At least NT has a concept of security. 9x certainly doesn't - everything runs with full system access. Anyone in a networked environment would get shot for daring to do such a thing these days.

In Vista onwards, a rootkit would cause a UAC prompt at the very least. It couldn't be done without user interaction. In earlier NTs, it'd still have to run with admin rights.

linuxlove, that's the whole point, 9x could continue from some errors because it was prone to so much more, and would BSOD even in non-critical situations because of the risk of kernel memory being overwritten (thanks to running the entire system and all user programs in a single address space).

Because It was based on MS-DOS. Windows NT was much more stable than MS-DOS operating systems (windows 1x, 2x, 3x, 9x)

Currently, most applications are not support Windows 9X series and Not Stable and very slow and have RAM size limitions.

Then one just boots from a DOS boot disk, extracts the relevant files from the .CAB files, and voilà, the OS is back. So unless either the registry or VMM32.VXD are deleted, you can still recover (and even the reigstry always has a backup copy stored, making a VMM32.VXD deletion the only thing that can make the OS unusable).


Because halting the entire OS rather than trying to recover saves your data and software? Considering I've had a BSOD in Windows 2000 corrupt the registry (and most data of the NTFS partition the OS was one), I'd say not. And I could save nothing because I had no way of doing a proper CHKDSK /F on the NTFS partition. The Recovery Console version of CHKDSK was a special-purpose version and limited, and the Recovery Console left me no way of running the norma version of CHKDSK. And considering I didn't have access to second PC on which I could download something like BartPE and burn it onto a CD or DVD, I had not much I could do.


I use Windows 7 as my main OS but that's besides the point. You can't compare a 2011 NT OS to a 9x OS from 1999. You need to compare the 1999 9x OS to a NT OS from around the same era. Same for 1995, and 1993, and so on.


Both have their flaws, and both have their good sides.


Windows 9x was designed for home users at a time when most of home users never used any kind of network or at most used stuff like dial-up access to the Internet which was for very little time a day with not much chance to harm your OS. I'm talking about the 1995-1999 era here. All you needed was some good Anti-Virus software and you were good to go.
Windows 9x wasn't an OS released in 2011, so judging it by 2011 standards and how well it handles what PC's do in 2011 is just wrong.


Once again, irrelevant for what Windows 9x was designed at the time.


Well not like NT handles everything perfectly. Case in point, PFN lists. It stores two PFN lists, and periodically comapres them and BSOD's with 0x0000004E PFN_LIST_CORRUPT if they don't match. Now, why not just fix the corrupted PFN list and continue with the work? I don't know.
Then, DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL - so you stop an entire OS because a driver requested an invalid IRQL, rather than just terminating the driver itself?

And sorry if I got anything wrong, I'm hardly the ultimate NT expert so I might get these things wrong.

the Mach VirtualMemory managment code is inefficient, but got ported to all BSDs 20 years ago.
OS X iOS FreeBSD GNU/Hurd and DragonflyBSD still have it.

I'm no expert, but as far as my knowledge goes. NT based OS's are far superior than 9X-based ones.

Windows NT is better now, in a 2012 computing reality. But back in the 90s, NT was just not the best choice in the Microsoft catalog. I worked with a lot of 486s and Pentiums at the time, Windows NT 4.0 was really a dream, but a computer that could run it with a decent performance was very expensive. Most applications used in home environments, mainly games and multimedia stuff, were Win9x only too. For a corporate network, with well-built machines, Windows NT surely was THE choice, but for home, it was completely non-sense.

I second that. Windows 9x was good when it was good, but now, let's let it be abandonware. I think this discussion had gone long enough.

....and deserves to be locked.

@LoneCrusader: Maybe in order to better understand your point of view it would be helpful to know why you dislike the NT-series' OS so much - you haven't done that so far I think.

I used to use Win2k for a very long time - actually I changed from Win2k to Windows 7, which felt like a quantum leap. And why did I stick with Win2k for so long? I thought it must a lot faster than Windows 7 as the requirements were much lower. Guess how surprised I was that starting Windows 7 even seemed faster - and everything just ran out of the box instead of me having to install a thousand drivers. I'd never even dare thinking about downgrading again.

To me it seems you are simply proud to still use Win 9X. Which is fine. Running Win 9X does make you special. And of course under very special circumstances, 9X might even be a logical choice (e.g. if you frequently use old software).

