Talk:Windows 98/Archive 1

gonzo

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)

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

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..

To get more information about technical things, join microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion at msnews.microsoft.com (usenet). There will be microsoft experts who will help you.

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)

Its true. MS tried to make a more home-friendly version of windows NT to merge their prodict lines. This was codenamed Windows Neptune. A Beta is circulating the net. I think its got a page here too.... Anyway, this has lots of the nice ideas like wizards, welcome screen etc... that didnt make it into 2000, but eventually made it into XP.

Neptune was wayyyy late so they released Win2k (as the business oriented stuff was all done)as a "pro" product and introduced ME as a stopgap for home users. 134.36.93.46 (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

9x kernel IS awful compared to NT. 9x is a collection of crappy code all linked together, while NT family is somewhat a ball of code all linked together but has a better base to start building up the castle of cards, namely not a DOS-based one.

--WushuKungfu 22:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

I think the main issue is not if it 98SE was a collection of bug fixes. I think we should consider if it was sold as a separate release (I think it was in Europe). As such, it may also be interesting to note that in that case it was the shortest period (June 25, 1998- May 5, 1999) between sold Windows upgrades.194.248.249.199 (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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))

Reply:

Even so, it wasn't complete. Buggy and stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TangLab (talk • contribs) 22:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It supported mice, keyboards and game controllers out of the box, but not storage devices. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Wasn't "Windows 97" a codename for Cairo? 134.36.93.46 (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

• Windows 98 SE released on 5 May 1999. Microsoft decided to maintain support until 11 July 2006.Dirk P Broer (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

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

"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

Editions

Why does the chart in the Editions section lists comparsion things where the answer is the same for all editions? Also, wasn't Windows 98 Second Edition available for retail? (The chart compares "Windows 98 Retail" to Windows 98 Second Edition.) Josh the Nerd 22:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Josh the Nerd

Cleanup - Advantages and disadvantages

Based on a reading of that section, I think it needs a cleanup. One of the problems, among others, is an "advantage" located within the disadvantages subsection. There's also a large quantity of uncited statements, that if challened and removed, would decimate the section. --Sigma 7 10:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there should be an advantages and disadvantages section it should be features and critism

SE

Why didn't they call Windows 98 SE something like windows 99?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Astroview120mm (talk • contribs)

The architecture and operating system implementation is too similar (i.e. most programs won't react differently between the two operating systems.) Compare this to W95-W98 and W98-WMe, where there are implementation differences are more likely to cause different behaviour. --Sigma 7 01:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually many of today's software can't run on Windows 98 (first) but can run on Windows 98 SE. I've notied a lot of sofetware and hardware that only accept SE (Wireless USBs, etc). Also, we should include links to downloads for Windows 98 First Edition.

^{Superscript text}== Advantages/Disadvantages over what? ==

These sections need to specify and be consistent about to what operating system(s) Windows 98 is being compared. Josh the Nerd 22:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It is being compared to previous Windows operating systems that have a MS-DOS/FAT kernal. (1.x, 2.x, 3.x, and 95). A Raider Like Indiana 05:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds more like its being compared to Windows NT. Josh 15:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be included in the artcile then. Something on the differneces between 98 and 98se?? --Benpaul12 (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Press

Why do we even need the Press demonstration section? It's useless. We could put a trivia section and put this section there

Hello. No, it's not entirely useless. It was one of Windows 98 phenomenal events during its product life. We should keep it for general reasons, and no don't put up trivia section for this reason or for another. Read WP:TRIVIA

Also make sure you sign "~~~~" after you add your comment on a talk page. A Raider Like Indiana 05:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I Agree that we need a trivia section, but also the press section is important. We need to expand as many articles as we can for information! Boomieking1 (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Is Windows 98 (or 9x) really "dos-based" ? What does that mean?

Can an explanation be writted to define technically what is meant by the phrase "dos-based" ?

Or does the fact that win-9x provides a fully functional DOS shell confuse some people into thinking that win-9x is "dos-based" ? The fact that win-98 uses it's own 32-bit protected mode drivers for disk access (and thereby bypasses DOS function calls) seems to lost on most people

Microsoft has a frenzy for implementing old (and sometimes faulty) code on its programs. CP/M -> DOS, DOS -> Win 9x family. While it's correct that 9x family provides a fully functional DOS shell and that uses it's protected mode, it's still heavily based on DOS.

--WushuKungfu 21:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

---

What does that mean - that it's "heavily based on DOS" ????

