It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant and self-important people can be.

So you have used computers for 12 years. Nice. Do you know what that says about the level of your computer knowledge? Nothing. I know people that use computers for much longer than 12 years and still the only thing they can do is write documents in Word.
Oh, and btw., what do you think for how many years do people like zZzZzZz or foosion use a computer? Do you think we are some kindergarten geeks that started to play Solitaire last week? Please...

And you say XP is crap. Well, I have used many systems in my life, and I can honestly say, that the only thing that is worse than Win98 is Win95. Or OS7, but I'm not that sadistic. Please give me one valid reason to use Win98 nowadays, other than outdated software. Because I really don't see any.

That was never my intention (the self-important part.. the ignorant one I don't see it). Not everyone is a robot ..

I really don't understand why you took it so personally.. but that's your problem.. there would be many things to say but I would probably lose my time..

As I did mention I have the right to MY OWN OPINION... it would be silly for me to tell YOU what you like and why.. don't you think? You DON'T KNOW me, you have no ideea what I like and dislike to an OS (but I'm not going to tell you that.. it would take too long, but if you're really interested I'll write you a pm) or to what purposes I'm using a PC/laptop and instead you're judging me.
And btw I started with DOS 5.0 and used: Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 95 OSR2, Windows 98, Windows 98SE and a little: Windows Millenium, Windows 2000 and Windows XP, not to mention some Linux distros. And till 8 years ago I was a programmer, though a modest one.

The first post was a try to persuade developpers to include Win98 SE support for foobar2000 not just a silly whining. Reading between the posts I saw that I'm not the only one wishing support for older OSes..

Foosion should be pleased now.. this time I've used "proper english" ( I hope).

<still using win98se. it may be crap but it's crap that doesn't cost me another hundred bucks>

That's hardly a good reason. There are free operating system better then Win98.

With full support for fb2k 0.9, which is what this thread is about?

cooler, I know some people like you that swear by Win98SE, but that's only relevant if you have a really cheap system, use old software, or imho are perhaps too stubborn to acknowledge the benefits of using a newer OS.
Sure XP has its list of problems too, but they are few and far between when compared to compatability issues concerning out-dated operating systems.
I'm not trying to crash your party, but it is very safe for us to assume that you're not a serious PC user if you're content with staying stuck in the dark ages.
You seem more interested in justifying your reason with the amount of computers you own, and that you're a programmer and what-knot, no one is really interested in those kind of justifications.
You should instead try to convince us publically why you think support for a Win9x system should be made, that way you would get replies from people that may sway in the direction of possibly agreeing with you, or at the very least, understanding why.

Pawel.

I think the problem with all those discussions of windows operating systems is that people always compare win9x vs. winXP, and completely forget that there was also win2000. Whenever i hear one of those XP-advocates, then they do list advantages which are not really XP-advantages but merely just advantages of the NT-architecture over the win9x-architecture. Or in other words, when people advocate XP, then they often do it just because its the only NT-OS they know of which has support for modern hardware.

As for Win9x - i'd say its main advantage is low hardware-requirements. Not much else. So, if your machine can handle it, then you will only gain from using an NT-based OS - and XP is not the only one there is.

- Lyx

Indeed, I installed win2000 on a very old machine (it was new when win95 was only just released) and it works like a charm. I did have to buy some extra ram through the internet but that was only 10 euro.
If you have an even older computer then maybe you should buy a new one, 1995 was ten years ago.

You can strip XP down to be nearly as basic as 2000, so advocating 2000 in place of XP isn't necessarily the most valid position.

I had XP running as well as 98SE on a P2/233 (with 128MB of RAM no less) for most applications (foobar2000 in particular was more responsive on XP). It's all about getting rid of useless services.

