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 3 of 5 | |
|
|---|
TheD2JBug
Reply #42 Thursday, August 8, 2002 9:51 AM
Reply #42 Thursday, August 8, 2002 9:51 AM
uhm .. every time I see one of these threads I am constantly reminded of the age old axiom that I live by in the PC world
" the most important part of any well run PC is the nut usually found between the keyboard and chair "
having said that as long as one is aware of the limitations of the 9x kernel you can have a fairly functional 9x box .. I know I had mine working okay ( although I agree 2000/XP is much better )
" the most important part of any well run PC is the nut usually found between the keyboard and chair "
having said that as long as one is aware of the limitations of the 9x kernel you can have a fairly functional 9x box .. I know I had mine working okay ( although I agree 2000/XP is much better )
Chef Garry
Reply #44 Thursday, August 8, 2002 10:34 AM
Reply #44 Thursday, August 8, 2002 10:34 AM
Can you think of any other software company that would even bother to ask this question? Software support for older operating systems will disappear - always. A fact of life.
Stardock constantly amazes me with their attempts to satisfy everyone. They work hard at meeting user needs. BakerStreet has stated it - support is there and the apps do work on old OS's.
Stardock constantly amazes me with their attempts to satisfy everyone. They work hard at meeting user needs. BakerStreet has stated it - support is there and the apps do work on old OS's.
iboot
Reply #45 Thursday, August 8, 2002 11:05 AM
Reply #45 Thursday, August 8, 2002 11:05 AM
Really it doesn't matter what os you use if you know what you're doing you shouldn't have any problems at all. I have used used the software on windows 98, ME, and XP so it shouldn't be that difficult. Unused programs in the system tray? Take them out of the system startup that's all as well as any extra programs that are not being used. 
craeonics
Reply #46 Thursday, August 8, 2002 11:12 AM
Reply #46 Thursday, August 8, 2002 11:12 AM
Does it matter whether they ask or not? It'll be dropped anyhow. If fixing bugs caused by a four year old OS instead of the app itself is starting to get too annoying to the developer, he or she should drop it.
From a users point of view though, Win98 can have some advantages over WinXP, which I run dual boot. Stable as a rock.
From a users point of view though, Win98 can have some advantages over WinXP, which I run dual boot. Stable as a rock.
craeonics
Reply #47 Thursday, August 8, 2002 11:14 AM
Reply #47 Thursday, August 8, 2002 11:14 AM
Hmm, insert a "which is why" somewhere in there.
craeonics thinks faster than he types, fingers have latency
craeonics thinks faster than he types, fingers have latency
keymastr1008
Reply #48 Thursday, August 8, 2002 11:18 AM
Reply #48 Thursday, August 8, 2002 11:18 AM
drop support for 98\ME, especially if it's hindering advancements that would only be supported on Win2k/XP platforms.
GUI freak
Reply #49 Thursday, August 8, 2002 11:23 AM
Reply #49 Thursday, August 8, 2002 11:23 AM
Frankly I think u people should comtinue making 9x compatable software since there are still many users that use 9x.Sure enough we'll all upgrade to Xp when have money and also increase our computers speed.I use Wb on 98.I admit its runs sometimes slow but i think it is due to my slow computer 
So don't push us out yet frogboy
So don't push us out yet frogboy
KarmaGirl
Reply #50 Thursday, August 8, 2002 11:46 AM
Reply #50 Thursday, August 8, 2002 11:46 AM
I can't see support dropping on 98/WinME for quite some time (though, I wish it would so that I could quit testing on it..hehe). there are still too many people using it to not support it. (A few years may change that, though).
However, developing new versions for it and new products for it, is a totally different question. And, I'm not sure of the answer for that.
I *do* know that 85% - 90% of tech support email comes from 98/winME users. There is also the questions of supporting new video card drivers for the old OSes, too.
I run two machines. they are clones of eachother (including the video card). The one with XP is a dream, the one with ME...well...let's just say that I only use it when I have to test on it. The software runs fine on it, but I really get sick of rebooting because of any little things going poorly...like looking at it wrong...
However, developing new versions for it and new products for it, is a totally different question. And, I'm not sure of the answer for that.
I *do* know that 85% - 90% of tech support email comes from 98/winME users. There is also the questions of supporting new video card drivers for the old OSes, too.
I run two machines. they are clones of eachother (including the video card). The one with XP is a dream, the one with ME...well...let's just say that I only use it when I have to test on it. The software runs fine on it, but I really get sick of rebooting because of any little things going poorly...like looking at it wrong...
