PDA

View Full Version : Difference between Windows 95 and Windows 98?



Duff McKagan
16-09-2004, 03:29 PM
Hi, why won't fritz 8 run on Windows 95 when it does on Windows 98? What extra DLLs do I need to get to make this happen?
Also some other programs like Warcraft III report a similar error that something is not linked to something else, looks like a DLL problem.
Thanks in advance for your help.

eclectic
16-09-2004, 03:46 PM
Hi, why won't fritz 8 run on Windows 95 when it does on Windows 98? What extra DLLs do I need to get to make this happen?
Also some other programs like Warcraft III report a similar error that something is not linked to something else, looks like a DLL problem.
Thanks in advance for your help.

hi duff,

fritz 6 is the last version that will work with win 95

eclectic

Duff McKagan
16-09-2004, 03:50 PM
hi duff,

fritz 6 is the last version that will work with win 95

eclectic


Hi eclectic.

Yep, I'm aware, but I just wanted to know what the differences were between the operating systems, like if it were a few hundred DLLs or something. Then I could try to make a hybrid, because 95 is much quicker than 98. It doesn't have some stuff residing in memory that is not needed.

Spiny Norman
16-09-2004, 05:17 PM
Hi, why won't fritz 8 run on Windows 95 when it does on Windows 98? What extra DLLs do I need to get to make this happen?
Also some other programs like Warcraft III report a similar error that something is not linked to something else, looks like a DLL problem.
Thanks in advance for your help.


... you'd probably need some kind of software tool that can monitor what DLLs the application in question is attempting to access.

There are tools like this at System Internals (an outstanding! site for sys admins):

http://www.sysinternals.com/win9x/98utilities.shtml

Maybe a file monitor, or process monitor, or something like that.

In the "old days" we could just copy the .EXE file and then "run" it ... it would pop up a dialog box saying "Can't find xxxxx.DLL" ... so you'd copy that DLL to the Windows directory, then go through the process again ... eventually you would get them all.

But Windows 95 was (I think) the first Windows home user version that incorporated the registry, so that makes the task well nigh impossible.

You might also need to search out a tool that helps you "register" DLLs in the registry once you've copied them to the PC.

My suggestion:

Get a copy of Fritz 6 if it supports Win95 ... it'll save you a whole lotta grief!

Cheers,

Frosty

skip to my lou
16-09-2004, 10:27 PM
If Microsoft made all their software backward compatible, they would be broke by now.

Rincewind
16-09-2004, 11:02 PM
If Microsoft made all their software backward compatible, they would be broke by now.

They say every cloud has a silver lining.

Recherché
17-09-2004, 12:15 AM
If your computer is too slow to effectively run Windows 98, what makes you think Fritz 8 will run well? When I run Fritz 8 it immediately grabs itself 326MB of RAM. Granted, most of that is just space for hash tables, but I think you'll find that the difference in what you can do with Fritz 8 over Fritz 6 on your system is negligible.

Or, for that matter, Fritz 8 and the freely available for download Fritz 4.32, which resides within ChessBase Light. You could probably even run CBLight on Windows 3.1 if you felt like it.


Then I could try to make a hybrid, because 95 is much quicker than 98. It doesn't have some stuff residing in memory that is not needed.

"Not present in 95" isn't so easily equated with "not needed", or at least "not having a useful purpose" (since "needed" can be argued subjectively).

Moreover, if you did succeed in creating some sort of odd hybrid OS, what makes you think it would be (a) stable and (b) automatically faster than Win 98?

If, as you imply, memory is the only issue, you should be able to get more than enough to satisfy Win98 for less than Fritz 8 cost you, if you can find memory chips that are old enough to be compatible. But I think you're likely to find processor speed a problem as well. And probably more besides. The pace of change in the computer industry simply makes running current software on seven or eight year old hardware impractical or impossible.

Both operating systems are antiquated with some major flaws, but Win98SE is definitely a superior product, objectively. As far as performance goes, once your system gets to a certain point it's actually faster than Windows 95, because it's able to make better use of more modern components.

As for Warcraft 3, surely you're joking? Regardless of DLLs, any system that chokes on Win98 hasn't got a hope of running it. I should think it would be rather chuggy on anything that couldn't run Windows XP, actually. Stick to Starcraft, perhaps. ;)

And lastly, if your computer can in fact run Win98 reasonably well, but you're choosing to run Win95 because you believe it's a svelte, superior alternative, well; firstly, you're misguided; secondly, if your heart is set on it, you could run a dual-boot system which lets you choose between the two Operating Systems at startup.

PHAT
17-09-2004, 06:17 AM
If Microsoft made all their software backward compatible, they would be broke by now.

Not true. Macrosoft would be worth much much less and the customers would be much much happier.

skip to my lou
17-09-2004, 09:08 AM
But Microsoft doesn't have a good product, so they will go broke.

arosar
17-09-2004, 09:11 AM
While we're talking about games and that, any1 here played Splinter Cell - the original one? I'm stuck in the upper floor of the Chinese embassy.

AR

Recherché
17-09-2004, 07:03 PM
But Microsoft doesn't have a good product, so they will go broke.

Windows XP is a good product. It's difficult to argue otherwise. It's not the only good OS product, of course. The real turkey of the current MS stable (or should that be donkey?) is Internet Explorer.

I'm also quite partial to Minesweeper. ;)


Not true. Macrosoft would be worth much much less and the customers would be much much happier.

Eh, I'm not sure that's a given. Backwards compatibility is a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Microsoft has been heavily criticized for a long time for all the legacy code they leave in their products into order to ensure backwards compatibility.

skip to my lou
17-09-2004, 07:56 PM
Windows XP is a good product. It's difficult to argue otherwise.

I hope you're joking. :wall:


It's not the only good OS product, of course.[/i]

Out of the popular non-MS operating systems, it's the only one that is not good.

Garvinator
17-09-2004, 09:14 PM
Jeo, do you ever think any microsoft products are any good?

skip to my lou
18-09-2004, 12:33 AM
No.

Even the microsoft mouse I got sucks. I'm buying logitech laser as soon as its available.

The only reason I even have an XP installation is because I play counterstrike.

If you don't like Fedora, go for CentOS. Its an open source replication of Red Hat Enterprise. Or... if you don't like linux, go for FreeBSD or Mac.

Or if you want to keep the windows feeling but have the advantages if linux, go for lindows.

Windows has already almost died out in the web server industry. As soon as businesses migrate from ASP to PHP, CF, JAVA or something else then it will be compeltely dead.

With databases, MS SQL completely sucks. Oracle is the best, and MySQL is second best, probably followed by Sybase. See:

http://www.mysql.com/it-resources/benchmarks/eweek-throughput.jpg

I could go on and on and on, but you get the idea.

skip to my lou
18-09-2004, 12:57 AM
the orange line shows microsoft

Spiny Norman
18-09-2004, 08:41 AM
No.

Windows has already almost died out in the web server industry. As soon as businesses migrate from ASP to PHP, CF, JAVA or something else then it will be compeltely dead.

With databases, MS SQL completely sucks. Oracle is the best, and MySQL is second best, probably followed by Sybase.

<snip>

Jeo ... we get the idea ... you're an anti-Microsoftie. <grins>

There is a HUGE installed base of Microsoft operating systems and applications. There is also a BIG developer community using the Microsoft development tools (e.g. millions of VB developers).

That isn't going to just go away any time soon.

Hoping that Microsoft, or even parts of Microsoft, will "die" strikes me as wishful thinking.

For every die-hard anti-Microsoftie, there's at least one brain-dead die-hard Microsoftie (like me) hanging on to BillG's coat tails and being pulled along.

... for better or worse ...

Linux, IBM, Oracle, etc all have great futures if they play their cards right. There's plenty of room for all provided each supplier (incl. Microsoft) provides inter-op capabilities.

My 2c worth.

Frosty

skip to my lou
18-09-2004, 09:52 AM
:(

Spiny Norman
18-09-2004, 11:00 AM
:(

;)

skip to my lou
18-09-2004, 11:06 AM
VB DEVELOPERS?

Since when are people that use VB actually developers?

skip to my lou
18-09-2004, 11:09 AM
Hoping that Microsoft, or even parts of Microsoft, will "die" strikes me as wishful thinking.

Wishful? Please do not make me show stats of servers that use APACHE instead of IIS or PHP instead of ASP or MySQL instead of MS SQL.

Spiny Norman
18-09-2004, 12:22 PM
VB DEVELOPERS? Since when are people that use VB actually developers?

<lol> ... don't start (!) ... assembler programmers were saying that about me back when I was writing COBOL back in the 80s.

If you can produce valued functionality, then in my book you're a programmer. Doesn't matter whether its assembler code, 3GLs, 4GLs, VB, Perl, PHP, Python, macro languages, batch files, TransactSQL, whatever.

Its all about getting the job done with the tools at your disposal.

Cheers,

Frosty

Spiny Norman
18-09-2004, 12:26 PM
Wishful? Please do not make me show stats of servers that use APACHE instead of IIS or PHP instead of ASP or MySQL instead of MS SQL.


... and sooner or later something new will come along to displace them in the market. That's the way of things.

There's still plenty of COBOL code out there, and will be for years to come. Its been "obsolete" for 10-15 years already and it'll probably outlive me.

Any commercial organisation worth its salt will reinvent itself to take advantage of trends in the marketplace ... or it will die (e.g. DEC).

I think Microsoft have a real problem with SQL Server because its been years since they released a new version.

The new one had better be good. I wonder if they've bitten off more than they can chew by trying to build the file system on the same core technologies at SQL Server.

Cheers,

Frosty

skip to my lou
18-09-2004, 01:02 PM
Its all about getting the job done with the tools at your disposal.

Sure, though VB is crap. If its your first programming language, then its fine, but try using it after you have used java or anything better and you will realise how crap it is.

skip to my lou
18-09-2004, 01:04 PM
... and sooner or later something new will come along to displace them in the market. That's the way of things.

There's still plenty of COBOL code out there, and will be for years to come. Its been "obsolete" for 10-15 years already and it'll probably outlive me.

Any commercial organisation worth its salt will reinvent itself to take advantage of trends in the marketplace ... or it will die (e.g. DEC).

I think Microsoft have a real problem with SQL Server because its been years since they released a new version.

The new one had better be good. I wonder if they've bitten off more than they can chew by trying to build the file system on the same core technologies at SQL Server.

Cheers,

Frosty
Please note, Apache, MySQL and PHP are all open source and FREE.

Rincewind
18-09-2004, 01:07 PM
... and sooner or later something new will come along to displace them in the market. That's the way of things.

The market presupposes the idea of a purchaser and vendor. As Jeo points out PHP, Perl, Apache, MySQL, etc are open source and free. That introduces a problem with balancing your market equation.

Spiny Norman
18-09-2004, 01:21 PM
Sure, though VB is crap. If its your first programming language, then its fine, but try using it after you have used java or anything better and you will realise how crap it is.

I've never programmed in VB myself, but I have friends/associates who do.

Early versions were like a "toy" ... but VB.NET is pretty good.

Each to their own. Choosing computer technologies is like choosing a religion (or not, as the case may be).

Cheers,

Steve

Duff McKagan
18-09-2004, 01:37 PM
If your computer is too slow to effectively run Windows 98, what makes you think Fritz 8 will run well? When I run Fritz 8 it immediately grabs itself 326MB of RAM. Granted, most of that is just space for hash tables, but I think you'll find that the difference in what you can do with Fritz 8 over Fritz 6 on your system is negligible.

Or, for that matter, Fritz 8 and the freely available for download Fritz 4.32, which resides within ChessBase Light. You could probably even run CBLight on Windows 3.1 if you felt like it.



"Not present in 95" isn't so easily equated with "not needed", or at least "not having a useful purpose" (since "needed" can be argued subjectively).

Moreover, if you did succeed in creating some sort of odd hybrid OS, what makes you think it would be (a) stable and (b) automatically faster than Win 98?

If, as you imply, memory is the only issue, you should be able to get more than enough to satisfy Win98 for less than Fritz 8 cost you, if you can find memory chips that are old enough to be compatible. But I think you're likely to find processor speed a problem as well. And probably more besides. The pace of change in the computer industry simply makes running current software on seven or eight year old hardware impractical or impossible.

Both operating systems are antiquated with some major flaws, but Win98SE is definitely a superior product, objectively. As far as performance goes, once your system gets to a certain point it's actually faster than Windows 95, because it's able to make better use of more modern components.

As for Warcraft 3, surely you're joking? Regardless of DLLs, any system that chokes on Win98 hasn't got a hope of running it. I should think it would be rather chuggy on anything that couldn't run Windows XP, actually. Stick to Starcraft, perhaps. ;)

And lastly, if your computer can in fact run Win98 reasonably well, but you're choosing to run Win95 because you believe it's a svelte, superior alternative, well; firstly, you're misguided; secondly, if your heart is set on it, you could run a dual-boot system which lets you choose between the two Operating Systems at startup.

I've had Fritz 8 running well on 98 on 256MB RAM and P-III but that wasn't the point.. I was trying to work out the differences and why 95 gives messages like "blah not linked to blah" when you install Fritz 8. 95 is superior is one way: it is quicker. I don't need frills of 98, just need a stripped down OS. Thanks to Frosty for previous reply, btw, that site is great... I used it before to find the ICC trial trick.

Recherché
18-09-2004, 03:09 PM
I hope you're joking. :wall:

Well then, what do you see as the major flaws of XP?

I suspect we're unlikely to get very far with this, though. Open-source fundamentalists are just like any other kind of fundamentalist. :P

(and besides, I'm not really well qualified enough to argue this effectively)

I must say though, I was rather amused at Java being held up as a shining beacon of programming light. It's not crap, but it's not super-fantastically wonderful either.

Most applications have their strengths and weaknesses. One of the things a lot of evangelists seem to miss is that something that suits them perfectly doesn't necessarily suit everyone else so well, or even at all.

Recherché
18-09-2004, 03:14 PM
I don't need frills of 98, just need a stripped down OS.

Windows 95 isn't a stripped down OS. It's just obsolete. Maybe you'd be better off with some flavour of open-source OS if svelte is what floats your boat. :)

(you may not be able to run Fritz on them either, at least without emulation, but for a won't-run-Fritz OS I think you'd find it a lot better than Windows 95; running Windows 95 on a P3 system with 256MB of RAM seems, frankly, a bit of a crime)

auriga
18-09-2004, 03:46 PM
Windows 95 isn't a stripped down OS. It's just obsolete. Maybe you'd be better off with some flavour of open-source OS if svelte is what floats your boat. :)

(you may not be able to run Fritz on them either, at least without emulation, but for a won't-run-Fritz OS I think you'd find it a lot better than Windows 95; running Windows 95 on a P3 system with 256MB of RAM seems, frankly, a bit of a crime)

the thing i find annoying about 95 (and 98SE) is that they don't really support
usb so if you do do some useful on it it won't be so easy to copy off using the new usb devices (flash disk, wireless card, external disk, etc.)

skip to my lou
18-09-2004, 03:57 PM
(and besides, I'm not really well qualified enough to argue this effectively)

I can't believe how people have no clue about this topic yet they think they know everything...............


I must say though, I was rather amused at Java being held up as a shining beacon of programming light. It's not crap, but it's not super-fantastically wonderful either.

It is very much super-fantastically wonderful.

Java is one powerful language and is certainly one of the best. Maybe you're thinking about java applets embedded on webpages.

Java is powerful enough to build an entire new language. From memory, cold fusion is built from java technology. quanta can clear this up if I am wrong.

skip to my lou
18-09-2004, 03:58 PM
Well then, what do you see as the major flaws of XP?

The whole thing is one big flaw.

Recherché
18-09-2004, 06:18 PM
Java is one powerful language and is certainly one of the best. Maybe you're thinking about java applets embedded on webpages.

No, I'm not. I've programmed in Java, and used programs written in it (not web-based). Multi-platform support comes at a significant performance cost, even with JIT compilation and so on. And it kinda defeats the purpose if you compile it into native code. It's better now than it was, but there's really nothing about that makes it a magical silver programming bullet.

It's great for people to learn in, though.


The whole thing is one big flaw.

Obviously I'm not going to be getting any constructive discussion out of you. Repeating similar statements over and over as if they were self-evident fact does not make them so. I asked you to provide some evidence or reasoning in support of your assertion that XP isn't any good, but all you can do is restate your opinion.

All your opinions in this thread are stated as if they're unquestionable fact, and you don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that there are people out there whose requirements and perspectives are different to your own, and that software solutions appropriate to you might be wholly inappropriate for them.

My initial impression of you as a fundamentalist would appear to be borne out.

As for knowing everything, you're the only person in this thread whose posts imply such an attitude.

skip to my lou
18-09-2004, 06:54 PM
Obviously I'm not going to be getting any constructive discussion out of you. Repeating similar statements over and over as if they were self-evident fact does not make them so. I asked you to provide some evidence or reasoning in support of your assertion that XP isn't any good, but all you can do is restate your opinion.

All your opinions in this thread are stated as if they're unquestionable fact, and you don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that there are people out there whose requirements and perspectives are different to your own, and that software solutions appropriate to you might be wholly inappropriate for them.

My initial impression of you as a fundamentalist would appear to be borne out.

As for knowing everything, you're the only person in this thread whose posts imply such an attitude.

You see, its not that I don't have the facts, its that I don't have the time.

I never implied that I know everything.

I give credit where its due, and Microsoft has a brilliant strategy for making money, not building a good reputation.

fundamentalist? Are you being serious? I am staring at a microsoft mouse, keyboard and im currently on windows XP. I also am logged in to MSN Messenger and I have Microsoft Word open. Why? There are many reasons, and the reasons are similar to why millions of other people use these things. What is the difference? I know how to lock down my computer, many people don't. And it isn't too obvious how to do it either.

Anyway, im running out of time, so I dunno if I can participate in this thread any longer.

Duff McKagan
19-09-2004, 02:17 PM
Any OS with system restore, Dr Watson, MSN Messenger, about 6 my document folders on one drive, Windows Media player 9 and open to having viruses fired through its firewall is a pile of junk.
I like OSes to do what i want them to do and nothing more, no yanky crap on it taking up memory.

Duff McKagan
10-12-2004, 01:09 AM
Ok, here is a great webpage: www.litepc.com

Windows 98 runs as fast as windows 95 now. For my p-ii 233Mhz 64MB ram computer I have it running with Mozilla and Java installed and it goes like a rocket. Plus there is a DOS utility called FileVan which lets you connect two computers via a parallel cable while you are online. This is quicker and more efficient than using the windows direct cable connection utility.
Time to crush some P-IVs at playchess.com! :lol: