Subject:NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Posted by: silkworm

Date:10/22/2003 8:16:29 AM

ARRRRGHHHHHH

This is surely some sort of joke!

I just spent the last 3 hours downloading a 34MB file only to be told my This Operating System Does not support this application"

SUPPORT FOR WHAT EXACTLY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Funny how it worked fine before Sony took over, and dont try and tell me its because of some special XP features that 98 could never possibly handle. Specially when it works for 2000(!) which is several years old and less compatable anyway.

Wonder how much M$ tipped off Sony to force ppl into buying XP
Have they got any contracts together does anyone know?

Either way im not BUYING bloatware like XP to hog my valuable resources just to run this. Sony just wont get my cash, their loss.

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: drbam

Date:10/22/2003 9:05:40 AM

Recently (during the last 2 weeks) in this forum there was a lengthy thread on this issue. Do a search if you're interested in some of the details.

drbam

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: vanblah

Date:10/22/2003 1:28:15 PM

I know ... I stopped buying all software that doesn't run under Windows 3.1 ... they just aren't going to get my money if they refuse to keep making their software available for all versions of Windows.

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: Vocalpoint

Date:10/22/2003 2:04:02 PM

Jeez...here we go again.

Why not do yourself a favor and get with the program. (no pun intended). There have been a bunch of threads discussing this.

Also - you might want to read the system requirements before spending 3 hours downloading anything.

Or - stay with SF 6.0e...it works fine on 98.

Also direct Microsoft support for Windows 98 ends on January 16, 2004. As an appliation developer, I wouldn't want to have to program, test and market any app for an OS that has no support structure around it....

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: Iacobus

Date:10/22/2003 2:18:14 PM

Sorry, silk, but the jury has weighed in that Windows XP/2000, being based on Windows NT (ever hear of that?), will waste Windows 9x/Me any day of the year as far as performance goes. Facts are facts.

Please hold back on the tinfoil hat conspiracies, please. Most of us have upgraded to XP or 2000, so it's sensible to bring the software in that direction. And Microsoft has stated awhile ago they will not be supporting 9x/Me in the future.

Why hold everyone back on progressing forward? What you're suggesting promotes stagnation.

BTW, if you think you're going to buy into another program from another company, think about this: Their future versions will be supporting only XP/2000 as well. Cubase SX 2.0 and Sonar 3.0 already support XP/2000 only. How much you want to bet Steinberg/Pinnacle's WaveLab is next? (They haven't moved beyond 4.0 yet.)

You will find you have jumped ship for nothing.

Iacobus
-------
RodelWorks - Original Music for the Unafraid
mD's ACIDplanet Page

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: silkworm

Date:10/22/2003 6:25:07 PM

No your missing the point, as are most people. XP has been around a relativly short amount of time. The user base for 98 is just as big as XP, and although this will obviously change within a couple more years, the amount of people unable or not wanting to "upgrade" to XP are stuck with SF6.0. Ive nothing against upgrading or progressing software if the timespan is fair. They are only cutting their own profits by not supporting a still widely used OS. whether people should upgrade thier windoze or not is another argument, but the fact is that theres just as many 98 users as XP ones.

Im not saying they should carry on developing for 98 for the next 10 years or anything, but I cant see a good reason why version 7 at least couldnt have been made available for the thousands of 98 users who cant afford to get XP or dont wish to use reinstall their whole operating system.

Oh and I dont consider an OS that recommends 128MB ram and 300mhz cpu and 1.5gb of hd space JUST to boot up, efficient. regardless of how much power your computer has. thats just pathetic. and as for driver compatabilty on 2000.......pfff. Sorry.

BTW: where does the term "tinfoil hat conspiracy" come from :)

silk
---------
www.silky.dj

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: Vocalpoint

Date:10/22/2003 10:39:57 PM

Silk,

Actually, I think you are missing the point. I have to agree with Iacobus...what you are suggesting IS really promoting stagnation.

And in case you forgot - no one is asking, telling, wanting or demanding that you upgrade to anything. Whining about Sony staying with the times just goes to show that you are a whiner..plain and simple.

The bottom line - your Win 98 install and SF 6.0 will work just fine...now...tommorrow...3 months from now...

