I hate Windows 2000, miss W98 SE.

philo · Sep 16, 2008

"DaffyD®" <daffyd@woohoo.com> wrote in message
news:uKANBUrFJHA.5104@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> 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.

I'm sure that it will not take you all that long to get used to Win2k.

The fact that your scanner is parallel port should not make it unusable...
there should be an adjustment for the quality that you use to scan...
it may simply be set too low by default.

Since your scanner is at least detected and installed,
it may be a function of the software you are using to import images.

You may want to try the free image viewer Irfanview
and use the import function and specify your scanner...
then see if you can adjust the image quality.

100 - 150 dpi should give you good results

PCR · Sep 16, 2008

Bill in Co. wrote:
| 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 can't quite recall I've ever had to replace a .vxd of my own after a
BSOD. It normally is just a reboot & the auto-scanreg that fixed them--
not that I've had any in quite a while! I've certainly had more freezes
myself than BSODs. And those were due to the McAfee scan engine going
bad &/or the mouse going bad. Those have been replaced & I hardly freeze
at all now.

Oh, all right, fine -- since you've seen both OS & I haven't much-- I'll
stop arguing the issue whether XP will crash as bad as Win98SE. Good
luck with it, really.

|>>>>>>> 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.

....snip
--
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 · Sep 16, 2008

|>
|> 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.

I guess it depends on the options selected during the install. The .cabs
prove Win98SE can get bigger, if more of the files are extracted.
Really, you need to count Windows Updates (never mind-- I know!),
Program Files, & indispensable apps too, like maybe MS Works. But your
point is good that XP is bloated by comparison, & Vista is worse!

|> 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

--
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. · Sep 16, 2008

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> 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 can't quite recall I've ever had to replace a .vxd of my own after a
> BSOD. It normally is just a reboot & the auto-scanreg that fixed them--
> not that I've had any in quite a while!

Well, I can't remember what happened for all the blue screens, and I don't
recall now specifically replacing a VxD, come to think of it. But I do
seem to recall having to do a scanreg /restore operation on at least some of
those occasions, but it's been so long ago....

> I've certainly had more freezes
> myself than BSODs. And those were due to the McAfee scan engine going
> bad &/or the mouse going bad. Those have been replaced & I hardly freeze
> at all now.
>
> Oh, all right, fine -- since you've seen both OS & I haven't much-- I'll
> stop arguing the issue whether XP will crash as bad as Win98SE. Good
> luck with it, really.

I'm telling ya straight out, PCR, there is just NO comparison in that regard
(and this comes from a guy who still likes 98SE and DOS!, and actually
misses a few things there!). But you do have to give up some control (like
when looking under the hood), as I mentioned in that other post. (But it
is my second computer, and still gets some use).

>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> ...snip
> --
> 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. · Sep 16, 2008

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I guess it depends on the options selected during the install. The .cabs
> prove Win98SE can get bigger, if more of the files are extracted.
> Really, you need to count Windows Updates (never mind-- I know!),

FORGET THAT!!!

> Program Files, & indispensable apps too, like maybe MS Works.

But you can't count that for an objective comparison of the *operating
system*, (otherwise the comparison figures would be "all over the map").
Just the operating system and the normally installed option of *its
accessories*. (Not MS Works, etc)

> But your point is good that XP is bloated by comparison, & Vista is worse!

Vista????? What is Vista?? LOL.

>>> 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
>
> --
> 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 · Sep 17, 2008

Bill in Co. wrote:
| PCR wrote:
|> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>> 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 can't quite recall I've ever had to replace a .vxd of my own after
|> a BSOD. It normally is just a reboot & the auto-scanreg that fixed
|> them-- not that I've had any in quite a while!
|
| Well, I can't remember what happened for all the blue screens, and I
| don't recall now specifically replacing a VxD, come to think of it.
| But I do seem to recall having to do a scanreg /restore operation on
| at least some of those occasions, but it's been so long ago....

I haven't done a lot of those either, but I really don't do a great deal
with this machine. The most trouble I've had has been hardware related--
a hard drive crashed, a CD wouldn't exit the CD-ROM for two/three days,
a mouse went bad, & two monitors went dark! Software troubles included:
the McAfee scan engine went bad & a couple of big Windows Updates came
in real hard.

|> I've certainly had more freezes
|> myself than BSODs. And those were due to the McAfee scan engine going
|> bad &/or the mouse going bad. Those have been replaced & I hardly
|> freeze at all now.
|>
|> Oh, all right, fine -- since you've seen both OS & I haven't much--
|> I'll stop arguing the issue whether XP will crash as bad as Win98SE.
|> Good luck with it, really.
|
| I'm telling ya straight out, PCR, there is just NO comparison in that
| regard (and this comes from a guy who still likes 98SE and DOS!, and
| actually misses a few things there!). But you do have to give up
| some control (like when looking under the hood), as I mentioned in
| that other post. (But it is my second computer, and still gets
| some use).

