want to use USB, and you want the devices to work correctly, you must use Win98. I'm sure I will now hear from a dozen people who have made "USB Device X" work under Win95. I'm not talking about the occasional person. I'm talking about MOST USB DEVICES for MOST USERS.

2. Windows 95 has even crappier memory management than Win98, if you can possibly believe that (Thank GOD for NT!) such a thing is possible.

3. AGP is improperly implemented as a system add-on hack. Try it. Try two IDENTICAL systems, one with Win95 and one with Win98. Patch Win95 any way you like. Now run an AGP speed test. Win98 wins. Period. Now, if you have some special Win95-friendly driver from ALI for your SS7 (Super-Shitty 7) motherboard, the bets are off. I'm talking good equipment with normal drivers.

4. Chipsets aren't supported. I'm not talking drivers here. It doesn't MATTER what kind of drivers you install, Win95 doesn't know about modern system devices - and it can't be patched to fix that. Even with all the latest patches installed, you will still have devices listed such as "Generic AGP to PCI device" and "Generic Power Management device" and "Generic DMA Controller".

5. Yes, the UI is simplified in Win95. It's also older and uglier. Some of us have explored the folder options under Win98 and know how to turn Web View OFF so that we don't NEED to corrupt our OS with "Win98 Lite" (btw, I've TRIED Win98 Lite, and it indeed introduces blue-screens and all kinds of lovely corruption. GOOD program, HONESTLY.)

6. Win98 has a better kernel. I don't care WHAT you've heard. I've played with it and profiled it. Win98 has less crappy 16-bit code running. This means it's more stable and faster overall. And once again, I would LOVE for you to set up two systems identically. You'll always be proven wrong.

The REASON people think Win95 is faster and better is that you can install less of it. If you install Win95, then add IE5, and all the support and drivers that comes native in Win98, Win95 will run slower. Much slower. Yes, you can avoid installing those things. But WOULD you? No, you'd install them. Nobody actually HAS a stripped-down install, even though Win95 proponents tout it.

And think of it this way - the programmers are doing you a FAVOR. I could easily write a program that will crash hard under Win95 every single time (and without asking what kind of OS you have) and run flawlessly under Win98, but I choose not to - to be nice.

Well, I could add to the list all day, but I leave that as an intellectual exercise for the reader.

In closing, I want to say that I also disapprove of the "spend $100 on the Win98 upgrade" concept. I think MS should have made it much cheaper for people who already had Win95. *sigh* Well, monopolies will be monopolies.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

**Bixler** · 22 December 1999, 07:31

Gurm:

Take a pill! I'm basically agreeing with you, OK?

5. Yes, the UI is simplified in Win95. It's also older and uglier. Some of us have explored the folder options under Win98 and know how to turn Web View OFF so that we don't NEED to corrupt our OS with "Win98 Lite" (btw, I've TRIED Win98 Lite, and it indeed introduces blue-screens and all kinds of lovely corruption. GOOD program,HONESTLY.)

This is not a challenge to your knowlege, this is an honest question. What corruption? I'm running one of those bastard SS7 systems, (will eventually upgrade to a wintel, yes, I've had enough )and have had NO issues with BSOD's or other problems--the whole system seems more stable, and I'm quite happy with the results I got when I stripped all of the eye candy out of 98. My whole point was that 98 did have improvements that were real, and very necessary for several components of my system--but I don't want to recommend "lite" if there have been real problems with it... Gimme knowledge please, after you take your pill.

**Gurm** · 22 December 1999, 09:44

I've had "Lite" crash in several places. It uses older versions of lots of different files. So I'm continually getting "such and such caused an illegal operation in vmm.vxd" or "explorer.exe caused an error in UNKNOWN" or whatever.

*sigh*

Your mileage may, of course, vary. I also like to use The Object Desktop System (including WindowBlinds) which crashes hardcore with "Lite" and 95 both.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

**Himself** · 22 December 1999, 09:48

First off, let me say that you are entitled to your opinion, I would just ask that you repect the opinion of others, and keep the arrogant fish spitting to yourself. Now to tear apart your comments.

1. Windows 95 has "fake" USB support.

And we care because..?

2. Windows 95 has even crappier memory management than Win98, if you can possibly believe that (Thank GOD for NT!) such a thing is possible.