You can't afford XP? But you can afford to upgrade to SF 7.0...better get your priorities straight, pal. Last time I checked ...an XP upgrade was just over 100 bucks or so...at least the same amount as what you are going to pay for SF 7.0.

The world is now XP driven whether you like it or not. If you want to be part of the latest and greatest software offerings...you have a simple choice to make - pony up a few bucks and enjoy it or...stay with your old stuff and don't whine about it.

Why anyone would want to be a freakin' Win 98 Defender of Faith 5 years after the fact is beyond me...

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: RikTheRik

Date:10/22/2003 11:48:38 PM

Install windows 2000 if you want a lighter OS than XP...
All drivers are nowadays windows 2k/XP. I don't understand what you mean by driver compatibility. And you should not judge an OS by the time it takes to boot (well... few seconds on my setup). With all the hassle that win98 can create (as a really crappy OS), I don't understand why not upgrade...

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: keether

Date:10/23/2003 12:21:22 PM

I wonder how many people obtained a free upgrade copy of SF7 but haven't installed it. I'm still sitting on mine. The recent thread "Subtle differences..." discusses the questionable value of going to SF7.

It's entertaining to read the huge varieties of people's reactions to the new "no Win98 support" policy. But with the complaints about the way SF7 works, one would expect people who "can't" upgrade because of their OS to be sitting quiet, thinking "Whoa! Maybe I don't even *want* this new version!" SF6 is an amazing product and before SF7 appeared, the forum was not overflowing with gripes about it.

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: MJPollard

Date:10/23/2003 1:35:16 PM

I feel your pain, m'friend. To find that your 30+MB download doesn't work on Win98 after reading all the information and the product specifications...

What's that? You *didn't* read the product specifications?

Huh. Guess I *don't* feel your pain after all.

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: Geoff_Wood

Date:10/23/2003 7:10:10 PM

silkworm snivelled :
"Im not saying they should carry on developing for 98 for the next 10 years or anything, but I cant see a good reason why version 7 at least couldnt have been made available for the thousands of 98 users.... "

No, you're not saying that. What you are saying is that they should support redundant OS architecture until *you* make the committment to join the current millenium in terms of OS technology. Then they can dumpt it ....


geoff

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: fosko

Date:10/24/2003 2:44:56 PM

There is a good article in the current (nov 2003) issue of Electronic Musian about Windows XP and upgrading. Check it out. it might answer some questions on why.

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: CERTEGY

Date:10/27/2003 1:34:54 PM

I for one am also upset that Windows 98 is not supported. I understand that Windows 98se is an old OS but when I have an OS that works why should I have to upgrade? If you continue to "jump on the bandwagon" everytime Microsoft claims they have a better and better system, they will never fix issues. My reason for not upgrading to XP. Have you seen how much "spyware" is on XP? Not to mention the basic requirements for the OS. Bloatware is a correct name for this. Beside that, If I change more than 3-4 pieces of hardware in my PC I have to call Microsoft to get a new Code so I can continue to run their software???? (That is for another discussion) I for one hold off on any upgrade that is offered because of the various "bugs". I do not think we should have "bugs" in software but apparantly that is the way of life. That is probably why I wait to buy game software until they fix the bugs.

I have Windows 98se tweeked out and it runs Great! If software runs great why change it? It amazes me that Sony has decided to kill Windows 98. Thank God Vegas 4.0 still supports Windows 98. When that goes, I will not follow! I'll keep with what works.

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: combee

Date:10/27/2003 2:34:21 PM

The other thread was mine. I totally understand your frustration as I made the same mistake and ordered 7.0. I have returned the software and am amazed that my life seems to be just fine without it (and Windows XP).

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: Chienworks

Date:10/27/2003 6:51:47 PM

Pardon my humorous observation, but i'm amused by the juxtapostion of the opinion "i have no need to upgrade" relating to the operating system with the opinion "i need to upgrade" relating to the application. If someone feels so strongly about having a system that works as it is now, why would they want to upgrade at all?

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: Geoff_Wood

Date:10/27/2003 10:16:46 PM

I refuse to buy any software that will not run on Windows 3.0 . All other OSs are bloated and virus-prone, and utilise unnecessary hardware advances.