But you simply won't be able to argue that nowadays (with standard hardware) 9X is easier or better to use than XP, Vista or 7. Actually it's quite a lot of work to use it properly I guess. That may be fun for you as a nerd, but is boring or even impossible for the other 95% of users, who just want things to work, because they've never heard the term "command prompt"

Jolan Tru!

I reiterate my previous statement that this thread should be locked. (And now I'm not the only one who thinks so.)

Since I have been asked, I will state my point of view again. I don't expect any of you to agree with it, and if you don't like it, too bad.

@Jens
Actually I have already stated several reasons why I dislike Windows NT.

I believe in User control over the OS, not OS control over the user.
I don't want an operating system that continually asks me if I am sure that I want to do something.
I don't want an OS that tells me that I don't have privileges or permission to do this or that.

I believe the Command Line should ALWAYS be present, ALWAYS be a boot option, and ALWAYS be the MASTER of the GUI.
Example - if I go to the command prompt and tell it to delete a file, I expect it to delete the file, not tell me "This file is being used by Windows."
NOT to imply that I want to sit around typing commands in the command line all day. No one wants to do this. The point is that it is there if needed, for malware removal, scripted tasks, etc etc.

Speaking of "typing commands." Here's another shocker for most of you. If I HAD to choose between Windows Vista and Windows 7, I would choose Vista. Why? Because it still has the classic Start Menu. I read a thread somewhere on a forum where a guy was complaining about the Win7 start menu. Some fool there said "why don't you just type what you're looking for in the search box?" I wanted to answer and say "if I wanted to TYPE what I'm looking for I would use DOS. I thought Windows had supposedly ADVANCED from the days of typing commands, not REGRESSED."


I hear a lot of noise about how "NT has a concept of security."
I have a concept of security as well. KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. If you don't know, then learn, and don't use a computer online until you learn.

I once set up a Windows XP machine for a family member. It contracted a virus the INSTANT it was connected to the Internet. Hadn't even opened a browser window for the first time. And this is supposed to be security?

I once watched a computer tech spend four hours trying to remove some malware executable from a Windows XP machine. I could have removed it from a Windows 9X machine in four MINUTES with DOS.

In my own experience, judging by the various computers I've set up for friends and family over the years, I have found that those who are the most computer illiterate generally get into less trouble when using Windows 9x as opposed to when they are using Windows XP.

The fact is that Windows NT systems have a much broader attack surface for malware than 9x systems. If Windows 9X's potential attack surface were the size of a car, then Windows NT's potential attack surface is the size of an airplane hangar.


And then there's the matter of "change for the sake of change."

What real-world productive function or ability does Windows XP allow a user to do that a Windows 9X user could not do also?
Browse the Internet? Both can do this.
Send E-Mail? Both can do this.
Download files? Both can do this.
Watch videos? Both can do this.
Produce documents? Both can do this.
Access a network? Both can do this.
And the list goes on.

You see, the idea that a new operating system really provides any new useful function is questionable at best. Just because it has a new name and a new look does not make it perform any more useful functions than the previous version.

Now some will say "oh, well, Windows 9X cant run X version of Y program/tool/game." Well, that is the choice of the programmers of that program/tool/game to be lazy and not bother to take a little extra time to ensure that their code is backwards compatible. And in doing so, they are complacent and even contribute to the "go with the flow" attitude. "Computing" has become a constant update/upgrade merry-go-round.

The idea that I need to buy a new computer or new operating system every couple of years is rubbish. The idea that I need to update my browser or some other program every few days is rubbish also. These things should be made to last, and the manufacturers and programmers should take pride in their work and produce quality products that LAST.

Without going off on a tangent about society in general, we live in a "throw away culture" where nothing is made to last, where people only think about getting the newest and latest thing. Corporate marketing word play, and planned obsolescence.


And finally, I like Windows 9X because Microsoft doesn't want me to. I like Windows 9X because Microsoft and others have made very possible attempt to erase the existence of Windows 9X. (Example - On HP's website you can find Windows 3.1 printer drivers. But NOT 9x printer drivers. They took them all down in 2007 because Microsoft wanted them to.) Microsoft owes it's current market share, and the current popularity of it's Windows NT systems to the success of Windows 9x. Windows 9x wasn't supposed to happen. Windows NT was supposed to be so great, but it was 9X that "conquered the world." And they've never been happy about it.


