More on Win98 Reacting with Other Software

There seem to be more accounts of Win98 reacting unfavorably with other pieces of software. As I mentioned in my 'Pinball' article, upgrading to Win98 may cause some pieces of software to fail. Unfortunately, this is not just me saying so.

On CNN's website is an article about Win98 disabling software. One of the programs and drivers mentioned was the Twain driver, used by scanners to communicate to Windows. This problem happened to me on one of my systems hooked up to a Mustek scanner - I was forced to reinstall the scanner drivers after running Win98 as the operating system 'forgot' a scanner existed.

Now other larger companies are getting into the 'your software messes up my software' game. On ZDNet's site is a series of articles about RealNetworks accusing Microsoft of disabling its RealPlayer G2 software whenever Media Player is active. In this case, the disabling seems to be due to a bug in the G2 installation program, according to the Association for Competitive Technology.

I have even mentioned, in the forums, about problems with Symantec's software (such as Norton AntiVirus) and Win98. By not installing a patch graciously delivered by Symantec on their website at (http://www.symantec.com), Win98 will constantly crash with blue-screen VXD errors.

Many more cases can be presented regarding problems with Win98 and other software packages. Although these are disturbing and extremely irritating, think for a minute and cool your head before you begin complaining to companies loudly that their software does not work under Win98. Many software programs were not made with Win98 in mind. Some were made when only betas of Win98 were available. And, as a software developer myself, I can say that it is impossible for a programmer to predict every single situation where a program can be run. There are varying types of CPUs, memory configurations, different software installed on a system, and other things that can cause a normally fine program to crash.

There are too many variables. With Windows, we all assumed we had a standard for computing. In many ways, we do - we have the standard menus, minimize buttons, and the like. But we have thousands of DLLs (dynamic link libraries - snippets of code that perform frequently reused tasks) that large applications, utilities, and games require, and probably tens of thousands or more different versions of said DLLs floating around in cyberspace and in commercial products. Most programs are too complex nowadays to not require the use of someone else's code or run-time libraries. When you have to rely on other peoples' code, if the code or library breaks or is modified anywhere, you are in trouble - and that's exactly what is happening. That's right - you could install a program from two years ago that modifies a key run-time library, crashing five programs developed last week that also rely on the library or code, just a different version of the code. It's insane and it will only get worse.

Here's a question to ponder - the idea of placing all of the run-time libraries and reused code in a central location was designed so the same pieces of code would not have to be re-acquired, re-installed, and re-used. Using the same code saves hard drive space and memory. But does it save hassle? With memory prices falling, with hard drive prices diminishing rapidly, is it time we consider perhaps making each application self-sufficient so its DLLs and run-time libraries cannot interfere with others? Wild thought, but that's what I'm here for.

Article copyright 1998 Andrew Malek - All Rights Reserved. This article may not be redistributed without permission of Andrew Malek. All trademarks mentioned in this article are owned by their respective companies.