no keyboard

[parismom]

how can i select multiple individual files with mouse only, besides using
select all. any urls that have suggestions on running windows without
keyboard?

thanks. this is an odd question, i know.

parismom

 

[Don Phillipson]

"parismom" <parismom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1C3296A9-76D2-45DF-91DC-E8587C2F4C56@microsoft.com...

> how can i select multiple individual files with mouse only, besides using
> select all. any urls that have suggestions on running windows without
> keyboard?
> thanks. this is an odd question, i know.

This might be impossible because Win98 is built atop
MS-DOS which requires a KB (and may require a KB
even to boot up OK.) You can experiment by:
1. Booting Win98 in Safe Mode
2. Unplugging KB and operating solely by mouse.

You probably cannot do without the KB. E.g. if for
any reason you lost your mouse config files you
might need KB Tab and Ret keys in order to continue
any setup process. If for whatever reason you went
to the BIOS Setup menu you could do nothing without
those keys.

Experimentation will also show you how to "select
multiple individual files with mouse only," e.g.
A. Mouse click with Ctrl key held down to
add multiple files one by one to your selection.
B. To select a continuous list of files, hold down
the Shift key and click Mouse on first and last
filenames in the sequence.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

 

[Adrian]

"parismom" <parismom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1C3296A9-76D2-45DF-91DC-E8587C2F4C56@microsoft.com...
> how can i select multiple individual files with mouse only, besides using
> select all. any urls that have suggestions on running windows without
> keyboard?
>
> thanks. this is an odd question, i know.
>
> parismom

If you start up W98 without a keyboard you get an error warning from BIOS
don't you? Have you by any chance found a way around that? I would be keen
to know. I don't have answer to your question, except maybe, to use a
bat-file if what you want to do is the same each time.

Adrian.

 

[Ingeborg]

=?Utf-8?B?cGFyaXNtb20=?= wrote:

> how can i select multiple individual files with mouse only, besides
> using select all. any urls that have suggestions on running windows
> without keyboard?

I suppose you need the Ctrl key? Maybe you can use an onscreen virtual
keyboard?
<http://www.lakefolks.org/cnt/>

 

[dadiOH]

parismom wrote:
> how can i select multiple individual files with mouse only, besides
> using select all. any urls that have suggestions on running
> windows without keyboard?
>
> thanks. this is an odd question, i know.
>
> parismom

Assuming you can see/navigate to them in Explorer, hold down either
mouse button and drag a "box" around them. They have to be adjacent
to each other to do this that is, you can't select some AND more that
are not adjacent at the same time.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

 

[MEB]

"parismom" <parismom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1C3296A9-76D2-45DF-91DC-E8587C2F4C56@microsoft.com...
| how can i select multiple individual files with mouse only, besides using
| select all. any urls that have suggestions on running windows without
| keyboard?
|
| thanks. this is an odd question, i know.
|
| parismom

Hmm, you might find an application designed around *Accessibility* [for
handicapped individuals]. Windows has some basic hooks for such.
I would imagine that the more sophisticated programs are likely designed
for newer operating systems though.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
________

 

[MEB]

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uUVtvBv9HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
|
|
| "parismom" <parismom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
| news:1C3296A9-76D2-45DF-91DC-E8587C2F4C56@microsoft.com...
| | how can i select multiple individual files with mouse only, besides
using
| | select all. any urls that have suggestions on running windows without
| | keyboard?
| |
| | thanks. this is an odd question, i know.
| |
| | parismom
|
| Hmm, you might find an application designed around *Accessibility* [for
| handicapped individuals]. Windows has some basic hooks for such.
| I would imagine that the more sophisticated programs are likely designed
| for newer operating systems though.
|
| --
| MEB
| ________
|
|
|

Opps, should have indicated you could also assign one of the mouse buttons
[do you have a three button mouse] as the CTRL key, and hold it as you mouse
the other files necessary with the standard left click.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
________

 

[98 Guy]

Don Phillipson wrote:

> This might be impossible because Win98 is built atop
> MS-DOS which requires a KB

What exactly do you mean when you say that Win-98 is "built atop
MS-DOS" ?

 

[Dan]

My thought is that there is true DOS within Windows 98/98SE because it is
part of the 9x consumer line of operating systems that ended with Windows ME
that was a failure. The joke was within Windows NT (New Technology) that
early Microsoft engineers called it the Not There code since it lacked a true
maintenance operating system. The NT line was the business line of source
code and apparently from what I have learned is that Microsoft wanted to save
money by having only one line of source code so they worked on bringing
everyone to XP and tried to make XP as consumer friendly as 98SE but I think
Microsoft has failed in this task. The problem is that many older games and
educational programs will run in 98 Second Edition but do not run in XP or
Vista. Thus because of the lack of a maintenance operating system, you know
have people like Chris Quirke, MVP that is working on having Linux be the
underlying operating system for Vista. You can see Chris Quirke's 3rd blog
for details about how he plans to accomplish this feat.

"98 Guy" wrote:

> Don Phillipson wrote:
>
> > This might be impossible because Win98 is built atop
> > MS-DOS which requires a KB
>
> What exactly do you mean when you say that Win-98 is "built atop
> MS-DOS" ?
>

 

[Dan]

I should have added underlying maintenance operating system that Chris
Quirke, MVP is working on for Vista.

 

[98 Guy]

98 Guy wrote:

> Don Phillipson wrote:
>
> > This might be impossible because Win98 is built atop
> > MS-DOS which requires a KB
>
> What exactly do you mean when you say that Win-98 is "built
> atop MS-DOS" ?

Still waiting for you to respond Don.

I see you're participating in the "CD Player Questions" thread. Come
on back and finish this one.

 

[Tim Slattery]

98 Guy <98@Guy.com> wrote:

>Don Phillipson wrote:
>
>> This might be impossible because Win98 is built atop
>> MS-DOS which requires a KB
>
>What exactly do you mean when you say that Win-98 is "built atop
>MS-DOS" ?

When you start up a Win98 (or any Win9x) computer, the first thing
that happens is that DOS is started. Once that's in place, the Windows
system is launched from DOS.

Windows 9x uses some of the DOS facilities. For example, when you
write to or read from a disk, it will thunk into 16-bit mode and call
the appropriate DOS I/O routine. Of course, it does for itself many
things that DOS doesn't do: allow protected-mode programs and virtual
memory, handle LOTS more than 1MB RAM, allow many programs to run at
once, etc.

--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(DTS)
Slattery_T@bls.gov
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt

 

[Dan]

test reply to 98 Guy Can you see my posts?

"98 Guy" wrote:

> 98 Guy wrote:
>
> > Don Phillipson wrote:
> >
> > > This might be impossible because Win98 is built atop
> > > MS-DOS which requires a KB
> >
> > What exactly do you mean when you say that Win-98 is "built
> > atop MS-DOS" ?
>
> Still waiting for you to respond Don.
>
> I see you're participating in the "CD Player Questions" thread. Come
> on back and finish this one.
>

 

[Dan]

Thank you Tim for your explaination. I really appreciate it. Have a great
week.

"Tim Slattery" wrote:

> 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> wrote:
>
> >Don Phillipson wrote:
> >
> >> This might be impossible because Win98 is built atop
> >> MS-DOS which requires a KB
> >
> >What exactly do you mean when you say that Win-98 is "built atop
> >MS-DOS" ?
>
> When you start up a Win98 (or any Win9x) computer, the first thing
> that happens is that DOS is started. Once that's in place, the Windows
> system is launched from DOS.
>
> Windows 9x uses some of the DOS facilities. For example, when you
> write to or read from a disk, it will thunk into 16-bit mode and call
> the appropriate DOS I/O routine. Of course, it does for itself many
> things that DOS doesn't do: allow protected-mode programs and virtual
> memory, handle LOTS more than 1MB RAM, allow many programs to run at
> once, etc.
>
> --
> Tim Slattery
> MS MVP(DTS)
> Slattery_T@bls.gov
> http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
>

 

[98 Guy]

Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (to this: Re:no keyboard)

Tim Slattery wrote:

> > Don Phillipson wrote:
> >
> > > This might be impossible because Win98 is built atop
> > > MS-DOS which requires a KB
> >
> > What exactly do you mean when you say that Win-98 is "built
> > atop MS-DOS" ?

Is there some reason why Don Phillipson doesn't respond with his own
explanation?

> When you start up a Win98 (or any Win9x) computer, the first
> thing that happens is that DOS is started. Once that's in place,
> the Windows system is launched from DOS.

Windows 98 switches the processor into 32-bit protected mode early in
the boot process, and must use a DPMI (DOS Protected Mode Interface)
to allow DOS programs to run in protected mode and to access extended
memory under a multitasking operating system like Windows 9x. Disk
access is performed using 32-bit protected mode drivers - unlike a
system that has booted (and remains running in) pure DOS.

> Windows 9x uses some of the DOS facilities. For example, when you
> write to or read from a disk, it will thunk into 16-bit mode and
> call the appropriate DOS I/O routine.

Actually, if win-98's protected mode 32-bit driver is not loaded,
win-98 will resort to DOS-compatibility mode drive access. But that
is not the normal working mode for win-98 with appropriate hardware
drivers installed. Specifically ESDI_506.PDR (in the case of
hard-drive access). I believe that DOS is limited to 16-bit, I/O hard
drive access (and not UDMA access that win-98 uses or can make use
of).

Just because a win-9x system has all of the necessary boot and system
files to enable it to be "started in MS-DOS mode" does not mean it
uses them as a base when operating in Windows (32-bit protected)
mode. DOS has very few internal functions when compared to Win-9x,
and many of them have been replicated in 32-bit mode for windows
operation. Also, I think that many people confuse (or link) FAT-32
with DOS, and hence equate those two with Win-9x for that reason (ie -
DOS uses FAT-32, Win-98 uses FAT-32, hence Win-98 must be just an
enhancement running "on top of" DOS). Note that you won't get long
file name support when running in pure DOS mode (another example that
there are fundamental differences between DOS and Win-98).

 

[Dan]

RE: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (to this:

"98 Guy" wrote:

> Tim Slattery wrote:
>
> > > Don Phillipson wrote:
> > >
> > > > This might be impossible because Win98 is built atop
> > > > MS-DOS which requires a KB
> > >
> > > What exactly do you mean when you say that Win-98 is "built
> > > atop MS-DOS" ?
>
> Is there some reason why Don Phillipson doesn't respond with his own
> explanation?
>
Thanks for your explanation 98 Guy. My guess is Don Phillipson doesn't want
to reply with an explanation because Don has already given the best
explanation Don can give and I will think that unless Don decides to post
here again. I would just let it go and not worry about it. Have a great
rest of the week and I hope you, 98 Guy and MEB are not still arguing over
different things. I am actually wondering if you removed yourself from
seeing my posts because I got so irrational when everything was happening all
at once and it seemed like a soap opera to me. I am much better now because
the doctor's have found the correct dose of thyroid medicine that I need to
take and it is amazing how one small pill which is a hormone can make all the
difference in the world.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (to this: Re: no keyboard)

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:57:05 -0400, 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> put finger to
keyboard and composed:

>Tim Slattery wrote:
>
>> > Don Phillipson wrote:
>> >
>> > > This might be impossible because Win98 is built atop
>> > > MS-DOS which requires a KB
>> >
>> > What exactly do you mean when you say that Win-98 is "built
>> > atop MS-DOS" ?
>
>Is there some reason why Don Phillipson doesn't respond with his own
>explanation?
>
>> When you start up a Win98 (or any Win9x) computer, the first
>> thing that happens is that DOS is started. Once that's in place,
>> the Windows system is launched from DOS.
>
>Windows 98 switches the processor into 32-bit protected mode early in
>the boot process, and must use a DPMI (DOS Protected Mode Interface)
>to allow DOS programs to run in protected mode and to access extended
>memory under a multitasking operating system like Windows 9x. Disk
>access is performed using 32-bit protected mode drivers - unlike a
>system that has booted (and remains running in) pure DOS.

I have added the following line to my msdos.sys file:

BootGUI=0

This forces my machine to boot to DOS, after which I can choose
to launch win.com.

I find this technique useful because I can automate some housekeeping
tasks after Windows terminates.

My autoexec.bat looks like this:

<code that executes before GUI starts>
choice /c:WD /n /t:W,3 Boot to (W)indows or (D)OS?
if errorlevel 2 goto end
win.com
<code that executes after GUI terminates>
:end

If win.com is not executed, then the machine boots into real DOS mode.
If win.com *is* executed, then the machine returns to real DOS mode
when the GUI terminates. Doesn't this behaviour support Don's original
statement?

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[98 Guy]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (to this:

Franc Zabkar wrote:

> I have added the following line to my msdos.sys file:
>
> BootGUI=0
>
> This forces my machine to boot to DOS, after which I can
> choose to launch win.com.
>
> If win.com is not executed, then the machine boots into real DOS
> mode. If win.com *is* executed, then the machine returns to real
> DOS mode when the GUI terminates. Doesn't this behaviour support
> Don's original statement?

That's like saying if I have a dual-boot sysem (98 and XP) that you
could say that "XP is built atop win-98".

You are forcing your system to default into starting in DOS mode with
your BootGUI=0 setting. I can do the same thing by pressing F8 during
startup and selecting "command-prompt only".

Another example: If I have an XP system, with the boot order set to
boot from the floppy drive first, then the hard drive second. If I
have a DOS boot floppy in the drive while the system is starting, well
guess what - the system starts and remains in DOS. But the system has
XP installed on it - that must mean that XP is "built atop of MS-DOS"
doesn't it?

Again, just because all the DOS system files are *present* and
*startable* on a win-98 system doesn't mean that win-98 relies on them
or their internal functions. Win-98 has replicated many of the dos
functions (and added MANY more) with 32-bit code.

It's more correct to think of a win-98 system as a dual-boot
DOS/Windows system, rather than thinking that Win-98 (a multi-tasking,
32-bit protected mode operating system) is "running atop" DOS (a
single-tasking, real-mode, 16-bit OS).

 

[Dan]

What is considered Real DOS?

I guess the question to ask is what is considered real DOS. I read for what
it is worth in Wikipedia which I know is not always reliable that the
emulated DOS used nowadays in Windows NT (eg. XP/Vista) is based upon DOS 5.
In my 486 I have Windows 3.1 and DOS 5 so I guess that could be considered
real dos. The problem is when is dos not considered real anymore. Does it
end after dos 5 because this is apparently what is emulated or does dos
continue to latest version of dos which is 6.x or can one reasonably concede
that the dos in Windows 95.x, 98, 98 Second Edition are still all true dos
but just less functional because some options have been removed but you must
consider enhancements also like Fat32 which is supported in 98SE --- not sure
about how many other 9x versions Fat32 is supported in. Anyway, would
someone consider Windows ME true dos since it removes easy access to dos by
not letting one easily start up in dos without a floppy disk and I think it
removes functions like the autoexec.bat. The other question I really wonder
was it done on purpose that Windows ME was made poorly enough to help
encourage users to switch to Windows NT (Windows XP) in this case or was it
all truly a big mistake on Microsoft part. I know from reading that
Microsoft did want to eliminate 9x consumer source code to save money but if
one thinks about it --- this has made it so much easier for Microsoft
products to be hacked because crackers only have to focus on the NT business
source code. In addition, the added services of NT provide a wider surface
area for crackers. Finally, XP and Vista lack the kind of maintenance
operating system that dos had. Thankfully, Chris Quirke, MVP is experienting
on having a flavor of Linux used as the maintenance operating system for
Vista. In the mean while, it seems like many users are being served by
switching to Apple and/or Linux much to in my guess, Microsoft's annoyance.
The Mozilla Browser also has become very popular due to the many security
vulnerabilites of Internet Explorer. You can just check out this website and
research any software to find out its weaknesses. Even Apple 10.x has
security vulnerabilities such as DOS (Denial of Service) and priviledge
escalation errors currently but these pale in comparison to Windows XP
Professional/Home vulnerabilities and Internet Explorer 6/7 are both in
fairly bad shape also.

http://secunia.com/

You can just research all these products yourself from the search box in the
top right side of the page.

"Franc Zabkar" wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:57:05 -0400, 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> put finger to
> keyboard and composed:
>
> >Tim Slattery wrote:
> >
> >> > Don Phillipson wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > This might be impossible because Win98 is built atop
> >> > > MS-DOS which requires a KB
> >> >
> >> > What exactly do you mean when you say that Win-98 is "built
> >> > atop MS-DOS" ?
> >
> >Is there some reason why Don Phillipson doesn't respond with his own
> >explanation?
> >
> >> When you start up a Win98 (or any Win9x) computer, the first
> >> thing that happens is that DOS is started. Once that's in place,
> >> the Windows system is launched from DOS.
> >
> >Windows 98 switches the processor into 32-bit protected mode early in
> >the boot process, and must use a DPMI (DOS Protected Mode Interface)
> >to allow DOS programs to run in protected mode and to access extended
> >memory under a multitasking operating system like Windows 9x. Disk
> >access is performed using 32-bit protected mode drivers - unlike a
> >system that has booted (and remains running in) pure DOS.
>
> I have added the following line to my msdos.sys file:
>
> BootGUI=0
>
> This forces my machine to boot to DOS, after which I can choose
> to launch win.com.
>
> I find this technique useful because I can automate some housekeeping
> tasks after Windows terminates.
>
> My autoexec.bat looks like this:
>
> <code that executes before GUI starts>
> choice /c:WD /n /t:W,3 Boot to (W)indows or (D)OS?
> if errorlevel 2 goto end
> win.com
> <code that executes after GUI terminates>
> :end
>
> If win.com is not executed, then the machine boots into real DOS mode.
> If win.com *is* executed, then the machine returns to real DOS mode
> when the GUI terminates. Doesn't this behaviour support Don's original
> statement?
>
> - Franc Zabkar
> --
> Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
>

 

[Dan]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (to t

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_98

"Windows 98 is a hybrid 16/32-bit operating system. It has quite low system
requirements therefore it can gain full potential even on older machines.

The graphical user interface (GUI) runs on a DOS-based layer. This is
partially an advantage and disadvantage. DOS has some limits (such as the
number of disk buffers or simultaneously opened files), but through its
environment memory managers, drivers or other applications can be loaded
which can improve overall system performance and functionality.

Windows 98 also offers full support for DOS applications in the form of
being able to boot in "DOS Mode" (MS-DOS can be booted without booting
Windows or putting the CPU in protected mode). This differs from the
emulation used in Windows NT-based operating systems in that the latter
cannot handle devices such as modem or LAN cards which are required for some
DOS applications.

Since DOS programs provide their own device drivers, some DOS programs, such
as those that require a Sound Blaster compatible sound card, cannot run on
newer computers without Windows (which provides Sound Blaster emulation in
some sound card drivers)."

I think the Wikipedia site explains the operating system fairly well but
please feel free to further discuss the issue there and please help them
update the site with your vast knowledge of the Windows 98 operating system,
98 Guy because this will be helpful to everyone.

"98 Guy" wrote:

> Franc Zabkar wrote:
>
> > I have added the following line to my msdos.sys file:
> >
> > BootGUI=0
> >
> > This forces my machine to boot to DOS, after which I can
> > choose to launch win.com.
> >
> > If win.com is not executed, then the machine boots into real DOS
> > mode. If win.com *is* executed, then the machine returns to real
> > DOS mode when the GUI terminates. Doesn't this behaviour support
> > Don's original statement?
>
> That's like saying if I have a dual-boot sysem (98 and XP) that you
> could say that "XP is built atop win-98".
>
> You are forcing your system to default into starting in DOS mode with
> your BootGUI=0 setting. I can do the same thing by pressing F8 during
> startup and selecting "command-prompt only".
>
> Another example: If I have an XP system, with the boot order set to
> boot from the floppy drive first, then the hard drive second. If I
> have a DOS boot floppy in the drive while the system is starting, well
> guess what - the system starts and remains in DOS. But the system has
> XP installed on it - that must mean that XP is "built atop of MS-DOS"
> doesn't it?
>
> Again, just because all the DOS system files are *present* and
> *startable* on a win-98 system doesn't mean that win-98 relies on them
> or their internal functions. Win-98 has replicated many of the dos
> functions (and added MANY more) with 32-bit code.
>
> It's more correct to think of a win-98 system as a dual-boot
> DOS/Windows system, rather than thinking that Win-98 (a multi-tasking,
> 32-bit protected mode operating system) is "running atop" DOS (a
> single-tasking, real-mode, 16-bit OS).
>