The multiple order of magnitude increase in processor speed has had the added benefit of now being able to spell-check my Word 1 doc in 250ms rather than the 5 seconds it used to take. This is really what progress is all about !

There have been no real tech OS advances since then, and the games are really very stable now.

Duh....

geoff

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: beetle1

Date:10/28/2003 11:25:08 AM

I notice that many people hang on to older Windows. I never understood why except that maybe they have software that will not run on newer versions. Hmmm, maybe they just don't want to spend the money. After all, it get's mighty hard to run XP on a seven-to-ten-year-old PC. And, people are afraid/resistant to change. Maybe they have everything set up perfectly and don't want to mess it up.

Me? I did have everything the way I wanted it with Win98. But, I also had a lot of crap too. And, I needed a new PC, so I built one. Why build for XP and then throw the old OS back in? Ecpecislly when there will no longer be support for it? What if some jerk writes a new virus for Win98 that bypasses the antivirus and firewalls? Even the antivirus and firewall makers have to decide what they want to support. We are on our own with no support.

If you can't go with XP, at least find a copy of 2000. (At least you won't be forced to buy and register it, and you can take it with you!)

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: beetle1

Date:10/28/2003 11:31:24 AM

My XP boots up in 30 seconds from pushing the on button to getting loaded.

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: beetle1

Date:10/28/2003 11:38:18 AM

I think what it all comes down to is that people don't want to spend money and they don't want to change. Change is inevitable. If you don't change you die.

I figure it's better to change now, when it is still comfortable to do so, than to be forced into it at my inconvenience.

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: discdude

Date:10/28/2003 12:58:20 PM

I'm not afraid of change. I went to Windows 98 very qucikly since I hated Windows 95. I also gave up Win 3.11 without reservation. I must admit I still haven't let go of DOS though (too many old games I like playing).

I have no hatred of 2000 or XP. In fact I maintain many Windows 2000 machines at work. However, I did a informal cost/benfit analysis and found no compelling reason to upgrade my home machine to Windows 2000 or XP.

So if a free copy of XP would happen to land in my lap (hint, hint), I wouldn't mind at all. But until a killer app comes along (and SF7 ain't it), I'm not spending a dime on an OS I don't need.

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: sk

Date:10/28/2003 8:02:18 PM

There are obviously many different opinions, and I doubt that there is a right or wrong approach - each person has to decide what s/he needs, and match up with the right product accordingly. For me, I detested the security leaks, phone home tendencies, and anemic configurability of XP Home. I did research - including reading everything MS had to offer - before ultimately choosing XP Home. I based it heavily on MS's own advice in terms of what my needs were; I am not into networking at all, and that was the litmus test, so to speak, as far as whether a person should go with Pro or Home.

Afterwards, I was very sorry I'd chosen Home. Almost all of the essential configuration tools - which MS really did NOT accurately depict in describing the differences between the two versions - are missing in XP Home, but they ARE present - and very much appreciated by this end user - in W2K Pro. Also, W2K runs on an older AMD K6-2 machine, and I wouldn't even try installing XP on that setup.

Additionally, W2K had already been through the "shake out" stage while XP was suffering from all sorts of "mysterious maladies", as evidenced by spending 5 minutes on any XP forum help site. W2K also had a plethora of available drivers, while XP often had to try to retrofit W2K drivers in its OS just to make a printer print. If anything should have been learned from decades of dealing with MS, it's that waiting with what is rock solid and works - and W2K IS rock solid, and it works - is almost always better than just "jumping onto the newest bandwagon".

And as an aside, I have yet to hear of anyone who has died because s/he is still using 98SE, or even DOS.

;-)

sk

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: beetle1

Date:10/29/2003 2:45:15 AM

sk,

You just may have gotten me there. I, too, looked at all the differences between home and pro. I really couldn't see much difference besides a couple of extra security features. It also seemed that the networking features they said were only available in pro were also in the home version. Now, maybe they added some things in the service pack 1, which I have, but according to MS, they were pretty much the same. I don't know what configurability features you have, but what I find in the Home version works for me.

