Win 98 performance / Doom and OS's

Hi all,

I'd be lucky if this post even goes thru, since I haven't posted
to this forum in ages and I wasn't sure if I could remember my password correctly.

Anyways...

A lot of discussion about OS's and doom has been going around recently. I see myself buying a new computer in the next year or so (currently I have a P300 w/ 64 MB running Win95). I don't experience very many problems or crashes but I would like to keep up with the latest. Whatever my new system would be I would like to be able to run all DOOM programs - that being DOS doom2 and other 16 bit applications - with problems. I'd also like to have a good gaming environment for more modern games.

So my understanding is that Win2000 does not have DOS support (since it's based on NT) and therefore a lot of compatibility has been lost. I've also read in other threads that people have had problems with 16 bit problems like wintex. I've also heard that WinME has similiar restrictions and so therefore it does not make that an option to me.

That should make Win98 second edition (or special or whatever they call it) the obvious choice. However, I have lately heard a lot of caveats against it. For instance, Fanatic said "Win98 is just too klunky and makes my monster system feel like a P200". Others have had similiar sentiments. So if I wanted to be able to retain all DOOM executable possibilities while having an OS that will be friendly with the latest games feature and speed wise what do you guys suggest?

Anthony

"that being DOS doom2 and other 16 bit applications - with problems."

Ooops, I meant that to say "WITHOUT problems". Yeah, that's the key phrase in this whole post. =)

Seems Microshaft is steadily doing away with backward compatiblity. The only solution I can think of for you is some kind of dual-boot system where you can choose either Win98 or Win2000 at startup. A real pain for sure, but I don't know of any other way that will let you run older Dos programs as well as all the new ones. You will definitely want Win2000 to run 32 bit apps because it is (from what I hear) much faster. I've heard quite a few horror stories about WinME though.

Windows95 is all I have to say. Simplicity - a P2 833MHz /128 mb with 95 will run waaay more efficiently than a P3 1.1GHz /256 mb with 98 or ME. Win2k will most likely require a 2nd processor to get the same performance as you would with the first processor and 95. If you don't mind the additional seconds of loading when you get speeds as high as today's machines, go with Win2k. If you gotta get the most performance out of your machine as possible while still being compatible, use the Win95 OSR2. I am personally a performance nut and love putting Win95 on the latest machines, you wouldn't believe how fast stuff runs.

Stphrz said:

Seems Microshaft is steadily doing away with backward compatiblity. The only solution I can think of for you is some kind of dual-boot system where you can choose either Win98 or Win2000 at startup. A real pain for sure, but I don't know of any other way that will let you run older Dos programs as well as all the new ones. You will definitely want Win2000 to run 32 bit apps because it is (from what I hear) much faster. I've heard quite a few horror stories about WinME though.

Hmm... That just sickens me. I'm sure it's just part of ensuring their stranglehold on the market by forcing consumers to buy not only the latest version of Windows but also the latest version of their software for Windows, as well. BTW, where the heck could a person get Windows 95, anyways? I was just kind of curious, as I only have Windows 98 SE, and I thought it would be cool to try out the downgrading Windows idea, but I suddenly realized that they don't even make Windows 95 anymore, let alone sell it.

Stphrz said:

Seems Microshaft is steadily doing away with backward compatiblity. The only solution I can think of for you is some kind of dual-boot system where you can choose either Win98 or Win2000 at startup. A real pain for sure, but I don't know of any other way that will let you run older Dos programs as well as all the new ones. You will definitely want Win2000 to run 32 bit apps because it is (from what I hear) much faster. I've heard quite a few horror stories about WinME though.

IIRC Whistler is supposed to have some modicum of backwards compatibility with older apps and games.

1) Don't hold your breath.
2) Fuck DOS.

You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, and if increased stability is the result then I can do without my old DOS games. Besides, ZDoom, Doom Legacy, PRBoom, EDGE, Vavoom, Half-Life, Quake 2, Q3A, UT, AvP, VtM:R, StarCraft, Diablo, Diablo II, and a host of other games, all work in Win2K.

I don't expect to win any of you over to my point of view.

geekmarine said:

Hmm... That just sickens me. I'm sure it's just part of ensuring their stranglehold on the market by forcing consumers to buy not only the latest version of Windows but also the latest version of their software for Windows, as well. BTW, where the heck could a person get Windows 95, anyways? I was just kind of curious, as I only have Windows 98 SE, and I thought it would be cool to try out the downgrading Windows idea, but I suddenly realized that they don't even make Windows 95 anymore, let alone sell it.

jeez id send you my cd, if i could ever find it, you know what though, if your downgrading, go all the way! Windows 3.0 baby! (It was 3.0 right... could be 3.1 anyone remember?)

AriocH said:

IIRC Whistler is supposed to have some modicum of backwards compatibility with older apps and games.

1) Don't hold your breath.
2) Fuck DOS.