How can it be? DOS does not have a GUI. Windows 98 switches the processor into 32-bit protected mode early in the boot process, and must use a DPMI (DOS Protected Mode Interface) to allow DOS programs to run in protected mode and to access extended memory under a multitasking operating system like Windows 9x. Disk access is performed using 32-bit protected mode drivers - unlike a system that has booted (and remains running in) pure DOS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.8.170 (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It means that DOS *is* used to load Windows 98. what do you think the "restart in DOS mode" is? Just exiting the GUI. The concept is the same that in windows 3. It isn't the case with XP for example, which presents a stand-alone boot. WushuKungfu (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

---

I somewhat disagree that DOS has no GUI. There is/was DOSSHELL.exe, available from DOS 4 (but much better from DOS 5 on). It was very useful because "DOS is Hell" (as we said often) and offered a good drag and drop GUI function with many handy options (the ability to double-click an executable and to display and work between 2 different directories and drives simultaneously being huge). In fact, Microsoft included it prominently in the DOS feature literature as a counter to the early Apple GUI. I used it to avoid using Windows until 98 came and the internet finally broke down my social door (killing the dialup BBS system). DOSSHELL was preserved in Windows under the WINFILE.exe application, which I still find occasionally useful as it displays the actual hard disk file structure accurately (i.e., "Desktop" is NOT the top of the food chain!). It is FAST, easy and runs in "safe mode", too. It was available through 98SE. Further, other brands of DOS each had their versions. It was just too handy for most users to do without. As a final kudu, several utilities suites (Norton and PC Tools, etc.) had their own versions which worked similarly with some improved features. Jopower (talk) 06:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I had DOS 6.22 (Full, standalone DOS). On the last disk ( with QBasic and the other goodies) was a program called the DOS Shell (I think it *may* have been called the MSDOS Executive shell?). It was grey and blue? with red bits? It looked like a cross between windows 3.1's Program Manager, and something like Midnight Commander (mc) on Linux.86.16.163.55 (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Advantages and Disadvantages

I feel that the advantages and disadvantages section should be re-written and then moved to the Windows 9x article because many of the statements made in this section apply to all versions of the Windows 9x line, not just Windows 98. It seems quite silly to have this section for the Windows 98 article but not for the other releases of Windows 9x. If anyone else agrees, I think we should move it to the Windows 9x article as soon as possible. Jdlowery 04:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds like the right thing to do. -/- Warren 05:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that too. It should be moved. -- Imperator3733 15:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's get started. Josh (talk | contribs) 16:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny enough...

I'm making this comment from my windows 98 Virtual PC. It's background is the wikipedia search tool. Maiq the liar (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

What is that Mystery site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.153.38.236 (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Windows 98SE question!

Was it released as a free download like a service pack for users who had the original 98? Or was it a brand new OS? I have one disc in my case that has 98 SE on it, but the thing is tied to OEM drivers, I wanted to update my Windows 98 on my second PC and my Virtual PC. --Elven6 (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It was not a free update. I think there was a cheaper "Step Up" 98-to-98SE upgrade package, though. I'll mention that in the article if I can find a source. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Price: US$19.95 "Step up"; US$89 full retail version (for Windows 3.x and Win95 owners). A service pack that fixes a number of minor bugs in Win98 will be made freely available via the Windows Update feature to current Windows 98 users. Some features of this upgrade, such as NetMeeting 3, IE5 and DirectX6.1, are freely downloadable from the net.

http://www.itnetcentral.com/tech/windows-98-second-edition-135.html

---

This makes Win98SE the widest scoped upgrade to previous MS OS's or versions. I have gone from DOS 5 to 98SE many times. It preserved the old DOS folder and directory structure but changed the CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT files (saving them as .old on the root). Just make sure you religiously backup everything before you start should you want to continue having the original DOS availible. Those who know how to write the CONFIG.SYS boot MENU commands can preserve the DOS startup without as many "restart in DOS" problems BUT the C: drive MUST be DOS spec compatible (65535 max files and max 2 GB drive/partition with FAT16 are typical things). This often means a 2nd partition/drive and telling Windows and Windows programs to save data to this 2nd location. If you want DOS to be able to access this space, it too must be DOS spec. Jopower (talk) 07:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Floppy Disks?

The First (or "Gold") Edition of Windows 98 was released on Floppy Disks, right? If you search Windows 98 DMF, it will come up with listings of what was on the disks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.88.17 (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have the Windows 98 Getting Started manual, and it stated that if you couldn't install Windows 98 because you didn't have a CD-ROM drive, you could have sent in an order form that would, in return, send you back the floppies to help install the software. It could be either way, though.