Since I have no experience with the pro version, can you enlighten me on what they are? If there is something I do need, it's not too late for me to step up. Many places will sell the OEM version of both home and pro XP for a discount if you buy some hardware.

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: Chienworks

Date:10/29/2003 7:02:43 AM

The big thing that made me decide for Pro over Home was price. The best price i could find for XP Home was about $200 for an upgrade package. I found XP Pro full version on ebay for $135. Now that was a no-brainer.

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: msterlin

Date:10/29/2003 8:42:35 AM

I think the best place to buy XP is newegg.com. They sell OEM versions which means you don't get the worthless 20 page manual or pretty large box as with the retail version. Per MS reqmts you have to buy hardware - a $5 power spliiter cable qualifies and they often subtract that when you checkout. Home=$99, Pro=$139. There is no difference in features or functionality between the oem and retail versions.

The differences between pro and home are small, but well worth the extra $40 in my opinion. Home does only simiple file sharing (by default), cannot join NT domains, limits inbound network connections., does not support remote desktop features and a few other minor issues many of which are not used by most home users anyway. XP = W2K + new gui; if you like w2k's spartan corporate grey color scheme, you can switch to classic view and turn off all the graphics animations, fades, etc in xp and then you have w2k, so no reason to go with w2k unless you can get it for less than an oem version of xp.

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: beetle1

Date:10/29/2003 10:20:28 AM

My copy of Home has settings for remote desktop.

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: msterlin

Date:10/29/2003 5:18:51 PM

I stand corrected. Maybe its remote assistance that is not supported.

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: sk

Date:10/29/2003 5:41:07 PM

The biggest difference/advantage of W2K Pro vs. XP Home is, as far as I'm concerned, the availability/functionality of GPEDIT.msc. It's a group policy editor that is routinely mentioned in help sites that is totally absent in XP Home. It has nothing to do with networking, and a lot to do with what I term configurability. You'd be amazed at how many configuration options are squirreled away in that thing. Additionally, you simply cannot implement some of the fixes outlined on those sites that require that Group Policy Editor if you don't have it on your system. IMHO, that in itself is worth either the cost of XP Pro, or W2K Pro. I got my legal OEM copy of W2K for $79 a year or so ago.

sk

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: MJhig

Date:10/29/2003 5:53:07 PM

Those that want to run dual processors may consider the fact that Pro supports it and Home does not the determining factor.

MJ

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: sk

Date:10/29/2003 6:00:06 PM

That's a good point, mjhig, especially since some dedicated audio and video setups highly recommend a dual processor configuration. Do you happen to know if W2K Pro supports dual processors?

sk

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: beetle1

Date:10/29/2003 8:22:13 PM

It is supported...

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: beetle1

Date:10/29/2003 8:25:32 PM

Thanks, sk. I still hava a copy of 2k on one machine.

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Reply by: beetle1

Date:10/29/2003 8:26:48 PM

Thanks, sk. I still hava a copy of 2k on one machine. But i'm still wondering about the real differences between XP home and pro.

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98? What Gives...

Reply by: FixitMad0

Date:10/29/2003 8:34:41 PM

I find it amusing that many of you are talking about XP as the save all. If you enjoy updating your OS everytime MS comes out with, be my guest. The point most of us Win98 users wanted to make (I'm assuming at least for me)... Is the simple fact that if It works don't fix it. My Windows 98se is running great without issues. Everyone has their choice, but I still prefer Windows 98se. I have used DOS all the way up to Windows XP and I prefer 98. Is it wrong? No. It is my choice.

I think the point that was trying to be made was that Sound Forge 6 was 98 compatible and most of us still wanted to see something that would work under 98. AND when I talk about Upgrading, I'm talking about the user software NOT the OS.

The more apps that go away from Windows 98se support means less money for them!

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98? What Gives...

Reply by: sk

Date:10/29/2003 9:20:14 PM

I don't disagree, Fixit. And I was one of the ones who insisted that my 98SE setup was perfectly fine. I had a Compaq with a K6-2 chip, and was satisfied. But when I wanted to get a faster machine, I had to decide which OS to get. I purchased on-line so I wasn't locked into the "Best Buy" XP Home only option. But given the choice, I wasn't sure what to go with.