Septimus
Reply #51 Thursday, August 8, 2002 11:48 AM
Reply #51 Thursday, August 8, 2002 11:48 AM
I'd like to see an 2K/XP only version of the whole ObjectDesktop, as I'm sure it would speed and refine things no end.
jebland
Reply #52 Thursday, August 8, 2002 11:56 AM
Reply #52 Thursday, August 8, 2002 11:56 AM
I actually did upgrade my operating system from Win98 to Win2k because I was having so much trouble with the Stardock apps. Win98 ran just fine without any Stardock apps loaded, but it would just go into a tailspin with WB v3 & OB running. I now have a $600 printer gathering dust because there are no Win2k drivers for it and Duke Nukem 3D won't run, but the Stardock stuff looks great. Everything is a trade-off.
Frogboy
Reply #53 Thursday, August 8, 2002 12:05 PM
Reply #53 Thursday, August 8, 2002 12:05 PM
Read this link:
http://download.com.com/3302-2326-10131236.html?ob=1&pn=1&fb=0
Sort it by date.
Now look at the number of people who say WindowBlinds is horribly buggy and slow for them. I'd bet nearly all of them are running Windows 98 and ME.
I don't think it's realistic to drop Windows 98 and ME support in the present time. The question is when to do so. No one supports Windows 3.1 anymore. Windows 95 is supported by hardly anyone.
How many people, many of whom may be running Windows 2000 and XP where WindowBlinds is almost certainly going to run flawlessly, read the reviews in the link above and are dissuaded from trying out WindowBlinds?
How many more people are going to download it on their overburdneed Windows 98 machine and find problems and then when they do upgrade to Windows XP only remember that they had problems?
That's my concern. And not to be critical of certain Windows 98 users but they don't tend to be very helpful. They'll just throw up their hands and say "WindowBlinds doesn't work". We get very few useful reports on how we might at least be able to work around problems on Windows 98. All we know is that the Windows 98 and ME machines in our testing labs work fine with WindowBlinds. But we don't have 50 different video cards to test against on Windows 98 and ME.
One possible solution may be that when WindowBlinds 4 comes out to actually have two seperate versions. I.e. some sort of WindowBlinds XP v4 and a WindowBlinds 4. I dunno, there is no easy solution.
The more powerful desktop enhancements get, the harder it is to get them to work on the DOS based versions of Windows.
http://download.com.com/3302-2326-10131236.html?ob=1&pn=1&fb=0
Sort it by date.
Now look at the number of people who say WindowBlinds is horribly buggy and slow for them. I'd bet nearly all of them are running Windows 98 and ME.
I don't think it's realistic to drop Windows 98 and ME support in the present time. The question is when to do so. No one supports Windows 3.1 anymore. Windows 95 is supported by hardly anyone.
How many people, many of whom may be running Windows 2000 and XP where WindowBlinds is almost certainly going to run flawlessly, read the reviews in the link above and are dissuaded from trying out WindowBlinds?
How many more people are going to download it on their overburdneed Windows 98 machine and find problems and then when they do upgrade to Windows XP only remember that they had problems?
That's my concern. And not to be critical of certain Windows 98 users but they don't tend to be very helpful. They'll just throw up their hands and say "WindowBlinds doesn't work". We get very few useful reports on how we might at least be able to work around problems on Windows 98. All we know is that the Windows 98 and ME machines in our testing labs work fine with WindowBlinds. But we don't have 50 different video cards to test against on Windows 98 and ME.
One possible solution may be that when WindowBlinds 4 comes out to actually have two seperate versions. I.e. some sort of WindowBlinds XP v4 and a WindowBlinds 4. I dunno, there is no easy solution.
The more powerful desktop enhancements get, the harder it is to get them to work on the DOS based versions of Windows.
Phileosophos
Reply #54 Thursday, August 8, 2002 12:09 PM
Reply #54 Thursday, August 8, 2002 12:09 PM
For the record, I've been watching WindowBlinds for quite a while. I've wanted to buy it for at least a few years, and I've never been able to do so in the past because I was running Windows 95, Windows 98, or Windows ME. Just this last week, I was finally able to buy Object Desktop 2002 in good conscience because I'm running Windows XP.
