I have an older, kind of broken-down laptop that I wanted to do some research and testing on, so I installed a fresh install of a new operating system on it. Having a slow processor, I chose an operating system with relatively low system requirements, but it still managed to include an advanced XML aggregator integrated right into the operating system.
The aggregator includes configurable settings for retrieving feeds, support for rich content right in the feeds themselves, an attractive branded UI for each feed, and strong tools for managing subscription lists. Best of all, the aggregator works flawlessly with the integrated web browser, which also supports a new XML format that's similar to the now-defunct DeepLeap's site metadata files, allowing for the display of standardized navigational elements across many different types of websites.
There's also support built right in for the seamless display of video content regardless of source, with first-class television tuner support and video overlay. and keyword-searchable television listings. Best of all, this operating system runs almost every common application that I want to use, from instant messaging clients to games to Microsoft Office, except for some very unusual or brand-new programs.
Setup took about half an hour, and my wifi network's already running on the machine, streaming MP3s from my server. The first time I started up, all my devices were recognized and the list of default subscriptions were displayed right on my desktop. It doesn't even have any DRM features or required activation built into the OS, though it does seem to be slightly prone to instability if you're not careful about which applications and devices you use.
The operating system I installed on my computer is Windows 98.
u r 1 nerd
That is a 1 (one) above. It looks like an 'I'. But it is not. As Anil says, 'suxks for me'.
I run Windows 98, so I knew you were going to say that before I got to the bottom. Where's the news aggrigator?
Think "Channel Bar".
::snerk::
There is a REASON fergoshsakes that I resist, heels dug into the dirt, to upgrade to the newest, latest whizbang that the BigCos are trying to cram down my throat.
The sole disadvantage is that I'm still stuck in the dark ages on Photoshop for reasons of stability. (6 & 7 are quite crashprone on 9x.) But since I still remember a lot of the steps I used for stuff in 3.x, what do I necessarily care?
Nice feature set. Shame that it crashes all the bloody time when you're doing something important... ARGH!
Anil, you make the most compelling case for Windows 98 that I've yet heard. But even the most compelling case for Windows 98 isn't very compelling.
If the blasted OS weren't so unstable—it's easily the most unstable OS I've ever used—and if I didn't have to restart every time I tweaked some little setting then maybe I'd consider using it.
Still, it has its place. It's probably the right choice for older computers.
What's that about nothing new being under the sun?
Hint: if you're talking about stability, you're missing the point, kids.
Gold star for Dave S.
No screenshot with a Dashes CDF feed? I think there's a converter somewhere here:
http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/1405.html
Excellent point! I've been considering putting a different OS on my Pentium II laptop that's starting to show it's age. XP just doesn't always cut the mustard.
Since W98 is all I use at home, I must confess that I am relieved on reading what you say.
Now, about stability!
The most trouble I got with any operating system is with Win98 - I don´t like it
as I've been workting with it for a long time. the stability thing doesn't matter to me any more! I just know what to do when!
AND: one should never be afraid of a complete setup!
Win98 is not bad when its matched with the right hardware. I maintain about 20 Win 9x machines that have nothing but a very basic set of software. They are very stable. I think Windows 9x runs in to trouble when lots of different software is installed and there are hardware changes. For me it's biggest downside is security.
Hint: if you're talking about stability, you're missing the point, kids.
I have Windows 98 running on my IBM Thinkpad and I put that machine through the paces all of the time. I have never had any critical problems with it despite installing and uninstalling a lot of stuff on it. Actually I enjoy the interface more than XP and my desktop.
And the point would be that the technology's been out there for sometime, but that everyone's gone away from it and totally twisted it now, eh? ;)
I am nothing if not Captain Obvious ...
I have been an avid computer user since 1990. I have built, borrowed, disected, programmed, installed, smashed, taken apart 52 of my own personally-owned computers in the nearly 14 years since then. I have used nearly as many operating systems- more than 40 variants- in that same timeframe, in capacities from home use to enterprise application development.
I was hired at my most recent job at the end of May this year, where I was introduced FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER to the Apple Mac OS9. I can say without reservation that OS9 is the worst, most error-prone, crash-happy, and plain-old unusable operating system I have ever encountered. I am dealing with browser incompatability, program incompatability, font problems, a complete and total lack of user experience design, and an outrageously outdated look and feel.
Meanwhile, I am angered to the point of disgust by the years of empty promises made to me by countless Apple fans who droned on and on and on about their little club- when I've only now realized that all it ever was. A club, a secret decoder ring society of people who, unlike Woody Allen, WOULD want to belong any club that would have them as a member.
My conclusions, in three months of hardcore everyday use with the OS, doing a variety of things from video editing to art production to web development- is that Apple has vomited up the largest, most hugely successful, most undeserved marketing campaign in the history of the universe.
I can't install a mysql client, or a modern newsreader. I have long since stopped hoping for an elegant, usable, stable standards-compliant browser. I can't right-click, tab to submit a form, copy a file and expect it to actually COPY itself, or create and/or manage directories easily and quickly. And forget- I mean forget- about video and audio compatability, extensions, and printers. They're all long since lost causes.
And it's not an issue of 'getting used to it,' when the act of getting used to it entails leaving my entire suite of productivity shortcuts, methods, and options behind in favor of a system that offers no productivity shortcuts what-so-ever.
Maybe it's because the individual machine I'm on is beset by a couple years of hard-core use, rendering it unable to start-up without having to be restarted 3 times in a row (love that load time-- it's more than twice any of my home Windows machines!!!!)
But, even if that is the case- that I possess one of the rare and few Macs that breaks down and crashes at least 3-5 times DAILY- then perhaps it speaks to the fact that there is no perfect OS, no one penultimate system that can be counted on to be stable 100% of the time.
If that were the case- and come on, put down your Apple ads for a second and realize that it is- then perhaps we shouldn't even be considering stability when honesty reveals that all are equal on that plane.
Maybe we should consider price then-- oh wait, Apple fails again. I'm off to assemble a cheap, powerful, cleanly installed WIndows 98 machine, and I'm going to hope that it's vast advantage in features, compatability, and usability will guide me through another 14 years without a major problem.
To quote Matt Damon in "Good Will Hunting": You like Apples?...
Well, as long as we're going off topic about this, let's start an OS war! Never mind the fact that OS X replaced OS 9 years ago.
Dear readers of mine who aren't keeping up: The point is that things that existed long ago are being presented as new. Discuss.
Okay, but... it crashes so much! In my opinion, XP is much better - it's basically got everything 98 has, but it's also much more stable. Granted, you need a fairly fast computer to run it, but...
The (seemingly) 3% of us that caught your point are apparently content to sit in quiet amusement, the other 97% fixate on irrelevant asides.
This thread has turned into a great argument for disabling comments...
98? Is that better than Windows 95? I better try this new fancypants OS out, I reckon ... (that was sarcasm, by the way)
"The point is that things that existed long ago are being presented as new."
Maybe, in previous years, there wasn't enough XML worth aggregating? You know, the "tipping point" and all that.
I have my 3-year old, 400Mhz Celeron Dell laptop, with 64MB RAM running web and ftp servers, Photoshop and Flash, and MS Office 2000.
And it all runs under Win98. Yeah, it's not perfect, but if you take care** of your computer it'll be OK.
**Scandisk, defrag, anti-virus, Windows updates, etc.
what about ME? I like windows ME. I haven't had any problem but everybody seems to hate it. It's basically the same as 98 though.
Anil, it might be time to drive a stake in this one's heart. I think most everyone's missed the point. :D
I HATE YOU ALL.
we love u though
Sounds familiar. Anyone remember push technology? See if you can name this product:
Like other so-called "push" products, it allows users to subscribe to channels that automatically update themselves whenever the user is connected to the Net. It will be added as part of [company's software suite] - the collection of embellishments, including email, newsgroup, and groupware products - built on top of [company's] Web browser.
This amazing suite of software? Netscape Communicator. Netcaster, their push technology platform (based on Marimba Castanet -- anyone remember that?) never took off. Actually, the only "push technology" that I can remember actually seeing people use was PointCast, who found a niche as a screensaver that showed news snippets, before they were snatched up by Microsoft.
The success of any technology is almost never based in technological merit alone -- widespread comprehension always lags behind significantly enough that an idea or implementation just isn't enough.
I think most of the net-based features you're touting didn't generate any interest because there was still a very big divide between the content creator and the content consumer. Remember Livewired? Worked in Netscape 4, but not in IE. Natural gas cars aren't so hot without the natural gas stations.
But taking a step back from that, in '98 a good majority of people were just getting the first vague inklings about the looming Internet continent in the distance.
Personally, I'd stick Win2000 on it. I find 9x too 'crashy' for my liking, and I had an awful time with ME. XP is too slow on anything under 800mhz for me, so Win2000 is the solution. Fast stable, clean.
oh c'mon y'all. That just was not fair to Microsoft, Anil. You should have tested it Windows 3.1. Now _that_ would be saying something :p
You really want to get rid of the hardware dont you?!! This long post in promoting Win98 is a SHAM... and you know it!
You are tired of lugging around a piece of junk too valuable to throw and too slow to use? Just sell it on ebay as Anil's old machine, comes with free Win 98 installed by anil, works like a charm...
Damn....people will go to any lengths to sell old hardware!
:)
lol