Troyoda1990 (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

win98 se is free as of today

Someone has told me that as of today Microsoft is not giving support for Windows 98 SE. That's why it can be used freely and not identified as Pirated. How far is it correct..... Soumya sanyal (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It is completely incorrect. Copyright still stands for the full term as defined by law.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Windows 98 doesn't have product activation (like XP/Vista does), so ANY copy of 98 will identify as non-pirated. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 05:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

---

However, it is as good as free. Hit a few yard sales and there it will be, resting like a tired garden Gnome, ready to breathe new life into a Pentium 166 with less RAM than your cell phone for less than $5. Make sure it has the 25 digit number on it and you're jake to put it anything with a x86 compatible chipset. Jopower (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

What if... Windows 98SE was NT-based?

Windows 98 is a great operating system and contained fun features. But what if Windows 98SE was based on the NT kernel? Would it have the great features of the real Windows 98SE and Microsoft Plus! 98 combined with those of Windows NT 4.0? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.218.175 (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for future events, or playing what if on past events. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Wouldnt that just make it NT4 with the Desktop Update (the one with IE(5?) that swapped the win95ish interface for the win 98-type interface)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.50.232 (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Support. It is good idea. James Michael 1 (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Modernizing section

There is a section titled Modernizing that reads like OR, and sourced to blogs and forums discussing which web browsers and other components still work with Windows 98. As this looks like unsourced OR, and is instructional, it doesn't look like anything that belongs in Wikipedia. Discuss. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Windows 98, esp. SE, is still valuable

Many have poopoed 98 as a very flawed and even dangerous OS. For everyday use, probably so. However, for the hobbyist and computer user with ancient hardware peripherals it is gawd. The 98 drivers on the install CD (both auto and manual install) are extensive, especially those for 98SE. On the web, the driver archives and info for this stuff is legion. Have some old SCSI drive you stored the family history on in 1986? It will run it. An obscure PC game that DOSBOX can't workout? 98 gives you a fighting (literally) chance. Have to get a P166 out of the basement to go online with an ISA hardware modem because the Vista PC is lightning struck? Victory is in sight. Win98 is your crotchety old uncle, but he has great stories to help pass on.

True, 98 hardware install is often an arcane art. Those who must dig deep get to know reboot as a common ritual and have reading material or cold pizza handy. You find no 98 drivers and WinME, 95 or even 3.0 and NT files must sub on a wing and a prayer. You find the 98 drivers don't work with 98SE. You need to suss out a tweek that gives you triple the performance, or NOT do some hidden check box to crash the PC every 13th time it boots. You have to find if it's a bad cable, not the OS which is the hangup. It's often an OS for those who love a good puzzle, enjoy bizarre flights of logic and have surgical patience. But when the stars align the results are glorious. "How'd you DO that?" from that stunned friend becomes the Academy Award.

Oh, and ever watched a 2 GHz PC w/256 RAM boot to GUI in 20 seconds? Try 98SE and have the drivers ready. Jopower (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Make that a P4 with 2.4 GHZ and 512 MB RDRAM, and you're down to 12 seconds from pushing the power button to playing your favorite song in Winamp... Yay for Win 98SE!!! 80.128.235.216 (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Running '98!

Right now I am working on a WindowsXP 2000, but sitting right next to me is a Compaq Presario Windows98 still up and running! It was originally updated from a 95 by my brother. He was also my first computer. We've had him for six or seven years and is going to be sixteen years old (and running). BuckyBKatt (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

---

I don't commonly recommend going online with 98/98SE PC's today, though treats against it are becoming rarer (not NT-based and thus often not vulnerable). It is best to use it as a stand alone for a specific porpose the newer PC can't do. Old games, hardware (esp: SCSI and scanners) and backup access to old files/drives are the biggies. Then transfer the data by floppy, ZIP drive or burned CD. USB compatability is so-so with newer devices, so your thumb drive (etc) will probably need a manually installed driver and a reboot.