I didn't intented to get into this.. but I'll explain you why i like 98SE and why I don't like XP. But before that I propose that a moderator would create a poll in which all are invited to express their view on this problem. It should sound like this: "Do you think we should add support for Win98SE/ME?" and there should be 3 possible answers:
1. Yes
2. I don't care
3. No

If there are many people saying yes, then I think foobar2000 developpers should add suport for Windows 98SE/ME.. that of course if they care about their users... if they don't want to spend some extra time writing code or modifying it just to keep some of us happy then we're wasting time here..
Now.. to get to my systems.. i currently use 2 PCs: a Toshiba Tecra 8200 laptop (P3-750/256 MB/12 Gb hdd/16 Mb AGP) and a Duron 1600/512/80 Gb/Asus Gef 4400 128 Mb. Maybe some of you consider this outdated but for me they are enough. I use a tweaked Win98SE that has about 200 Mb installed ( I use Shane Brooks's 98lite + an Unofficial service pack). I like things to be simple, small and fast... that's not the case with Win XP. I have about 6-8 processes running in background when I start Windows 98SE.. Win XP has more than 20.. that's not just to say that Win XP is more complicated, but that speaks something about the resources they are using.
Windows 98SE is giving me much more control than Win XP does... if I have a problem I boot in DOS and solve it very easy.. If something nasty infects a Win98SE I just give that process end-task and then delete the malicious file (that does not happen on my computers)... under Win XP if such a file can be marked as SYSTEM then you cannot do that...
I install just a small amount of programs that I call "essentials": Total Commander as file manager and compressing/decompressing tool, Firefox as web browser (IE is COMPLETELY removed thanks to the 98lite), Irfanview for viewing/modifying images, acrobat reader 4.05 , Open Office, winamp 2.91 for music files, gaim as instant messager clinet and mplayer (NOT media player) for viewing movie files. I ocassionally install some 2-3 more programs. I use F-prot for DOS as antivivirus. These programs are simple, fast and some do not add anything to the registry. I use many tools for diagnosing hardware problems under DOS.. So you see: my suystems are VERY stable and lightining fast. I use a black desktop with minimal icons (to protect my screen). I don't use a resident antivirus (but hadn't viruses for years ).
For Windows XP you need a good antivirus.. without it there's no way you should use Internet.. that adds a good burden to the system... So Win XP is taking seriously more resources than Win 98SE.. and it's much more vulnerable thanks to its Internet Explorer deep integration..
I might be a uncommon user of WIN 98SE but even for the standard installations things are not too different.
Win 98SE has some limitations like its inability to deal with complicated systems (that have really many devices -all PCI slots full-) and is much more sensible to the amount of installed programs, but other than that is better in almost every aspect. I desactivate every piece of hardware that I'm not using (like the Com and LPT ports, gameport, etc).. My systems always worked like charm... I had quite a few... and about 7-8 years ago I abandoned the software part for the hardware one.. I built and repaired/improved more then 100 systems..
For me: WIN XP is BIG, UGLY, INSECURE (by default), its installation takes a lot of time and it costs me extra money.. why should I use it? For the latest games that do not run on 98SE? I don't play anymore.. There's very little software that has no support for Win 98SE... of course the amount of such software will increase with time... but by the time I would be having serious problems I'd be running some Linux distro.
I mention that I install WIN 98SE at least once in every 2 months (usually I change my systems even more often)...
Ahh.. there's lots of users installing hundreds of crappyy software on Win 98SE and then complain about stability? That's an other problem..
There are many improvemets available for Win 98SE ; check for instance http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showforum=91
I really do not like the way Microsoft headed with its OSes... neither their practising in "convincing" to upgrade your OS... just so they can make more money...
Win 98SE is not perfect but it can be greatly improved.. and you may have noticed that the most of software that I'm using is freeware... and most of it is ported to Win32 from Linux.. I'm on my way to Linux now.. I just wait for a little more maturity of it...
I appologise for my post.. it has little to do with foobar2000.. but I REALLY hope foobar2000 will work on WIN98SE and ME (see.. I'm not selfish )
I'd be please even with a simplified version of foobar2000 (omission of elements taht take too much time to adapt to Win98SE/ME OS)
Have a nice day!

Use v0.8.3. It works great here. I doubt I'll switch to 0.9 until someone can be bothered to port foo_freedb over (and possibly a couple others).