I initially got a 98SE disc, with the intention of loading it onto my new computer. But where I got my computer, it would only be warranteed if THEY installed an OS. So I figured since I already had my own copy of SE, I'd try something else. I got XP home, and hated it. Then I went and bought W2K, and loved it. I eventually took 98SE off of my Compaq and loaded W2K. It's amazing how much more stable it is now. I honestly didn't think that was possible, but it was.

So I just wanted to share my experience, is all. I'm definitely not one of those who thinks it makes sense to go licking MS's boots every time they come out with some other ploy to dig deeper and deeper into the market. But when I saw the test comparisons between 98SE and W2K, on several different non-MS sites, I figured since I had both anyway, I might as well give it a shot. And after having done that, you couldn't get me to go back to 98SE. It is a 16 bit OS system, and there's just no way you can compare a 16 bit system to a 32 bit system.

Comparing W2K to XP is another matter entirely. XP IS basically W2K, with some fancy window dressing and a bunch of crap I either don't use or don't want. Shoot, there are some Linux systems that to this day still run all Linux programs, even though they are 6 or 7 "incarnations" back. THAT'S the way to do it, IMHO. But MS is never going to follow that route. So for me, I just tried to find the best balance of performance and sanity, and W2K fit the bill.

As far as Sony's decision to gear 7.0 away from 98SE, I think that's sort of a shame, but realistically, I don't know if they had much of a choice. They're certainly not the only ones doing that these days. If it ever gets to the point that programs I want are only offered for XP and above, and not for W2K, then I'll be in the same boat, and I'm sure I won't like it.

sk

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98? What Gives...

Reply by: beetle1

Date:10/30/2003 12:07:03 AM

Well, let me ask you this, did you use Windows 95 or 3.1? If so, why did you upgrade? If you had a reason for upgrading, they are the vary same reasons many of us upgraded to XP. Yes, things worked well for me in Win 98 too, but I saw the problems that lie ahead for continuing to use an outdated software. If I wanted to try out some new hardware of software, I couldn't do it because of the limitation of my still using an earlier Windows. In fact, it has already happened. I got to the point to where Adobe Audition would not work in Win98FE, the next versions would not work, and the new soundcard I wanted would not work with anything but 2000/XP. Yeah, I had a copy of 2000, but frankly, since there was too much out there that was optimised for XP, I decided to go XP. And, I will be ready for the next Windows with XP.

If you all who stick with Win98 have all that you will ever need, God bless you. See you in the dust!

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98? What Gives...

Reply by: sk

Date:10/30/2003 12:36:44 AM

Gee, Beetle; you started out so positive on your second life here at SoFo Forum.

:-)

But, invariably, you can't seem to resist becoming emotional vs. rational. Be that as it may, the ONLY thing XP was "optimized" for, performance-wise, over W2K, was to plop more money down into Bill Gates' hands. Had you even bothered to do a little research and check out the performance tests I mentioned earlier, you would have known that.

Add to that the fact that the Group Policy Editor - another thing about which you know nothing - is probably the BEST freebie MS tosses in as far as truly optimizing a system, if/when you know how to use it. So the very "key" to W2K's genuine optimization ability is the VERY THING MISSING in your beloved XP Home. The only one eating dust, Beetle, is you; the dust from the money you could have saved by simply installing the W2K you already had, instead of squandering money on something that doesn't even do what was already in your possession.

sk

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98? What Gives...

Reply by: beetle1

Date:10/30/2003 7:33:20 AM

Well, there are some things, like surround mixing that can be written for NT kernel that couldn't be written for the 32 kernel. Also programmers have to go through the trouble of writing drivers for both platforms which is very difficult and expensive. If one wants to continue to keep down fotware prices, one has to make a choice: support current and up coming technologies, or keep trying to be compatible with an increasingly outdated archetecture? The reason Linux can continue backward compatability is because their kernel never really change. There was a fundamental shift from Fat, Fat32, and NTFS. Not even Apple can claim complete compatability between it OS versions.

Just think, because of jettisoning support for Win98/ME, and in some cases, 95, we will also see faster updates and bug fixes, like we did with SF 7.