If you look about, however, you can still find protection enough for online work. 1st, look for the DUN14 (dial up networking 14) updates for 98 & 98SE (they are 2 different files and you must install the right one!!). Microsoft may still have it availible. This is more stable than 13 and improves dropped connections. Next, archived 98-spec anti-virusware is your #1 interest. As I recall, AVG version 6, 7 or 7.5 (new are ver 8.5 now) worked and you can still get the database update (no compatability guaranteed, though). Other posibles are Avira and Avast a-v wares. Sygate Personal Firewall (SPF) was bought out a few years ago, but the true download is still hiding on a few sites (redirects to Symantec is a red herring). Older ZoneAlarm might have something for a firewall. Anti-spyware was integrated in AVG in AVGAS. I used Spy-Bot til '07 in 98SE. Often, the live features were disabled in these utils, so had to manual scan weekly. Lastly, to run the newer utils, have 256mb RAM minimum. Above 1gb will not help, though, as Win9x doesn't use it efficently and a lofty 2gb will cause real trouble. Hope that helps you. Jopower (talk) 10:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please make sure talk page edits are conductive to improving the article. This is not a general forum to discuss Windows 98. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Could be clearer

Maybe these 2 could be phrased a bit clearer...

"A memory overflow issue was resolved which in the older version of Windows 98 would crash most systems if left running for 49.7 days (equal to 2³² milliseconds)[13]."

Maybe technically true, but its a minor miracle if a win98 system ever manages to run for 49 days.

"When performing a new Windows 98 installation on a machine today (April 2010), the user runs into problems with the Windows Update service because the IE 5 provided with Windows 98 is unable to run the current version of Windows Update. The solution is to install Internet Explorer 6 first (for example using this link), and then try to perform the Windows Update operation instead."

Really windows update has little to do with installing, and is not a needed part of installation process. And if someone is installing 98, great security evidently isnt the priority. And 3rdly, many appropriate updates are 3rd party ones that the windows update util wont do.

Tabby (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Prose

This article should be mostly prose, instead it's mostly a list. Hopefully some enterprising Microsoft expert can help with a rewrite of most of the sections. This is Dondegroovily (talk · contribs) editing with an IP. 69.7.41.230 (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Says some things twice

The box on the right says some things twice:
Current version 4.10.1998 (First edition, a.k.a. "Gold"); 4.10.2222A (Second Edition, a.k.a. "SE") (25 June 1998; 12 years ago ("Gold"); 5 May 1999; 11 years ago ("SE")) (info)
82.80.117.203 (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It lists each edition's version number and release date once each. There were two separate releases of Windows 98, each with different information. - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Unbalanced

The article addresses only "improvements" and strengths of Windows 98, yet Windows 98 has the reputation of an unstable, slow, frustrating, and overall undesirable operating system that was also vulnerable to viruses and trojans. The article should include critiques or Windows 98 and information on its shortcomings, particularly the ones that made it unstable, slow, and vulnerable.74.85.70.118 (talk) 08:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Uh, did you ever actually use Windows 98? It wasn't unstable, slow, frustrating or undesirable. I think you've mixed it up with Windows Millenium Edition, which WAS all of those things. And 98 is more tolerant, RAM size aside, of modern hardware than you might think - and in my experience 98 SE actually supports at least 160 GB HDDs right out of the box. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Win 98SE release date

There are two different release dates of Windows 98SE in this article: April 23, 1999 and May 5, 1999. I think May 05 ist the correct date, although there is a link in the article to a MS page which states April 23, 1999, because I still have Win 98SE (ver. 4.10.2222) installed on a system and all system files are dated to 05/05/1999 22:22, but I have the german version, so it could also be because of a different date on the localised vesions than on the english version. --MrBurns (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

In my comp. the Win98 files are dated 4/23/99. --71.64.6.46 (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.askvg.com/did-you-know-hidden-secret-deskbar-options-tab-in-windows-98-taskbar-properties/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Oracle Patent dispute?

I read somewhere in the net about patent issues with Oracle. Making it also impossible to Microsoft to offically sell the product anymore. Would be great, if somebody could do research on this. Hi.ro (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Windows 98 updates no longer available???

I am not a techie. It says that Microsoft no longer supports Windows 98, and it is no longer available. I interpret this to mean that Microsoft is no longer plugging holes, and you cannot buy the operating system from Microsoft. But I assume that the old updates - up until 2006 - are still available. But I installed Windows 98SE on an old Pentium III (500MHz) and I don't seem to be able to even get the old updates up until 2006. Surely Microsoft has not taken these down??? I mean, there are loads of older computers in places like Africa which depend on at least having these updates to get their PCs up and running, i.e. I can't really use this computer without the updates to 2006. Can somebody who knows, put in the article whether the old updates are still available from Microsoft? Thanks in advance to anybody who knows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.26.227 (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

From what I know, they are still available, but not over Windows Update. You have to download them from the Michrosoft website directly. --MrBurns (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

