Should Windows 98/ME be supported?
Wednesday, August 7, 2002 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize News
It's frustrating. I go over to download.com and see user reviews on WindowBlinds:http://download.com.com/3000-2326-10131236.html?tag=sptlt
And reading it, you'd think that WindowBlinds was junk. But we know it's not. We know it works really really well, especially on Windows 2000 and XP.
The problem is that on Windows 98 and ME, things get dodgy. Those versions of Windows have a limited number of GDI resources. So sometimes desktop enhancements (not just WindowBlinds) work perfectly and sometimes tweaking needs to be done to them.
According to the stats on WinCustomize, Only 19% of the visitors here even use Windows 98/ME. A year ago it was 45%.
This raises the question - how long should these cutomization unfriendly versions of Windows be supported? We're finding it to be a huge PR problem. People download customization software on their Windows 98 box, some percentage of them has problems due to the crummy neature of Windows 98/ME, and then when they eventually upgrade to a decent version of Windows they only remember that the software in question gave them problems and hence we end up with "I tried WindowBlinds and it was unstable" spread like gospel.
http://download.com.com/3000-2326-10131236.html?tag=sptlt
As I write this, fewer than 7 out of 10 people actually had a positive experience with it. Obviously there are some other issues involved such as registered users don't download the shareware so over time, the only users left downloading the shareware are people who have (for whatever reason) chosen not to register. But it's hard to help wondering that Windows 98Frogboy is also a major factor.
With only 1 out of 5 people on this site running Win98Frogboy in a world where 70% of desktops are running Win98/ME, it really demonstrates that those who are into customization or have a positive experience in customizing their comptuers are running Windows 2000 or Windows XP.
Therefore, what do you think? Should support for Windows 98Frogboy users be phased out and if so when?
 |
|
Page 2 of 5 | |
|
|---|
WolfwoodX
Reply #22 Thursday, August 8, 2002 2:37 AM
Reply #22 Thursday, August 8, 2002 2:37 AM
98 "was" a great OS in its time. I upgraded to 2k about a year ago, then a month ago I tried XP, that was the biggest mistake I ever made. XP has too much extra crap that I wish I had an option to not install them. I hate the "new look", the eye candy eats way more resources than needed, It takes forever to move through the pc because "this folder is contains crap that runs the pc and if changed, can make unwanted behavior" messages come up on my most used folders and you have to buy the more expensive version to use NTFS.
2k is a better solution because it is a WAY better server, less extra "crap", more stable (in my test), WAY less resource hungry.
Now, XP has its strong points, much better older app compatibility, image viewer is cool, you can open WinZip files without WinZip, I like the new start menu and the hide system tray icons button. Humm, that’s about it.
Mandrake Linux is better than the both of them.
And another thing, I personality speaking, think skinning programs are pointless. I mean, Winamp was developed to use skins, so you have to use skins, but object desktop, it is (to me) a waste of time and money. I don’t really care about customizing my whole GUI.
2k is a better solution because it is a WAY better server, less extra "crap", more stable (in my test), WAY less resource hungry.
Now, XP has its strong points, much better older app compatibility, image viewer is cool, you can open WinZip files without WinZip, I like the new start menu and the hide system tray icons button. Humm, that’s about it.
Mandrake Linux is better than the both of them.
And another thing, I personality speaking, think skinning programs are pointless. I mean, Winamp was developed to use skins, so you have to use skins, but object desktop, it is (to me) a waste of time and money. I don’t really care about customizing my whole GUI.
coffeegrinder
Reply #23 Thursday, August 8, 2002 2:38 AM
Reply #23 Thursday, August 8, 2002 2:38 AM
I have a desktop running ME and a notebook running XP and like wulfn1 have been able to run the majority of skins on ME with no problems.When I think back to the first time I dipped my toes into the Windowblinds pool there were no complaints about 98coffeegrinder versus XP compatability since XP was still a seed in Microsoft's cabbage patch and didn't even exist!
wulfn1
Reply #24 Thursday, August 8, 2002 2:54 AM
Reply #24 Thursday, August 8, 2002 2:54 AM
I guess you're right backstreet ,
But I have to wonder about two very important things.. to me anyway. It seems object desktop was initially designed to make the old look new, and the tarnished and blase'look sparkly and fresh. If the old OS is ignored in favor of the new OS, how many new skins will be made that will be compatable with the old OS? I guess I'm skin hungry, and since I haven't learned well enough to create my own yet, this issue is relavent(SP?) to me.
