Talk:Windows 98

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a WikiProject devoted to maintaining and improving the informative value and quality of Wikipedia's many Microsoft Windows articles.

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. This article has been tagged since January 2007.

An event mentioned in this article is a June 25 selected anniversary

---

The link http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist_nov03.html stating that 27% of surfers use Windows is gon-zo. --Menchi 08:48, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 98 then ME or ME was 98? 2 Can I reinstall? 3 Successor 4 AGP support 5 Windows 98 SE seperate article? 6 RAM 7 Failed initiative 8 USB support 9 Windows 97 10 Facts check 11 Product life cycle 12 "Native support"

[edit] 98 then ME or ME was 98?

According to the article, MSW ME followed MSW 98, but I thought `ME' was a version of MSW 98. From what I understand, MSW 98 came in three editions: original edition, second edition (SE) and millenium edition (ME). Should this be altered? --Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley 07:08, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

No, "Windows ME" is it's own version, whereas "Windows 98, Second Edition" was just an update to "Windows 98": a kind of "half version"; had Win98 been called "Version 5.0", 98SE would probably be "5.5", and Windows ME "6.0". Win95, Win98 and WinME are all very closely related, but not as closely related as Win98 is to Win98SE; similarly, there was a "Windows 95, OSR2", aka "Windows 95B". - IMSoP 20:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying; but I think the article should be changed, because I do not agree with your POV. I have always thought that MSW 9x versions were organised like this and I have not heard anyone disagree with this:

• MSW 95 (major version)
  • MSW 95a aka MSW 95 (OEM release 1) (sub-version)
  • MSW 95b aka MSW 95 (OEM release 2) [OSR2] (sub-version)
• MSW 98 (major version)
  • MSW 98 (original edition) (sub-version)
  • MSW 98 (second edition) [SE](sub-version)
  • MSW 98 (millenium edition) [ME](sub-version)

-Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley 02:16, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&q=%22windows+me+is+windows+98%22

OK, let's take Microsoft's word on this: a list labelled Other Versions of Windows includes "Windows 98" and "Windows Me" [sic]; these link to seperate homepages (98, Me), with clearly distinct styles; there is no seperate page for Win98SE, since this is just a sub-version of Win98. Compare also the anouncement of 98SE with these for WinMe: [1], [2]. Finally, searching microsoft.com for 98SE returns plenty; 98ME returns nothing; 98 ME returns lots of articles labelled "95/98/Me" (the 3 versions are sometimes referred to as "9x", but obviously it is hard to include "Me" in such an abbreviation).

This seems to me to be pretty conclusive evidence that there is no such thing as "Windows 98 (Millennium Edition)", only "Windows Millennium Edition"; that is to say, "Me" is not an "edition" of Windows 98, it is an "edition" of Windows. Confusing, but true. - IMSoP 23:17, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In case just anyone cares: here are the version numbers

• Win95 –- 4.0.950
  • Win95 OSR1 –- 4.0.950
  • Win95 OSR2 –- 4.0.1111
  • Win95 OSR2.1 –- 4.0.1212
• Win98 –- 4.10.1998
  • Win98 SE –- 4.10.2222
• WinME –- 4.90.3000

Notice when minor number and when build number changed. --tyomitch 17:03, 4 Sep 2006,I thought this was Windows 97

[edit] Can I reinstall?

I need to reinstall Windows 98, but will I have all my documents and photos? Help!!!

It is best to backup data before any attempt of a reinstalled operating system is tried

See if you are just reinstalling it, then all the documents and photos will remain intact, but if u are formatting your system and then installing windows 98 then, first back up all the documents and photos on some other media..

[edit] Successor

From the article as it is now: Windows 98 was succeeded by Windows Me when a "desktop" version of Windows 2000 was abandoned; Windows Me was in turn succeeded by Windows XP.

Windows 2000 is a version of the Windows NT kernel (v5.0), and runs on Desktop processors. Both Windows 98/98se and Windows Me are versions of the Windows kernel. Windows XP is a version of Windows NT (5.1). Windows Me was the end of the Windows kernel line, and was not succeeded by Windows XP. --tonsofpcs _(Talk) 05:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I added the current wording to replace a version which read

"Windows 98 was succeeded by Windows Me, which was followed by Windows 2000 and then Windows XP."

Technologically, you are of course correct (except that there was no "Windows kernel", only an increasingly hidden MS-DOS): Windows Me was the end of the line. But from a consumer point of view it's nonsense to state that "Windows Me had no successor", since in marketting terms the next "home"/"consumer" version of Windows was XP. What I was trying to stress was that there is no sense in which Windows 2000 came "between" the two, it was aimed at a different market. Of course, it's questionable whether the sentence is really needed in this article at all, but I think it is correct as it stands - though if you can think of a succinct way of clarifying that this is a succession in terms of use, not in terms of further linear development, feel free. - IMSoP 15:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

¿how many processors?, ¿and tasks?

Seventeen. One hundred and twelve. Lupine Proletariat 14:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AGP support

The article says that Win98 features improved AGP support, where AGP is a link. If you click this link it goes to a disambiguation page where among many other choices AGP could link to Accelerated Graphics Port or Advanced Graphics Processor, would someone who KNOWS which is intended please fix this link?

AGP is supposed to reference Accelerated Graphics Port, I have fixed it. Keoki 00:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm looking for information about 9x kernel architecture. How (bad?) was it compared to NT.

It was 60% bad. Contemporary versions of NT were only 35% bad. Lupine Proletariat 14:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Windows 98 SE seperate article?

My opinion is that we leave the Windows 98 article as is. There is no real reason to split the article into two sections because Windows 98 SE is basiclly just a minor Bug Fix version of the original Windows 98. It is not a signifigant release and moving it from its current location would just be a waste of time and space in my opinion. If anyone feels differently about this, please feel free tell me why you disagree on my talk page. Thank you. : Jdlowery 03:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

While you may be technically right as some point it may actually warrant splitting due to public perception. For now though, theres not much there... RN 09:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RAM

I ran Windows 98 First Edition on nothing more than 16 MB of ram....said it could be done right on its box. should i change it to that, but say "24 MB or higher increases performance"?

I mean, if you try to run IE 4 or higher with just 16 MB of ram, your machine *will* slow down to a crawl. Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 15:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

i've used win 98se in a 486/33mhz with only 8 mb ram, but the installation os os on hd with an other pc, it is very very slow i reformatted and got ms dos 6.0--Francomemoria 17:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed initiative

I received a {{test1}} for reverting an IP's addition of the Failed Microsoft initiatives category to this article and two others. From what is said on the category's page, Windows 98 would not be included in this category anyway as the product was released. If somebody else could tell me why this category should be included on this article and the Windows 95 and XP articles, please do so. jd || talk || 11:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USB support

Am I correct in recalling that full USB support was only realized with Windows 98SE? ---Ransom (--208.25.0.2 21:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Windows 97

I've removed the reference to "also known as Windows 97" from the lead sentence. Nobody has referred to the product as that since Microsoft announced the name would be Windows 98. Here's the removed content, in case someone decides to use the articles used as references to expand on "pre-release" information about 98 in the future:

, also known as '''Windows 97''',<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.smartcomputing.com/editorial/article.asp?article=articles/1998/jul98/0711/0711.asp&articleid=2817&guid=|title=USB's Success Tied To Release Of Windows 98|publisher=Smart Computing|date=July 1998|accessdate=2006-09-07}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,9414-0.html|title=Windows 97, Windows 98, Windows 99?|publisher=[[Wired magazine|Wired]]|date=[[1997-12-31]]|accessdate=2006-09-07}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/16633/16633.html|title=Windows 97 in Beta|author=Paul Thurrott|publisher=Windows IT Pro|date=[[1997-01-06]]|accessdate=2006-09-07}}</ref>

-/- Warren 00:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Bill Gates's deposition, Windows 97 was a distinct project from Windows 98, even though there were features in common. Gazpacho 18:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Facts check

Hi. Can someone confirm the information about the dates for Second Edition and when it stop the support? I found out Second Edition is released on 10 June, and stopped the support on 11 July. --Jutiphan 01:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Product life cycle

This article could use a "Windows 98 in the present day" section, if such information can be found. For example, the article mentions that 27% of Google's pageviews were on Windows 98 systems as of November 2003 - are there any much more recent figures than this? The most recent statistic I can find is from June 2004 [3], when the figure was 16% (with Win2k at 18%, and WinXP way out in front at 51%). That was more than two years ago, though, so the figures may be radically different now. AdorableRuffian 00:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This was placed in the Product Life Cycle section. As it seems to be an unsourced attack, I've removed it and placed it here until someone can verify it.

• In 2006, Check Point and Microsoft conspired to eliminate support for the Windows 98 operating system, leaving 40% of the world's computer users vulnerable to a massive internet attack allowing Windows 98 users' computers to be comprised, resulting in large scale identity theft and denial of service attacks on all internet conected computers. It was felt at the time that Microsoft was attempting to force Windows 98 users to upgrade to the soon to be released Vista operating system.

• In 2007, Senator Joe Lieberman, head of the Senate's Homeland Security Committee was contacted and told of the severe threat to the internet and internet users computers that the Microsoft - Check Point failure to protect Windows 98 systems meant. Due to Check Point being an Israeli company, Senator Lieberman refused to take-up the matter.

68.8.108.62 07:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Information about threats for Windows 98 computers are real. Many companies or common users still have old machines and old operating system because it serves them well, or it will be very expensive to change it. (Imagine 20 computers in small or medium company and count the expenses). Numbers of machines are unknown, but it is somewhere between 20-40 percent of all running systems.

At this point i asked community about security problems. Here is the result: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=94864

There are hardware and software possibilities how to make windows 98 much more secure as common Win 2k or Vista systems ever could be.

Mir

[edit] "Native support"

I ask "What is native support?" If is that support for devices which are contained on system CD then there is myth that WinXP supports all because it doesnt. System automatically downloads Generic drivers in cases when driver is not present in system database. In this case Windows 98 doesnt offer this feature so drivers have to be downloaded manually, or user have to install them from cd which is packed with device.

User: mir 21:58, 19 March 2007