Under Win9x/ME, skinning is really quite a kludge. It flickers goofily at times, redraws don't always get queued properly, and the whole thing just gobbles system resources that those OSes just don't have to give. Under Windows XP, however, it's a truly integrated piece of the OS, and it makes my daily work both easier (thanks to pieces like Control Center) and more fun. I'm glad I could finally buy it.
My advice to the developers, needless to say, would be to stop worrying about Win9x/ME. Your product just isn't worthwhile under those OSes anyway.
Under Win9x/ME, skinning is really quite a kludge. It flickers goofily at times, redraws don't always get queued properly, and the whole thing just gobbles system resources that those OSes just don't have to give. Under Windows XP, however, it's a truly integrated piece of the OS, and it makes my daily work both easier (thanks to pieces like Control Center) and more fun. I'm glad I could finally buy it.
My advice to the developers, needless to say, would be to stop worrying about Win9x/ME. Your product just isn't worthwhile under those OSes anyway.
Griffinme
Reply #55 Thursday, August 8, 2002 12:50 PM
Reply #55 Thursday, August 8, 2002 12:50 PM
I used to run WB on my NT4 machine at work about a year ago. It worked but would cause problems. It was a cold and lonely day when I finally gave up on it. Oddly DX still ran well.
I would suggest going to two versions. One that works OK on 98 and one that works with 2K/XP. You will still get lots of complaints from users that don't bother to read that, "This is for Win2000/XP. For the Win98Griffinme version please go here." It should help though.
Would there be problems with skins that are written for XP not being compatible with a 98 version? It was mentioned earlier that things like per pixel shading are not supported under 98. You might need to put into the 98 version a warning system, "This skin uses features not supported with this version of WB."
I would suggest going to two versions. One that works OK on 98 and one that works with 2K/XP. You will still get lots of complaints from users that don't bother to read that, "This is for Win2000/XP. For the Win98Griffinme version please go here." It should help though.
Would there be problems with skins that are written for XP not being compatible with a 98 version? It was mentioned earlier that things like per pixel shading are not supported under 98. You might need to put into the 98 version a warning system, "This skin uses features not supported with this version of WB."
Tarkus
Reply #56 Thursday, August 8, 2002 12:54 PM
Reply #56 Thursday, August 8, 2002 12:54 PM
I agree with others that v4 would be a good time to drop 9x support. New version numbers are major upgrades anyway, and people who bought or upgraded to v3 can't reasonably feel cheated, and they could continue to use v3. I would also imagine that's far enough away that the XP userbase will grow even quite a bit more.
Perhaps you could continue to fix any bugs that arise on v3 for 9x users (at least for awhile), but freeze the development aspect, and concentrate all your development efforts on v4 for W2K/XP.
Perhaps you could continue to fix any bugs that arise on v3 for 9x users (at least for awhile), but freeze the development aspect, and concentrate all your development efforts on v4 for W2K/XP.
WolfwoodX
Reply #57 Thursday, August 8, 2002 12:56 PM
Reply #57 Thursday, August 8, 2002 12:56 PM
Drop 98 and ME support and sell less, make less, charge more. Humm, sounds like plan... Out of everyone I know real well, 7 out of 10 of them have 98. They dont care about new features of newer releses of OS's, and they are not gona pay for something they don't need or want.
When Microsoft drops support for 2000, that will be one of their biggest mistakes ever. They are fixing to drop NT (if they havent yet), and I have not seen many people happy about XP or .net (in the server world). They all want to stick to the NT platform and move to 2000. Why fix it if it is'nt broke? Most Windows 2000 servers run fine, so why would people want or need to upgrade? Some of my friends companies are moving to the Unix platform because it is chepper than microsoft's new licence plan. And most of the other friends companies have alwase used Unix.
But sometime next year, 2000 gets dropped, and it wont affect me , because wether they drop it or not, I will still use it. So what if the latest video cards dont support it in the future, I still use an SiS 8mb vidrocard that runs fine, + I cant afford an upgrade.
I bought it a year ago for $300 and have no plans ever to spend another $200-$300 for an upgrade. There is nothing Microsoft can do to move me to XP. Even if they basicly force me to, I would gladly take Linux over Windows.
When Microsoft drops support for 2000, that will be one of their biggest mistakes ever. They are fixing to drop NT (if they havent yet), and I have not seen many people happy about XP or .net (in the server world). They all want to stick to the NT platform and move to 2000. Why fix it if it is'nt broke? Most Windows 2000 servers run fine, so why would people want or need to upgrade? Some of my friends companies are moving to the Unix platform because it is chepper than microsoft's new licence plan. And most of the other friends companies have alwase used Unix.
