Switching from Vista to 98SE

Ok, this is gonna sound weird, but I am a Vista Victim,
and I've given up any hope of free XP for Vista Victims.
I can't even get my old Linksys WUSB11 adaptor to work,
and there is no Vista driver for it, etc, etc..

I happen to have an old Windows 98SE CD ROM from my
first Dell 10 years ago, and to be honest, I would prefer
that over VISTA any day of the week, it will work with
Linksys, has less bugs, less spyware and less intended
agrivation capabilities to distract people in these final days
of whatever's left to take over. 

So, where can I find a, step x step, "how to" do this?
And my computer vocabulary is challenged.
Or is there a free XP for victims of crime
that I hven't heard about?

Thaks.

You might want to check with your computer manufacturer about downgrade rights (Vista to XP) before you take the plunge.

Although Windows 98 might have controllers for your network card, waht about graphics?  PCI controller?  USB controller?  Motherboard?  All the other components that make up your computer?

Have you considered Linux?

Your adapter is supposed to work with Vista.  I suggest you visit http://forums.linksysbycisco.com/linksys/board?board.id=Wireless_Adapters and discuss it.

Ah now, Soybean, what did you go and do that for.  Now he's gonna stick with Vista!  Boo!!!

Why is it, when the MANUFACTURER doesn't provide a driver, the user is a victim of Vista?

Why does all of this effort fall onto Microsoft? And then, everybody turns around and calls it a bloated OS. Well guess what? If everybody didn't whine to Microsoft they wouldn't have had to add a bloody OS hack around some Dinosaur game that Mrs. Andrews got for her 2 year old son that no longer works because the programmers that wrote it can't read documentation. So what happens? MS get's blamed.


Guess it's easier to blame the messenger.

All right, calm down crankypants.

All right, calm down crankypants.

 

heh.

That post was actually a LOT longer....


I shortened it substantially though. 


But in all seriousness, If the PC came with Vista, I highly doubt Windows 98 will install, much less run or have proper drivers.

Either way, the reasoning for using 98SE in this instance is flawed:

I would prefer
that over VISTA any day of the week, it will work with
Linksys, has less bugs, less spyware and less intended
agrivation capabilities

While I won't argue the preference bit, Windows 98SE doesn't work with any wireless cards/add-ons I know of, has very limited USB support, DEFINITELY more bugs (this is 9x, after all) and its far more susceptible to spyware and viruses then later OS's when connected to the net.


a MUCH better alternative would be a linux distribution. Personally I would recommend either Ubuntu or Fedora (those are the two I have tried myself) Or Linux Mint (which I've got on a flash drive). All three work with all the devices my laptop has, Video, Sound, Wireless-N, automatically upon boot.

They all usually include a browser of some sort, as well. (usually Firefox or Seamonkey)

[Moderator]

Worst Vista bash i've seen in a long while...and i've seen a ton of them.

Windows 98SE?!? I know vista is bad, VERY BAD, but you are aware Microsoft stopped any support for 98 3 years and 4 days ago (July 11, 2006) I think you can get a legal copy (of XP) cheaper on the net now it is been replaced by Vista.

Again, no reasons why it's bad, just bold assertions.

I can tell you why Vista is bad, because noone wants to support it with drivers, because its just a piece of bloatware. I had it on my Dell Inspiron 1720 when I got it, I couldn't even play counter strike: source at more than 15 frames per second, running XP I get over 100 frames per second. That's all because of the crap windows loaded into Vista.

The best way to describe Vista is "hit-or-miss."

For 64-bit support, Vista is the way to go, as XP x64 had little to no driver support until Vista came along.

Vista RTM had A LOT of problems: trivial apps like the sidebar using up tons of memory, file copying taking significantly longer than XP, Windows Update failures, some networking issues.  Other problems are more the issue with manufacturers for not writing drivers for Vista and developers of legacy apps for poor development practices (i.e.: coding their app to assume administrative rights for everything). 

I NEVER recommend using Vista RTM on any machine with less than 2 GB of RAM.

Vista SP1 created a near 180 degree turn for the OS: file copies were fixed, networking was fixed, bloated items were optimized a bit--the OS can actually run with 1.5 GB of RAM (and even 1 GB of RAM after SP2!!!)

Between stupidly lower RAM prices, Vista SP1 fixes, and developers and tweakers alike finally wising up to Vista practices, Vista starting becoming a decent OS.  However, the damage to Vista's reputation was done:

1) XP was "good enough."  Vista was just change for the sake of change.  At least XP provided obvious benefits to home users that were using 98 and Me.   2000 users didn't warm up as fast, but XP was at least similar enough to 2000 to not cause too much discomfort...

2) The Internet age allows (mis)information to spread faster than ever before, which is why Vista gets slammed harder than XP did when it first came out.

3) Microsoft "forcing" Vista didn't help much, either.  DX10 could probably be backported to XP if Microsoft wanted to do so.  Halo 2 and Shadowrun were DX9 titles, but they were artificially locked out of running on XP.

4) Basic tasks all of a sudden became more difficult to do.  Want to boot more than one OS?  You have to edit BCD.  No more boot.ini.

5) User Account Control drove people nuts.  Granted it was a very sound idea: run Administrators as standard users, and elevate only when the user grants consent.  However, people want instant gratification (even if it does bring about drastic consequences).
 
6) Tools that were originally in XP are no longer in Vista.  Examples are NetMeeting and HyperTerminal.

7) Microsoft and Intel mismanaging the "Vista Compatible" program didn't help matters much...

Too many options can be just as bad as too few options at times.  It's even more confusing in the case of Vista Home Premium versus Vista Business when it comes to Media Center: Vista Business is more expensive, but doesn't even come with Media Center, wheras Vista Home Premium comes with Media Center...

9) Finally, needing large amounts of RAM just to run an OS seemed absurd at the time...

Despite all these gripes, in my humble opinion, I do think Vista is now a good OS.  Even if it's burned at the stake and will only be remembered as the Windows Me of the late 00s decade, it IS the building block of the not-yet-released-but-heavily-praised Windows 7 (as well as both Windows Server 2008 and Windows Server 2008 R2).

Let me put it to you this way, if I where to run vista with four gigabytes of RAM, the maximum my laptop supports, that still does not fix the interface issues, the fact that it still bogs my CPU, or fix that stupid data execution prevention. Those are a few minor flaws, I could list so many things I hated about Vista, but I'm not gonna bother. Vista was junk when it was Longhorn, and it still is. Its the next Windows ME, that's why Microsoft is rolling on with Windows 7. I think they spent more time thinking up Vista's name than working on it, though, as for windows 7, I can't really say, never used it, probably won't until it becomes shelf unit standard and I start fixing crap loaded with windows 7. Shelf unit standard as in, crap people buy off the shelves of wal-mart, best buy, ect.

Whatever floats your boat.  We're not using your laptop--you are.

Personally, I run Vista on an i7 920 with 12 GB of RAM.  It runs like a champ!!

Certain games that are RAM hogs (Battlefield 2, 2142) benefit from it, even though they're 32-bit apps.  Just modify the .exe with the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag, and it'll actually use up to 4 GB of RAM!  On a 32-bit OS, the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag only allows the app to use up to 3 GB of RAM, and that's ONLY if your boot.ini or BCD database has the /3GB switch in it.

Also, Media Center + 64-bit = Vista is your only option for now until Windows 7 is released (unless you want to use a public RC build). 

Either way, depending on your laptop's chipset, Windows 98 might not even run properly:

1) 98 chokes on anything over 512 MB of RAM without registry hacks (and even then, after 2 GB, you're going to have some MAJOR problems).

2) 98 doesn't support multiple cores, hyperthreading, or multiple CPUs.  Therefore, if your laptop is dual-core, it'll only use one in Windows 98 (if it even recognizes the CPU at all).

because no-one wants to support it with drivers

Actually, it's quite the opposite. Just try buying a new laptop with vista and downgrading to XP. I guarantee issues.

because its just a piece of bloatware. I had it on my Dell Inspiron 1720 when I got it,

Ahhh, see, here's the problem. you were using the same OS installed by the manufacturer. I would have... and in fact DID, have the same issue with my Toshiba L300... but it wasn't Vista that added the bloat, it was Toshiba.

I repartitioned the drive, deleted all partitions (including the recovery partition) and installed Ultimate x64, XP 32-bit, and XP 64-bit.


I think I can count the number if times I've run the XP installations on one hand; the Vista Install get's all the action, to the point where I'm considering removing the partitions and expanding my C: drive. I originally suspected that Vista would get a lower framerate then the XP installs- and it's true... on the average I have 2-3 fewer FPS on the vista installs then the XP installs.

I couldn't even play counter strike: source at more than 15 frames per second, running XP I get over 100 frames per second.

Basically, once again, The new version of Windows is being given a bad name by manufacturers. Just look at some PCs when they came with Windows 98SE installed. the PC would often have 64MB of RAM, and yet there would be 20-30 programs starting up in the system tray. The main thing that boosted your FPS was simply a clean install, not necessarily that that install was XP.

Manufacturer installs are not the way to judge the OS as designed; only a unbastardized clean install can do that.

That's all because of the crap windows loaded into Vista.

the very same tired old argument used when XP was introduced. People say, "it's different this time, Vista REALLY sucks!" But it's exactly the same tired old story. OMG! It needs more RAM and disk space! What bloatware it is!

Whatever floats your boat.  We're not using your laptop--you are.

Personally, I run Vista on an i7 920 with 12 GB of RAM.  It runs like a champ!!

Certain games that are RAM hogs (Battlefield 2, 2142) benefit from it, even though they're 32-bit apps.  Just modify the .exe with the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag, and it'll actually use up to 4 GB of RAM!  On a 32-bit OS, the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag only allows the app to use up to 3 GB of RAM, and that's ONLY if your boot.ini or BCD database has the /3GB switch in it.

Also, Media Center + 64-bit = Vista is your only option for now until Windows 7 is released (unless you want to use a public RC build). 

Either way, depending on your laptop's chipset, Windows 98 might not even run properly:

1) 98 chokes on anything over 512 MB of RAM without registry hacks (and even then, after 2 GB, you're going to have some MAJOR problems).

2) 98 doesn't support multiple cores, hyperthreading, or multiple CPUs.  Therefore, if your laptop is dual-core, it'll only use one in Windows 98 (if it even recognizes the CPU at all).

heh, but when using the LINK /EDIT /LARGEADDRESSAWARE:YES thing, just hope that the program your editing... is... well, large address aware


My laptop is a 2.0Ghz Dual Core; it ran like crap before I wiped the drive and clean installed Vista. After that it was practically indistiguishable, speed-wise, from the XP installs I had.

I was worried about Vista's performance as well, so I had reset to the Classic theme (which, for the record, I did also with XP during my initial foray with it). But recently  I became curious about the DWM and reset to Aero Glass. Still runs good. And this is a fairly basic, Intel graphics chipset. I'd love to see it on a full blown 3d accelerator from ATI or NVidia!