There are some features in SF 6 and (yes, I primarily use Audition) that just never worked quite right in Win98. Now that I can run them in WinXP and Win 2000 the features work flawlessly, and quickly.

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98? What Gives...

Reply by: Chienworks

Date:10/30/2003 8:38:26 AM

One slight fallacy there is that anything that can be made to work under XP can also be made to work under 98SE, 98, 95, 3.1 ... even under DOS if you so desire. It is completely possible. However, whenever trying to make use of a feature that an older operating system doesn't support, the application programmers must then invest huge amounts of time in writing extensions to the older OSes to provide these features. Eventually the amount of time spent creating these extensions would completely overshadow any time spent on the application itself. So, yes, SoundForge 7 could have been written to support hyperthreading, unicode, multiprocessors, 137GB file sizes, 24bit/192KHz sampling, long file names, etc. under DOS 2.0 without Windows. In the end however, SONY's programmers would have wasted decades basically duplicating the equivalent to an XP shell and kernel to run over DOS to do this. Why bother?

Many new features in software applications make use of new features in the latest operating system because those features are already provided in the OS. Many of those features are in the OS because end users want them. It makes sense to use what the OS already provides rather than to waste time duplicating these functions in the application.

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98? What Gives...

Reply by: beetle1

Date:10/30/2003 9:20:37 AM

Like I said, I still have 2000 on another machine (my wife's). I really have not dug around too deeply in it, but I did notice that the security is somewhat easier to use and much more configurable than XP. I do know that XP was written so the casual user wouldn't screw things up so easily. I admit that I didn't like that aspect of what I call "hand-holding".

All in all, i'm still happy with what I got. Remember, I just came from using Win98FE. I didn't mess too much with Win2000. I could have saved $100. But, I also could have gotten a cheaper case, power supply, mobo, chip, RAM...hey, I did keep my Yamaha F1 burner!

I doubt I am being what you call emotional vs rational. In my mind, I made a deliberate, rational choice. Hey, I can STILL revert to 2000 if I change my mind! :-) I'll still be in the NTFS game!

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98? What Gives...

Reply by: sk

Date:10/30/2003 10:01:02 AM

It was your "eating dust" comment to which I was referring when I said "emotional" vs. your originally more "rational" approach of just trying to address more factual information and material.

;-)

sk

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98? What Gives...

Reply by: FIXITMAD

Date:11/2/2003 6:59:55 PM

I guess it comes down to what I feel comfortable with. For me, for now, I will be sticking with Windows 98se because all the software I own (or should I say have the right to use) works great with what I have. I orgiinally started with DOS and went to Windows 3.11. After that, my next jump was Windows 98se because it was way more stable than Windows 3.1 EVERY was. Anyway, Good points from everyone on their reason for Windows 2000 or XP. My choice for now is Windows 98se and since it does what I need it to do, I'm going to stick with it. (It aint broke so I'm not going to fix it).

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98? What Gives...

Reply by: sk

Date:11/2/2003 7:23:10 PM

That's the bottom line, to be sure, FixitMAD. Personally, I LOVED 3.11. I thought IT was the most stable OS compared to all of the previous MS incarnations. I finally went, kicking and screaming, into 98SE. At which point I thought IT was the most stable. I didn't feel "up" to NT, and mistakenly thought "W2K" was short hand for "ME", which, undoubedly, was/remains MS's WORST OS of all time. Once I figured out my "goof", I was eager to try W2K, and have not been sorry ever since.

It really wasn't until I loaded W2K onto my Compaq machine - totaly wiping the h.d. 1st, and ditching everything Compaq-related - that I came to appreciate the difference(s) between 98SE and W2K. I did NOT have the same feeling between W2K and XP Home.

sk

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98? What Gives...

Reply by: discdude

Date:11/2/2003 9:21:18 PM

I have had pretty extensive experience with Windows 3.11, 95, NT 4.0, 98, 98SE, 2000 and 2003. Some of these I maintain at work, some at home.

I have also dabbled with ME and XP.

Currently I own and use Windows 98SE at home. I am unimpressed with the new Microsoft OSes. Some things are better, some things are worse. However, on the whole, I just don't see a net benefit in upgrading.