Now, I don't expect to gain any Windows 9x converts.
But when you say that using Windows 9x "is boring or even impossible for the other 95% of users, who just want things to work." - Remember that this is NOT because Windows 9X CAN'T do many of the things they need to do. It's because Microsoft and others have MADE it nearly impossible to do, by stopping Windows 9X development, by refusing to continue support, by failing to provide backwards compatibility, by failing to produce products that last, and by changing some things simply for the sake of changing them.

There is coming a time where hardware cannot and will not run Windows 9x, and 9x capable hardware can only go so far. New software will also eventually drop off support for NT5; KernelEx only emulates a few certain NT5 APIs.

NT, on the other hand, was built and is being built for the future. It will always offer support for the latest hardware and software, something 9x could only dream of.

NT is superior. And with that, I agree with those requesting a lock.

As long as the chat here is proper without flaming or attitude I don't see why this should be locked, this thread is about personal opinion about Win9x, not about final evidence of why it's old and bad or not. And from what I see nothing here has warranted a lock (no flaming, no foul language, and it's not irrelevant considering BA's interests).

And to add of my own opinion, Win9x is outdated, a patchwork of code with one foot in the DOS legacy, and one foot in the 32bit (to be legacy soon too). The demise of Win9x was quite obvious for anyone that used it - bad kernel security, unstable, not flexible enough, unfit for future technology and the software had by far outlived itself. So instead of spending another 10 years trying to add more patchwork they decided to go onto a platform that was already working and that had everything Win9x didn't have. Simple as that. For the same reasons MS-DOS was abandoned too. Things go on, technology becomes outdated and new tech takes over.

Topic unlocked, keep the discussion sane and intelligent.

Thanks, mrpijey.

Absolutely right. Sadly with modern Windows version, the user has less and less control over the OS. The OS decides for itself what components to install, what user interface to choose, whether or not to use user accounts, etc. There's no "custom setup" where I'd be able to choose all that. And a lot of things in the OS itself are kept hidden or at least hard to access.


This problem stems from the fact Windows, from Vista onwards, has lost their concept of what an Administrator-privileged account is. My main account in Windows 7 is supposedly Administrator-privileged, yet I can't even modify the hosts file, and God forbid trying to write files to any place outside of My Documents with eg. a Visual Basic 6 application. I have to tell Windows to run the respective software "as Administrator" to get around that, even though my account iself is supposed to have Administrator privileges already.
Now ask yourself, if you're in Linux in a user account with Root privileges, do you need to do "su root" do anything that requires such privileges? No you don't. In Windows Vista and 7, though that's basically how it goes.


Yeah again it stems from the fact that Administrator-privileged accounts are no longer such. They're basically "Partial Administrator" accounts requiring special confirmation/setting to run stuff as "Full Administrator". All nice and well, I can see why Microsoft did that, but why not then give me an option to give "Full Administrator" privileges to an account, bypassing the UAC, etc.? Who knows.


Problem is, the guys at Microsoft seem to be thinking these days, that the only important part in an OS is that newbies can learn to use it fast. They don't seem to realize that a proper and easy environment to fix problems is a must for someone who knows what they're doing. Sure, they have the Recovery Console but that's nothing. It's very limited in what you can do there, and doesn't even have access to things like the full version of CHKDSK. So if your NTFS partition got corrupted, and you have no access to another PC but only to the Windows Recovery Console, you won't be able to fix anything. Yes, very secure for your data.


Yeah, the fact they removed the Find stuff and so on, is bad. But there's also the fact the "Run" option appears to be hidden as well. Sure, there's the Win+R combination, but if someone doesn't know about it, good luck trying to find access to the Ring option. And I find it funny that Metro is going back to applications running full screen with potential splitting in two allowed... that's how MS-DOS Editor was like. So it's now modern for applications to behave like old DOS stuff?


Windows 9x also has a concept of security with the Policy Editor and so on. It's just kept away from Windows unless you choose to use that. And I'm sure that if Windows 9x development continued, it'd have been expanded on as time went. So the framework was absolutely there, it was just limited because it wasn't really all that needed in the home PC world of the 1990's.


From my personal experience, I had about the same amount of malware in Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows 2000, and Windows XP, as long as I only used Internet Explorer, no Anti-Virus, and no Anti-Malware application. After switching to eg. Firefox (with Adblok and No-Script installed of couse) and installing an Anti-Virus and Anti-Malware application, the amount of malware got reduced in all three. So that has nothing to do with the OS and all to do with what the user uses. Microsoft addressed it in Vista and onwards by adding UAC, but at the expense of proper Administration accounts for those users who know what they're doing.

