Looks like Windows 98 and ME users could be doomed

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

I don't take any pleasure in this, but I saw that ATI has released the
Catalyst 4.4 drivers and that they have been released for Windows 2000
and XP only! If you are a Windows 98 or ME user, you are directed to
download the 4.3 drivers. I wonder what this will all translate to when
the R420 gets released? What of Nvidia? What is their Windows 98/ME
driver policy?
 

minotaur

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2004
135
0
18,680
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

NightSky 421 wrote:
> I don't take any pleasure in this, but I saw that ATI has released the
> Catalyst 4.4 drivers and that they have been released for Windows 2000
> and XP only! If you are a Windows 98 or ME user, you are directed to
> download the 4.3 drivers. I wonder what this will all translate to when
> the R420 gets released? What of Nvidia? What is their Windows 98/ME
> driver policy?
>
>

Who cares? If they havn't the money to upgrade to a newer operating
system, I doubt they have the money to upgrade there hardware and
purchase new games aswell.

About time 9X was dropped, now more attention can be focused on making
XP drivers work! I think people are complaining about this, because they
don't see any difference between 9X and W2k or XP. They are completely
different operating system, W2K/XP are NT derived, 9X is DOS derived.
Now I hope some can see why it makes sence to upgrade, but then CPM did
have it's supporters aswell...

It's not that bad, at least it isn't a scenario like being in an Apple
World, where you have to purchase new hardware just to run OS-X.

Minotaur (8*
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"Minotaur" <antnel@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4074ab05$0$20347$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> Who cares? If they havn't the money to upgrade to a newer operating
> system, I doubt they have the money to upgrade there hardware and
> purchase new games aswell.
>


That's true, and the user base of Windows 9x is dwindling. I just
thought I'd post to the group that for the first time there are no new
Catalysts for them. I'm running Windows 98 on my second computer here,
but it's simply an Internet box and maybe sees the occasional older game
here and there. For me, updated drivers for 9x are not an issue.


> About time 9X was dropped, now more attention can be focused on making
> XP drivers work! I think people are complaining about this, because
they
> don't see any difference between 9X and W2k or XP. They are completely
> different operating system, W2K/XP are NT derived, 9X is DOS derived.
> Now I hope some can see why it makes sence to upgrade, but then CPM
did
> have it's supporters aswell...
>


I agree the focus should be on Windows 2000 and NT from here on from a
driver standpoint, I was simply shocked to see no new drivers for
Windows 9x, especially since Windows ME is about the same age as 2000.


> It's not that bad, at least it isn't a scenario like being in an Apple
> World, where you have to purchase new hardware just to run OS-X.
>


LOL


> Minotaur (8*


Are you the same Minotaur that I remember from the Firestorm forums (in
Calgary)?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"Minotaur" <antnel@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4074ab05$0$20347$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> NightSky 421 wrote:
> > I don't take any pleasure in this, but I saw that ATI has released the
> > Catalyst 4.4 drivers and that they have been released for Windows 2000
> > and XP only! If you are a Windows 98 or ME user, you are directed to
> > download the 4.3 drivers. I wonder what this will all translate to when
> > the R420 gets released? What of Nvidia? What is their Windows 98/ME
> > driver policy?
> >
> >
>
> Who cares? If they havn't the money to upgrade to a newer operating
> system, I doubt they have the money to upgrade there hardware and
> purchase new games aswell.
>
Because some of us dual boot for gaming compatibility. There are some recent
games (within the last 5 years) that don't run as well on XP. And yes, I
still play them.

> About time 9X was dropped, now more attention can be focused on making
> XP drivers work! I think people are complaining about this, because they
> don't see any difference between 9X and W2k or XP. They are completely
> different operating system, W2K/XP are NT derived, 9X is DOS derived.
> Now I hope some can see why it makes sence to upgrade, but then CPM did
> have it's supporters aswell...
>
Go buy a ladder and get over yourself.