You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, and if increased stability is the result then I can do without my old DOS games. Besides, ZDoom, Doom Legacy, PRBoom, EDGE, Vavoom, Half-Life, Quake 2, Q3A, UT, AvP, VtM:R, StarCraft, Diablo, Diablo II, and a host of other games, all work in Win2K.

I don't expect to win any of you over to my point of view.

What you say is true. It may be necessary to give up backward compatiblilty for a more stable, faster operating system. From what I hear from the local screwdriver jockeys at my favorite computer shop, WinME is neither faster, nor more stable. Win2k is a big beast requiring big hardware, so it's not really for everyone(read: it's bloody expensive). You are likely to see a performance decrease with Win2k unless you pony up serious cash for a good machine.

On the other hand, Win2k offers much more efficient management of what resources you do have. So if you have a good machine odds are applications will run better on it if you have win2k than if you had win98 (or win95).

Primative said:

jeez id send you my cd, if i could ever find it, you know what though, if your downgrading, go all the way! Windows 3.0 baby! (It was 3.0 right... could be 3.1 anyone remember?)

Yes, there is Win 3.1 and 3.0, but they're nothing compared to Windows 2.0 or Windows 1.3! Try running DOOM on that thing...

I once had Win 1.3 (IIRC) copied from somewhere, and tried it, but it was _quite_, eh, unusable really. :P (read: horrible)

I recomment do install win98 and if you like also win2k. It's absolutely no problem to have both installed, since win2k's bootmanager takes care of everything (I even boot Linux using win2k's bootmanager). As of my experience I can only saw stay away from winME. Though I've seen it running very fine on some systems I've had big problems, especially with DOS programs (bluescreening without obvious reason). I'd not use win95, it's missing some little changes that win98 has that make life easier (though I can't remember any ATM, I've not been using win95 for a long time ;)

Primative said:

jeez id send you my cd, if i could ever find it, you know what though, if your downgrading, go all the way! Windows 3.0 baby! (It was 3.0 right... could be 3.1 anyone remember?)

Windows 3.1, now that brings me back. I actually still have it on my old 486 SX (I'm allowed total access to that one because my sisters won't go anywhere near it, so it's actually useful). I wish Microsoft would return Windows to more like 3.1. I just loved having the program groups, and program manager, and all that other neat stuff that came with it. The only problem is you can't use Directx or 32-bit programs on it, but other than that, it rocks.

Win2k is definately out because it has no Dos support. There is no appreciable speed difference between WinME and Win98 (firingsquad.com did some good comparisons). Winme will run Dos in a shell (you can run Doom2.exe ok)but the 'shutdown to Dos' has gone (microsoft has 'hidden it'),the DOS-MODE patch for winme that restores this can be found here:

http://www.geocities.com/mfd4life_2000/

If you preffered win95's UI you can run it on 98 and Me with 98lite. It also has options for speeding up explorer without loading old files (limit the active desktop)
(http://www.98lite.net/products.html

Win95 has limitations with USB support. I have both the initial release and OSR2 of win95 you can have if you want to try them.

crawlie said:

Yes, there is Win 3.1 and 3.0, but they're nothing compared to Windows 2.0 or Windows 1.3! Try running DOOM on that thing...

I once had Win 1.3 (IIRC) copied from somewhere, and tried it, but it was _quite_, eh, unusable really. :P (read: horrible)

http://fraggle.alkali.org/scans/windows1.jpg
http://fraggle.alkali.org/scans/windows2.jpg

Don't expect to get to DOS easily if you go with ME. They even changed out the formatting so you can't directly add system files to it or make boot discs.

However, Gamecenter.com has a list of ways to get around this and achieve DOS in ME. (Boy that reads odd...)

My opinion? Get Win98SE, as soon as it's in put in Norton, then go to WindowsUpdate.com and get every single Goddamn patch, then install your software. Works for me.

I kinda like 95 but there's just too much of 98 that I find good use for, such as USB.

I would still try Linux... if only there was software I use on it an' stuff. Of course, I'm so used to surfing in IE5.5 I don't think I could get by without CSS now...

geekmarine said:

Hmm... That just sickens me. I'm sure it's just part of ensuring their stranglehold on the market by forcing consumers to buy not only the latest version of Windows but also the latest version of their software for Windows, as well. BTW, where the heck could a person get Windows 95, anyways? I was just kind of curious, as I only have Windows 98 SE, and I thought it would be cool to try out the downgrading Windows idea, but I suddenly realized that they don't even make Windows 95 anymore, let alone sell it.

imho, doing away with DOS is A Good Thing. Microsoft have gone on long enough providing support for legacy code and they cant be expected to keep it up forever. You've had 5 years to move everything over to 32 bit, and to whine about lack of DOS compatibility seems to me to be ridiculous. I've been using win2k for around a month on my machine now, and although I can't run a few old dos games, the tradeoff in stability is worth it.

geekmarine said:

Windows 3.1, now that brings me back. I actually still have it on my old 486 SX (I'm allowed total access to that one because my sisters won't go anywhere near it, so it's actually useful). I wish Microsoft would return Windows to more like 3.1. I just loved having the program groups, and program manager, and all that other neat stuff that came with it. The only problem is you can't use Directx or 32-bit programs on it, but other than that, it rocks.