All right. I know you've got a full system backup for the day it may
melt down. I guess you are alright, no matter.

|>>>>>>>>> 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.
|>
|> ...snip
|> --
|> 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 · Sep 17, 2008

|>>>
|>>> 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.
|>
|> I guess it depends on the options selected during the install. The
|> .cabs prove Win98SE can get bigger, if more of the files are
|> extracted.
|> Really, you need to count Windows Updates (never mind-- I know!),
|
| FORGET THAT!!!

I know, I know!

|> Program Files, & indispensable apps too, like maybe MS Works.
|
| But you can't count that for an objective comparison of the *operating
| system*, (otherwise the comparison figures would be "all over the
| map"). Just the operating system and the normally installed option of
| *its accessories*. (Not MS Works, etc)

It could be XP comes with a few extras installed. Then, just to be fair,
you'd have to include equivalents in Win98 too.

|> But your point is good that XP is bloated by comparison, & Vista is
|> worse!
|
| Vista????? What is Vista?? LOL.

Uhuh. But you brought it up first!

|>>> 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
|>
|> --
|> 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. · Sep 18, 2008

DaffyD® wrote:
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:OYyW5arFJHA.3996@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> 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.
>>
> This one cost me $100 and it's past the time I could take it back to Best
> Buy.

But you could consider just biting the bullet and swallowing that loss, if
you really wanted it. I mean, how much is it worth to you, to get the op
system you really want?? I'd spend an extra $100, if I really preferred
the other operating system.

>
>>> 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.

Bill in Co. · Sep 18, 2008

DaffyD® wrote:
> "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:uUesBk3FJHA.1272@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> 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
>
> Sigh, I agree with you, John. If it wasn't for the incompalibility
> between
> 98SE and most newer hardware (like my new external drive--which I'll be
> talking about in my next post) and programs, I would gladly have stayed
> with
> it.

Which programs are you talking about? Actually, I think there are also
some programs that will run on Win98SE, that won't run on W2K, right?
(Like in the multimedia area). (But I imagine W2K is considerably more
robust, like XP, so I don't know if I'd switch, either).

> But I know that when I buy a new computer it will either be loaded with
> Vista or the next MS OS.

letterman@invalid.com · Sep 18, 2008

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:10:38 -0600, "Bill in Co."
<not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

>DaffyD® wrote:
>> "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>> news:uUesBk3FJHA.1272@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> 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
>>
>> Sigh, I agree with you, John. If it wasn't for the incompalibility
>> between
>> 98SE and most newer hardware (like my new external drive--which I'll be
>> talking about in my next post) and programs, I would gladly have stayed
>> with
>> it.
>
>Which programs are you talking about? Actually, I think there are also
>some programs that will run on Win98SE, that won't run on W2K, right?
>(Like in the multimedia area). (But I imagine W2K is considerably more
>robust, like XP, so I don't know if I'd switch, either).

I dont know of any programs that are for Win95/98 that wont work in
Win2k. But there might be some. On the other hand, many Win2k xp
progs wont work on 98. Actually I have Win2k on my laptop. Only
because my WIFI card wont work with 98. I dont care all that much for
Win2k, but I only use my laptop on occasion and mostly just when I
want wifi access when I travel. Most of the time I use my Win98
desktop pc. I cant say 2k is more robust. It's never crashed, but I
dont have any software on it except the default stuff that comes with
the install of 2K, plus a few files that came with the wifi card. So
saying it's more stable is not a comparison. I've been thinking about
installing a dual boot with 98 and 2k on BOTH computers. That way I
can use what I like most.

By the way, I have a Win3.1 program that will not run on Win98.
Pisses me off because I really loved that program. One of these days
I have to take an old pc and put Win3.1 on it. I really hate to use
that OS, but there seems to be no choice.

>
>> But I know that when I buy a new computer it will either be loaded with
>> Vista or the next MS OS.
>

Dont buy a new computer. Buy an older but new motherboard and build
your own system. It's not that hard to do.

FromTheRafters · Sep 18, 2008

> By the way, I have a Win3.1 program that will not run on Win98.
> Pisses me off because I really loved that program. One of these days
> I have to take an old pc and put Win3.1 on it. I really hate to use
> that OS, but there seems to be no choice.

I had an issue with solitaire and freecell when I made the
move to Win9x. Turns out they both use the library file
"cards.dll" - but version soup problems arise.

I put freecell in its own folder and included the dll it uses
and it worked fine after that. Maybe you have a similar
issue with your program?

I also liked some of what "pbrush" could do that "mspaint"
wouldn't so had both on my machine - this time I found that
98 used a stub or alias so that invoking "pbrush" caused an
instance of "mspaint" to load - a directory of its own and a
shortcut with a fully qualified path helped.

The "pbrush" name works for mspaint in Vista too.

remo · Sep 18, 2008

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

sometimes, daffy, going forward in technology, is actually a huge step backward in things that
really matter.

try outlining your 'need' for a computer what is it that you want it to do? do you want it to
entertain you? do you want it to make you money? do you want it to assist in getting to your
maker? do you want it to 'simplify' your life? (if simplifying your life is your choice of the
above, then you have a major problem.)

anyhow duck-man,, think about it befoooooore you go rushing out to buy products that you
believe will assist you in becoming a man of the future,, because, in actual fact, the only ones
you assist, are the moguls of big-business who have their fingers in the pie of computers and
computer parts.......... = $$$$$$R$$'s

if you can answer these, then you would have answered the question of 'knowing where you are...
capiche/?" (heres a clue,, 'you are where your heart believes you are')
as for defining 'heart', now theres a good place for you to go with your win98 computer,, you can
surf the net, download info, go to n/g's where ppl ask the same questions,,,,, and
through that process, you will finally arrive at 'purpose & reason',,

perhaps even meb will endorse my assessment.... especially as all things that have been foretold,
are now being experienced. and meb loves a good mystery or chase,, (is okay meb,
me too.)

DaffyD® · Sep 18, 2008

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:OYyW5arFJHA.3996@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> 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.
>
This one cost me $100 and it's past the time I could take it back to Best
Buy.

> > 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.
>
>

John John (MVP) · Sep 18, 2008

letterman@invalid.com wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:10:38 -0600, "Bill in Co."
> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>DaffyD® wrote:
>>
>>>"John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:uUesBk3FJHA.1272@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>>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
>>>
>>>Sigh, I agree with you, John. If it wasn't for the incompalibility
>>>between
>>>98SE and most newer hardware (like my new external drive--which I'll be
>>>talking about in my next post) and programs, I would gladly have stayed
>>>with
>>>it.
>>
>>Which programs are you talking about? Actually, I think there are also
>>some programs that will run on Win98SE, that won't run on W2K, right?
>>(Like in the multimedia area). (But I imagine W2K is considerably more
>>robust, like XP, so I don't know if I'd switch, either).
>
>
> I dont know of any programs that are for Win95/98 that wont work in
> Win2k. But there might be some.

Any program that requires direct access to the hardware will not work on
any of the NT versions, NT absolutely does not allow this at all, that
is one of the things that makes NT more robust than W9x. Some of the
DOS applications that like to fiddle directly with the hardware settings
will not work on Windows 2000.

John

DaffyD® · Sep 18, 2008

"John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:uUesBk3FJHA.1272@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> 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

Sigh, I agree with you, John. If it wasn't for the incompalibility between
98SE and most newer hardware (like my new external drive--which I'll be
talking about in my next post) and programs, I would gladly have stayed with
it. But I know that when I buy a new computer it will either be loaded with
Vista or the next MS OS.

DaffyD® · Sep 18, 2008

Roger I was with you until the sentence: "What would seem
intellectually indefensible is reflexive whining without knowing what the
options are." ?

I've created shortcuts for folders that I wanted to find quickly-and I've
created my own folders.
It's just the basic architecture of NT and newer that seems overly and
unduly complex.

"Roger Fink" <fink@manana.org> wrote in message
news:uQsgd%23rFJHA.5440@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> 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.
>
>

DaffyD® · Sep 18, 2008

Roger,

Do you use Google software on your computer? How well does it work for you?
You wrote about using a Google search. I've thought about downloading the
Toolbar but at this point it just seems to be more stuff to deal with.

