Make Windows 98 act (and look if possible) like Windows 2000

edited April 2007 in Software
I'm not sure if I should put this topic in here or in the Windows NT category.

Yes indeed. Until Windows 2000 becomes available for free download in 2010 I want Windows 98 to be able to run Windows 2000/XP apps. Any ideas?
:lol:
«13

Comments

  • Most Win32 things should work in either, the only things that'll fail are the ones that require really low level system interactions (EG. Driver-based apps).

    Are there any specific programs you have in mind?

    -Q
  • I'd like to run ObjectDock and similar programs.
  • Not knowing exactly why OD is NT only, I can't help much there. You might try installing it and seeing what errors it gives.

    -Q
  • After installing it and running it says,

    Device attached to the system is not functioning correctly or something.
  • Err... I have no idea why a desktop manager/taskbar replacement would cause Windows to think a device wasn't there.

    -Q
  • wtf, it doesent even concern any drivers. Just download 2000 of a torrent or off the ftp links on this site. To my knowledge, objectdock only works in 2000 and up, there was a problem about it and a few other problems a while back.
  • Right but WHY is the question. I know 9x was flippant with reality but that error, if it be a true result of installation is out of character at best.

    -Q
  • Personalize the color of the "3D Objets" in the Windows Default Theme, to an more bright color. doing that I make windows 98 in my VM looks like Windows ME :)
  • Well now I've made my Windows 98 computer look like it but I still get the crazy error.
  • Use the unoffical service pack update from Exuberant.
  • I'd totally forgotten about that. Hit it with all the official SPs/updates from Windows Update, then install their "SP2.1"

    -Q
  • I don't see why a lot of programs require Windows 2000+. Is it just MS trying to make money off you or is it really a problem in the software (and if so, can't they get around it someway?)
  • It's kinda both. Plus writing software for both NT and 9x would piss of developers.

    Plus 9x is just a huge heap of shit and using NT makes *so* much more sense.
  • Plus 9x is just a huge heap of shit and using NT makes *so* much more sense.

    Not at all. Windows 98SE was one of MS's Top 3 best OSes IMO. Just holding the rear after XP and 2K of course. But I don't they were that bad, I've been running 98SE for a long time and never noticed any horrible problems. If you wanna pick on 9x, pick on 95 and Me.
  • Windows 95, 98 and ME ran off MS-DOS, even though it was hidden in Windows ME. Some applications can not make use of this, and so require NT based systems like Windows 2000 Professional, 2000 server, Xp home/pro, mce and Vista.
  • Makes sense, but I wish Microsoft could have released some sort of patch or runtime or framework for NT-based applications.
  • How? Dos-based and NT based systems are completely different, and have completely different system files needed by the apps, which can't be patched.
  • I guess you're right, and after they ended extended support for Me and 98SE, they had a reason to stop developing for it.
  • Wipeout wrote:
    Plus 9x is just a huge heap of shit and using NT makes *so* much more sense.

    Not at all. Windows 98SE was one of MS's Top 3 best OSes IMO. Just holding the rear after XP and 2K of course. But I don't they were that bad, I've been running 98SE for a long time and never noticed any horrible problems. If you wanna pick on 9x, pick on 95 and Me.

    95C is the least supported, but the quickest. I used 98SE until my laptop died, it was seriously unstable.
  • 95B and C are allright, 98SE is a great OS. Never had a single serious problem with it. 95 was notorious for lockups.
  • They got rid of 9x because it was way to unstable. Why would they *want* to keep developing it?
  • I always had the bsod and crashes on 98SE. :(
  • I still don't see where you're getting all this stuff about 98SE. I ran 98SE for 7 years, on about 10 different computers and it never gave me problems. I think they finally got it right with SE in 1999 and then screwed it up again when they pushed it too far in 2000 with Me and thats what made them realize they would have to scrap it to keep moving on.
  • Wipeout wrote:
    I still don't see where you're getting all this stuff about 98SE. I ran 98SE for 7 years, on about 10 different computers and it never gave me problems. I think they finally got it right with SE in 1999 and then screwed it up again when they pushed it too far in 2000 with Me and thats what made them realize they would have to scrap it to keep moving on.
    ME just has a different theme to 98se in my opinion. Nothing else had changed.
  • Pretty much right, but they had newer hardware and software to support as well. When you don't modify a kernel just to run out an OS by 2000, but still expect it run to new stuff, you got a problem.
  • I've just realised this is in the ->windows 3.1 section.
  • I no eh? Kinda weird...MODERATOR!
  • I have seen a proggie that will modify the shell32.dll of Win98 to give variously the 98 or ME (aka 2k) icon set. There is a win2k colour scheme for Win98SE as well.

    You could aslo get hole of win95cmd.exe, v5, which is an ascii version of the cmd.exe, designed on win9x systems.

    What else is there?
  • What's the point? There's only minor changes in the UI.

    Icons are icons, color schemes can be changed.
  • Moved to Support > 9x since that's the base OS that's being discussed here.

    The first program I ran into that NEEDED 2000 was "Glass2K" from "Chime Softwares". It was one of those things that let you make your taskbar partially transparent.

    -Q
Sign In or Register to comment.