I hate Windows 2000, miss W98 SE.

[Bill in Co.]

DaffyD® wrote:
> Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is so
> much
> more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and user
> accounts
> in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.

True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a single
user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user very nice and
simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*. A very, very, lean
operating system. (I think it's somewhere around 200 MB in total, isn't
it?)

> But to go back to 98SE
> would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive (which
> doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.

Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always consider
getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.

> My old scanner no longer works like it
> did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98 the images when printed
> are
> practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a USB
> scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I dumbly bought
> a
> parallel port scanner back then.
>
> But I don't see myself going back to 98 it's just too limited in today's
> hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the external drive will
> work with whatever is released after Vista.

Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows 2000? I'm
not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps, anyways. Actually,
I think Win98SE still has more software capability there (at least in this
one arena).

But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think. Like
Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen .

> I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of all
> the
> Windows groups.
> --
> DaffyD®
>
> If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.

 

[Dan]

Windows 98 Second Edition is not limited. Sure, if you want a more business
type interface go with Windows 2000 Professional but if you want great
multimedia and internal safety of a maintenance operating system of MS-DOS
then go with 98 Second Edition. I do not know why so many people have
trouble seeing this fact.
The problems were mainly with 3rd party drivers that caused so many issues
in 98 Second Edition and the only issues I seem to get with 98 Second Edition
these days are the denial of service errors. Okay, I did get a freeze on my
machine last night but that was due to Internet Explorer 6 reporting tool not
sending the data correctly to Microsoft after IE 6 crashed. I do not mind
the crashing and actually like to see how stable the software is. BTW, if
you use Windows XP then I would suggest updating to Internet Explorer 8 if
you have Internet Explorer 7 or downgrade to Internet Explorer 6 if you want
to do a clean install because IE 7 has some serious issues. It would be even
better to just use Mozilla Firefox 2 or 3 where you can because the browser
supports 256 bit AES encryption which is only 128 encryption with IE except
in Windows Vista. I do not know about Windows Server and I am talking about
Desktop Windows Operating Systems.

"DaffyD®" wrote:

> Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is so much
> more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and user accounts
> in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find. But to go back to 98SE
> would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive (which
> doesn't work with 98) as a bookend. My old scanner no longer works like it
> did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98 the images when printed are
> practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a USB
> scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I dumbly bought a
> parallel port scanner back then.
>
> But I don't see myself going back to 98 it's just too limited in today's
> hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the external drive will
> work with whatever is released after Vista.
>
> I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of all the
> Windows groups.
> --
> DaffyD®
>
> If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.
>
>
>
>

 

[PCR]

Bill in Co. wrote:
| DaffyD® wrote:
|> Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is
|> so much
|> more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and user
|> accounts
|> in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.
|
| True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a
| single user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user very
| nice and simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*. A very,
| very, lean operating system. (I think it's somewhere around 200 MB
| in total, isn't it?)

My Windows folder is 286 folders, 5,307 files, 454,827,147 bytes.
And Program Files is 323 folders, 3,905 files, 540,817,212 bytes.

|> But to go back to 98SE
|> would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive
|> (which doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.
|
| Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always consider
| getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.

I know you've done it. Would be nice if you could talk DaffyD® through
it!

|> My old scanner no longer works like it
|> did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98 the images when
|> printed are
|> practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a
|> USB scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I
|> dumbly bought a
|> parallel port scanner back then.
|>
|> But I don't see myself going back to 98 it's just too limited in
|> today's hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the
|> external drive will work with whatever is released after Vista.
|
| Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows 2000?
| I'm not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps, anyways.
| Actually, I think Win98SE still has more software capability there
| (at least in this one arena).
|
| But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think.
| Like Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen .

XP has crashed on you, Colorado -- well-enough for you to do several
registry restores & restore point restores & maybe even a full backup
restore or two -- you've admitted it, IIRC! I don't care whether it
gives a blue screen or an XP-irradiated sickly green one!

|> I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of
|> all the
|> Windows groups.

Good to see you you back, DaffyD®. Maybe try for the proper drivers as
Colorado has suggested!

|> --
|> DaffyD®
|>
|> If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

[Roger Fink]

Hey Daffster, try thinking outside the box. You can create a folder
"Documents" anywhere you want, like f'rinstance C:\Documents (Microsoft
actually did that already with a clone My Documents folder although some
hide it). Or with a Google search you can adjust the target of a dedicated
Windows Explorer shortcut to drill down to where the particular folder is
you want to play with, such as Application Data or Temp. What would seem
intellectually indefensible is reflexive whining without knowing what the
options are.

DaffyD® wrote:
> Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is
> so much more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin
> and user accounts in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to
> find. But to go back to 98SE would mean reformatting the hard drive
> and using my external drive (which doesn't work with 98) as a
> bookend. My old scanner no longer works like it did since it was
> designed to work with 95 & 98 the images when printed are
> practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a
> USB scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I
> dumbly bought a parallel port scanner back then.
>
> But I don't see myself going back to 98 it's just too limited in
> today's hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the
> external drive will work with whatever is released after Vista.
>
> I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of
> all the Windows groups.

 

[Bill in Co.]

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> DaffyD® wrote:
>>> Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is
>>> so much more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and
>>> user
>>> accounts in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.
>>
>> True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a
>> single user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user very
>> nice and simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*. A very,
>> very, lean operating system. (I think it's somewhere around 200 MB
>> in total, isn't it?)
>
> My Windows folder is 286 folders, 5,307 files, 454,827,147 bytes.
> And Program Files is 323 folders, 3,905 files, 540,817,212 bytes.

Program Files doesn't count! That's by far mostly your applications in
there! We were talking about the operating system!

And the reason your system folder is that large is due to all those updates
you added and some stuff added by some applications, no doubt.

Go check out your original installation size (if you still have a copy). I
still think it's around 200 MB, as I said. WITHOUT applications and
"updates" being installed/

>>> But to go back to 98SE
>>> would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive
>>> (which doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.
>>
>> Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always consider
>> getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.
>
> I know you've done it. Would be nice if you could talk DaffyD® through
> it!
>
>>> My old scanner no longer works like it
>>> did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98 the images when
>>> printed are practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it
>>> been a
>>> USB scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I
>>> dumbly bought a parallel port scanner back then.
>>>
>>> But I don't see myself going back to 98 it's just too limited in
>>> today's hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the
>>> external drive will work with whatever is released after Vista.
>>
>> Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows 2000?
>> I'm not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps, anyways.
>> Actually, I think Win98SE still has more software capability there
>> (at least in this one arena).
>>
>> But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think.
>> Like Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen .
>
> XP has crashed on you, Colorado -- well-enough for you to do several
> registry restores & restore point restores & maybe even a full backup
> restore or two -- you've admitted it, IIRC! I don't care whether it
> gives a blue screen or an XP-irradiated sickly green one!

No, not quite accurate. (I said I got blue screens in XP??? When)?
But - I *have* done several registry or disk image restores in XP, but NOT
due to blue screens! Those restore operations were done due to my desire
to put my system back exactly as it was prior to some software installations
(just to play it safe), and/or if some settings got changed that I didn't
"appreciate" (and it was an easy way to get back). That's all, unless you
remember something I don't. I'm still waiting for blue screens, unless you
recall some I mentioned (in XP, I mean).