But sometime next year, 2000 gets dropped, and it wont affect me , because wether they drop it or not, I will still use it. So what if the latest video cards dont support it in the future, I still use an SiS 8mb vidrocard that runs fine, + I cant afford an upgrade.
I bought it a year ago for $300 and have no plans ever to spend another $200-$300 for an upgrade. There is nothing Microsoft can do to move me to XP. Even if they basicly force me to, I would gladly take Linux over Windows.
Aschell
Reply #58 Thursday, August 8, 2002 1:08 PM
Reply #58 Thursday, August 8, 2002 1:08 PM
I agree that something should be done. However, the older OS's in some ways need customization the most, it just has to be done carefully. I'm still stuck with NT4 at work, and it would be horrible if I could not skin it. Until recently I ran WinME at home (now xp thankfully!) I would not want skinning apps like Windowblinds to check your OS and then say "sorry, no go". It would make sense though to have some features unavailable that just produce too many headaches on older OS's (like in WinFX1.2, no way to turn on transparent menus in NT4 even in the .ini)
Aschell
Reply #59 Thursday, August 8, 2002 1:27 PM
Reply #59 Thursday, August 8, 2002 1:27 PM
You should have a button in the Windowblinds config that will do a quick analysis of the system and provide some suggestions. If it appears there is a lot running at startup, a message could say if WB is running slow, try turning off some of the other apps running at startup etc. Kind of like a quick diagnostic. If I remember right, the beta of the new WinFX has something like this.
bakerstreet
Reply #60 Thursday, August 8, 2002 1:47 PM
Reply #60 Thursday, August 8, 2002 1:47 PM
C²zero: You know why Microsoft "Fixes it when it isn't broke"... They don't make money on an OS that everyone already has. If you don't "improve" it once every couple of years, then you don't have a product, and can't pay the insane manpower, political manuvering, and legal armada that Microsoft sports.
Be thankful it is the way it is, because I don't think it will be this way much longer. The days of Buying an MS OS are numbered, IMHO. According to the user agreement you really aren't buying the OS now, just buying the right to use it. It won't just be a pay-once thing in the future. Think of how much overhead they would save if your auto-update auto-charged your account with MS, reducing the cost of boxed distribution. Then the baby would stay in the bathwater... permanently. Linux would look *very* good at that point.
Anyway, people like buying new stuff, anything with a new name is gonna make them money, even if it is painfully cosmetic, like the ME upgrade from 98se. Desktop manufacturers love it, too, because people upgrade PCs based upon the OS all too often. This is all one tangled, nasty mess.
But, back to the topic, SD can't help any of this, and 98 isn't gonna support new features, so code-freeze a smooth-running version for 98 folks and make the new stuff for the new platforms.
Be thankful it is the way it is, because I don't think it will be this way much longer. The days of Buying an MS OS are numbered, IMHO. According to the user agreement you really aren't buying the OS now, just buying the right to use it. It won't just be a pay-once thing in the future. Think of how much overhead they would save if your auto-update auto-charged your account with MS, reducing the cost of boxed distribution. Then the baby would stay in the bathwater... permanently. Linux would look *very* good at that point.
Anyway, people like buying new stuff, anything with a new name is gonna make them money, even if it is painfully cosmetic, like the ME upgrade from 98se. Desktop manufacturers love it, too, because people upgrade PCs based upon the OS all too often. This is all one tangled, nasty mess.
But, back to the topic, SD can't help any of this, and 98 isn't gonna support new features, so code-freeze a smooth-running version for 98 folks and make the new stuff for the new platforms.
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 3 of 5 | |
|
|---|
Reply #41 Thursday, August 8, 2002 9:50 AM
Support for 95/NT has already been dropped, has it not?
People on 98 / ME will still be able to use what they have purchased, it just wouldn't make sense for them to upgrade / renew to newer versions of Stardock products, correct?
Seems to me that it is coming down to the Time & Money issue:
Do the developers have the time to continue to code for the older versions of windows?
If the amnount of money coming in from renewals / new purchases for those on 98 / ME is less than the money that could be generated by a providing a better product, hence more sales to those on XP, then it would be a good business decison to discontinue support for 98 / ME.
Those on 98 / ME who can't afford to upgrade to a newer OS or computer would probably thank Stardock for saving them the money it would cost to renew every year.