This is complete and utter bullshit, by the way. I've run Windows XP without a firewall or virus protection since I've installed it (and ran 98 in a similar fashion). The only thing that's ever gotten me was msblast.exe, and I had that one figured out and fixed in an hour or so after being infected. Internet Explorer poses zero security risk if you're not using it.

XP does not require rebooting like 98 does (I've gotten literally months of uptime on some machines), does not require reinstallation ever (assuming competent administration), and can be completely maintained without much subjective degradation over time. Personally, I've had far fewer problems with XP than either Linux or 98.



Also a complete fabrication. Just because you don't know how to do it doesn't mean that you can't do this. I have no idea what "marked as SYSTEM" means, but I've had no problems removing very malicious spyware from various people's computers (and even made money doing so) with very basic tools. (Suspend suspicious process, kill process, delete file.)



BIG: Yes, it does use more hard disk space, but on modern hard disks, it's mostly negligible.

UGLY: You can turn themes off and make it look and behave identically to 98.

INSECURE: We've covered that. The operating system for the most part isn't insecure, the problem is that the users are clueless.

I am unsure about 98, but XP can be made into an unattended installer, which cuts installation time down to the bare minimum, and installed faster forme than 98 ever did. On top of that, like I said, XP doesn't require reinstallation like 98.

In conclusion, just because you don't know how to run an XP machine doesn't make it inferior to 98.

If you mean that some processes are shown as system in the taskmanger, then you have to know: If they are marked as system then they ARE system. All processes which you started or which start automaticly are marked as users processes! And never as system, also you can stop these processes anyway!

Thanks. That says everything. Do I have to say more?

We all know why you have to do that. So, let me just say that my XP install runs absolutely without any problems for more than a year. You can add "stubborn" to the list of characteristics I used to describe users like you.

If you have to boot to DOS to fix something in Windows, then that's a sign you have something very wrong with your computer. I'm not saying XP will fare any better, but I'd investigate something lower-level than your OS.

I've never heard of that "marked as system" problem. For things like that, I just unmark them and go on.


Haven't used one in years, and my internet connection is fine.


Like I said, it sounds like my XP system.


Once you tweak it, it's fine. (Which shouldn't be a problem for you since you say you have to tweak 98 in order to make it work..)


Let me know when you get tired of doing that, because there's something you don't have to do with XP. I've been using the same installation for over a year-and-a-half, and it's been rock-solid from day one. I remember running 98, and I remember reinstalling it every couple months as well.


I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the developers to change Foobar just to please one person, but then again I've seen stranger things happen.

So, you're saying that it makes more sense to install an OS where you need to manually remove the bloat, instead of choosing an OS where you get just that out-of-the box?

If you throw manually stripping down an OS into play, then for an objective comparision you need to apply that aspect to *both* OSs:
- You can strip down XP to nearly win2000 level
- You can strip down 2000 to even less
_______________

What i am saying is basically:
If someone runs Win98SE because:
- You dislike the bloat and overhead of XP
- You ran into problems when using XP

And you do have
- At least 128mb RAM (better would be 192mb)

Then you may have more luck win2000. In case you only have 128mb RAM and you are technically skilled, then you may even be able to get win2000 running at reasonable speeds with just 128mb RAM by stripping it down(for example, i managed to get Win2k OS-RAM-usage down to below 70mb). Since win2000 does not have a firewall preinstalled, you may want to install a lightweight one (like i.e. the older freeware version of "tiny firewall").

Thus, i would say win2000 is a valid alternative for those who either have a low amount of RAM, or who cannot get XP to run in good shape. Of course, if XP runs just fine on your system, then there is no reason to switch.

