Bye, Windows 98

[webworm98]

Comments like this remind me of something: I really do love Mozilla products, but sometimes I absolutely *despise* a lot of Mozilla fans. Too many of them are just too damn smug.

PS: Yeah, yeah... the Mac and Linux share is 6.9%, according to the stats cited earlier in this thread. Still pretty insignificant compared to the share attributed to Windows. We're talking numbers, not the quality of the system.

There are no alternatives to Mozilla Firefox in Linux.

I'm not smug, 98 runs on FAT, no error recovery, no journalling, and singularly one of the worst filesystems to date. NTFS was a milestone compared to FAT. 98 had nothing back then and is laughably archaic today (standup time of 8 days according to MS). If you want to run Windows and prefer a lighter version, use 2000.

There is nothing that can promote 98 over what is available today. I stand by my statement and defy any real, technically proficient user to make a defensible claim for 98. We are not talking about what runs sufficient on your 300 mhz Celeron here. We are talking about a real PC and not some hand me down from 1998 (we are all aware of Moore's Law).

If you knew anything about software you would have been running NT and then 2000. Those that ran 95 and 98, ipso facto have demonstrated their lack of technical ability when it comes to a PC.

I am fully aware we are talking numbers for alternative OS's. But a 7% rating is significantly higher than 1%, be them both rather small.

You have got me wrong, I am not a Mozilla fan or a Linux Zealot, I am someone who is speaking plainly about my opinions. Do not label me please.

I think the quoting has got messed up.

Whoever said There are no alternatives to Mozilla Firefox in Linux.
Is wrong. Dillo, Seamonkey, Opera, and more see this http://www.helgefjell.de/browser.php

Also,
Windows 98se runs on Fat32
I disagree I think fat32 is the best over Ntfs anytime.

I know how to tweak thinks to make windows 98 secure. I am technically proficient user of 98se.

[pikaunforgiven]

Also,
Windows 98se runs on Fat32
I disagree I think fat32 is the best over Ntfs anytime.

i only agree due to the fact that fat32 has faster performance over ntfs on slower machines. the filesystem itself isnt as robust or as stable, but if you want pure speed out of your drive partitions fat32 is the way to go if you are using any windows OS. from my experience, ntfs is a lot more stable albiet slower. the speed difference tends to be the most noticable on slower machines though, the performance gain with fat32 on faster ones is often neglible to most users.

I know how to tweak thinks to make windows 98 secure. I am technically proficient user of 98se.

dunno bout you, but i dont think being able to bypass the login by pressing enter or clicking cancel is secure. not all threats come from the internet last i checked.

[ryaxnb]

There are no alternatives to Mozilla Firefox in Linux.

Ha!


<UL>
<LI>Epiphany
<LI>Galeon (soon to be an extension set for Epiphany)
<LI>Opera
<LI>Konqueror
<LI>Dillo*
<LI>Links-Hacked* (yes, this is a graphical browser)
<LI>CrossOver IE
<LI>SeaMonkey
</UL>
*Light-weight web browser.

[supergirl260]

opera is also optional they have linux version

[supergirl260]

http://www.opera.com/products/desktop/i ... form=linux

[Hybrid]

There are no alternatives to Mozilla Firefox in Linux.

Ha!


<UL>
<LI>Epiphany
<LI>Galeon (soon to be an extension set for Epiphany)
<LI>Opera
<LI>Konqueror
<LI>Dillo*
<LI>Links-Hacked* (yes, this is a graphical browser)
<LI>CrossOver IE
<LI>SeaMonkey
</UL>
*Light-weight web browser.

This has already been addressed; learn to read EVERYTHING.

FYY, Epiphany uses Mozilla. Konquerer uses QT and some people dont want all the KDE libs on their system, especially if they run GNOME. Crossover IE? Are you joking? You must be joking. IE. Thats laughable...seriously, what's wrong with you???
Seamonkey? What is exactly the huge difference in that and Mozilla/Firefox (browser specific).
Opera again uses QT. No point in addressing the rest.