WinNT rocks, Win9x is all the same, placebo effect if you really think you experience otherwise.

3. AGP is improperly i
mplemented as a system add-on hack. Try it. Try two IDENTICAL systems, one with Win95 and one with Win98. Patch Win95 any way you like. Now run an AGP speed test. Win98 wins. Period.

Bull. Shit. Win95 is actually faster where there is a difference at all.

Now, if you have some special Win95-friendly driver from ALI for your SS7 (Super-Shitty 7) motherboard, the bets are off. I'm talking good equipment with normal drivers.

ALI != SS7, and all SS7 boards require chipset specific drivers, just like Intel motherboards require drivers for things.

4. Chipsets aren't supported. I'm not talking drivers here. It doesn't MATTER what kind of drivers you install, Win95 doesn't know about modern system devices - and it can't be patched to fix that.

Such as?

Even with all the latest patches installed, you will still have devices listed such as "Generic AGP to PCI device" and "Generic Power Management device" and "Generic DMA Controller".

That is why you learn how to install the drivers from the motherboard manufacturer properly. GIGO.

5. Yes, the UI is simplified in Win95. It's also older and uglier.

Ugly, it's pretty much the same here, gradients in window titles, big whoop. I don't find the bolted on IE crap for file browsing better looking at all. Unix is ancient, yet it has some nify guis for it, age doesn't signify anything.

Some of us have explored the folder options under Win98 and know how to turn Web View OFF so that we don't NEED to corrupt our OS with "Win98 Lite" (btw, I've TRIED Win98 Lite, and it indeed introduces blue-screens and all kinds of lovely corruption. GOOD program, HONESTLY.)

I agree, Win98lite is buggy or was last I tried it. Since I just installed Win98 again today for the sake of the new mb, I can tell you exactly what I dislike about the GUI, it will let you use legacy mode yes, but only in big ****ing icon mode, custom mode works somewhat, but it has an odd habit of resetting the web content switch. Using set everything ilke current folder seems to work for a while, then it suddently doesn't work. I generally end up opening every folder setting the options and hoping the OS will save it properly, to find next boot that it didn't really save it. Oh, did I foget the "You have low space on partition X" popup dialog that gets in your face? I'm sure there are HACKS to disable all the bloat, and I'm sure the new bloat is very nice in Win2K, but I think MS could have done it better and made all the crap an option to install separately.

6. Win98 has a better kernel. I don't care WHAT you've heard. I've played with it and profiled it. Win98 has less crappy 16-bit code running. This means it's more stable and faster overall. And once again, I would LOVE for you to set up two systems identically. You'll always be proven wrong.

There is no difference in speed here, at least with a cpu capable of doing 16 bit and 32 bit code efficiently at the same time.

The REASON people think Win95 is faster and better is that you can install less of it. If you install Win95, then add IE5, and all the support and drivers that comes native in Win98, Win95 will run slower.

Why anybody in their right mind would install IE5 is beyond me, IE4 is just fine here. Again, it's in your mind, Win95 runs just as slow/fast as Win98.

Much slower. Yes, you can avoid installing those things. But WOULD you? No, you'd install them. Nobody actually HAS a stripped-down install, even though Win95 proponents tout it.

Ahem, more bullshit, that is what you do perhaps and maybe your cronies, but your are just projecting your experiences and preferences.

And think of it this way - the programmers are doing you a FAVOR. I could easily write a program that will crash hard under Win95 every single time (and without asking what kind of OS you have) and run flawlessly under Win98, but I choose not to - to be nice.

Heh, I could do the exact opposite, just as easily, in fact probably more easily, Win95 has more in common with WinNT API wise than Win98.

Well, I could add to the list all day, but I leave that as an intellectual exercise for the reader.

Yes, you have your opinion and you think it means more than anybody else's opinion, I think we get that.

In closing, I want to say that I also disapprove of the "spend $100 on the Win98 upgrade" concept. I think MS should have made it much cheaper for people who already had Win95. *sigh* Well, monopolies will be monopolies.

I don't have a problem with the price of the OS myself, I just disagree with what they are doing with it. If they insist on a default config you can't easily change, then it amounts to using somebody else's config, I'd rather use my own, thank you very much.
One size fits all sucks, especially from a monopoly.