- Lyx

Well.. it might not make any sense continuing this discution.. Some people misunderstood me.. maybe I haven't wrote in "proper english" )
The reinstall part is due to the fact that I change hardware really often.. So if I change my mainboard that has a VIA chipset with a newer mainboard that has a NVIDIA chipset, things do change considerably.. AND YES Win XP would kinda block to such a major change just like the Win98SE (that was verified on a friend's machine running Win XP).
I do reinstall things because each time I'm trying to improve things (you know: there are newer drivers, newer version of programs, etc). I had Win98SE working for about 9 months witout any problems on my desktop system (from the University).. I really hate reinstalling Matlab, that's why I kept it so long... I even tried lots of software in those 9 months... Maybe once or twice in about 6 years I was FORCED to reinstall (but in the same amount of time I did more than 100 installs on many machines).. most of the time I reinstall just to have my system faster.. There are problems with Win98Se systems but that's just because their owners don't know much about computers or OSes. The last time I reinstalled Win98SE to a computer (other than mine) it was for somebody who had it for 4 YEARS!!! He didn't know how to reinstall it.. and if it wasn't for the viruses it collected entering some xxx sites it would have still been working.. it had heaps of software installed and the Windows was still working..
I NEVER reinstall WIN98Se on top of an older instalation. My reinstall is: format c: /q /s and then setup.... so I only do fresh installs.. it takes little time and I'm not disturbed at all by this..
BUT as I told you I change my systems VERY often ( I had about 10 laptops in the last 15 months)... so yeah.. I have to install it..
As for the Windows XP I had encountered MANY problems.. Once I was trying to fix a laptop running WIN XP and when I connected it to the network (at the University) it got instantly infected.. with a virus that rebooted after announcing me that.. The virus got into the lsass.exe (or something like it) that was a SYSTEM process.. actually it was the sasser worm not quite a virus.. I had been with my desktop computer in the same network for the last 2 years but never had ANY problem with viruses/worms, etc..
I'm not trying to advocate Win98SE.. it's not extraordinary.. it has its shortcomings.. but for me it's FAR better than XP.. and let's not forget that XP is a more recent OS..
I didn't give XP just one try.. I tried it few times and on many computers.. I even got nuhi's nlite (http://www.nliteos.com/) but still wasn't satisfied.. maybe I just wasn't lucky.. who knows.. but I really don't like anything about XP.. REALLY ANYTHING...
I think we should end this discussion.. Some of this members are trying to misinterpret what I write.. and I kinda had enough justifying..
You know.. far back in the "dark ages" programmers were trying to optimise the code into an extent that would put today programmers into shame.. (no offence). Today hardware is powerful enough for many to be too lazy to try to squeeze every piece of performance they could get.. Probably most of the time this wouldn't be justified but still.. it's a matter of how you deal with things..
If foobar 0.9 or later won't support 98SE it won't be the end of the world There are other alternatives..
I wish you all to have stable systems and a long happy life!

Yay for OS zealotry!

Lyx: of course it doesn't make sense to install a bloated OS simply to remove the bloat. I can't speak for the others, but personally I use Windows XP because it offers some really nice extras compared to Windows 2000, like remote desktop, cleartype, a decent built-in firewall, built-in time synchronization, shadow copy, better hardware support (e.g. the bluetooth receiver and SD card reader from my laptop don't work in Windows 2000) and other things I'm probably forgetting. And in this case, unfortunately I also get a more bloated OS, but most of the bloat can be removed.

BTW, I recommend all XP-haters to read the following article, it's very in-depth and interesting:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/0...el/default.aspx

Of course Windows 2000 is still miles better than Windows 98. It's quite unfortunate that there are still people who keep using this outdated OS. It's a lot less robust, scalable and secure than the NT/2000/XP line of Windows (I started using NT4 shortly after it was released and hardly touched the Win9x-line after that). Oh, and never mind the fact that you cannot even use a decent filesystem with it, so you're stuck with the 4GB file size limit and no journalling.

"oh and did I mention proper unicode support?"

</rehash>

On my mother's Pentium 200 and 64MB ram, Win2k runs very good and most importantly stable.

cooler, that nlite program is awesome, thanks for posting the link!

Good point. I agree that in your case XP makes more sense.

- Lyx

@Lyx: Point well taken, but most of the configuration issues can be made to be a one-time only issue through an unattended install. I should try hack around with XP some more and see what I can get it down to. I'm more skilled now than I was when I stripped that last XP down.