>>> I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of
>>> all the Windows groups.
>
> Good to see you you back, DaffyD®. Maybe try for the proper drivers as
> Colorado has suggested!
>
>>> --
>>> DaffyD®
>>>
>>> If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.
>
> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> Should things get worse after this,
> PCR
> pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

[PCR]

Bill in Co. wrote:
| PCR wrote:
|> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>> DaffyD® wrote:
|>>> Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It
|>>> is so much more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the
|>>> admin and user
|>>> accounts in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.
|>>
|>> True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a
|>> single user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user very
|>> nice and simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*. A very,
|>> very, lean operating system. (I think it's somewhere around 200 MB
|>> in total, isn't it?)
|>
|> My Windows folder is 286 folders, 5,307 files, 454,827,147 bytes.
|> And Program Files is 323 folders, 3,905 files, 540,817,212 bytes.
|
| Program Files doesn't count! That's by far mostly your
| applications in there! We were talking about the operating system!
|
| And the reason your system folder is that large is due to all those
| updates you added and some stuff added by some applications, no doubt.
|
| Go check out your original installation size (if you still have a
| copy). I still think it's around 200 MB, as I said. WITHOUT
| applications and "updates" being installed/

On 2nd thought, yea, you are right, this machine came with a bunch of
extra packages already installed, like MS Works. The stuff I've
installed afterwards is all minor, though. Yea, you're likely correct,
but I can't check it on this machine.

|>>> But to go back to 98SE
|>>> would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive
|>>> (which doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.
|>>
|>> Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always
|>> consider getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.
|>
|> I know you've done it. Would be nice if you could talk DaffyD®
|> through it!
|>
|>>> My old scanner no longer works like it
|>>> did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98 the images when
|>>> printed are practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that
|>>> had it been a
|>>> USB scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I
|>>> dumbly bought a parallel port scanner back then.
|>>>
|>>> But I don't see myself going back to 98 it's just too limited in
|>>> today's hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the
|>>> external drive will work with whatever is released after Vista.
|>>
|>> Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows 2000?
|>> I'm not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps, anyways.
|>> Actually, I think Win98SE still has more software capability there
|>> (at least in this one arena).
|>>
|>> But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think.
|>> Like Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen .
|>
|> XP has crashed on you, Colorado -- well-enough for you to do several
|> registry restores & restore point restores & maybe even a full backup
|> restore or two -- you've admitted it, IIRC! I don't care whether it
|> gives a blue screen or an XP-irradiated sickly green one!
|
| No, not quite accurate. (I said I got blue screens in XP???
| When)? But - I *have* done several registry or disk image restores in
| XP, but NOT due to blue screens! Those restore operations were done
| due to my desire to put my system back exactly as it was prior to
| some software installations (just to play it safe), and/or if some
| settings got changed that I didn't "appreciate" (and it was an easy
| way to get back). That's all, unless you remember something I don't.
| I'm still waiting for blue screens, unless you recall some I
| mentioned (in XP, I mean).

No, I don't recall you said any color. But I was fairly sure you said
you had a crash of some kind in XP. And I strongly suspect Terhune
thinks so too! But "Hitchhiker's Guide" just started & I must go. So,
fine, I'll try to remember you never crashed yet.

|>>> I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite
|>>> of all the Windows groups.
|>
|> Good to see you you back, DaffyD®. Maybe try for the proper drivers
|> as Colorado has suggested!
|>
|>>> --
|>>> DaffyD®
|>>>
|>>> If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.
|>
|> --
|> Thanks or Good Luck,
|> There may be humor in this post, and,
|> Naturally, you will not sue,
|> Should things get worse after this,
|> PCR
|> pcrrcp@netzero.net

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

[Bill in Co.]

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> PCR wrote:
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>> DaffyD® wrote:
>>>>> Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It
>>>>> is so much more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the
>>>>> admin and user
>>>>> accounts in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.
>>>>
>>>> True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a
>>>> single user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user very
>>>> nice and simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*. A very,
>>>> very, lean operating system. (I think it's somewhere around 200 MB
>>>> in total, isn't it?)
>>>
>>> My Windows folder is 286 folders, 5,307 files, 454,827,147 bytes.
>>> And Program Files is 323 folders, 3,905 files, 540,817,212 bytes.
>>
>> Program Files doesn't count! That's by far mostly your
>> applications in there! We were talking about the operating system!
>>
>> And the reason your system folder is that large is due to all those
>> updates you added and some stuff added by some applications, no doubt.
>>
>> Go check out your original installation size (if you still have a
>> copy). I still think it's around 200 MB, as I said. WITHOUT
>> applications and "updates" being installed/
>
> On 2nd thought, yea, you are right, this machine came with a bunch of
> extra packages already installed, like MS Works. The stuff I've
> installed afterwards is all minor, though. Yea, you're likely correct,
> but I can't check it on this machine.

I think it was somewhere around 200 MB, before installing apps. That's
pretty lean! And IIRC, WinXP is about 10 times that (about 2 GB). But
then again, WinXP is pretty damn robust by comparison, I do have to admit.
And I bet Vista is 10 times that of WinXP!! (like maybe 20 GB) - ugh, forget
Vista!!

>>>>> But to go back to 98SE
>>>>> would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive
>>>>> (which doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always
>>>> consider getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.
>>>
>>> I know you've done it. Would be nice if you could talk DaffyD®
>>> through it!
>>>
>>>>> My old scanner no longer works like it
>>>>> did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98 the images when
>>>>> printed are practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had
>>>>> it been a
>>>>> USB scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I
>>>>> dumbly bought a parallel port scanner back then.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I don't see myself going back to 98 it's just too limited in
>>>>> today's hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the
>>>>> external drive will work with whatever is released after Vista.
>>>>
>>>> Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows 2000?
>>>> I'm not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps, anyways.
>>>> Actually, I think Win98SE still has more software capability there
>>>> (at least in this one arena).
>>>>
>>>> But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think.
>>>> Like Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen .
>>>
>>> XP has crashed on you, Colorado -- well-enough for you to do several
>>> registry restores & restore point restores & maybe even a full backup
>>> restore or two -- you've admitted it, IIRC! I don't care whether it
>>> gives a blue screen or an XP-irradiated sickly green one!
>>
>> No, not quite accurate. (I said I got blue screens in XP???
>> When)? But - I *have* done several registry or disk image restores in
>> XP, but NOT due to blue screens! Those restore operations were done
>> due to my desire to put my system back exactly as it was prior to
>> some software installations (just to play it safe), and/or if some
>> settings got changed that I didn't "appreciate" (and it was an easy
>> way to get back). That's all, unless you remember something I don't.
>> I'm still waiting for blue screens, unless you recall some I
>> mentioned (in XP, I mean).
>
> No, I don't recall you said any color. But I was fairly sure you said
> you had a crash of some kind in XP. And I strongly suspect Terhune
> thinks so too! But "Hitchhiker's Guide" just started & I must go. So,
> fine, I'll try to remember you never crashed yet.