However, that is not the reason why I think Sony should continue to support Win9x. I think it is because quite a few people still use Windows 9x. This thread is proof of that.

Bottom line, I understand that it doesn't make buisness sense to support an old OS no one uses, however many, many people still use Win9x.

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98? What Gives...

Reply by: beetle1

Date:11/3/2003 1:19:48 AM

WinME...I still wonder what the hell Microhell was thinking! Is is indeed the worst pile of poo ever! What's scarey is that scores of people have based their opinion of Windows on their experience with ME.

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98? What Gives...

Reply by: beetle1

Date:11/3/2003 1:23:08 AM

discdude,

I'd love to know just how many people use what.

There is actually nothing wrong with either flavor of Win98. It was always stable for me, and I did like it. It's just that it was becoming difficult to fild stuff I wanted for it.

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98? What Gives...

Reply by: sk

Date:11/3/2003 1:49:16 AM

Even worse, Beetle. I confused the two, and stayed away, unnecesasrily from W2K because of it. I ought to receive some sort of award for the stupidest "I Love Lucy" mix up ever with that one. It was a classic case of: "What the hell was I thinking?!"

But to respond to discdude also, the real point of this thread really was/is Sony's support/lack thereof of 98SE as far as SoFo goes, and, according to Sony's decision, SoFo WENT - away from 98SE. I know if I were still wedded to 98SE, I would not be happy about that decision. On the bright side, if there is one, 6.0e was/is a very substantial program that at least is still compatible with 98SE. Granted, it's more or less an "etched in stone" sort of deal, but it has so much going for it, someone using it is really not losing out all that much. It's still better than any other program I've tried. Granted, it doesn't really make it right; just that it at least gives a decent viable option for now and for some time into the future as well.

sk

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98? What Gives...

Reply by: Iacobus

Date:11/3/2003 12:59:35 PM

I can understand, discdude, but you also have to understand Sony is not the only DAW software company doing this. In order to remain competitive, I would imagine that the only way to make their software just as good (or better) would be to develop the software specifically for one platform, just as the competitors are.

Like I've said in my previous post, if Sony were to develop Sound Forge to support Win 9x/Me, I'd bet it would lose out performance-wise as opposed to an audio editor developed specifically for XP/2000 from a competitor.

Granted, XP/2000 aren't perfect (is any OS?), but I believe it's a step in the right direction.

Iacobus
-------
RodelWorks - Original Music for the Unafraid
mD's ACIDplanet Page

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98? What Gives...

Reply by: beetle1

Date:11/3/2003 1:37:56 PM

I ran 6.0 on Win98 first edition very nicely, although I wasn't supposed to be able to! I agree that anything else Sony puts out will have to seriously top 6.0 before I upgrade.

I mainly use Adobe Audition/Cool Edit, but I felt the same way silkworm did when I found out that the next version of Audition will not work on Win9x at all. The reaction is no different than what we are seeing here with this program. And, I imagine that legions of people will be especially angry when Photoshop ceses to be compatible with Win9x.

If one wants to stay on top of newer versions of software and hardware, one has to eventually move up to 2000 or XP. As far as I understand, XP won't even alloe unsigned drivers like the older OS versions did.

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98? What Gives...

Reply by: sk

Date:11/3/2003 1:54:55 PM

The whole "unsigned driver" thing is another one of MS's "push me-pull you" deals. On the one hand, it's not a "bad" idea, in an attempt to consolidate/resolve the driver incompatibility problems that plague MS OS's. However, the down side is that rather than just making the whole process readily available to all programmers - big and small - MS CHARGES for the privilege. And from what I've read, they charge a lot - more than some smaller programmers and companies can afford - or are willing to shell out. So it becomes yet another way for MS to use its monopolistic advantage to put the squeeze on everybody; the programmers and the end users. But unless or until there is some viable Linux or Mac alternative, Windows is the only realistic OS for me.

sk

Subject:RE: NO WINDOWS 98? What Gives...

Reply by: beetle1

Date:11/3/2003 5:46:15 PM

I believe there may be a few Lindows boxes sitting in a Wal-Mart warehouse, somewhere! :)