Now, why is it so important to you that everybody run the same OS as you? How does it affect you at all? That's what I don't get.

[This message has been edited by Himself (edited 22 December 1999).]

**Pertti** · 22 December 1999, 10:16

Hi Gurm,

Please do not tell those things to all of my (stripped down, no IE4/5) W95B installations, which have correctly identified whatever hardware I have thrown in.
I guess you just haven't found the correct patches

How is W95 memory management poorer than the one on W98, please enlighten us computer illiterates.

I have been running several systems (good stuff) with W95B and AGP cards, and never had problems with the AGP implimentation.

"5. Yes, the UI is simplified in Win95. It's also older and uglier"

As I said W98 is about show, not go, and I couldn't care less how the OS looks, I expect it to do what is expected of an OS.
Really, we are not talking about LOOKS, are we ?

I would have installed 98Lite, if there hadn't been other reasons preventing it, maybe that could make W98 into an OS instead of just a web browser.

I have several times set up the same computer with W95B and W98SE, and everytime, the W95B setup gives me what I want (no-nonsence performance and a fast interface)

If you like an OS that keeps playing with herself all day long, by all means then W98 is your OS, but if you use the computer for doing something yourself, you will be better off with W95B

Pertti

On our way to "The Soap Box"

**Gurm** · 22 December 1999, 10:26

1. Windows 95 has "fake" USB support.

And we care because..?

Some folks do. Some of us USE our USB devices. That's all. Just pointing out that a feature lots of people use all the time doesn't work (properly) in Win95. Simple.

2. Windows 95 has even crappier memory management than Win98, if you can possibly believe that (Thank GOD for NT!) such a thing is possible.

WinNT rocks, Win9x is all the same, placebo effect if you really think you experience otherwise.

Really? So you have set two machines up side by side, right? Go look at some benchmark numbers of Win95 vs. Win98. There was even a thread in here a week or two back that showed the same machine before and after a Win95-Win98 upgrade. His 3dmark scores went up by almost 50%! You may perhaps be fooling yourself, but I'm not on any placebos.

3. AGP is improperly implemented as a system add-on hack. Try it. Try two IDENTICAL systems, one with Win95 and one with Win98. Patch Win95 any way you like. Now run an AGP speed test. Win98 wins. Period.

Bull. Shit. Win95 is actually faster where there is a difference at all.

See my last comment. If you try it you find you are wrong. There are numbers to back me up.

Now, if you have some special Win95-friendly driver from ALI for your SS7 (Super-Shitty 7) motherboard, the bets are off. I'm talking good equipment with normal drivers.

ALI != SS7, and all SS7 boards require chipset specific drivers, just like Intel motherboards require drivers for things.

Umm... ok. ALI and VIA both make SS7 chipsets. And yes they require drivers, as do Intel boards. The Intel drivers are stable and haven't been updated since before Win98 came out. The ALI and VIA drivers are patched daily, it seems. So if they tweaked out Win95B support it would of course net them an advantage. Or, as is more likely the case, if they wrote their drivers badly (and they probably did) they might score better in Win95.

4. Chipsets aren't supported. I'm not talking drivers here. It doesn't MATTER what kind of drivers you install, Win95 doesn't know about modern system devices - and it can't be patched to fix that.

Such as?

Such as ALL the motherboard components on an Intel motherboard. No patch to Win95 can replace the old, nasty VMM32.VXD without corrupting the whole OS.

Even with all the latest patches installed, you will still have devices listed such as "Generic AGP to PCI device" and "Generic Power Management device" and "Generic DMA Controller".

That is why you learn how to install the drivers from the motherboard manufacturer properly. GIGO.

IF they were provided. Which they aren't. I've used the mobos, trust me I know. Intel provides drivers and .inf files for their controller chips only. They CAN'T provide drivers for most of the system devices since support is built into the monolithic vxd's. And the VIA/ALI board makers don't, either. They provide AGP bridge drivers and IDE drivers and THAT'S ALL. (Maybe USB in rare cases... but those are usually broken...)

5. Yes, the UI is simplified in Win95. It's also older and uglier.

Ugly, it's pretty much the same here, gradients in window titles, big whoop. I don't find the bolted on IE crap for file browsing better looking at all. Unix is ancient, yet it has some nify guis for it, age doesn't signify anything.

UNIX has "nifty gui"? You are smoking some serious crack. Even the most die-hard UNIX advocates will tell you the graphics blow. And those that don't were bolted onto UNIX in the past couple of years. I'm not talking about window gradients. I'm talking about the entire look and feel of the interface. Take away the web components and the UI still runs smoother. Yes, eye candy is nice. Not everything, but nice.

Some of us have explored the folder options under Win98 and know how to turn Web View OFF so that we don't NEED to corrupt our OS with "Win98 Lite" (btw, I've TRIED Win98 Lite, and it indeed introduces blue-screens and all kinds of lovely corruption. GOOD program, HONESTLY.)

I agree, Win98lite is buggy or was last I tried it.

Thanks for agreeing with me in at least one place (there may be hope, hehe).

Since I just installed Win98 again today for the sake of the new mb, I can tell you exactly what I dislike about the GUI, it will let you use legacy mode yes, but only in big ****ing icon mode, custom mode works somewhat, but it has an odd habit of resetting the web content switch.

You could always edit the template. That's what I do. It's pretty straightforward HTML, and you can just... disable whatever you don't like. Simple. Edit the master template and poof! never see web view EVER again (especially if you write-protect that file... hehe...)

Using set everything ilke current folder seems to work for a while, then it suddently doesn't work. I generally end up opening every folder setting the options and hoping the OS will save it properly, to find next boot that it didn't really save it.

Ok, yes I find this rather irritating. I find that SE doesn't forget nearly as often as regular Win98 did, maybe they fixed that. Actually if you installed IE 5.5 over the older Win98 it would probably net the same benefits (as well as actually honoring the "Trust content from Microsoft" checkbox that always got unchecked in IE4).

And while we're on the topic, I must rant about the fact that MS finds it acceptable to package GUI enhancements and driver upgrades with their browsers. That sucks. What if, God forbid, I don't WANT to use IE? I realize the current Nutscrape blows, but what if Nutscrape 5.0 is cool like everyone says it will be? Then maybe I don't WANT to upgrade to IE5... *sigh*

Oh, did I foget the "You have low space on partition X" popup dialog that gets in your face?

Also irritating. I concur with you here (see, there's hope for me too!)

I'm sure there are HACKS to disable all the bloat, and I'm sure the new bloat is very nice in Win2K, but I think MS could have done it better and made all the crap an option to install separately.

Once again, I agree. It IS irritating that you have to work at disabling the parts of Win98 that you DON'T want. But the gains offset the losses. You get up-to-date code, and the tradeoff is a little work.

Try Millennium sometime. It is a full-time job for me disabling the CRAP that gets installed by that OS. Good Lord.

6. Win98 has a better kernel. I don't care WHAT you've heard. I've played with it and profiled it. Win98 has less crappy 16-bit code running. This means it's more stable and faster overall. And once again, I would LOVE for you to set up two systems identically. You'll always be proven wrong.

There is no difference in speed here, at least with a cpu capable of doing 16 bit and 32 bit code efficiently at the same time.

Sure there is. Business WinStone, and dozens of other benchmarks bear me out. Maybe YOUR system doesn't differ, but most do, including mine.

The REASON people think Win95 is faster and better is that you can install less of it. If you install Win95, then add IE5, and all the support and drivers that comes native in Win98, Win95 will run slower.

Why anybody in their right mind would install IE5 is beyond me, IE4 is just fine here. Again, it's in your mind, Win95 runs just as slow/fast as Win98.

They'd install IE5 to get the bugfixes. That's why most people install it, I'm willing to bet. I'd use Nutscrape if all the 4.x builds didn't suck so bad. As it is I'd STILL have to install IE5.5 to get the latest and greatest OS patches. And that isn't fair or nice.

As for speed - bench it. Show me numbers.

Much slower. Yes, you can avoid installing those things. But WOULD you? No, you'd install them. Nobody actually HAS a stripped-down install, even though Win95 proponents tout it.

Ahem, more bullshit, that is what you do perhaps and maybe your cronies, but your are just projecting your experiences and preferences.