Nick

> It's not that bad, at least it isn't a scenario like being in an Apple
> World, where you have to purchase new hardware just to run OS-X.
>
> Minotaur (8*
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 11:45:12 +1000, Minotaur <antnel@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>NightSky 421 wrote:
>> I don't take any pleasure in this, but I saw that ATI has released the
>> Catalyst 4.4 drivers and that they have been released for Windows 2000
>> and XP only! If you are a Windows 98 or ME user, you are directed to
>> download the 4.3 drivers. I wonder what this will all translate to when
>> the R420 gets released? What of Nvidia? What is their Windows 98/ME
>> driver policy?
>>
>>
>
>Who cares? If they havn't the money to upgrade to a newer operating
>system, I doubt they have the money to upgrade there hardware and
>purchase new games aswell.
>
>About time 9X was dropped, now more attention can be focused on making
>XP drivers work! I think people are complaining about this, because they
>don't see any difference between 9X and W2k or XP. They are completely
>different operating system, W2K/XP are NT derived, 9X is DOS derived.
>Now I hope some can see why it makes sence to upgrade, but then CPM did
>have it's supporters aswell...
>
>It's not that bad, at least it isn't a scenario like being in an Apple
>World, where you have to purchase new hardware just to run OS-X.
>
>Minotaur (8*


I have WinXP Pro, but I can't stand the way it's setup to
always try, and fix things when it thinks they are broken. I still use
WinME. It's stable for what I do, which is not much more than gaming.
I find it alot easier to config. the way I want it than XP. I'd rather
use Win2k over XP.
Hell..... I still like the way DOS worked.
 

jlc

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2004
267
0
18,780
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

> Nick Zvaleko stood up at show-n-tell, in
> BF6dc.11762$Po2.4541216@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net, and said:
>
> > "Minotaur" <antnel@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:4074ab05$0$20347$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >> NightSky 421 wrote:
> >>> I don't take any pleasure in this, but I saw that ATI has released
> >>> the Catalyst 4.4 drivers and that they have been released for
> >>> Windows 2000 and XP only! If you are a Windows 98 or ME user, you
> >>> are directed to download the 4.3 drivers. I wonder what this will
> >>> all translate to when the R420 gets released? What of Nvidia?
> >>> What is their Windows 98/ME driver policy?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Who cares? If they havn't the money to upgrade to a newer operating
> >> system, I doubt they have the money to upgrade there hardware and
> >> purchase new games aswell.
> >>
> > Because some of us dual boot for gaming compatibility. There are some
> > recent games (within the last 5 years) that don't run as well on XP.
> > And yes, I still play them.
>
> I did that, years ago. Triple booted, in fact. XP should be all you
need,
> period. If not... don't bitch to the majority.
>

XP is not the ultimate gaming platform that so many people claim it is. '98
still is a great gaming OS. It runs everything that's out there and runs
them in some cases faster then XP. There is a lot of gamers that enjoy
playing a wide variety of games and some of them are over 5 years old. I
might only have one or two games in my collection that don't run well in XP,
but I still like the option of duel-boot so I can easily load and play them.
The concern I have is not with the current cards, it's with the new ones
coming out. If they don't have support for '98 then me and a lot of others
will not be able to upgrade without loosing the flexibility a dual-boot
system give us. I've gathered from reading this group that there's still is
a lot of gamers that are using '98 either as their main OS (if it's not
broke why fix it) or as a dual -boot setup. '98 might be old,but it still
kicks butt when it comes to playing games. JLC
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Microsoft has a pretty much public 5 year shelf life on OS support. Win98/SE
are end of life products.

"Larry Roberts" <skin-e@juno.com> wrote in message
news:n15b70d3tqtaso978vuiecnqg0hehsbkb6@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 11:45:12 +1000, Minotaur <antnel@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >NightSky 421 wrote:
> >> I don't take any pleasure in this, but I saw that ATI has released the
> >> Catalyst 4.4 drivers and that they have been released for Windows 2000
> >> and XP only! If you are a Windows 98 or ME user, you are directed to
> >> download the 4.3 drivers. I wonder what this will all translate to
when
> >> the R420 gets released? What of Nvidia? What is their Windows 98/ME
> >> driver policy?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Who cares? If they havn't the money to upgrade to a newer operating
> >system, I doubt they have the money to upgrade there hardware and
> >purchase new games aswell.
> >
> >About time 9X was dropped, now more attention can be focused on making
> >XP drivers work! I think people are complaining about this, because they
> >don't see any difference between 9X and W2k or XP. They are completely
> >different operating system, W2K/XP are NT derived, 9X is DOS derived.
> >Now I hope some can see why it makes sence to upgrade, but then CPM did
> >have it's supporters aswell...
> >
> >It's not that bad, at least it isn't a scenario like being in an Apple
> >World, where you have to purchase new hardware just to run OS-X.
> >
> >Minotaur (8*
>
>
> I have WinXP Pro, but I can't stand the way it's setup to
> always try, and fix things when it thinks they are broken. I still use
> WinME. It's stable for what I do, which is not much more than gaming.
> I find it alot easier to config. the way I want it than XP. I'd rather
> use Win2k over XP.
> Hell..... I still like the way DOS worked.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"Nick Zvaleko" <dunwich@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:BF6dc.11762$Po2.4541216@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> "Minotaur" <antnel@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4074ab05$0$20347$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > NightSky 421 wrote:
> > > I don't take any pleasure in this, but I saw that ATI has released the
> > > Catalyst 4.4 drivers and that they have been released for Windows 2000
> > > and XP only! If you are a Windows 98 or ME user, you are directed to
> > > download the 4.3 drivers. I wonder what this will all translate to
when
> > > the R420 gets released? What of Nvidia? What is their Windows 98/ME
> > > driver policy?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Who cares? If they havn't the money to upgrade to a newer operating
> > system, I doubt they have the money to upgrade there hardware and
> > purchase new games aswell.
> >
> Because some of us dual boot for gaming compatibility. There are some
recent
> games (within the last 5 years) that don't run as well on XP. And yes, I
> still play them.
>

Some? More like most don't seem to run as well here. usually drop one notch
in res and also have to lower the eye candy.

> > About time 9X was dropped, now more attention can be focused on making
> > XP drivers work! I think people are complaining about this, because they
> > don't see any difference between 9X and W2k or XP. They are completely
> > different operating system, W2K/XP are NT derived, 9X is DOS derived.
> > Now I hope some can see why it makes sence to upgrade, but then CPM did
> > have it's supporters aswell...
> >
> Go buy a ladder and get over yourself.
>
> Nick
>
> > It's not that bad, at least it isn't a scenario like being in an Apple
> > World, where you have to purchase new hardware just to run OS-X.
> >
> > Minotaur (8*
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 13:11:36 -0500, Larry Roberts <skin-e@juno.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 11:45:12 +1000, Minotaur <antnel@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>NightSky 421 wrote:
>>> I don't take any pleasure in this, but I saw that ATI has released the
>>> Catalyst 4.4 drivers and that they have been released for Windows 2000
>>> and XP only! If you are a Windows 98 or ME user, you are directed to
>>> download the 4.3 drivers. I wonder what this will all translate to when
>>> the R420 gets released? What of Nvidia? What is their Windows 98/ME
>>> driver policy?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Who cares? If they havn't the money to upgrade to a newer operating
>>system, I doubt they have the money to upgrade there hardware and
>>purchase new games aswell.
>>
>>About time 9X was dropped, now more attention can be focused on making
>>XP drivers work! I think people are complaining about this, because they
>>don't see any difference between 9X and W2k or XP. They are completely
>>different operating system, W2K/XP are NT derived, 9X is DOS derived.
>>Now I hope some can see why it makes sence to upgrade, but then CPM did
>>have it's supporters aswell...
>>
>>It's not that bad, at least it isn't a scenario like being in an Apple
>>World, where you have to purchase new hardware just to run OS-X.
>>
>>Minotaur (8*
>
>
> I have WinXP Pro, but I can't stand the way it's setup to
>always try, and fix things when it thinks they are broken. I still use
>WinME. It's stable for what I do, which is not much more than gaming.
>I find it alot easier to config. the way I want it than XP. I'd rather
>use Win2k over XP.
> Hell..... I still like the way DOS worked.


The inference I gather from what Ati say in the release notes for
Catalyst 4.4 is that the reason they're no longer producing drivers
for W98/ME is that M$ stopped accepting certification submissions for
ME as of 1st January, so they can no loger obtain WHQL certification
for ME drivers.

So what - the drivers will work just as well whether certificated or
not - and it so happens that Ati have produced three new drivers for
W98/ME _since_ 1st January...



patrickp

patrickp@5acoustibop.co.uk - take five to email me
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

So three years from now and XP users will be obsoleted. Nothing like planned
obsolescence to force people to buy stuff they really don't want.

>Microsoft has a pretty much public 5 year shelf life on OS support. Win98/SE
>are end of life products.
>


-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On 09 Apr 2004 04:34:52 GMT, wblane@aol.combotizer (Wblane) wrote:

>So three years from now and XP users will be obsoleted. Nothing like planned
>obsolescence to force people to buy stuff they really don't want.
>
>>Microsoft has a pretty much public 5 year shelf life on OS support. Win98/SE
>>are end of life products.
>>
>
>
>-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)


And not only that, but if XP users' systems lock them out and they
have to get a key from M$ then, what do you think Billy Goates is
going to say? He's going to smile and say "Tough! Upgrade!" The
difference will be that I'll still be able to use my OS then, if I
want.

It seems to me that M$' intention is that users should ultimately be
leasing the OS and upgrading when Billy says so. Upgrade or pfffft!
no OS.

Besides which, the 5 year shelf life bit has only come to public
attention since M$ announced they were going to discontinue support
for W95, then W98, W98SE and now ME. When I bought my copies of those
OSs (except ME, which I don't have a copy of) there was no suggestion
of this around at all.

And it doesn't explain why Ati have decided to discontinue producing
drivers for these OSs. Their suggested reason, that they can't get
the drivers certificated, is clearly nonsense - they have produced 3
new driver sets since ME support was discontinued and presumably
certification was as well, and there appears not to have been any
problem with them.


patrickp

patrickp@5acoustibop.co.uk - take five to email me
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

I'd suggest the bigger problem is the obvious plan by Bill to move software
towards a pay per use model. I believe what we'll see within next 2 versions
of Windows is that we'll only have some "shell" on our system and the actual
"modules" to do the requested work will be downloaded and kept only in
memory for that specific use (or period of time). Other software vendors
(long with MS's Office products and the like) will then quickly follow suit.

For a fee every time you do this, of course.

Watch them use security as the justification for this. The argument will be
along the lines of that being the only way to insure the software hasn't
been "compromised".

"patrickp" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:fjcd70p9m9bg7h4t0olrqq3b7a9soqr9b6@4ax.com...
> On 09 Apr 2004 04:34:52 GMT, wblane@aol.combotizer (Wblane) wrote:
>
> >So three years from now and XP users will be obsoleted. Nothing like
planned
> >obsolescence to force people to buy stuff they really don't want.
> >
> >>Microsoft has a pretty much public 5 year shelf life on OS support.
Win98/SE
> >>are end of life products.
> >>
> >
> >
> >-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
>
>
> And not only that, but if XP users' systems lock them out and they
> have to get a key from M$ then, what do you think Billy Goates is
> going to say? He's going to smile and say "Tough! Upgrade!" The
> difference will be that I'll still be able to use my OS then, if I
> want.
>
> It seems to me that M$' intention is that users should ultimately be
> leasing the OS and upgrading when Billy says so. Upgrade or pfffft!
> no OS.
>
> Besides which, the 5 year shelf life bit has only come to public
> attention since M$ announced they were going to discontinue support
> for W95, then W98, W98SE and now ME. When I bought my copies of those
> OSs (except ME, which I don't have a copy of) there was no suggestion
> of this around at all.
>
> And it doesn't explain why Ati have decided to discontinue producing
> drivers for these OSs. Their suggested reason, that they can't get
> the drivers certificated, is clearly nonsense - they have produced 3
> new driver sets since ME support was discontinued and presumably
> certification was as well, and there appears not to have been any
> problem with them.
>
>
> patrickp
>
> patrickp@5acoustibop.co.uk - take five to email me
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 18:34:51 GMT, "pjp"
<pjp_is_located_at_@_hotmail_._com> wrote:

>I'd suggest the bigger problem is the obvious plan by Bill to move software
>towards a pay per use model. I believe what we'll see within next 2 versions
>of Windows is that we'll only have some "shell" on our system and the actual
>"modules" to do the requested work will be downloaded and kept only in
>memory for that specific use (or period of time). Other software vendors
>(long with MS's Office products and the like) will then quickly follow suit.
>
>For a fee every time you do this, of course.
>
>Watch them use security as the justification for this. The argument will be
>along the lines of that being the only way to insure the software hasn't
>been "compromised".


Look up palladium and TCPA on the net.

WinXP is the first step to losing control of our computers. At least
my servers are Linux... Need the stability and security that M$ cant
provide.

I need a bit more software (Adobe / Macromedia) before I can dump M$
destop... or leave it only as a GAME machine.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!