(Hubby says skins work for my ver of ME cause I hold my tongue just right
when I install em )
But I have to wonder about two very important things.. to me anyway. It seems object desktop was initially designed to make the old look new, and the tarnished and blase'look sparkly and fresh. If the old OS is ignored in favor of the new OS, how many new skins will be made that will be compatable with the old OS? I guess I'm skin hungry, and since I haven't learned well enough to create my own yet, this issue is relavent(SP?) to me.
(Hubby says skins work for my ver of ME cause I hold my tongue just right
when I install em )
chichigirl46
Reply #25 Thursday, August 8, 2002 3:36 AM
Reply #25 Thursday, August 8, 2002 3:36 AM
The issue is not W98, the issue is wblinds3+ versions are not compatable with W98chichigirl46 I said it before, it was projected only for WXP and you left the rest behind 
All you would have to do is have two versions of wblinds out, one for W98/Me and WXP. It's just my opinion and I don't think its fair to force people to upgrade to WXP, on the other hand you may have a reason behind that so don't let my opinion kill your thread 
All you would have to do is have two versions of wblinds out, one for W98/Me and WXP. It's just my opinion and I don't think its fair to force people to upgrade to WXP, on the other hand you may have a reason behind that so don't let my opinion kill your thread 
Woodbridge
Reply #26 Thursday, August 8, 2002 4:21 AM
Reply #26 Thursday, August 8, 2002 4:21 AM
WindowBlinds version 4 should not include 98 / ME support.
My 2 pence worth.
My 2 pence worth.
hoogen
Reply #27 Thursday, August 8, 2002 4:34 AM
Reply #27 Thursday, August 8, 2002 4:34 AM
i agree with chichigirl46... have two versions... or you could always just have a note that WB doesnt work well with win9x or ME. then maybe you wouldnt get many complaints, im sure youd still that idiot that doesnt read
personally, i had Wb running on win98 for awhile, and i didnt many complaints about it, cept my computer was slow. but now that i got my new one with XP, i like the Olive Green style
personally, i had Wb running on win98 for awhile, and i didnt many complaints about it, cept my computer was slow. but now that i got my new one with XP, i like the Olive Green style
Mr Benn
Reply #28 Thursday, August 8, 2002 4:41 AM
Reply #28 Thursday, August 8, 2002 4:41 AM
I think that (sooner or later) you are going to have to create Win2K/XP-only versions of the OD products and IMO you might as well do it sooner rather than later.
1) You know that 81% of your 'community' (WC users) will be right behind you. The other 19% might grumble a little (ok, some will grumble a lot ), but they will not be any worse off than they are now - nobody will take away the versions that they already have.
2) You already have a precedent with CursorXP. How many complaints do you get from disgruntled Win98ME users who feel 'excluded' - my guess is not many, those people just accept that they can't use it.
3) 'WindowBlinds XP' would probably get a 90+% thumbs-up at download.com (look at the CursorXP reviews there) and that would be much better PR than the current 'this program sux' situation.
Yes, I can be smug because I run Win2K, but even so I am excluded from some aspects of skinning because of my OS - I would love to be able to use some of the XP-only Icon Packages (like FauxS-XP and Noia), but I have to accept that I can't.
Nobody will be forced to upgrade to WinXP just because Stardock brings out 'WindowBlinds XP' (that sounds good - you have my permission to use that name ), they will just have to live without any additional bells and whistles that it may introduce.
1) You know that 81% of your 'community' (WC users) will be right behind you. The other 19% might grumble a little (ok, some will grumble a lot
), but they will not be any worse off than they are now - nobody will take away the versions that they already have.2) You already have a precedent with CursorXP. How many complaints do you get from disgruntled Win98ME users who feel 'excluded' - my guess is not many, those people just accept that they can't use it.
3) 'WindowBlinds XP' would probably get a 90+% thumbs-up at download.com (look at the CursorXP reviews there) and that would be much better PR than the current 'this program sux' situation.
Yes, I can be smug because I run Win2K, but even so I am excluded from some aspects of skinning because of my OS - I would love to be able to use some of the XP-only Icon Packages (like FauxS-XP and Noia), but I have to accept that I can't.
Nobody will be forced to upgrade to WinXP just because Stardock brings out 'WindowBlinds XP' (that sounds good - you have my permission to use that name
), they will just have to live without any additional bells and whistles that it may introduce.
XXMetal
Reply #29 Thursday, August 8, 2002 4:41 AM
Reply #29 Thursday, August 8, 2002 4:41 AM
Yeah, I agree with Woodbridge. Version 4 sounds like a good logical step to cut support to WIN 9x. This should give users long enough to upgrade if they want to. Also you could leave the last version of windowblinds 3 to download for the users that wish to keep WIN 9x.
mpapad
Reply #30 Thursday, August 8, 2002 5:12 AM
Reply #30 Thursday, August 8, 2002 5:12 AM
Splitting the program is a good idea.
Have a WindowBlinds 98mpapad with features frozen and try to make as stable as possible and a WindowBlinds XP for 2000/XP.
Have a WindowBlinds 98mpapad with features frozen and try to make as stable as possible and a WindowBlinds XP for 2000/XP.
Neil Banfield
Reply #31 Thursday, August 8, 2002 5:18 AM
Reply #31 Thursday, August 8, 2002 5:18 AM
chichigirl46: In what way are WB3+ versions of WB not compatible with Windows 9x?
If you are having issues then we want to know about them.
If you are having issues then we want to know about them.
Xinh
Reply #32 Thursday, August 8, 2002 6:23 AM
Reply #32 Thursday, August 8, 2002 6:23 AM
Switching from Windozwe 98Xinh to Windows XP was one of the best things that I ever did for my PC (one of the others was getting Object Desktop) Aside from having banished the dreaded "Blue Screen of Death", Windowblinds and other programs run much smoother. Not to mention the icons are light years ahead of Win98/ME. My opinion: it is time to shove Windows 98/ME in the great bit bucket in the sky
(one of the others was getting Object Desktop) Aside from having banished the dreaded "Blue Screen of Death", Windowblinds and other programs run much smoother. Not to mention the icons are light years ahead of Win98/ME. My opinion: it is time to shove Windows 98/ME in the great bit bucket in the sky
MikeB314
Reply #33 Thursday, August 8, 2002 7:10 AM
Reply #33 Thursday, August 8, 2002 7:10 AM
I believe the question posed here was not "should 98\Me support be phased out" but rather "when should it be phased out". It is inevitable that an old OS will stop being supported eventually. When was the last time anyone ran Windows 95 and expected any kind of real support? Windows XP is still a reletively new OS, so I would say give it another year. But, everyone should be aware the XP does everything 98 did, but with the stability of Windows 2000. In my opinion, everyone running 98\Me should upgrade to XP as soon as they can because it's not just Stardock that will eventually stop supporting them.
moshi
Reply #34 Thursday, August 8, 2002 7:51 AM
Reply #34 Thursday, August 8, 2002 7:51 AM
actually i don´t care about supporting Win98. although WindowBlinds made big progress on resource use recently, Illumination (not under development since three years) is still much faster. it doesn´t skin anything else than the window borders, so it is not really fair to compare the two programs, but it is the better solution for me. and yes, ChiChiGirl is right, there are incompatible WB skins that show ugly black borders in Win98 (on buttons). most prominent example is MetalX.
Nannok of the north
Reply #35 Thursday, August 8, 2002 8:15 AM
Reply #35 Thursday, August 8, 2002 8:15 AM
The day you support only XP is the last day any Stardock software is installed on my pc's
Floyd Dez
Reply #36 Thursday, August 8, 2002 8:18 AM
Reply #36 Thursday, August 8, 2002 8:18 AM
I am Currently running win ME on my Laptop. Some skins cause heaps of trouble while others don't. The school is hoping to upgrade everyone to XP next year. I think soon people will have no choise but to move on with technology and get XP or whatever comes next. Win 98 is one big glitch, forget viruses, just dent someone win 98! In about 2 years time there will be noone dumb enough to use win 98/ME, there will be no use for them. I would like to see some win 98 support for a little longer although it is a real pain to have the system around. It puzzels me how people could use win 98 for more than 10 minutes. I would even prefer win 95 to 98. The problem with XP is the price and the speed needed to take it, I very much doubt if every family with a computer could just go and spent $2500+ on a new PC/Laptop.