I have had a couple of occasions where the computer locked up and I had to
reboot, that's all (no blue or green screens, though). But no restore
operation was necessary - it was just due to some software hiccups that
occurred at the same time.

>>>>> I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite
>>>>> of all the Windows groups.
>>>
>>> Good to see you you back, DaffyD®. Maybe try for the proper drivers
>>> as Colorado has suggested!
>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> DaffyD®
>>>>>
>>>>> If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks or Good Luck,
>>> There may be humor in this post, and,
>>> Naturally, you will not sue,
>>> Should things get worse after this,
>>> PCR
>>> pcrrcp@netzero.net
>
> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> Should things get worse after this,
> PCR
> pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

[letterman@invalid.com]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:10:37 -0600, "Bill in Co."
<not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

>DaffyD® wrote:
>> Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is so
>> much
>> more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and user
>> accounts
>> in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.
>
>True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a single
>user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user very nice and
>simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*. A very, very, lean
>operating system. (I think it's somewhere around 200 MB in total, isn't
>it?)
>
>> But to go back to 98SE
>> would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive (which
>> doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.
>
>Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always consider
>getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.
>
>> My old scanner no longer works like it
>> did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98 the images when printed
>> are
>> practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a USB
>> scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I dumbly bought
>> a
>> parallel port scanner back then.
>>
>> But I don't see myself going back to 98 it's just too limited in today's
>> hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the external drive will
>> work with whatever is released after Vista.
>
>Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows 2000? I'm
>not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps, anyways. Actually,
>I think Win98SE still has more software capability there (at least in this
>one arena).
>
>But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think. Like
>Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen .
>
>> I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of all
>> the
>> Windows groups.
>> --
>> DaffyD®
>>
>> If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.
>

I know someone who gets nothing but a blue screen in XP. The computer
boots up, gets a blue screen, and that is all it does. They asked me
to fix it for them. I told them I would except when they got it back,
it would have Win98 installed. I refuse to work on XP computers.

As for the OP, why not install BOTH Win98 and Win2K. Just dual boot
it.

As for the original size of Win98. I have a fresh install zipped up.
The zip file is 80megs.
Unzipped, it's 2357 Files 161,461KB (161megs)
That's with those damn AOL, MSN, and other such files/folders removed.
I delete those things the second I get 98 installed.......
(or, wait a minute, those are installed in Program Files, so forget
that). It's 161megs.....

 

[Bill in Co.]

letterman@invalid.com wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:10:37 -0600, "Bill in Co."
> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> DaffyD® wrote:
>>> Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is so
>>> much more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and user
>>> accounts in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.
>>
>> True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a single
>> user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user very nice and
>> simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*. A very, very, lean
>> operating system. (I think it's somewhere around 200 MB in total, isn't
>> it?)
>>
>>> But to go back to 98SE
>>> would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive
>>> (which
>>> doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.
>>
>> Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always consider
>> getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.
>>
>>> My old scanner no longer works like it
>>> did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98 the images when printed
>>> are practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a
>>> USB
>>> scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I dumbly
>>> bought
>>> a parallel port scanner back then.
>>>
>>> But I don't see myself going back to 98 it's just too limited in
>>> today's
>>> hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the external drive
>>> will
>>> work with whatever is released after Vista.
>>
>> Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows 2000?
>> I'm
>> not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps, anyways.
>> Actually,
>> I think Win98SE still has more software capability there (at least in
>> this
>> one arena).
>>
>> But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think. Like
>> Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen .
>>
>>> I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of all
>>> the Windows groups.
>>> --
>>> DaffyD®
>>>
>>> If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.
>>
>
> I know someone who gets nothing but a blue screen in XP. The computer
> boots up, gets a blue screen, and that is all it does.

Amazing. But I think that's pretty atypical Wonder what s/he did
to it.

> They asked me
> to fix it for them. I told them I would except when they got it back,
> it would have Win98 installed. I refuse to work on XP computers.

In some ways it can be harder, I admit. Like I miss the ability of having
DOS as the "fallback operating system", when doing some low-level stuff
(which is a LOT simpler in DOS/Win98SE). So in that regard, things are
indeed simpler with Win98SE/DOS. And, you don't have deal with multiuser
profiles, and all that stuff and overhead, and the somewhat weird locations
some things are stored in. .

But the tradeoff in "robustness" (meaning few, if any, blue screens!), and
in the capability of running more current apps, is a significant drawback.
(all this assuming your computer is of relatively recent vintage, and is
really up to it - the older ones won't cut it too well)

> As for the OP, why not install BOTH Win98 and Win2K. Just dual boot it.
>
> As for the original size of Win98. I have a fresh install zipped up.
> The zip file is 80megs.
> Unzipped, it's 2357 Files 161,461KB (161megs)

Well, I was talking about Win98SE, which may be a bit larger. But that's
pretty close, or at least in the same ballpark, anyways.

> That's with those damn AOL, MSN, and other such files/folders removed.
> I delete those things the second I get 98 installed.......
> (or, wait a minute, those are installed in Program Files, so forget
> that). It's 161megs.....

 

[DaffyD®]

Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is so much
more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and user accounts
in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find. But to go back to 98SE
would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive (which
doesn't work with 98) as a bookend. My old scanner no longer works like it
did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98 the images when printed are
practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a USB
scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I dumbly bought a
parallel port scanner back then.

But I don't see myself going back to 98 it's just too limited in today's
hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the external drive will
work with whatever is released after Vista.

I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of all the
Windows groups.
--
DaffyD®

If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.

 

[letterman@invalid.com]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 00:07:51 -0600, "Bill in Co."
<not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

>letterman@invalid.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:10:37 -0600, "Bill in Co."
>> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> DaffyD® wrote:
>>>> Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is so
>>>> much more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and user
>>>> accounts in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.
>>>
>>> True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a single
>>> user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user very nice and
>>> simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*. A very, very, lean
>>> operating system. (I think it's somewhere around 200 MB in total, isn't
>>> it?)
>>>
>>>> But to go back to 98SE
>>>> would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive
>>>> (which
>>>> doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.
>>>
>>> Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always consider
>>> getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.
>>>
>>>> My old scanner no longer works like it
>>>> did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98 the images when printed
>>>> are practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a
>>>> USB
>>>> scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I dumbly
>>>> bought
>>>> a parallel port scanner back then.
>>>>
>>>> But I don't see myself going back to 98 it's just too limited in
>>>> today's
>>>> hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the external drive
>>>> will
>>>> work with whatever is released after Vista.
>>>
>>> Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows 2000?
>>> I'm
>>> not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps, anyways.
>>> Actually,
>>> I think Win98SE still has more software capability there (at least in
>>> this
>>> one arena).
>>>
>>> But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think. Like
>>> Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen .
>>>
>>>> I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of all
>>>> the Windows groups.
>>>> --
>>>> DaffyD®
>>>>
>>>> If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.
>>>
>>
>> I know someone who gets nothing but a blue screen in XP. The computer
>> boots up, gets a blue screen, and that is all it does.
>
>Amazing. But I think that's pretty atypical Wonder what s/he did
>to it.
>
I was wondering the same thing......
Maybe a virus, or bad hardware, or some critical files removed ?????

>> They asked me
>> to fix it for them. I told them I would except when they got it back,
>> it would have Win98 installed. I refuse to work on XP computers.
>
>In some ways it can be harder, I admit. Like I miss the ability of having
>DOS as the "fallback operating system", when doing some low-level stuff
>(which is a LOT simpler in DOS/Win98SE). So in that regard, things are
>indeed simpler with Win98SE/DOS. And, you don't have deal with multiuser
>profiles, and all that stuff and overhead, and the somewhat weird locations
>some things are stored in. .
>
That's the thing. When 98 gets screwed up, I can resort to dos. I
tried to do that to an XP computer once and only made more of a mess.
If it was at least a FAT32 format I may have been able to do
something....
I just dont like XP, and dont want to touch it.
If I work on hardware only, I'll use my own harddrive, and install XP
from scratch. That's no big problem, but if the problem is XP itself,
I refuse to touch it.

>But the tradeoff in "robustness" (meaning few, if any, blue screens!), and
>in the capability of running more current apps, is a significant drawback.
>(all this assuming your computer is of relatively recent vintage, and is
>really up to it - the older ones won't cut it too well)
>

I just dont like XP, period.....
I will use Win2K though, just as long as the drive is FAT32 formatted.
I use 2K on my laptop, but my desktop (which I use 95% of the time),
is still Win98SE.

>> As for the OP, why not install BOTH Win98 and Win2K. Just dual boot it.
>>
>> As for the original size of Win98. I have a fresh install zipped up.
>> The zip file is 80megs.
>> Unzipped, it's 2357 Files 161,461KB (161megs)
>
>Well, I was talking about Win98SE, which may be a bit larger. But that's
>pretty close, or at least in the same ballpark, anyways.

This IS for Win98SE.....
It's an original install, with IE5 and all of that.
I just let it run as a typical install. If I have a problem and am
not sure what's going on, I rename the windows folder, and unzip that
file to a new folder called WINDOWS, then I run it. That way I know
if my problem is software or hardware related.

PS. My actual USING Windows folder with all the programs installed,
plus extra fonts, wallpapers, etc. is 668megs. (IE cache and cookies
were cleared).

>
>> That's with those damn AOL, MSN, and other such files/folders removed.
>> I delete those things the second I get 98 installed.......
>> (or, wait a minute, those are installed in Program Files, so forget
>> that). It's 161megs.....
>

 

[Bill in Co.]

letterman@invalid.com wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 00:07:51 -0600, "Bill in Co."
> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> letterman@invalid.com wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:10:37 -0600, "Bill in Co."
>>> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> DaffyD® wrote:
>>>>> Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is
>>>>> so
>>>>> much more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and
>>>>> user
>>>>> accounts in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.
>>>>
>>>> True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a single
>>>> user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user very nice and
>>>> simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*. A very, very, lean
>>>> operating system. (I think it's somewhere around 200 MB in total,
>>>> isn't
>>>> it?)
>>>>
>>>>> But to go back to 98SE
>>>>> would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive
>>>>> (which doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always consider
>>>> getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.
>>>>
>>>>> My old scanner no longer works like it
>>>>> did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98 the images when
>>>>> printed
>>>>> are practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a
>>>>> USB
>>>>> scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I dumbly
>>>>> bought a parallel port scanner back then.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I don't see myself going back to 98 it's just too limited in
>>>>> today's
>>>>> hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the external drive
>>>>> will work with whatever is released after Vista.
>>>>
>>>> Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows 2000?
>>>> I'm not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps, anyways.
>>>> Actually,
>>>> I think Win98SE still has more software capability there (at least in
>>>> this one arena).
>>>>
>>>> But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think. Like
>>>> Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen .
>>>>
>>>>> I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of
>>>>> all
>>>>> the Windows groups.
>>>>> --
>>>>> DaffyD®
>>>>>
>>>>> If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I know someone who gets nothing but a blue screen in XP. The computer
>>> boots up, gets a blue screen, and that is all it does.
>>
>> Amazing. But I think that's pretty atypical Wonder what s/he
>> did
>> to it.
>>
> I was wondering the same thing......
> Maybe a virus, or bad hardware, or some critical files removed ?????

I don't know, but it sure sounds suspicious. Sounds like he needs a repair
reinstall, or maybe a completely fresh install. I think there is an option
in the Windows XP boot CD to Repair XP, assuming he can boot to the CD.
(If he can't even do that, then I'm not sure what he can do).

>>> They asked me
>>> to fix it for them. I told them I would except when they got it back,
>>> it would have Win98 installed. I refuse to work on XP computers.
>>
>> In some ways it can be harder, I admit. Like I miss the ability of
>> having
>> DOS as the "fallback operating system", when doing some low-level stuff
>> (which is a LOT simpler in DOS/Win98SE). So in that regard, things are
>> indeed simpler with Win98SE/DOS. And, you don't have deal with
>> multiuser
>> profiles, and all that stuff and overhead, and the somewhat weird
>> locations
>> some things are stored in. .
>>
> That's the thing. When 98 gets screwed up, I can resort to dos. I
> tried to do that to an XP computer once and only made more of a mess.

Yup, it ain't easy for XP, at that level. It is a bit more convoluted.
There is the XP Repair Console, but I haven't played around with it too
much. And there are things out there like Bart's PE (CD), to access it
without windows running.

> If it was at least a FAT32 format I may have been able to do something....
> I just dont like XP, and dont want to touch it.

But also do keep in mind Windows XP can be made to look like Win98SE with
some customizations (I hate the original look). But that is not to refute
all we've said about getting down to using DOS as a backup operating system,
and all that stuff.

> If I work on hardware only, I'll use my own harddrive, and install XP
> from scratch. That's no big problem, but if the problem is XP itself,
> I refuse to touch it.
>
>> But the tradeoff in "robustness" (meaning few, if any, blue screens!),
>> and
>> in the capability of running more current apps, is a significant
>> drawback.
>> (all this assuming your computer is of relatively recent vintage, and is
>> really up to it - the older ones won't cut it too well)
>>
>
> I just dont like XP, period.....
> I will use Win2K though, just as long as the drive is FAT32 formatted.
> I use 2K on my laptop, but my desktop (which I use 95% of the time),
> is still Win98SE.
>
>>> As for the OP, why not install BOTH Win98 and Win2K. Just dual boot it.
>>>
>>> As for the original size of Win98. I have a fresh install zipped up.
>>> The zip file is 80megs.
>>> Unzipped, it's 2357 Files 161,461KB (161megs)
>>
>> Well, I was talking about Win98SE, which may be a bit larger. But
>> that's
>> pretty close, or at least in the same ballpark, anyways.
>
> This IS for Win98SE.....

Oh, ok then.

> It's an original install, with IE5 and all of that.
> I just let it run as a typical install. If I have a problem and am
> not sure what's going on, I rename the windows folder, and unzip that
> file to a new folder called WINDOWS, then I run it. That way I know
> if my problem is software or hardware related.
>
> PS. My actual USING Windows folder with all the programs installed,
> plus extra fonts, wallpapers, etc. is 668megs. (IE cache and cookies
> were cleared).

I forgot what mine got up to. I have it over here, but I'm too lazy to
power it up tonite and check (I'm almost always using my newer and faster XP
computer).

>>
>>> That's with those damn AOL, MSN, and other such files/folders removed.
>>> I delete those things the second I get 98 installed.......
>>> (or, wait a minute, those are installed in Program Files, so forget
>>> that). It's 161megs.....

 

[John John (MVP)]

letterman@invalid.com wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:10:37 -0600, "Bill in Co."
> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>DaffyD® wrote:
>>
>>>Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is so
>>>much
>>>more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and user
>>>accounts
>>>in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.
>>
>>True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a single
>>user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user very nice and
>>simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*. A very, very, lean
>>operating system. (I think it's somewhere around 200 MB in total, isn't
>>it?)
>>
>>
>>>But to go back to 98SE
>>>would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive (which
>>>doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.
>>
>>Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always consider
>>getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.
>>
>>
>>>My old scanner no longer works like it
>>>did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98 the images when printed
>>>are
>>>practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a USB
>>>scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I dumbly bought
>>>a
>>>parallel port scanner back then.
>>>
>>>But I don't see myself going back to 98 it's just too limited in today's
>>>hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the external drive will
>>>work with whatever is released after Vista.
>>
>>Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows 2000? I'm
>>not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps, anyways. Actually,
>>I think Win98SE still has more software capability there (at least in this
>>one arena).
>>
>>But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think. Like
>>Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen .
>>
>>
>>>I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of all
>>>the
>>>Windows groups.
>>>--
>>>DaffyD®
>>>
>>>If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.
>>
>
> I know someone who gets nothing but a blue screen in XP. The computer
> boots up, gets a blue screen, and that is all it does.

And I know lots of people who get absolutely no blue screens at all and
who were constantly getting them when they were using Windows 98. That
you know *one* person who gets blue screens with Windows XP is not much
of a convincing reason to not use Windows XP.


> They asked me
> to fix it for them. I told them I would except when they got it back,
> it would have Win98 installed. I refuse to work on XP computers.

Should go hand in hand with folks who run typewriter repair shops! If
the computer is fairly new you won't be doing anyone any favours by
removing a modern operating system to replace it with an antiquated
relic! Along with the removal of Windows XP the users can kiss goodbye
to things like memory support for up to 4GB of RAM, multi-core or
multi-processor support, support for 48-bit LBA and large disks, support
for files sizes over 4GB, support for much of the newer hardware
available today and a host of other things.

Windows 98 may have been good in its time but its time is now over and
for all but the most devoted aficionados maintaining and getting Windows
98 to work properly with new hardware and software is most often an
exercise in futility, or at the very least a very frustrating exercise.
Like it or not Windows 98 is not an operating system for todays
computing needs. You might have more luck clamoring for the return of
top hats and steam engines...

John

 

[letterman@invalid.com]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:58:48 -0300, "John John (MVP)"
<audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

>Windows 98 may have been good in its time but its time is now over and
>for all but the most devoted aficionados maintaining and getting Windows
>98 to work properly with new hardware and software is most often an
>exercise in futility, or at the very least a very frustrating exercise.
> Like it or not Windows 98 is not an operating system for todays
>computing needs. You might have more luck clamoring for the return of
>top hats and steam engines...
>
>John

I do not agree. Sure, Win98 is 10 years old, but it does everything I
need. I run internet software, I watch movies, edit my camera photos,
run basic office software, and more...... It works just fine. If I
had to use XP or Vista, I'd first need a new computer. Then I'd get
it home and stick it in the closet, while continuing to use my old
Win98 computer, or I'd just stop using computers completely. I can't
stand XP. Everything about it pisses me off. When the day actually
comes that I can no longer use Win98, I will either buy a Macintosh,
or hope that by that time there's a new OS (non-microsoft), or Linux
developed a user friendly OS. Better yet, maybe someone will come up
with an extension for Win98 that makes it work with the new MS
garbage, (but I wont hold my breath). I installed Win 2000, and while
it's not as abrasive as XP. I still disliked it. Yes, Win98 lacks
some USB support and gets an occasional blue screen, but I'd much
rather cope with a few minutes of hassles from time to time, than hate
using my computer 24/7.

 

[John John (MVP)]

letterman@invalid.com wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:58:48 -0300, "John John (MVP)"
> <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Windows 98 may have been good in its time but its time is now over and
>>for all but the most devoted aficionados maintaining and getting Windows
>>98 to work properly with new hardware and software is most often an
>>exercise in futility, or at the very least a very frustrating exercise.
>> Like it or not Windows 98 is not an operating system for todays
>>computing needs. You might have more luck clamoring for the return of
>>top hats and steam engines...
>>
>>John
>
>
> I do not agree. Sure, Win98 is 10 years old, but it does everything I
> need. I run internet software, I watch movies, edit my camera photos,
> run basic office software, and more...... It works just fine. If I
> had to use XP or Vista, I'd first need a new computer. Then I'd get
> it home and stick it in the closet, while continuing to use my old
> Win98 computer, or I'd just stop using computers completely. I can't
> stand XP. Everything about it pisses me off. When the day actually
> comes that I can no longer use Win98, I will either buy a Macintosh,
> or hope that by that time there's a new OS (non-microsoft), or Linux
> developed a user friendly OS. Better yet, maybe someone will come up
> with an extension for Win98 that makes it work with the new MS
> garbage, (but I wont hold my breath). I installed Win 2000, and while
> it's not as abrasive as XP. I still disliked it. Yes, Win98 lacks
> some USB support and gets an occasional blue screen, but I'd much
> rather cope with a few minutes of hassles from time to time, than hate
> using my computer 24/7.

Sure it suits you, you are using it on an old computer with old software
and old peripherals, there is nothing wrong with that at all, if it does
what you need and if you like it I say stick with it. But if you intend
on running newer applications and if you intend on running some of the
new hardware out there you will quickly find out that Windows 98 just
doesn't cut it, even printers are becoming harder to find for Windows
98, it is not a suitable operating system for the modern computing
environment.

John

 

[PCR]

Bill in Co. wrote:
| PCR wrote:
|> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>> PCR wrote:
|>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>>>> DaffyD® wrote:
|>>>>> Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It
|>>>>> is so much more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the
|>>>>> admin and user
|>>>>> accounts in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.
|>>>>
|>>>> True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a
|>>>> single user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user
|>>>> very nice and simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*.
|>>>> A very, very, lean operating system. (I think it's somewhere
|>>>> around 200 MB in total, isn't it?)
|>>>
|>>> My Windows folder is 286 folders, 5,307 files, 454,827,147 bytes.
|>>> And Program Files is 323 folders, 3,905 files, 540,817,212 bytes.
|>>
|>> Program Files doesn't count! That's by far mostly your
|>> applications in there! We were talking about the operating system!
|>>
|>> And the reason your system folder is that large is due to all those
|>> updates you added and some stuff added by some applications, no
|>> doubt.
|>>
|>> Go check out your original installation size (if you still have a
|>> copy). I still think it's around 200 MB, as I said. WITHOUT
|>> applications and "updates" being installed/
|>
|> On 2nd thought, yea, you are right, this machine came with a bunch of
|> extra packages already installed, like MS Works. The stuff I've
|> installed afterwards is all minor, though. Yea, you're likely
|> correct, but I can't check it on this machine.
|
| I think it was somewhere around 200 MB, before installing apps.
| That's pretty lean! And IIRC, WinXP is about 10 times that (about 2
| GB). But then again, WinXP is pretty damn robust by comparison, I
| do have to admit. And I bet Vista is 10 times that of WinXP!! (like
| maybe 20 GB) - ugh, forget Vista!!

Alright. I never knew the figure, so your memory must be trusted. You
are the last one apparently who even remembers that much, as looks like
Terhune has fallen into another earthquake. But who'd have thought even
200 MB would turn out to be a small number!

|>>>>> But to go back to 98SE
|>>>>> would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external
|>>>>> drive (which doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.
|>>>>
|>>>> Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always
|>>>> consider getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.
|>>>
|>>> I know you've done it. Would be nice if you could talk DaffyD®
|>>> through it!
|>>>
|>>>>> My old scanner no longer works like it
|>>>>> did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98 the images when
|>>>>> printed are practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that
|>>>>> had it been a
|>>>>> USB scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I
|>>>>> dumbly bought a parallel port scanner back then.
|>>>>>
|>>>>> But I don't see myself going back to 98 it's just too limited in
|>>>>> today's hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the
|>>>>> external drive will work with whatever is released after Vista.
|>>>>
|>>>> Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows
|>>>> 2000? I'm not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps,
|>>>> anyways. Actually, I think Win98SE still has more software
|>>>> capability there (at least in this one arena).
|>>>>
|>>>> But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think.
|>>>> Like Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen .
|>>>
|>>> XP has crashed on you, Colorado -- well-enough for you to do
|>>> several registry restores & restore point restores & maybe even a
|>>> full backup restore or two -- you've admitted it, IIRC! I don't
|>>> care whether it gives a blue screen or an XP-irradiated sickly
|>>> green one!
|>>
|>> No, not quite accurate. (I said I got blue screens in XP???
|>> When)? But - I *have* done several registry or disk image restores
|>> in XP, but NOT due to blue screens! Those restore operations were
|>> done due to my desire to put my system back exactly as it was prior
|>> to some software installations (just to play it safe), and/or if
|>> some settings got changed that I didn't "appreciate" (and it was an
|>> easy way to get back). That's all, unless you remember something I
|>> don't. I'm still waiting for blue screens, unless you recall some I
|>> mentioned (in XP, I mean).
|>
|> No, I don't recall you said any color. But I was fairly sure you said
|> you had a crash of some kind in XP. And I strongly suspect Terhune
|> thinks so too! But "Hitchhiker's Guide" just started & I must go.
|> So, fine, I'll try to remember you never crashed yet.
|
| I have had a couple of occasions where the computer locked up and I
| had to reboot, that's all (no blue or green screens, though). But
| no restore operation was necessary - it was just due to some software
| hiccups that occurred at the same time.

Ah-- freeze-ups! That's what I was remembering, then! A freeze-up is a
lot like a crash-- don't you think!? I'm fairly sure you'd have gotten a
sickly green XP-irradiated death screen-- if it weren't frozen!

|>>>>> I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite
|>>>>> of all the Windows groups.
|>>>
|>>> Good to see you you back, DaffyD®. Maybe try for the proper drivers
|>>> as Colorado has suggested!
|>>>
|>>>>> --
|>>>>> DaffyD®
|>>>>>
|>>>>> If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.
|>>>
|>>> --
|>>> Thanks or Good Luck,
|>>> There may be humor in this post, and,
|>>> Naturally, you will not sue,
|>>> Should things get worse after this,
|>>> PCR
|>>> pcrrcp@netzero.net
|>
|> --
|> Thanks or Good Luck,
|> There may be humor in this post, and,
|> Naturally, you will not sue,
|> Should things get worse after this,
|> PCR
|> pcrrcp@netzero.net

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

[PCR]

Bill in Co. wrote:
| letterman@invalid.com wrote:
|> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 00:07:51 -0600, "Bill in Co."
|> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
|>
|>> letterman@invalid.com wrote:
|>>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:10:37 -0600, "Bill in Co."
|>>> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

....snip
|>>> As for the original size of Win98. I have a fresh install zipped
|>>> up. The zip file is 80megs.
|>>> Unzipped, it's 2357 Files 161,461KB (161megs)
|>>
|>> Well, I was talking about Win98SE, which may be a bit larger. But
|>> that's
|>> pretty close, or at least in the same ballpark, anyways.
|>
|> This IS for Win98SE.....
|
| Oh, ok then.
|
|> It's an original install, with IE5 and all of that.
|> I just let it run as a typical install. If I have a problem and am
|> not sure what's going on, I rename the windows folder, and unzip that
|> file to a new folder called WINDOWS, then I run it. That way I know
|> if my problem is software or hardware related.
|>
|> PS. My actual USING Windows folder with all the programs installed,
|> plus extra fonts, wallpapers, etc. is 668megs. (IE cache and cookies
|> were cleared).
|
| I forgot what mine got up to. I have it over here, but I'm too lazy
| to power it up tonite and check (I'm almost always using my newer and
| faster XP computer).

Well, I feel better about my sizes now, which were...

My Windows folder is 286 folders, 5,307 files, 454,827,147 bytes.
And Program Files is 323 folders, 3,905 files, 540,817,212 bytes.

And Compaq did install some big stuff in here, like MS Works, MS
Encarta, ArcSoft PhotoPrinter, Built-In Technician, CeQuadrat, etc!

My Win98SE Options folder (holds the .cabs) is...
1,057 files, 40 folders, 236,287,224 bytes.

And, using EXTRACT /D /A to display the file names in the various .cab's
in there, here are the bottom lines...

6,014 Files 325,963,535 bytes base4.cab
413 Files 2,628,329 bytes
8 Files 16,960 bytes
31 Files 1,186,883 bytes
434 Files 11,517,232 bytes precopy1.cab

This is what produces that (plus the file names & sizes)...

EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\Base4.cab > "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt" /A
EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\Catalog3.cab >> "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt"
EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\CHL99.cab >> "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt"
EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\MINI.cab >> "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt"
EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\Precopy1.cab >>"E:\My Documents\CABS.txt" /A

Better do it exactly like that! Using "/A" where it doesn't belong seems
to get some other .cabs anyhow! Also, that is the order SFC will work on
the .cabs. If there are duplicates, it's first found that's used. (And,
if one exists in the root folder, THAT is taken.)

">" starts CABS.txt from scratch, which wipes any existing one.
">>" adds to CABS.txt, or starts it if non-existent.
Quotes are needed around LFNs (Long File Names).
Adjust locations of .cabs & destination as necessary.

Some/all files in MINI.cab have updated versions in other Win98SE .cab
files. So, I can't figure why I have that one. But SFC somehow knows to
extract for instance Keyboard.drv from WIN98_44.CAB instead of from
MINI.cab, probably because Base4.cab sorts under Mini.cab.

CHL99.cab has old but unique files. SFC does get these...
C:\>extract /d E:\Options\cabs\chl99.cab
Cabinet chl99.cab
08-21-1997 10:42:14p A--- 389 chang.cdf
08-18-1997 10:51:48a A--- 4,710 chang.ico
08-14-1997 3:35:24p A--- 1,806 chang_sl.gif
09-03-1997 5:11:28p A--- 2,714 chang_wl.gif
09-10-1997 11:50:00a A--- 4,499 chl99.inf
08-21-1997 10:38:48p A--- 227 ieupdate.cdf
08-11-1997 6:53:12p A--- 1,537 ieupdate.gif
09-10-1997 11:27:56a A--- 1,078 ieupdate.ico
8 Files 16,960 bytes

Those all exist in my system (all in C:\WINDOWS\WEB except chl99.inf in
C:\Windows\Inf), but with dates of 7/30/2001.

CATALOG3.cab is filled with 413 ".cat" files of 4/23/99 found in no
other .cab. (A find on "*.cat" doesn't find that many in my system,
mysteriously.) Precopy1.cab & Precopy2.cab also have the later dates,
but at least Command.com is duplicated in another .cab.

WARNING: DO INCLUDE "/D", which says "display only". OTHERWISE, you
will actually extract them! They will extract into the current folder.
(Then, maybe an MVP may save you, & I will be in some distant Afghan
cave, if needed!)

|>>
|>>> That's with those damn AOL, MSN, and other such files/folders
|>>> removed. I delete those things the second I get 98 installed.......
|>>> (or, wait a minute, those are installed in Program Files, so forget
|>>> that). It's 161megs.....

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

[Bill in Co.]

letterman@invalid.com wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:58:48 -0300, "John John (MVP)"
> <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>
>> Windows 98 may have been good in its time but its time is now over and
>> for all but the most devoted aficionados maintaining and getting Windows
>> 98 to work properly with new hardware and software is most often an
>> exercise in futility, or at the very least a very frustrating exercise.
>> Like it or not Windows 98 is not an operating system for todays
>> computing needs. You might have more luck clamoring for the return of
>> top hats and steam engines...
>>
>> John
>
> I do not agree. Sure, Win98 is 10 years old, but it does everything I
> need. I run internet software, I watch movies, edit my camera photos,
> run basic office software, and more...... It works just fine. If I
> had to use XP or Vista, I'd first need a new computer. Then I'd get
> it home and stick it in the closet, while continuing to use my old
> Win98 computer, or I'd just stop using computers completely. I can't
> stand XP. Everything about it pisses me off. When the day actually
> comes that I can no longer use Win98, I will either buy a Macintosh,
> or hope that by that time there's a new OS (non-microsoft), or Linux
> developed a user friendly OS. Better yet, maybe someone will come up
> with an extension for Win98 that makes it work with the new MS
> garbage, (but I wont hold my breath). I installed Win 2000, and while
> it's not as abrasive as XP.

What exactly do you find "abrasive" about WinXP? Like you, I loved
(actually still do, to some extent) Win98SE, but I've tailored WinXP to look
like Win98SE (and that CAN be done - believe it or not). But the only
thing missing is the stuff we've talked about the complexities "under the
hood" make messin with it at a lower level (like down in DOS, etc),
difficult. You have to give up some of that control. But OTOH, you get a
lot in return. Actually, if you want an operating system that can be
almost totally under your complete control, and where you can monitor nearly
everything, to the nth degree, we'd probably have to go back to DOS.
But yeah, Win3.1, Win95, and Win98SE are to some extent in that league too.

> I still disliked it. Yes, Win98 lacks
> some USB support and gets an occasional blue screen, but I'd much
> rather cope with a few minutes of hassles from time to time, than hate
> using my computer 24/7.

 

[Bill in Co.]

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> PCR wrote:
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>> DaffyD® wrote:
>>>>>>> Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It
>>>>>>> is so much more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the
>>>>>>> admin and user
>>>>>>> accounts in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a
>>>>>> single user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user
>>>>>> very nice and simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*.
>>>>>> A very, very, lean operating system. (I think it's somewhere
>>>>>> around 200 MB in total, isn't it?)
>>>>>
>>>>> My Windows folder is 286 folders, 5,307 files, 454,827,147 bytes.
>>>>> And Program Files is 323 folders, 3,905 files, 540,817,212 bytes.
>>>>
>>>> Program Files doesn't count! That's by far mostly your
>>>> applications in there! We were talking about the operating system!
>>>>
>>>> And the reason your system folder is that large is due to all those
>>>> updates you added and some stuff added by some applications, no
>>>> doubt.
>>>>
>>>> Go check out your original installation size (if you still have a
>>>> copy). I still think it's around 200 MB, as I said. WITHOUT
>>>> applications and "updates" being installed/
>>>
>>> On 2nd thought, yea, you are right, this machine came with a bunch of
>>> extra packages already installed, like MS Works. The stuff I've
>>> installed afterwards is all minor, though. Yea, you're likely
>>> correct, but I can't check it on this machine.
>>
>> I think it was somewhere around 200 MB, before installing apps.
>> That's pretty lean! And IIRC, WinXP is about 10 times that (about 2
>> GB). But then again, WinXP is pretty damn robust by comparison, I
>> do have to admit. And I bet Vista is 10 times that of WinXP!! (like
>> maybe 20 GB) - ugh, forget Vista!!
>
> Alright. I never knew the figure, so your memory must be trusted. You
> are the last one apparently who even remembers that much, as looks like
> Terhune has fallen into another earthquake. But who'd have thought even
> 200 MB would turn out to be a small number!
>
>>>>>>> But to go back to 98SE
>>>>>>> would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external
>>>>>>> drive (which doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always
>>>>>> consider getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know you've done it. Would be nice if you could talk DaffyD®
>>>>> through it!
>>>>>
>>>>>>> My old scanner no longer works like it
>>>>>>> did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98 the images when
>>>>>>> printed are practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that
>>>>>>> had it been a
>>>>>>> USB scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I
>>>>>>> dumbly bought a parallel port scanner back then.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I don't see myself going back to 98 it's just too limited in
>>>>>>> today's hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the
>>>>>>> external drive will work with whatever is released after Vista.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows
>>>>>> 2000? I'm not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps,
>>>>>> anyways. Actually, I think Win98SE still has more software
>>>>>> capability there (at least in this one arena).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think.
>>>>>> Like Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen .
>>>>>
>>>>> XP has crashed on you, Colorado -- well-enough for you to do
>>>>> several registry restores & restore point restores & maybe even a
>>>>> full backup restore or two -- you've admitted it, IIRC! I don't
>>>>> care whether it gives a blue screen or an XP-irradiated sickly
>>>>> green one!
>>>>
>>>> No, not quite accurate. (I said I got blue screens in XP???
>>>> When)? But - I *have* done several registry or disk image restores
>>>> in XP, but NOT due to blue screens! Those restore operations were
>>>> done due to my desire to put my system back exactly as it was prior
>>>> to some software installations (just to play it safe), and/or if
>>>> some settings got changed that I didn't "appreciate" (and it was an
>>>> easy way to get back). That's all, unless you remember something I
>>>> don't. I'm still waiting for blue screens, unless you recall some I
>>>> mentioned (in XP, I mean).
>>>
>>> No, I don't recall you said any color. But I was fairly sure you said
>>> you had a crash of some kind in XP. And I strongly suspect Terhune
>>> thinks so too! But "Hitchhiker's Guide" just started & I must go.
>>> So, fine, I'll try to remember you never crashed yet.
>>
>> I have had a couple of occasions where the computer locked up and I
>> had to reboot, that's all (no blue or green screens, though). But
>> no restore operation was necessary - it was just due to some software
>> hiccups that occurred at the same time.
>
> Ah-- freeze-ups! That's what I was remembering, then! A freeze-up is a
> lot like a crash-- don't you think!?

No. Not exactly.

> I'm fairly sure you'd have gotten a
> sickly green XP-irradiated death screen-- if it weren't frozen!

LOL. But I'm not so sure. The thing is, I think a blue screen is
potentially more serious. Like in some cases, you have to fix some VxD
thing, or whatever. And that NEVER happened here, with those couple of
"lockups". Just rebooting was always enough. And you can't say the same
thing about (many) blue screens.

>>>>>>> I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite
>>>>>>> of all the Windows groups.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good to see you you back, DaffyD®. Maybe try for the proper drivers
>>>>> as Colorado has suggested!
>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> DaffyD®
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Thanks or Good Luck,
>>>>> There may be humor in this post, and,
>>>>> Naturally, you will not sue,
>>>>> Should things get worse after this,
>>>>> PCR
>>>>> pcrrcp@netzero.net
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks or Good Luck,
>>> There may be humor in this post, and,
>>> Naturally, you will not sue,
>>> Should things get worse after this,
>>> PCR
>>> pcrrcp@netzero.net
>
> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> Should things get worse after this,
> PCR
> pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

[Bill in Co.]

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> letterman@invalid.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 00:07:51 -0600, "Bill in Co."
>>> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> letterman@invalid.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:10:37 -0600, "Bill in Co."
>>>>> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> ...snip
>>>>> As for the original size of Win98. I have a fresh install zipped
>>>>> up. The zip file is 80megs.
>>>>> Unzipped, it's 2357 Files 161,461KB (161megs)
>>>>
>>>> Well, I was talking about Win98SE, which may be a bit larger. But
>>>> that's pretty close, or at least in the same ballpark, anyways.
>>>
>>> This IS for Win98SE.....
>>
>> Oh, ok then.
>>
>>> It's an original install, with IE5 and all of that.
>>> I just let it run as a typical install. If I have a problem and am
>>> not sure what's going on, I rename the windows folder, and unzip that
>>> file to a new folder called WINDOWS, then I run it. That way I know
>>> if my problem is software or hardware related.
>>>
>>> PS. My actual USING Windows folder with all the programs installed,
>>> plus extra fonts, wallpapers, etc. is 668megs. (IE cache and cookies
>>> were cleared).
>>
>> I forgot what mine got up to. I have it over here, but I'm too lazy
>> to power it up tonite and check (I'm almost always using my newer and
>> faster XP computer).
>
> Well, I feel better about my sizes now, which were...
>
> My Windows folder is 286 folders, 5,307 files, 454,827,147 bytes.
> And Program Files is 323 folders, 3,905 files, 540,817,212 bytes.
>
> And Compaq did install some big stuff in here, like MS Works, MS
> Encarta, ArcSoft PhotoPrinter, Built-In Technician, CeQuadrat, etc!
>
> My Win98SE Options folder (holds the .cabs) is...
> 1,057 files, 40 folders, 236,287,224 bytes.

No, but the point was, that a clean install of Windows 98SE took up only
about 200 MB of disk space *in total*! You're way over that, due to the
installation of programs. We're NOT really talking about that cabs folder,
although undoubtedly there is some relation between the two things.



> And, using EXTRACT /D /A to display the file names in the various .cab's
> in there, here are the bottom lines...
>
> 6,014 Files 325,963,535 bytes base4.cab
> 413 Files 2,628,329 bytes
> 8 Files 16,960 bytes
> 31 Files 1,186,883 bytes
> 434 Files 11,517,232 bytes precopy1.cab
>
> This is what produces that (plus the file names & sizes)...
>
> EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\Base4.cab > "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt" /A
> EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\Catalog3.cab >> "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt"
> EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\CHL99.cab >> "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt"
> EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\MINI.cab >> "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt"
> EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\Precopy1.cab >>"E:\My Documents\CABS.txt" /A
>
> Better do it exactly like that! Using "/A" where it doesn't belong seems
> to get some other .cabs anyhow! Also, that is the order SFC will work on
> the .cabs. If there are duplicates, it's first found that's used. (And,
> if one exists in the root folder, THAT is taken.)
>
> ">" starts CABS.txt from scratch, which wipes any existing one.
> ">>" adds to CABS.txt, or starts it if non-existent.
> Quotes are needed around LFNs (Long File Names).
> Adjust locations of .cabs & destination as necessary.
>
> Some/all files in MINI.cab have updated versions in other Win98SE .cab
> files. So, I can't figure why I have that one. But SFC somehow knows to
> extract for instance Keyboard.drv from WIN98_44.CAB instead of from
> MINI.cab, probably because Base4.cab sorts under Mini.cab.
>
> CHL99.cab has old but unique files. SFC does get these...
> C:\>extract /d E:\Options\cabs\chl99.cab
> Cabinet chl99.cab
> 08-21-1997 10:42:14p A--- 389 chang.cdf
> 08-18-1997 10:51:48a A--- 4,710 chang.ico
> 08-14-1997 3:35:24p A--- 1,806 chang_sl.gif
> 09-03-1997 5:11:28p A--- 2,714 chang_wl.gif
> 09-10-1997 11:50:00a A--- 4,499 chl99.inf
> 08-21-1997 10:38:48p A--- 227 ieupdate.cdf
> 08-11-1997 6:53:12p A--- 1,537 ieupdate.gif
> 09-10-1997 11:27:56a A--- 1,078 ieupdate.ico
> 8 Files 16,960 bytes
>
> Those all exist in my system (all in C:\WINDOWS\WEB except chl99.inf in
> C:\Windows\Inf), but with dates of 7/30/2001.
>
> CATALOG3.cab is filled with 413 ".cat" files of 4/23/99 found in no
> other .cab. (A find on "*.cat" doesn't find that many in my system,
> mysteriously.) Precopy1.cab & Precopy2.cab also have the later dates,
> but at least Command.com is duplicated in another .cab.
>
> WARNING: DO INCLUDE "/D", which says "display only". OTHERWISE, you
> will actually extract them! They will extract into the current folder.
> (Then, maybe an MVP may save you, & I will be in some distant Afghan
> cave, if needed!)
>
>>>>
>>>>> That's with those damn AOL, MSN, and other such files/folders
>>>>> removed. I delete those things the second I get 98 installed.......
>>>>> (or, wait a minute, those are installed in Program Files, so forget
>>>>> that). It's 161megs.....
>
> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> Should things get worse after this,
> PCR
> pcrrcp@netzero.net