PLEASE. Show me one person who, to get their scanner to work, DIDN'T install all the crap software that was built into the drivers? Who didn't upgrade to the newest IE to get bugfixes that couldn't be had elsewhere? Who didn't install the Plus Pack because it had OS improvements?

And think of it this way - the programmers are doing you a FAVOR. I could easily write a program that will crash hard under Win95 every single time (and without asking what kind of OS you have) and run flawlessly under Win98, but I choose not to - to be nice.

Heh, I could do the exact opposite, just as easily, in fact probably more easily, Win95 has more in common with WinNT API wise than Win98.

Umm... you are on crack, aren't you? The Win98 internals AND API are closer to WinNT no matter how you look at it.

Well, I could add to the list all day, but I leave that as an intellectual exercise for the reader.

Yes, you have your opinion and you think it means more than anybody else's opinion, I think we get that.

You're missing the point. It's not that my OPINIONS matter more than someone else's. It's just that I base them on hard evidence through what I've learned over years of working with products inside and out, not on a desperate desire to thwart Microsoft.

In closing, I want to say that I also disapprove of the "spend $100 on the Win98 upgrade" concept. I think MS should have made it much cheaper for people who already had Win95. *sigh* Well, monopolies will be monopolies.

I don't have a problem with the price of the OS myself, I just disagree with what they are doing with it. If they insist on a default config you can't easily change, then it amounts to using somebody else's config, I'd rather use my own, thank you very much.
One size fits all sucks, especially from a monopoly.

Yes. I agree here. No arguments.

Now, why is it so important to you that everybody run the same OS as you? How does it affect you at all? That's what I don't get.

That's not it... I don't even RUN Win98 anymore. I boot to Millennium to play games, and otherwise use exclusively Win2000 Final. My point is simply that people come in here asking for help. If they run Win95 we usually tell them to upgrade. The fact that one person (you) has managed to make a lot of stuff work on Win95 (and I'm happy for you, honest! I salute your ingenuity!) doesn't change the fact that for most people it is an outdated OS.

But folks read posts where you (and others I've seen) defend Win95 and claim it is no different from Win98. Then they demand to know how to make it work.

I feel some small obligation to point out to everyone that they ARE different, substantially so. *sigh*

Take it or leave it. I don't care, I've spent too long on this already.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

**Bixler** · 22 December 1999, 10:40

Never been to the "box" Hehe!

Apologies to anyone who has taken my advice re: 98 lite and had trouble with it. No Really! I'm very curious about the BSOD's cause my understanding was that "Lite" retains only 4 95 files, none of which are too deeply webbed up in the kernel. My experience with the program has been excellent, and I just honestly hate to recommend something that is truly buggy. Of course, the way I installed it, my HDD has never SEEN the 98 eye candy, and IE5 and other webification were never there to be deleted and then screw other programs up...Not challenging your knowlege GURM, just want to share my experience with this program, which is that I'm on 98 and happy, and I never had to chase Uncle Bill's marketing dept off of my machine.

A Clean Install from the Lite program to a freshly formatted HDD, and I've never had a BSOD, and about 20% better performance overall 'cause I've GOT the essential 98 kernel and drivers.

Cheers! See you in the 'box'

**Gurm** · 22 December 1999, 10:43

Well perhaps that's the difference - that you didn't use the Win98 standard installer... hehe.

ALL bets are off, in that case.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

**Pertti** · 22 December 1999, 10:45

Ahaa... OK,

We are talking about non-Intel chipsets and benchmarks, and the poor old me thought it was about "Good Equipment" and doing something worth while with the computer

Pertti

**Gurm** · 22 December 1999, 10:52

Benchmarks, and GAMES, and... well ok there's not much difference if you're trying to get REAL work done. Hehe.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

**Himself** · 22 December 1999, 12:01

Gurm,

A flea would starve on the difference I get between Win95 and Win98 in 3DMarkXX, pick one, doesn't make a difference. So, I am basing my opinions on the numbers I get, yet still, I don't out of the blue start a thread bashing Win98 and the people who use it. As for ZDNet style benchmarks, please, most worthless bits of crap to ever be produced.

Have a look at the Win98 gui as I saw it today, real purty ain't it.

[This message has been edited by Himself (edited 22 December 1999).]

Announcement

G400 + Win95 No work why oh WHY!?

G400 + Win95 No work why oh WHY!?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment