Windows Forum

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Who still supports 98?

0 helpful
38 replies

by master3bs

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

I am slowly beginning the process of bringing my company (a government facility) up to date. About 90% of the workstations here are Windows 98. I'm trying to find the resources to bring in new pc's but that's going to take a while.

In the meantime, believe it or not, I'm updating a bunch of computers from 98 to 98SE. Fortunately I'm very comfortable with 98; but it is becoming a mess to administer particular when needing to add to the systems as little today is compatible with the OS.

A non Windows OS isn't a viable option because of training and compatibility with our systems. And most of the current machines simply won't handle XP.

Do many of the other techs here have to support 98 like this?

38 replies

by jamesrl

Put your apps on a Terminal Server, and have the old PCs run RDP sessions to access them. Its easier to update apps when they are central. All you have to worry about on the local PC is network connectivity.

James

by master3bs

That's a option I've considered; buying another server to run the common apps. At the moment I am running Symantec Antivirus Server and it works wonderfully.

That would help in keeping some things updated; but of course I'd still have to run them over a majority of 98 workstations.

by choppit

By the time you've bought your TS CALs you're starting to approach the point where a budget XP OEM box starts to look attractive.

by jamesrl

The cost of the CALs versus box is not the total cost. It takes time to pull out the old box, install the new box, load the apps etc. All of this is dramatically reduced if you use TSS. You can setup an RDP session in 1 minute. You can create a user profile in 2 minutes.

James

by jamesrl

Terminal services is pretty robust and functional - Citrix still makes sense when the scale/size warrants.

James

by master3bs

I'm glad I don't have to keep 95 machines running. I could do it, and I enjoyed 95 back in its day, but I'm glad those days at least are past me.

Good to know there are others out there though.

by charliespencer

I'm down to 25 (appx 17%) W95 machines but plan to eliminate or upgrade all of them by the end of the year. That will leave me appx 30% NT 4 and the balance 2K or XP.

by vandy-sj

I support several small businesses that are still running Win98SE on over half of their desktops - for budget reasons. Servers and domain have been upgraded to 2000 or 2003, but as long as it is still running - the Win98s are paid for and only get replaced if the systems completely die and need replacing.

I've suggested spreading out replacements with new XP systems over time (one or two replacement systems every quarter - more budget friendly method), and the suggestion is well received, but not always used.

I end up repairing a lot of the older Win98s (P2-266 CPUs) - failing hard drives, fading/failing monitors, worn out keyboards & mice, failed NICs, etc. Adding memory, running a permanent pagefile, and just performing regular PC maintenance (physical cleaning, hard drive maintenance and defrag, deleting temp files/disk cleanup, etc.) keep them alive to work another day.

by master3bs

Budget is the exact reason.

And I've been working on your solution since I got here. I've already managed to get two new computers (including my notebook) with xp Pro on them which frees up another pc and gets us that much closer to where we need to be.

I hope to get about 2-5 new pcs each quarter.

by carlitosway

20% of my machines here are still windows 98se.

I have upgraded alot of the equipment since the past year since alot of our machines use software that are resource hogs.

by choppit

At present I'm supporting something like;

50% Win 98SE
25% Win 95
20% Win XP
The remainder is a mix of Win NT4, Win 2K, Mac 8/9 and Win 3.1.

All being well, by the end of 2006 it'll be more like this;

65% Win XP
25% Linux (thin client)
4% Win 98SE
The remainder will be Mac and Windows 3.1

The reason for legacy OS support in the plan is that we often support customers hardware well beyond driver support cessation and into obsolescence.

by jdclyde

All I can say is, at least all of the Win95 systems are gone!

As computers die, they get replaced with new ones that run XP. Manufacturing, so very dusty which limits the life of the computers. Unfortunately, the OLDER a system is, the better it can hold up to the dirt and dust as it doesn't have as many fans to go bad!

Still about 40 systems running win98SE though. I don't THINK that we have any non-SE systems anymore! (I hope).

As the older systems can't run XP, we will continure to use win98 as long as the old ones are up. Just throwing a computer away is NOT an option as we are not government based and have to earn the money we spend rather than be part of a grant somewhere.

by paparulo01

"Just throwing a computer away is NOT an option as we are not government based and have to earn the money we spend rather than be part of a grant somewhere."
Applauses, please!

As jdclyde says, sometimes it?s not an option.
I am working for an insurance company, here in Argentina, which has almost 180 W98se based PCs, along with a few ones running W2000Pro, or XP, and a pair running SuSe 9.3 (mine and another one).
I?ve been fiddling with the TS idea for a while but....I said once "everything into the Data Center MUST be running some taste of *nix or Linux".....and I hadn?t had the time to even search for an TS server which can do Linux
Anybody goes that way? I?ll be glad to hear comments..

=OP

by thechas

We have systems running software that predates Microsoft that we need to keep running to support older products.

We are running Micro-VAXes, HP 80 series, and PCs with DOS 3.1, 5 and 6.22 along with Windows 95.