Another thing is, the "a file is corrupted, insert the CD to replace it" prompt in Windows XP is terrible. It should tell you what file it is, so in case you don't have the CD handy, you can at the very least write down the file and try to fix in other ways. What happened to me once was, some kind of rootkit infected some .DLL or something file of Windows XP, causing its own executables to be hidden and messing with how the OS worked. I got the "file corrupted" prompt but because I had absolutely no way of finding out what file it was, I had no way of fixing it. I didn't have the CD handy so I wanted to fix it by extracting it from the SP3 package after noting down what file it is, but there was no way to. In the end, I had to reinstall the entire OS (after wiping any traces of it just so the rootkit wouldn't come back). And that's supposed to be security?


Windows 2000 on NTFS, registry gets corrupted. A run of CHKDSK would be enough to fix it, but I'm unable to enter Windows in any forum, and Recovery Console only offers its limited version of CHKDSK that can't fix it. I had to wipe the partition and reinstall the entire OS from scratch. With a proper command line I could have fixed it with a single reboot, CHKDSK run, and reboot again.


I remember the times when software could run on Windows 3.x or even DOS even considerably after Windows 9x was out. Now it's sadly no longer so.


That's because corporate marketing thinks primarily of middle and high income families that can easily afford to upgrade their hardware so often. That's why everything has become so throwaway.

Take for example television. Color television was introduced in 1967, and still today you can normally watch analogue color broadcast with an 1967 TV set. You can even watch them with a B&W TV set from like 1954. DVB-T is being introduced, but soon after they introduced DVB-T MPEG-4, then DVB-T2... basically requiring spending of tons of money every few years. And AFAIK, DVB-T3 is in the making. So with an analogue receiver I can receive same type of broadcasts from 40 years later, but for digital I need to upgrade my device every few years? What for?

Reason? Back in the 1950's and 1967's, a TV set was a luxury even for a middle-income family, so they were made to last so that if you bought one you wouldn't have to buy a new one for quite some time. Now the prices have dropped to a point when middle-income families can easily afford upgrading them as standards progress, so now instead of being expected to buy one and have it for long, you're now expected to buy one and be ready to upgrade when a new standard comes.
But noone thinks that for a low-income family, especially for one outside US and countries like Germany or Luxembourg, a new TV set is still a luxury so it takes a lot of saving to upgrade, and in the mean time you're left out.

The same happened with computers. When a computer was a luxury for just about anyone, it was about buying one and making it last as much as possible. Now it's about buying one and being ready to upgrade it in a few years. And if you can't afford to upgrade, you're left out.


I think it's because of the Sun lawsuit, which also caused Windows 9x to be removed from MSDN, though I do agree they might have had further motives as well, as they even removed Windows 95's (non-OSR 2 versions), even though they never had that controversial MS JVM at all.


It's also true however, that Windows 9x was supposed to be an interim stage between 3.x and Home NT since the beginning. Originally it wasn't even supposed to happen. Windows 3.x was supposed to be superseded by a Home edition of Cairo. Then that didn't happen and came Windows 95 which was supposed to be supereseded by "Memphis NT" (also called "ChiCairo" if I remember the anti-trust documents right). Then that didn't happen either and came Windows 98, 98 SE, and ME, which were supposed to be superseded by Neptune. Then in the end, they were finally superseded by Windows XP. So it apepars the purpose of Windows 9x was to gradually make that line of Windows more and more NT-like until it'd become so NT like that they could just supersede it by NT.

The Windows administrator group is more akin to linux sudoer's rather than root, which is the recommended method anyway so...

@LoneCrusader,

Actually, Win 9x had less APIs to do the most users wanted/needed. And System File Protection was made for those, who accidentally gets into the one of the system folders - for average users. For you, I suggest trying Linux. You can compile anything you want etc., you can replace any system files without a hitch.

NT has more security comparing to 9x is like 9x has more security compared to 3.11. I don't think you would move to 3.11 from 9x just because it's more "open".

And yes, what about C:\con\con? And the fact that you can delete, for example, win386.exe? Making a virus creation an easy job.

Like, remember the Chernobyl (CIH) virus? Well, it flashed BIOS using the operating system (95 and 98), easily. You can't do that under NT, because it's running in a protected mode. To flash BIOS nowadays you'll have to use FreeDOS or use the motherboard vendor's utility.

So yeah, NT is more secure than Windows 9x, and it's a fact. If you want to say that NT is not really secure overall, well, that's another story.

Anyway, if you like the "openness" and stuff, move to Linux.

Just because Windows 9x is nostalgic to you or something, it doesn't mean that it's better than NT.

Well said Pwned. We all have our opinions about both platforms, but it's an undeniable fact that NT is superior to 9X.

1. Windows 9X is based on DOS, and inside you can still find alot of DOS components. DOS is an old 16 bit system, and I don't see todays computers (especially those that are 64 bit and are multicore) running with a system thats 16 bit under the hood
2. ME in the eyes of many people is prone to crashing and was very slow, so why continue off a codebase thats old and going bad?
3. In Windows 9X, its easy to delete a bunch of critical system files and cause Windows to be unbootable, just like in DOS and early versions of Windows
4. Lack of security that NT has
5. Windows 9X was never designed to be marketed to the professional market in the first place, and there are plenty of people on this forum alone who need to use Photoshop, Hyper V and other things.
6. Windows 9X, just like 32 bit NT, cannot support more than 4 GB of RAM. Alot of people these days are using more than that amount (myself included)
7. Windows 9X was not designed to be a true multiuser OS. Windows NT, even going back to its origin, was a multiuser OS, with each user having their own program groups, settings, later folders and even temp files.
8. Windows 9X and NT have different executable formats, so it would rather annoying for developers to create their programs for both NT and 9X. Sure, I know 9X can run some NT programs and NT can run some 9X programs, and some programs can run on both without a problem, but rather than have a bunch of compatibility problems, its better just to have one executable format to work with only.
9. Windows NT has gained pretty much all the features of 9X, so why continue to spend time, money and effort on development of systems with the same features but only a different codebase? Would be pretty tedious right?

Now to respond to what some people had said:


Security reasons. If you want an OS thats not locked down like NT like you say, then go with Linux. Its as open as its gonna get, and its actually a modern OS too.

Windows 9X was never terribly unstable. Now in ME's case, it wasn't the story, but 95 was pretty stable and I'd have to say 98 was the most rock solid 9X release based on my experience. Also, I think it had somewhat better and at the same time worser error management as it could still live without win386.exe and some other stuff critical to the GUI part of the system, but even minor errors could trigger a BSOD, but at the same time it usually let you continue with your business, so really when you got a blue screen back then on that system, it usually wasn't anything too critical, whereas NT, if you get a blue screen, it usually means that something really screwed up and you lose pretty much anything you were working on at the time that you didn't save. Also, deleting hal.dll on Windows NT would easily render it unbootable, and the same case goes for even modern day NT like Windows 7 or 8.

Really, did anything like that always work properly back in the 90s? Linux was nearly non-existant back then, Windows NT had problems with incompatibility with some applications since they were mostly geared toward the 9X series due to its larger user base, Windows 9X was still based on DOS and Windows 3.1 and thus users can experience the same problems with it than the ones on Windows 3.1 and DOS, Windows 3.1 was not for the average user or professional, DOS still ran under the hood and relied on it more than 9X did, and had the same limitations as DOS did, hell, even Apple Macintoshes had problems, like next to nothing compatibility with PC stuff, as it couldn't support FAT formatted floppies until at least 7.5.3, Mac OS 7 needed system enablers to work properly with portable computers and wouldn't work at all on a PowerPC CPU without an enabler, not to mention alot of programs needed extensions and control panels to work properly, it had cooperative multitasking all the way until OS X, PCs had better color support than Macs for quite a while, had even less security compared to Windows as you could delete the entire system folder and even completely wipe the hard drive whilst the system was still running and on top of that, Apple used pretty much the same base code from 84 all the way until 2001 when OS X for the consumer was first released.

I see no reason to continue repeating my position, I have better things to do than argue with people whose minds are made up. Rest assured my mind is made up as well.

I will continue to prefer Windows 9x to Windows NT. I will continue to run Windows 9x rather than Windows NT. Sure, there will come a day when my Windows 9x will not do all the things I need it to do. And then I will take a hand at Linux. And while I like some things about Linux, I have the same bone to pick with them as with Microsoft, et cetera - too many updates too fast. No long term support. Not to mention the fact that they act like it's a sin to run a Linux system as "root." It's MY computer, it's MY responsibility, and I ACCEPT the risk.

I disagree with all of you NT-lovers. And I will continue to disagree ad infinitum. When you're running Windows "15", I'll still be here, running Windows 9x, and loving it.

This thread is hilarious, so I shall reply with my opinion:

9x is good for one thing and one thing only: Running for [censored] and giggles on a system too old to run Windows 2000.

Wifi? Good luck. You'll desperately need it (Though I do have a laptop with Windows 98SE and working WiFi. It was a huge PITA to set up).
A modern web browser? Opera's about your only choice, and it's not very well supported in todays Chrome/IE world.
Games? Here's one thing it's good for, because gaming in the 90s was beast.
More than 1GB of RAM? Lol, nope. I don't think 98se will work on more than 700mb without some hacking.
Modern CPU technologies and GPU rendering and such? Riiiiiight.

Sorry, but Windows 9x is simply impractical for modern tasks, especially with it's small hardware support and lack of modern software written for it.

And do NOT load up that BS with "Oh well driver/hardware/software makers should have backwards compatibility" nonsense

No. They shouldn't.

Wanna know why?

Backwards compatibility is one of the biggest hindrances of modern Windows. Because it retains compatibility with all this old-ass hardware and software you end up with these ungainly chunks of code hanging off the OS like tumors. It is simply insane that Windows Vista is able to still run an application made for Windows 3.1. There is no logical reason to do this, and nowadays if one needed that sort of compatibility there is always virtualization for the rare occasion, instead of bogging down the main OS with all of this nonsense just so you can run the calculator from Windows 3.1.

It's the same with other software. Adding on backwards compatibility works in several ways: 1. Integrate it into the main product, thus increasing bloat and probably slowing the whole thing down, or 2. Make a separate version, which is a ton of work and really unneccesary for the two or three retards that cling on to the straws known as the Windows 9x line.

Yeah that's why comparing Windows 9x to OS'es from 2012 is like comparing apples and oranges. Obviously it will be worse and support far less thing - it's nearly 15 years older! Try to compare it to OS'es like NT 4.0 instead, or Windows 2000 at most.


Drivers not but software, if written for Win32, has no excuse to hook into Windows 7-specific API calls and so on. The best idea is to write software universally. Therefore, only hook into API's which you know exist across all Win32 variants. You don't need to hook into some modern OS-specific API to render HTML in a browser, for example.


No, make base code which only calls the universally available Win32 API methods, then separate "forks" that add OS-specific calls. Not a terrible load of work.

Also "retards"? Not everyone lives in country with a high minimal wage, so not everyone can easily afford to update their hardware every few years. You'll find out that in poorer countries, the majority of the users are still on older hardware and therefore, older OS'es.

Damn straight.

This is why I demand NT to ensure that I remain in control of my PC, not some retard who couldn't be bothered to check his application thoroughly for bugs, introducing an error that can bring down a 9x system.

Security is all about ensuring the right person remains in complete control, running everything with maximum rights doesn't do this - it hands control to the most malicious/least competent user or software developer that executes code on your system.

Truth be told, "streamlining" seems to be the new fad these days. I know the average Joe makes up the majority of your consumer base, but what about the rest of us ?

It just seems more profitable to taylor software to the lowest common denominator than actually trying to educate users.

Somewhat related to this thread, I have to say I understand LoneCrusader's problems. The same holds true for me, but with Windows Mobile. I mean, its bloody Windows jammed in a phone ! I have a smartphone but I also have File Manager, access to the Registry and even CMD . Running WinCE programs was also supported. It was perfect.

And now, they discontinued that line and replaced it with Windows Phone, which is one giant walled garden with a sandbox inside. Sure its nice and pretty, but thats about it.



Anyway, the fact that Win9x's core is 16-bit is imo, a real show stopper. Thanks to that, any significant performance increase is nigh impossible without a complete rewrite.
Thats also the main reason no one managed to circumvent the 4GB filesize limit. This also makes porting Win9x impossible and (correct me if I'm wrong) is one of the reasons why the system runs out of resources so quickly even though you've got a Prescott and 2GB of RAM with a modded system.ini

Rewrite IFS and the kernel in 32bit and you should be able to run Win9x way easier. This way, the kernel won't have to run in a DOS VM alongside every other VM spawned by VMM32 and you've gained more stability and a lot of space for future improvement.

...then again, that probably won't be Win9x anymore.

I never really understood why Win32 ran in full 32-bit mode but the kernel was stuck in a DOS VM.