Floyd Dez
Reply #37 Thursday, August 8, 2002 8:20 AM
Reply #37 Thursday, August 8, 2002 8:20 AM
I am Currently running win ME on my Laptop. Some skins cause heaps of trouble while others don't. The school is hoping to upgrade everyone to XP next year. I think soon people will have no choise but to move on with technology and get XP or whatever comes next. Win 98 is one big glitch, forget viruses, just dent someone win 98! In about 2 years time there will be noone dumb enough to use win 98/ME, there will be no use for them. I would like to see some win 98 support for a little longer although it is a real pain to have the system around. It puzzels me how people could use win 98 for more than 10 minutes. I would even prefer win 95 to 98. The problem with XP is the price and the speed needed to take it, I very much doubt if every family with a computer could just go and spent $2500+ on a new PC/Laptop. By Floyd Dez
Floyd Dez
Reply #38 Thursday, August 8, 2002 8:22 AM
Reply #38 Thursday, August 8, 2002 8:22 AM
I am Currently running win ME on my Laptop. Some skins cause heaps of trouble while others don't. The school is hoping to upgrade everyone to XP next year. I think soon people will have no choise but to move on with technology and get XP or whatever comes next. Win 98 is one big glitch, forget viruses, just send someone win 98! In about 2 years time there will be noone dumb enough to use win 98/ME, there will be no use for them. I would like to see some win 98 support for a little longer although it is a real pain to have the system around. It puzzels me how people could use win 98 for more than 10 minutes. I would even prefer win 95 to 98. The problem with XP is the price and the speed needed to take it, I very much doubt if every family with a computer could just go and spent $2500+ on a new PC/Laptop. By Floyd Dez
Neil Banfield
Reply #39 Thursday, August 8, 2002 8:51 AM
Reply #39 Thursday, August 8, 2002 8:51 AM
moshi : As you say Illumination only feels quicker because it skins so little. And even then its actually slower if you benchmark it.
As for the incompatible skins, I guess they are using per pixel alpha and not using magic pink in those areas too. WB on 9x does not currently support per pixel alpha, so it ignores that part. Perhaps that is something we need to implement on 9x (though with a performance hit obviously)
As for the incompatible skins, I guess they are using per pixel alpha and not using magic pink in those areas too. WB on 9x does not currently support per pixel alpha, so it ignores that part. Perhaps that is something we need to implement on 9x (though with a performance hit obviously)
UnoHu
Reply #40 Thursday, August 8, 2002 9:24 AM
Reply #40 Thursday, August 8, 2002 9:24 AM
IMO, the 
FIRST edition of Windows 98 was perfect for the 9X platform. The 
Second Edition screwed everthing up and then ME came out with more tweaks (READ: bugs) just to make Second Edition look pretty to new customers without taking care of the issues that Second Edition still had.
I have a PC made of parts thrown together and an old 98 upgrade (FIRST edition) that runs perfectly with all Stardock software.
Just my two cents.
FIRST edition of Windows 98 was perfect for the 9X platform. The 
Second Edition screwed everthing up and then ME came out with more tweaks (READ: bugs) just to make Second Edition look pretty to new customers without taking care of the issues that Second Edition still had.I have a PC made of parts thrown together and an old 98 upgrade (
FIRST edition) that runs perfectly with all Stardock software.Just my two cents.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 2 of 5 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Thursday, August 8, 2002 2:34 AM
The problem is that some of the new, and most appreciated, bells and whistles simply don't work on 98/ME. So, do you continue backwards compatability, when many of the features you are working on won't even work on the older OS, or do you say "this is for 2000/xp only"?
I can see the trouble they have, especially when many people will be wanting to know why the advertised features don't work on their machines running 98/ME. It is awkward, as you can see, to tell people the OS is just not able to do it. It is much easier to forgo confusion by not hacking together imitations of new software for old OS.
I think that will be a while off, and I bet they will have a smoothly running, code-frozen version that runs well on 98. I have suggested it here, anyway, and MY WISDOM CANNOT BE IGNORED!!