People have created various unofficial service packs for Windows 98SE, which is basically a collection of official updates in one download, plus extra tweaks to fix known problems over the years. The "Unofficial Windows 98 Second Edition Service Pack" is very popular. The project was stagnant after v2.1a was released, then a new person took over the project. As of today, v3.33 was released on March 11, 2014. I haven't tried v3.33, but I have used v2.1a. Unofficial 98SE Service Pack: Info (scroll down), Download, Blog. Good luck! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Win9x/ME should be under the DOS-based section

Why does the DOS-based section end at 3.1?. Win9x is the same as 3.1 in terms of "structure", it's the 4.x version of the GUI that runs on the DOS operating system. They added a "win" command after autoexec.bat so the gui loads automatically, on 3.1 you had to do it yourself, but it can be disabled anyway and it will work like 3.1 booting to plain DOS and loading the GUI only if you run "win". They sold the thing on a single pack instead of as two separate products (that would be dos 7 and windows 4) but it's a DOS-based version just like 1.0 up to 3.1. 167.61.218.62 (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi.

In Wikipedia, we don't use terms with wrong meanings even if that meaning is close to correct meaning. "DOS" is the name of an operating system and "DOS-based" means "requiring an operating system called DOS". Windows 95, 98 and ME did not need an operating system called "DOS" to run; they ran just fine by themselves. The fact that Windows 9x and DOS had the exact same startup architecture and components does not make the former DOS-based.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually they were DOS based, this is a fact. It can't work with an underlying DOS system (which was shipped/included with Win 9x). --Denniss (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Where would the answer lie? I remember using the IBM XT, without Windows, back in 1981, which actually I really enjoyed. Does this person address this question / issue here? --Level C (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

or developers discuss this question here Level C (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

How easy to forget that the English language makes extensive use of metonymy. I've even seen people referring to Windows Command Prompt as "DOS".

Anyway, Windows 3.1 needed the user to have a license for MS-DOS or other DOS. Windows 95 didn't. That's all that matters.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Windows 95#Logo problem

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Windows 95#Logo problem. Codename Lisa (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Codename Lisa (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Upgradability section

The consensus is to remove the "Upgradability" section because it violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIR and is unsourced. There is no prejudice against restoring the section with material about how Windows 98 has become obsolete (slow deprecation and long support) as suggested by Nabla and Vadder if it can be reliably sourced, after which this should be discussed again if there are disputes about the material.

Cunard (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have been thinking about this for a while, and I cannot hold it in anymore. As a major contributor to this article, I would like to point out that the article discusses components that can be upgraded. I have checked other Wikipedia articles about the later versions of Windows, and those articles do not appear to have any such section. On top of that, the section is unimportant trivia that only serves to demonstrate how Windows 98 users can improve their experience. In a sinister way, it also feels like a good case of WP:SOAP, which is a big no-no. I am tempted to delete this section, but I need opinions in an unlikely case this does need to stay.

Should the Upgradability section be deleted or kept? GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 17:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comments: First, it's worth noting that if there has been no previous dispute on this point, you can always try being WP:BOLD on the matter, and then following WP:BRD to try to get a local consensus before bothering to invoke the WP:RfC process. There are times when exception are warranted, where disagreement can be presumed and its just easier to get outside perspectives from the start. It's also expected that RfC prompts will be neutral, and it helps to know what the alternative rhetorical position(s) would be for that purpose; in the absence of that, I would say the RfC prompt cannot misrepresent anyone else's position, but neither is the statement in this case particularly neutral to my eye.