Personal preference has a lot to do with everything too.

If you're referring to me, would you mind pointing out where I'm actively trying to misinterpret? I debate the points you make, that is all. To be honest, this statement seems more like you're obliquely acknowledging that your initial points were invalid.



Nowadays, developers are often more concerned with extensibility, security, and good design, which I believe to be a more justifiable change of focus given today's hardware. You appear to believe otherwise.

No ones seems to have mentioned also that foobar should run fine on WinNT 4.0 too. It's has the pretty much the same system requirements as Win98, but uses the NT architecture. I currently have 9 PC's in this room not a single one has win98 on it. I use winXP, 2k, NT, server 2003 & several types of linux. Win98 just breaks too easily too often. The only M$ operating system I've used thats worse was winME. While it's not my right to deny win98 users the right to a great app I feel it's important to point out there are plenty of technical reason involved that I know little or nothing about too. It seems sufficient that foobar 0.8.3 works on win98. The OS is rather old now and I would encrourage anyone on win98 to upgrade to something newer and NT based.
EDIT: And internet explorer is probably no more secure on 98 than XP. I use Firefox though.

Duble0Syx: It's unknown as to whether or not foobar2000 v0.9 will run on NT4. Apparently there are some DirectSound issues.

If anyone would like to test NT4, please post information on your experiences in the forums!

Hi...
I hate not nt based windows, espesially winME. But I'm totally lost with winXP advocate's argument: "You can make winXP to look and feel like win98" I don't think it's a good reason to move to a new system and spend hundred of $ for it.
I can suggest that the only technical reason for fb2k not to run on not-NT is the lack of Unicode support. I think the solution when one binary whould work on both win98 and NT will be a great step forward (not a drawback to the stone age). And this step may lead us closer to the support of other systems (POSIX/GNU/Linux for instace).

Actually the argument was that one shall not be deceived by unprofessional look of WinXP Professional (hah! pet peeve alert!), for that can be remedied.

Of course if you strip away the "fancy" looks you still have the more robust and modern core operating system left.


Not on my planet.

Look, if you are too dumb to turn Windows XP's integrated Firewall on, then that's certainly not Windows' fault.

NT4 doesn't support USB. So really, there is no NT OS for machines with less than 128-192 MB of RAM. The funny thing is that OS/2 Warp 4 (released in 1996) supports USB nowadays. The decision not to integrate USB support into Windows NT4 was definately a political one

hello, Lyx.
I find "below 70mb" amazing. i'm running Win2k with unnecessary services and startups disabled and using kerio personal firewall as firewall, but the system takes up about 100mb. I can't figure out what to do any more. Could you suggest any useful links or
resources regarding system optimization? thank you

Well, "without unnecessary services" is relative, because it depends on how much information one has about the services and their dependencies.

One interesting link including a script may be this one:
http://www.ntsvcfg.de/ntsvcfg_eng.html
Note: i had to reenable netbios after using the tool to get inet to work again.

Another - unfortunatelly not free - tool is 2000lite/XPlite:
http://www.litepc.com

There are many other minor things which one can do - too many to list. For example, on a low-RAM system, you can free up resources for apps by allowing windows to temporarily unload unused parts of the kernel. Also of course check the RUN-keys in the registry to see if some apps silently have added "quickstarters". I guess bloated drivers may also make a difference.

I measured the RAM-usage after a fresh restart with only TinyFirewall(older freeware version) started. No realtime-virus scanners. No app-startup accelerators like i.e. MS Office quickstart. I actually was at 67MB, but i rounded it up to 70MB to be save about my claim :)

As always: when removing/tweaking parts of the OS, never change something of which you are not absolutely sure what it does.

- Lyx

Eh, I myself switched from Win98SE to 2000 almost a year ago. Reason? To use Kernel Streaming in Foobar. Yup, that's it. That is the only reason why I upgraded. At the time...

Had to wait a while though, had to get a new HD. Turns out that 2000/XP don't support harddrives that don't have cache. (Why it didn't have cache, I have no idea, was in the design specs. Couldn't complain, got it free of a friend when he upgraded. Also had to search the MS info database for hours just to find out why it kept crapping out on me.)

Also, 2000 ran great on my K6-2 375, and runs even better on the P2-333 I got now.

So, if you don't want to upgrade to <Insert generic negative remarks about XP here> Windows XP, then just upgrade to 2000. Plus, I bet you can find somebody that'll give or lend ya a OEM install CD for cheap/free. Just make sure you download SP4 and the rollup and burn them to CD and install them before you connect that fresh 2000 comp to the net. Or do what I do, Linux firewall.

Do I honestly miss Win98SE? Yes, a bit. There are a few old games I still can't get working under 2000. But they're just old H-Games.

Can I live without 98SE? Sure, 2000 is just plain faster, less of a memory hog (Belive me, in the long run, 2000 uses less memory than 98SE ever did.), better resource management, Unicode support (Huh? Wha? I honestly don't think I've seen it used yet. Then again, maybe I have used it... *Plays spooky music*), NTFS support (Yay! Individual file compression!), and best yet, supports Kernel Streaming!

Do I personaly think that support for 9x should be added to Foobar 0.9? Honestly, I don't know. If there's a way to access the fabled Unicode layer in 98SE, maybe.

What if support for 2000 were removed from Foobar? ... ... Canadian's are supposed to be peacefull, Canadian's are supposed to be peacefull, Canadian's are supposed to be peacefull... Screw it! Where's my guns?

You can't go wrong with 2000. Miss Dependable since 1999! (Anybody make a joke about the name and release date, I send 2K-tan after them.)

Getting rid of Win9x' silly resource limitations would be reason enough for me to upgrade to something sane (read: NT-based)

Holy crap you're posting that from a 98 machine? Talk about hypocritical. 98 is probably the least secure OS ever shipped. It doesn't even have a concept of permisions! Anything can write anywhere and change anything. Its order of magnitude less secure then XP. Plus they've essentially stopped providing security updates. So you've got an OS that doesn't even understand security, and is full of holes.

Surprised he did not say that Win98 is better because all new virus are for WinXP and not Win98/Win9X. lol

That is the one liner I hear most often, which of course is total BS!

And even if it where true the point is mute as then the problem is not a virus, but YOU due to your failure to have any damn common sense!

Not exactly. What I find really sick is that they've stopped mainstream support for 2000, but not for 98SE.

Well basically 98SE is most recent 9x version, while 2k has been superceded by more than one NT version already.

At least that's what I'd suspect to be MS' reasoning behind this..

Would that mean that they have accepted that WinME cannot be considered an "OS"? ;-)

WinME is not an OS, but my mouth (and fingers) refuse to say the words describing what WinME is.

I currently use Windows XP, but one of the things I really loved about Windows 2000 when it came out was that it would run on just about any hardware. There was a guide on the frontpage of OSNews.com the other day, it reminds me of what I did with my Father's old 233MHz 64MB computer.

http://www.nexle.dk/daniel/win2000-32mb/

That article is for you Cooler

I've read the article (well, a part of it). Altough there are some interesting things, "Playing sound takes CPU resources and getting sound files takes memory.. disable sound effects, and even disable the sound card.." be serious.. After all those modifications that's not much left from that PC..
I use Win98 on a Pentium 133 Mhz laptop with 16 Ram. And I still have 3 Mb Ram free.. and this with soundcard enabled (of course).. Well it's a micro98 version from the 98lite...
Let's make 1 thing clear: I have no intention to move to NT-based OSes.. so don't waste your time trying to convince me. I haven't made the switch for skype... I won't do it for foobar2000 ...

Two users in this thread suggested to stick with version 0.8.3 on Win98. This is not very promising because the plugin API is changing all the time and if new formats appear or some other are changed and become incompatible with older decoding libaries, any new foo_component will never be added to Foobar2000 on Win98.

Nobody's making you move, but the fact is, you don't have one single good reason to stay on Windows 98 unless you are too poor to spend $100 for a used laptop which is four times as powerful as yours. Given that, I think there are way better uses of the developers' time than trying to stay compatible with you.