You can run progman.exe to get the old 3.x progam layout. It would probably be a pain in the ass with all the carp most poeple have in in there start menu.

deadnail said:

Don't expect to get to DOS easily if you go with ME. They even changed out the formatting so you can't directly add system files to it or make boot discs.

However, Gamecenter.com has a list of ways to get around this and achieve DOS in ME. (Boy that reads odd...)

My opinion? Get Win98SE, as soon as it's in put in Norton, then go to WindowsUpdate.com and get every single Goddamn patch, then install your software. Works for me.

I kinda like 95 but there's just too much of 98 that I find good use for, such as USB.

I would still try Linux... if only there was software I use on it an' stuff. Of course, I'm so used to surfing in IE5.5 I don't think I could get by without CSS now...

i was the first to post that winme didnt have dos. that was when my cousin installed it on his pc, he eventually got it to work somehow. but then i installed it on my pc and everything worked perfectly

crawlie said:

Yes, there is Win 3.1 and 3.0, but they're nothing compared to Windows 2.0 or Windows 1.3! Try running DOOM on that thing...

I once had Win 1.3 (IIRC) copied from somewhere, and tried it, but it was _quite_, eh, unusable really. :P (read: horrible)

No stacked Windows, no color support, ACK!

AriocH said:

On the other hand, Win2k offers much more efficient management of what resources you do have. So if you have a good machine odds are applications will run better on it if you have win2k than if you had win98 (or win95).

hmm dont thay have software that gives you that type of managment for windows 98/95

1) no
2) no
3) no

*ahem*

fraggle` said:

imho, doing away with DOS is A Good Thing. Microsoft have gone on long enough providing support for legacy code and they cant be expected to keep it up forever. You've had 5 years to move everything over to 32 bit, and to whine about lack of DOS compatibility seems to me to be ridiculous. I've been using win2k for around a month on my machine now, and although I can't run a few old dos games, the tradeoff in stability is worth it.

Hey quiet you, I want my DOS support and I'm going to whine about it until I'm dead and stiff. I love DOS, I grew up on DOS (OK, we had Windows, but playing DOS games in Windows 3.1 is just plain crappy). I don't want to move on to bigger and better things, I want computers to stay the way they always were. Man, I'm starting to sound like an old geezer here, but I just really like DOS. I mean, where else can you use commands like, "C:\>PROMPT I am your God. What do you want from me?" I absolutely loved doing crazy stuff like that. I tell you, this killing off DOS support thing just proves to me that Bill Gates is an evil insane computer genius maniac. Come on, does anyone else support my plight?

geekmarine said:

Come on, does anyone else support my plight?

Absolutely. I only even use Win95 because hardly anything works in a 6.22/3.11 setup anymore; I've been forced. I wish I could return the favor by forcing Bill Gates' next OS to be DOS 7 or something. Bastard.

geekmarine said:

Hey quiet you, I want my DOS support and I'm going to whine about it until I'm dead and stiff. I love DOS, I grew up on DOS (OK, we had Windows, but playing DOS games in Windows 3.1 is just plain crappy). I don't want to move on to bigger and better things, I want computers to stay the way they always were. Man, I'm starting to sound like an old geezer here, but I just really like DOS. I mean, where else can you use commands like, "C:\>PROMPT I am your God. What do you want from me?" I absolutely loved doing crazy stuff like that. I tell you, this killing off DOS support thing just proves to me that Bill Gates is an evil insane computer genius maniac. Come on, does anyone else support my plight?

If your problem is not being able to use a command prompt, then there is no problem at all as win2k still has a command prompt. A few commands are different but it is essentially the same.

On a side note, once you've used any form of half decent Unix (read: Linux) command prompt you realise just how awful and underpowered the dos one is. I hardly use the win2k default command prompt any more and run the cygwin port of bash instead (http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/)

Theres a lot of shit talked about Microsoft these days, its pretty much "fashionable" to make fun of them, but I think that win2k is something that they ought to be congratulated for. Its still not perfect but its a hell of an improvement and the best thing they've come up with in several years.

Seems a lot of you think that having DOS arount just to play doom is great....haven't you forgotton about all the win32 ports, you don't need DOS, go with either win98 or 2K.

Fish eh? If you don't need USB why change?

Win8SE is my choice for least number of potential hassles. I have 98SE, ME and 2000 and can tell you many long boring stories about the last 2. Here's 1 short but disturbing one:

One ME machine with a SCSI CDRW and CD (runs DirectCD) crashes every single day when it boots - usually a "blue screen". Then I press reset and it reboots successfully and hums all day long.

If by chance anybody knows what's going on, fill me in. I've used MSCONFIG to minimize the loads. I suspect DirectCD, but without that I might as well go back to 98Se (which I'm sorely tempted to do).

PS: other ME machine runs fine. It's not hardware "warmup" I've let it sit for an hour (at a boot menu), before I continue.