But all those caveats made, we are here, so here is my read on the issue: I am not sure that it really qualifies as WP:SOAP, but it probably does run afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIR at a minimum. This project is not meant to be utilized as presentation space for aggregated version logs of whatever software runs on the platform, even as a summary matter. It's one thing to mention this software, it's another to delve into the minutia of how recently each was patched, and at a minimum, I can see why the RfC opener views this as potentially stepping into the arena of promotion. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment We have to get the perspective right here: the article is of little interest other than historical. Historical interest is as real and justifiable as any other, so the likes of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIR do not really apply. The SOAP and similar objections are not of much relevance either, in reference to a product two decades old and of at most modest merit in its day. No one is likely to read the article and rush out to buy W98, even for the sake of upgrading W95, or so that they can upgrade W98 to W2000 or even W10. Suit yourselves about tinkering with the article, but what it needs most is changing all the present tenses to past tense plus possibly some notes on the historical perspective. But that will not fit into my schedule, sorry. Have fun. JonRichfield (talk) 07:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a software manual. Jschnur (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree that the section should be removed under WP:NOTMANUAL, as it lacks secondary source coverage. — Newslinger talk 04:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete (invited by a bot) I agree the section in question does not add value to the article. WP:NOTMANUAL applies here. Jojalozzo (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• do not delete, not completely at least. The information there talks for the fact that the system was not dead in bulk, it might (may?) decay somewhat gracefully in some aspects. Probably we do not need a whole and detailed section, but we should keep at least a paragraph with the main idea (it is possible to upgrade some parts) and some examples. I wouldn't be surprised that in some professional environments the system kept (keeps?) rolling for a long time, because it was still possible to do that one task it was doing. - Nabla (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Weak keep Snow Rise makes some good points. This doesn't look like soapboxing to me. (MSFT likely does not care if it ever sells another copy of Windows 98 again.) I don't think either WP:NOTMANUAL or WP:INDISCRIMINATE apply either; the information in this section gives a good but not great look at how Windows 98 has become obsolete. The problem here is the lack of sourcing. Without significant research, it may not be possible to determine if this section is correct or not. I think it probably is, which is why I would prefer to keep it. But I don't have a good argument against removing it on sourcing grounds Vadder (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Too technical for an encyclopedia, reads like a manual. Nabla has a point about leaving some text describing slow deprecation and long support, but it needs a proper secondary source. “WarKosign” 07:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete It's not much more than a list.HAL333 00:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initial Sales claims

"It sold an estimated 58 million licenses,... " This sales claim does not seem to have any reference source backing it up, furthermore it is probably incorrect. An official Microsoft press release from the 9/2/1999 indicates that Windows 98 sold 25 million licenses. And the following article from Windows IT Pro seems to indicate the Windows 98 had sold 45 million licenses during the time Windows 98SE was released to the market , of course the latter is not an official press release from Microsoft so we cannot ascertain how accurate it is, however given both these articles it seems that the claim the sentence makes is probably false.

What's your point? The sources you linked are from 1999, the source claiming the 58 million figure (why are you saying there isn't one? There is), is from 2004. The sales figures are from International Data Corporation. --Sek-2 (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

My point is the statement is misleading, the link explicity states "that over 58 million copies of Windows 98 were installed worldwide at the end of 2003". Installed base at any given time is not the same as the total number of licenses sold over the lifetime of a product. The sentence as it currently is strongly implies that.

Well... if the source says *installed*, as it does, why would we say otherwise? I don't know if there we licences allowing multiple installations, but there sure existed installations without licences, so it is not the same and we should not say it is. If a source says "black", we do not say "dark blueish", do we? We either ignore, as unreliable, or say what it says. So, I'll change it. - Nabla (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The line I am quoting is at the top of the article - "It sold an estimated 58 million licenses, and Microsoft ended mainstream support for both Windows 98 and 98 SE on June 30, 2002, and extended support on July 11, 2006.", which misinterprets what the article says. I argee with you that we should not re-interpret the article, it would be more accurate to state that as of December 2003 it had an installed base of 58 million copies, not that it sold 58 million copies.

As a retro enthusiast who has played around with installing Windows 98 for fun recently, Windows 98 has no way of restricting the number of times you can use 1 license key. The only restriction is that the key must match the version. (ie Windows 98SE Retail vs Windows 98 Retail vs Windows 98SE OEM, etc) However, in order to finish installing the operating system, you do need a product key. Admittedly, my adventures in installing Windows 98 come from the same few English ISOs from WinWorld, so it is possible other versions do have restrictions on uses/versions of some kind. However, the product keys I have used come from a random thread on Reddit, so if random keys on Reddit work on the ISOs from WinWorld, I have no reason to believe there is any kind of key use restriction or matching key restriction. However, I think we can safely say Windows 98 had sold at least 45 million copies, and I think it wouldn't be entirely unfounded to say it may have sold as many as 58 million copies. RetroFanboy990 (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

References

"Windows 99" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Windows 99. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 5#Windows 99 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Science

Anish 2400:1A00:B111:CDFE:F84D:3B0E:CA67:BE7E (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Windows XP?

"In addition, until the release of the Service Pack 1 update of Windows XP in 2002, all versions of Windows were unable to handle hard drives larger than 137 GB in size with the default drivers, due to the operating system lacking support for 48-bit Logical Block Addressing ATAPI disk drives."

What the hell does Windows XP have to do with Windows 98SE? This entire paragraph can be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.58.242 (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)