And yeah, I get a kick out of the people who brag about how secure Windows 98 apparently is, and how "ugly" Windows XP is, seeing as one of these OSes you can skin to look however you want, and one you can't.



Says it all, man.

http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifean18

Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Millennium Edition Support ends on July 11, 2006

Final customer notification about the end of Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Millennium Edition Extended Support

Support for Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Millennium Edition (Me) ends on July 11, 2006. Microsoft will end public and technical support by this date. This also includes security updates. Microsoft is providing final notifications to customers to end the extended security update support for these products.

Microsoft is ending support for these products because they are outdated and these older operating systems can expose customers to security risks. We recommend that customers who are still running Windows 98 or Windows Me upgrade to a newer, more secure Microsoft operating system, such as Windows XP, as soon as possible.


I think that what it basically comes down is - if you want to stick with using an obsolete Operating System you have to accept that the Applications you use on it will also become obsolete.

A bit of a delay, but i just tried foobar v0.9 on WinNT 4.0 and it won't start. Install fine, but there is an error linking something or other in shell32.dll.
v0.8.3 works fine though. But yeah, Win98SE is old and basically crap when it comes to stability and security when compared with Win2k and XP. Although being able to install it on a 500mb hard drive with room to spare is nice. Something I doubt Win2k can do, and XP definitely can't. Thats life though. I'd like foobar to run natively on linux, but I know better than to ask for it.

To TSThomas ::
What does Foobar have to do with the so called "support" from M$? I don't think I will notice my OS behaving differently after 2006-07-11. I wonder if Win98 will become freeware after that date. lol


The possibility to skin the OS is not a benefit. An operating system should do its job without becoming too apparent to the user, rather than installing a hundred MB of purely visual content without any built-in possibility to remove it. Nobody will install GTA:SA videogame just to listen to music thru its "radio". Yet modern OSes look very much like this, Vista being the extreme case.


Yeah, my WinXP takes up around 500 MB. I stripped the OS down to minimum, because I neither buy computer hardware for Windows, nor an antivirus.

You know, given the fact that you're such an awesome and knowledgeable tech geek, you should probably compile your own Linux kernel, or even better, install *BSD (With a custom kernel, offcourse, containing only the hardware and feature support YOU need), then get X on it and a lean mean and clean window manager, like FluxBox. Not only would you never ever have to reinstall your system again, but you could basically also get an enormous performance boost. Unix-like operating systems can be as small or as big as you want them to be.
But you probably already know that, right? I mean, having 12 years of computer experience and all.

Seriously, though. I'm not your usual Linux advocate (I hate it like the plague. My servers are FreeBSD-only, and my desktops are Windows XP), but I think that you in particular could benefit greatly by getting a minimal Linux distro on your systems. Forget about Ubuntu and Fedora - They are the mothers of bloat.

I just cant help feeling sorry for you. Windows 98 is technologically inferior to nearly everything today. My mobile phone has more features than Windows 98. It's even more stable. Runs for months at a time. Also, I've only "reinstalled" my mobile phone at times when a new firmware patch was available. Doesnt it bother you just a little bit that your OS of choice is inferior to the functionality of a mobile phone?

Hi everyone,

I notice that Windows 98 is not supported for foobar2000 version 0.9. I am using Windows 98 SE, and would like to check out foobar2000. The installer won't go beyond the OS check, but I wonder whether the program utilizes any functions/APIs that are only available on Windows 2000/XP? Would there be any way to make it run on my computer?


Thanks for your help.

Ivan

It does.
I am running foobar2000 in linux (Ubuntu Dapper) right now, and it works just fine. You just need to install wine.

You can still use v0.8.3. I think it is even better than the most recent version.

Well, that's like asking, why isn't foobar available for DOS. If they manufacturer is no longer supporting or developing the OS then it seems there's no real reason why other developers should. Like I was saying, if you're planning on using a dated OS you can't except to have the latest software work on it. Just stick withan older version of foobar instead.