[Hybrid]

Whoever said There are no alternatives to Mozilla Firefox in Linux.
Is wrong. Dillo, Seamonkey, Opera, and more see this http://www.helgefjell.de/browser.php

Also,
Windows 98se runs on Fat32
I disagree I think fat32 is the best over Ntfs anytime.

I know how to tweak thinks to make windows 98 secure. I am technically proficient user of 98se.

I said there are no alternatives to Firefox and addressed that statement several posts later. As stated earlier, you cannot be technically proficient in computers using Windows 9x anymore than you can be technically proficient in painting using a pencil.

Do you know anything about filesystems? You think FAT is better because 9x runs on it? Because someone told you so? Because you read it on a web page in 96? Why? What is your rational claim to such a statement? I am just curious.

[Hybrid]

They way I understand it. They would have to rewrite the operating system to allow the patch to install on windows 98se/ME

Hmm just shot ourselves in the foot did we?

I don't think that guy can dig deeper!

[TheOldMan]

I just spent the last couple of hours downloading the June security fixes for my XP machine. Only one of the vulnerabilities fixed affect Win98, and that one can be worked around by blocking port 139. Wonder what they'll have for July?

[webworm98]

Whoever said There are no alternatives to Mozilla Firefox in Linux.
Is wrong. Dillo, Seamonkey, Opera, and more see this http://www.helgefjell.de/browser.php

Also,
Windows 98se runs on Fat32
I disagree I think fat32 is the best over Ntfs anytime.

I know how to tweak thinks to make windows 98 secure. I am technically proficient user of 98se.

I said there are no alternatives to Firefox and addressed that statement several posts later. As stated earlier, you cannot be technically proficient in computers using Windows 9x anymore than you can be technically proficient in painting using a pencil.

Do you know anything about filesystems? You think FAT is better because 9x runs on it? Because someone told you so? Because you read it on a web page in 96? Why? What is your rational claim to such a statement? I am just curious.

I can still tell you I am an expert. I never had viruses with 95,95a,98se or Me. I also used Axcel216 tips and Steve’s Grc programs to secure windows 98se. I just don’t like xp and ntfs. Try writing to a ntfs partition from a Linux distro, then see what happens to your xp.

I also use Puppy2 linux as well.

[TheOldMan]

webworm98,
You probably remember this. Anybody says Win9x users are not technically proficient haven't been through the update process. Anybody can update an XP machine.
http://web.archive.org/web/200206040327 ... 98upd.html

[Jarrad]

Lets recap, shall we?

•98 is totally insecure (sorry, but any OS where you can hit escape at the main login prompt to gain full access is not secure!)

•98 has awful memory management (Barely uses more than 256mb, anything more than 512mb in a system and it will crash with ‘low memory’ errors’!)

•You’re stuck with FAT32, which has no support for encryption, permissions or compression. It also happens to suck badly in terms of efficiency when dealing with large partitions (40GB+)

•98 has crap hardware support (No SMP, Hyper Threading, x64, XD [execute Disable], SATA, and yes you must install a driver for each different USB thumbdrive you use on a 98 system!)

•98 is slower than XP! No, I’m not talking about your Grandma’s old 300 MHz Pentium 2! I’m talking about a real computer, made within the last four years or so. XP would thrash 98 on this 3 GHz Pentium 4 system, but I couldn’t do any benchmarks for you since 98 would never even install on this machine!

So why are these Windows 98 users suprised at the prospect of not being able to run Firefox 3 when it's released next year?

[Metalstream]

Actually, I have read that there is virus that will start automatically without any user action on Linux, Windows, Mac and other operating system.

The fix for some Linux distros. Is log in as root. Delete the user name and create a new one. Just make sure you answer yes to delete all you settings for that user.

Source?

[douray]

•98 is slower than XP! No, I’m not talking about your Grandma’s old 300 MHz Pentium 2! I’m talking about a real computer...

It's that sort of attitude which I find a little distasteful. A "real computer" is simply one that functions the way an individual needs/wants, and not necessarily a nerd's Dream Machine.

That said, I agree with the fact that no Win9x user should be surprised to see more and more apps fall from the usability list. It's moribund. Face it and get on with things.

[supergirl260]

C:\Program Files\xerox

xp is evel it creates files that are empty and useless