"Roger Fink" <fink@manana.org> wrote in message
news:uQsgd%23rFJHA.5440@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> 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.
>
>

DaffyD® · Sep 18, 2008

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:O2Ww1$EGJHA.3576@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> "DaffyD®" <daffyd@woohoo.com> wrote in message
> news:uKANBUrFJHA.5104@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> > 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.
>
>
>
> I'm sure that it will not take you all that long to get used to Win2k.
>
> The fact that your scanner is parallel port should not make it unusable...
> there should be an adjustment for the quality that you use to scan...
> it may simply be set too low by default.
>
> Since your scanner is at least detected and installed,
> it may be a function of the software you are using to import images.
>
> You may want to try the free image viewer Irfanview
> and use the import function and specify your scanner...
> then see if you can adjust the image quality.
>
> 100 - 150 dpi should give you good results
>
> Philo, the problem is between the scanner and the printer. In fact, when
I open up the scanner software I get a message "This program might not run
as expected on this version of Windows."
I need a parallel port Windows 2000 driver and Visioneer doesn't offer one,
just for the USB model. I had the opposite problem with the external hard
drive I bought. That particular model didn't have a compatible 98SE driver,
but an older model did.

Dan · Sep 18, 2008

No, problem, Daffy. You can buy a Belkin USB Parallel Printer Adapter --
From the back "The Belkin Parallel Printer Adapter makes it easy to connect
your parallel printer through USB." ---- System Requirements PC with a free
USB port and Windows 98, 98 Second Edition, 2000, Me, and XP so you should be
all set if you buy this product --- runs about $20 so not too expensive.
(Also, if you know your stuff, Windows 98 Second Edition can sometimes run
Windows 2000 drivers and/or Windows Me drivers if you can manipulate the
operating system properly)

"DaffyDÂ®" wrote:

>
> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:O2Ww1$EGJHA.3576@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >
> > "DaffyDÂ®" <daffyd@woohoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:uKANBUrFJHA.5104@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm sure that it will not take you all that long to get used to Win2k.
> >
> > The fact that your scanner is parallel port should not make it unusable...
> > there should be an adjustment for the quality that you use to scan...
> > it may simply be set too low by default.
> >
> > Since your scanner is at least detected and installed,
> > it may be a function of the software you are using to import images.
> >
> > You may want to try the free image viewer Irfanview
> > and use the import function and specify your scanner...
> > then see if you can adjust the image quality.
> >
> > 100 - 150 dpi should give you good results
> >
> > Philo, the problem is between the scanner and the printer. In fact, when
> I open up the scanner software I get a message "This program might not run
> as expected on this version of Windows."
> I need a parallel port Windows 2000 driver and Visioneer doesn't offer one,
> just for the USB model. I had the opposite problem with the external hard
> drive I bought. That particular model didn't have a compatible 98SE driver,
> but an older model did.
>
>
>

Bill in Co. · Sep 18, 2008

John John (MVP) wrote:
> letterman@invalid.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:10:38 -0600, "Bill in Co."
>> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> DaffyD® wrote:
>>>
>>>> "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>>> news:uUesBk3FJHA.1272@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> Sigh, I agree with you, John. If it wasn't for the incompalibility
>>>> between
>>>> 98SE and most newer hardware (like my new external drive--which I'll be
>>>> talking about in my next post) and programs, I would gladly have stayed
>>>> with
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> Which programs are you talking about? Actually, I think there are also
>>> some programs that will run on Win98SE, that won't run on W2K, right?
>>> (Like in the multimedia area). (But I imagine W2K is considerably more
>>> robust, like XP, so I don't know if I'd switch, either).
>>
>>
>> I dont know of any programs that are for Win95/98 that wont work in
>> Win2k. But there might be some.
>
> Any program that requires direct access to the hardware will not work on
> any of the NT versions, NT absolutely does not allow this at all, that
> is one of the things that makes NT more robust than W9x. Some of the
> DOS applications that like to fiddle directly with the hardware settings
> will not work on Windows 2000.
>
> John

I was also under the impression that Win98 inherently had more multimedia
capability built in (this due to its intended audience). So that some
"multimedia type" programs that were written to work in Win9x, would not
work (or could even be installed) on Win2K - but not JUST due to the direct
hardware access thing. (but instead due to some extra multimedia support
DLLs, or whatever, built into Win98.

I hate Windows 2000, miss W98 SE.

philo

PCR

PCR

Bill in Co.

Bill in Co.

PCR

PCR

Bill in Co.

Bill in Co.

letterman@invalid.com

FromTheRafters

remo

DaffyD®

John John (MVP)

DaffyD®

DaffyD®

DaffyD®

DaffyD®

Dan

Bill in Co.

Similar threads