In many instances, we must keep the 486 and older PCs running as the code won't run on a faster system.

Now, these are all dedicated test systems, with custom application software that would cost multiple thousands of dollars to rewrite.

Still, it takes a lot of effort to keep 286 systems running, and to find or repair ISA I/O cards. Let alone finding ISA backplanes and AT style power supplies.

In your situation, the big issue is who allowed setting up a business network with W98 PCs in the first place?

I hope that you have a good firewall in place at the server, and run fully updated anti-virus and firewall software on each work station.

Chas

by jshee42

I find it incredible that there are so many out there still running 95, 98, 3.1 (!?!?), DOS. We have 4 systems in our company (of approximately 500-550) running 98. That's because IT was not involved with the purchase of these systems. The rest of the company is a blend of XP and 2000, but mostly XP at this point. I never touch the 98 systems, mostly because they just run and continue to do so (if it ain't broke....) and one because we have a maintenence contract on it. Let someone else deal with it. I would like to make it mine, but seeing as how I'm the only PC tech, I'd rather not. I definately find that it's easier to maintain 2000 and XP b/c I can remotely administer them.

by master3bs

I'm surprised too.

I expected to find only a handfull of people using many 98 machines. I was a bit surprised to hear how many 95 pc's were out there and shocked to hear about the other legacy platforms.

by wdewey

It's interesting that you place such emphases on anti-virus software since 98 doesn't have a tenth of the risks that XP has. 98 doesn't have the remote access/shareing capability and it can't natively spoof packets. I would be more worried about the XP machines myself.

by aaron a baker

A shot in the dark maybe, but I would consider going step by step. Windows ME is still widely supported and a lot less trouble than 98 ever was. You can still find all kinds of support for WinME, this is the basis on which I would make my decision. I don't have to tell you that doing a complete makeover requires some very serious money, perhaps ME might serve as a buffer.
It's up to you, but if it were me, I would elevate to ME and then eventually and very gradually merge to XP.
Good luck, this is going to be a tough one.
Regards
Aaron

by charliespencer

I would stay at 98 before I went to ME. You may have had success with it but I've found it to have multiple issues, especially on a domain.

If the hardware will support it and the apps will work, there's no reason to go to ME instead of XP. You've got to do the same compatibility testing up front. Why do it twice?

by aaron a baker

If you look at it from this perspective than you definitely have a point, I was speaking in terms on finances. ME doesn't cost any where nearly as much as XP and has all the bell and whistles "for ME". As for it's comportment in a Domain environment, I can't answer that I as I have always used it primarily as a personal home computer, not for networking. But when one considers that amounts of moneys involved, it can be a very difficult choice to make. If your willing to bite the bullet, then by all mean, go with the XP, " A System they claim is about to be rendered obsolete by Vista". But if the finances are tight, what is the alternative? Slowly but surely,we are being squeezed out by MicroBucks and forced to buy more expensive and far more elaborate systems than we really need. Now to keep up with Vista, you almost have to buy and entirely new system, starting with a 3Gb CPU, which means, new everything, just to satisfy Bill.
We're stuck with it and Gates pockets the change.
So naturally I will do whatever I can not to have to give him anymore that I absolutely have to. I'm doing to him, what he does to us.The bottom line is the Money, If it's there, great, but if it isn't surely there must be another form of recourse.
Regards
Aaron ]:)

by wdewey

If you had licenses (very unlikely) or could get them cheap the I would switch to NT. It has the domain capabilities and doesn't have the hardware requirements that XP has. 2000 is also a good platform and I am running a number of machines with similar specs without issues. I would stay away from ME though. It will just cause you headaches that you don't need.

Bill

by itgirli

ME is the most vile creation. No one should ever use it. 98SE is preferable to ME. Upgrade to 2000 if need be, but never ME.

by thechas

Sorry, at least as far as patches and direct support from Microsoft, Windows ME reached it's end of life on the same date as W98 SE.

Microsoft won't even certify new drivers for W98 or ME!

Windows ME was always the poor step-sister of Windows 2000.

Numerous system problems were never addressed.

ME was replaced by XP Home.

If I was going to spend my own, or my companies money on a Windows OS upgrade, it would be to XP Pro.

Stability and security along with support are my prime criteria.

There is also a continually growing list of business applications that will not run on W98 or ME.

A lot of people have been lulled into a false sense of security with W98 and ME as Microsoft issued very few patches to either over the past 2 years.
Read the security bulletins VERY closely, Windows 98 and ME are subject to most of the same security holes that were patched on Windows 2000 and XP. Microsoft just did not deem the problems as significant enough to require a patch for W98 or ME.

Windows ME is less qualified than W98 to be on any networked PC in a business environment.

Chas

by kjc

Not only are you gaining time and money in implementing TS now, you will gain even more in the future, when you need to upgrade hardware to keep up with your applications. With a TS, you will only have to upgrade or replace one server; going the desktop route you would have to replace ???? number of desktop computers.

