Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Running Windows 98 in the Browser

copy.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 161 posts

Re: Running Windows 98 in the Browser

#51

Post by pjmlp »

gwervc wrote: post #20
nippoo wrote: post #3

The thing that always strikes me with these kinds of demos is how absurdly efficient old OSs were / had to be. It's obviously not an apples to apples comparison, as modern operating systems have to handle a lot more, but even Windows XP (which handled a lot of the same basic Internet browsing tasks as I still use now!) is almost comically fast on modern hardware.

Even functionally it's very comical because of how we were able to do on Win98 (even 95) almost everything we are doing today: editing documents, browsing the web (with images), playing games, watching videos, printing documents, listening to music. The only functional improvements I can note over two decades are: Unicode support, higher resolution of everything (from hardware to content), and system reliability than…

Even further behind, an Amiga 500 would be more than enough for many folks.

Re: Running Windows 98 in the Browser

#52

Post by reddalo »

steve1977 wrote: post #46
bluetomcat wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The core OS APIs still allow writing fast and snappy applications, but most apps nowadays are not written this way. Apps are using generic libraries that bring "the gorilla and the jungle" with them, browsers are relying on a JIT to draw their own UI, etc.

This. I’m still using a couple of MFC or Win32 apps and using them is pure joy on a modern computer.

I agree. I love native Win32 apps, they're so light and quick. But nowadays everyone is using shitty solutions such as Electron.

Re: Running Windows 98 in the Browser

#53

Post by pjmlp »

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #21
creshal wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main downside is that those OSes were also really quick to hack, and the smallest problem bluescreen'd the system and lost all your work. But you can get a reasonably close experience with Linux or the BSDs and a simple GUI environment like the *box window managers. They're modern and snappy even on things like older generation RasPis.

Windows 2000 was memory protected, and still had very modest hardware requirements. IMO the pinnacle of Windows UX, everything after that was downhill.

If only it had a proper UNIX subsystem, instead of something to make DoD happy.

That was Microsoft's biggest mistake regarding GNU/Linux adoption.

I only cared about Slackware in 1995, because Windows NT POSIX wasn't enough for university work.

Re: Running Windows 98 in the Browser

#54

Post by [deleted] »

whoopdedo wrote: post #44
taspeotis wrote: post #36

3D Maze is there, I'm happy.

Where is that? I remember that being an extra on the CD-ROM but I don't see it mounted and can't remember the name of the file to search for it. If the CD is there somewhere, does that mean the Weezer music video should be there too. And then I got a BSOD (Invalid VxD dynamic link call from VMM(06)+1D72 to device "C001" service E74) when I turned on the Underwater screen saver.

[deleted]

Re: Running Windows 98 in the Browser

#55

Post by taspeotis »

whoopdedo wrote: post #44
taspeotis wrote: post #36

3D Maze is there, I'm happy.

Where is that? I remember that being an extra on the CD-ROM but I don't see it mounted and can't remember the name of the file to search for it. If the CD is there somewhere, does that mean the Weezer music video should be there too. And then I got a BSOD (Invalid VxD dynamic link call from VMM(06)+1D72 to device "C001" service E74) when I turned on the Underwater screen saver.

It’s one of the first screensavers in the dropdown. Worked for me, albeit slowly.

Re: Running Windows 98 in the Browser

#56

Post by pjmlp »

rafram wrote: post #45
blowski wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things I didn't use my 1998 PC for: * realtime collaborative spreadsheet editing * 28 inch high definition monitor * watching movies in HD * playing almost lifelike games * browsing an extremely hostile internet * live backing up all my files * Running large complex scripts on the same machine I can easily carry in one hand * Running an IDE like JetBrains I could go on. We are only doing the "same tasks" if you ignor…

Even the software that existed then has become an order of magnitude more capable. Try running 2023 Emacs or Microsoft Word on a 90s PC…

As I watch many people using their UNIX like computers, as if time has stood still in 1980's terminals, I would say it that 2023 Emacs would do just fine.

Really, entering in some coffe shop coding sessions, is hardly any different from an IBM X Windows terminal into a DG/UX session in the university computer lab, now they are using a laptop and something else instead of twm or an ambar based text terminal.

Re: Running Windows 98 in the Browser

#57

Post by inferiorhuman »

gwervc wrote: post #20
nippoo wrote: post #3

The thing that always strikes me with these kinds of demos is how absurdly efficient old OSs were / had to be. It's obviously not an apples to apples comparison, as modern operating systems have to handle a lot more, but even Windows XP (which handled a lot of the same basic Internet browsing tasks as I still use now!) is almost comically fast on modern hardware.

Even functionally it's very comical because of how we were able to do on Win98 (even 95) almost everything we are doing today: editing documents, browsing the web (with images), playing games, watching videos, printing documents, listening to music. The only functional improvements I can note over two decades are: Unicode support, higher resolution of everything (from hardware to content), and system reliability than…

Sure, and on the mac side you've got Infinite Mac dot org where you can run System 1 through MacOS 9.0 in the browser. It's crazy to see how fast System 7.5 (which is more or less peak classic mac IMO) boots up versus System 9.0, and just how much attention to detail there was back then.

Re: Running Windows 98 in the Browser

#58

Post by M95D »

signal11 wrote: post #25
gwervc wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even functionally it's very comical because of how we were able to do on Win98 (even 95) almost everything we are doing today: editing documents, browsing the web (with images), playing games, watching videos, printing documents, listening to music. The only functional improvements I can note over two decades are: Unicode support, higher resolution of everything (from hardware to content), and system reliability than…

Higher resolutions (and the accompanying resource sizes) would be hell for 32-bit OSes though. Also, it’s kind of amazing that many web pages these days are larger than Doom shareware’s zip size.

Not true. Or it's true because of software bloat and resource waste these days.

When I was a teenager, I wanted to see what was the maximum resolution my monitor supported. It was a Samsung Syncmaster 14" entirely analog, no OSD, with analog adjustment knobs on the bottom. The video card was a Matrox Millennium II 8MB VRAM and the OS was Windows 3.10. The maximum resolution that I could get was 1600x1200 @ 41Hz interlaced. That's almost 2K (1.92K to be more precise). 41Hz interlaced hurt my eyes like hell but everything worked on the software side.

Re: Running Windows 98 in the Browser

#59

Post by Medox »

corethree wrote: post #18
Aardwolf wrote: post #17

Amazingly, opening google.com in the internet explorer browser worked after running the "networking.bat" from the desktop Many other pages don't load, possibly non supported https standards

Navigate to the same site. Run windows from a browser within windows running on the browser.

And after Windows XP becomes an option, we can run it from within the Windows 98 Browser, possibly creating a black hole!

Re: Running Windows 98 in the Browser

#60

Post by FirmwareBurner »

blowski wrote: post #27
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but even Windows XP (which handled a lot of the same basic Internet browsing tasks as I still use now!) is almost comically fast on modern hardware. Why is it surprising that an old OS built for late 90's hardware runs "comically fast" on 2020's hardware? Just look at XP system requirements: - Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (300 MHz is recommended) - At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is reco…

Things I didn't use my 1998 PC for: * realtime collaborative spreadsheet editing * 28 inch high definition monitor * watching movies in HD * playing almost lifelike games * browsing an extremely hostile internet * live backing up all my files * Running large complex scripts on the same machine I can easily carry in one hand * Running an IDE like JetBrains I could go on. We are only doing the "same tasks" if you ignor…

Add to that that Windows XP had no antivirus built in, heck it didn't eve ship with a bloody firewall to block incomign connections, so you got immediately pwned the moment you plugged into the internet or a USB drive from school. Then you installed a third party firewall and anti-virus solution and performance went to shit.

Yeah, it felt faster than today's equivalent at similar task, but at what cost.

If I strip out the catalyst, locks, interior and seats form my car, it will also go faster and give me better fuel economy but that doesn't really make it usable for me now.

Post reply on HN