And when you have to upgrade software? It will be just as easy to install, but you will only have to do it once on the TS.

by so_jam

KJC is spot on, why waste time in upgrading all x workstations when the single TS will do, you can download thw software for non XP clients here http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/tools/rdclientdl.mspx, I personally have setup many TS and they just work, little tip for other users, if you setup a 2000 Terminal Server you do not need to buy CAL if connecting with XP

by charliespencer

Where are you going to buy ME? Can you still get it? You can buy an XP license and be legally covered to install ME, but in that case...

Yes, XP is soon to be replaced by Vista, but MS will continue to support XP longer than ME. Is ME still supported?

by wdewey

I believe it is still supported, but good luck finding anything for it. Most IT people that I have run into refuse to support it. They would rather downgrade to 98. It does NOT play well in a domain environment from what I have heard and what I have done in labs.

Bill

by jamesrl

is limited, see
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-us&x=15&y=11

Basically they will do security hotfixes, and paid support for a little while longer.

James

by pka

So far I have yet to see much that ME or XP can do that 98 can't in as working environment except devour resources. In your gvmnt environment and all the problems xp has with older software and hardware you are probably much better off staying at 98SE or below.

by wdewey

For central administration I like the tools that 2000/XP provide. Central user management through a domain, the ability to push apps, the ability to remotely connect to users workstations and make changes to them, file permissions, built in support for zip archives.

Bill

by elphick

The problem with supporting Windows 9X is that it is usually on old hardware. Old hardware is slow hardware! As an IT support contractor I charge by the hour. To do anything on slow takes twice the time, and most of that time is spent just waiting for things to happen (watching paint dry). This is a waste of the customer's money. New fast hardware is now so cheap it is almost disposable. At less than ?500 for a good branded system unit (not Dell c**p) it saves a company money by replacing its hardware at very regular intervals (say every 2 or 3 years). If the hardware is replaced why still stay with the old operating systems. XP and Windows 2003 are so much better than Windows 9X, so who, except a miser, would want to stick with an inferior product.
If working on a faster computer/server saves the company just 10 hours of my time over the life of the system unit it has more than paid for itself.
Out with the slow - in with the fast.
Yes, I do like Windows 9X but its day has come and gone. RIP. With the need for better security it just can not keep up with the damands of today's world.

by pos_techie

I work with pos terminals, most of which are windows 95 and 98. Which is fine, as long as the servers they connect to are Windows NT. Add in a Windows 2000 workstation or server OS on the fileserver and things start to get dicey. Add in a Windows 2003 Server or XP OS on the fileserver and things get even scarier! And having been using these OS's for so long, the terminals themselves are pretty easy to work on when we do have problems and are stable, don't have the virus problems that are so common with the NT kernel based OS's. But like I said, when you add in the newer more secure OS on the fileserver, that's when all heck breaks loose and I scramble to find resolutions to permission problems that didn't exist with the older OS's.

In regards to the software not being able to run on Win98, I haven't run into that as much as for Windows NT. The most popular firewall programs and antivirus programs will not run on NT, but will on 98. So go figure.

And to the people that keep telling you to upgrade the hardware and get on XP, they must have missed the line where you mention that you work for the government. Do they want to pay even higher taxes (fed, state, or local) so you can upgrade all those legacy systems? I didn't think so...

by gregunit

I have two customers that are 90% Win98SE
They both have Win4.0 servers and exchange 5.5
One company plans to upgrade by purchasing a new workstation each month with XP pro and will upgrade their server 12/06
The other has no plan.

So far we have few problems with either company

by iceman52

For the last 3 years, I've been redeploying machines w/CPUs greater than 600MHz and 384MB RAM. You will end up with a machine that is ~2.5x faster and more stable than a native install of Win98 or ME.

While Win98 becomes unstable when you load apps into memory past 128MB, WinME w/98lite is stable up to at least 384MB RAM. Here's how I build older machines into 2x their tax life:

1) expand memory to 384-512MB RAM
2) flash the motherboard to the latest BIOS
3) zero the HD using manufacturer utility wherever possible; use KILLDISK when not:

http://www.killdisk.com/

4) install WinME using litePC's 98lite installer utility in 'chubby' mode:

http://www.litepc.com/98lite.html

5) add Stellant's Quick View Plus v8

http://www.avantstar.com/stellent/intradoc-cgi/idc_cgi_isapi.dll?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&ssDocName=QuickViewPlusOverview

6) add Adobe 6.02 (avoid v7x unless you're using WinXP)

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

7) add Firefox 1.0.7. Discourage users from using IE except for online virus scanning with Trend Micro's Housecall:

http://www.mozilla.org/

8) add Sun StarOffice 8 or MS-Office 2000 (avoid Office XP as unredeemably insecure with tattleware)

9) collect a bonus from management for having doubled the lifecycle of your client-side infrastructure and skipped XP while you comfortably stage for migration to MS-Vista or Xandros Linux.

Joe Tocci
Superuser, Inc.

This discussion is closed to new replies.