I hate Windows 2000, miss W98 SE.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <f4u3d41c7csld8c3igivs4pljlt2ntjjrg@4ax.com>,
letterman@invalid.com writes
[]
>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

Do you mean you actually put 2k on just to get a wifi card working, or
was it (2k) there already? If the former, I'd have said give up and get
a wifi card that _does_ work with '98 they're very cheap, or were last
time I looked.
[]
>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.

Would you use an NTFS partition for the 2k (in which case '98 won't be
able to see it - which may or may not be a good thing), or run it under
FAT (assuming it can)?
>
>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.
>
What is the software/
>>
>>> 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.

Actually, the new breed of "netbooks" are giving XP a new lease of life
when they came out, and Linux finally started to go mainstream, M$
changed their plans for the ditching of XP - i. e. you can still buy a
new computer with XP on it, provided it's a limited performance one.
(That's limited compared to today's other laptops and desktops these
netbooks are, by the standards of what most '9x users are used to, no
slouches - usually 1G RAM, 1.6G processor, 80G HD.) XP is now in the
sort of position '9x were a few years ago: M$ wants to end it, but lots
of users want to keep on using it. The netbooks have made the situation
not identical, but it is similar.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

Archduke Ferdinand found alive - First World War a mistake!

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <u1t$roUGJHA.4568@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, DaffyD®
<daffyd@woohoo.com> writes
>
>"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:O2Ww1$EGJHA.3576@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
[]
>> 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.
>
>
Do you mean that the problems are because the scanner is connected
between the PC and the printer, in the "parallel port" lead?

Can you print OK, images that are from sources other than the scanner?

Can you scan images such that they look OK on screen (e. g. by using
IrfanView as Philo suggests, or some other software) - I suppose we need
to know if the scanner interface (software) is TWAIN-type (assuming
Windows 2000 uses TWAIN, I don't know).

If either of these is no (either you can't print _any_ image OK, or you
can't scan OK _to screen_), do either of them change to yes if you have
only the scanner or only the printer connected? If so, then either
Philo's suggestion of a USB-to-parallel port, or (my preference) a
second parallel port (they're pretty cheap - probably cheaper than the
USB-to-parallel adapter), might solve the problem - those
scanner-in-series-with-the-printer arrangements, while they could be got
working trouble-free, often _are_ the cause of problems. (And with two
parallel ports, [a] it might be faster and you should be able to
print even when the scanner isn't powered, which wasn't always the case
otherwise.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

Archduke Ferdinand found alive - First World War a mistake!

 

[Dan]

I think Daffy may have left this thread, J.P. Anyway, in my multi-boot
system I use 98 Second Edition on one hard drive in Fat32 File System and on
another physical hard drive I use XP Professional in NTFS. When, I was
connected to the APS Network back in September 2007 via VPN, XP Professional
Service Pack 2 fully updated did not have a chance against the hackers
compared to 98 Second Edition which just did a Denial of Service error which
ended VPN connection to the elementary school. The funny thing is that Steve
Riley of Microsoft likes to say how much better XP Professional is then 98
Second Edition and it is true to a point but the larger surface area because
of more services makes it easier to hack as well as the fact of having remote
access which is another attack vector. In addition, because Windows 98
Second Edition has Disk Operating System as an underlying maintenance
operating system it is very safe internally according correctly to Chris
Quirke, Most Valuable Professional who lives in Africa. Anyway, Windows XP
and Vista follow the NT business source code and 98 Second Edition was really
the last good operating system for 9x because Windows ME broke easy access to
MS-DOS as well as some of the compatibility that 98 Second Edition had with
games. Windows ME was like a test operating system for Windows Vista because
it had System Restore which XP uses and Windows 2000 was really business
geared but many businesses did apparently use and like Windows 98 Second
Edition back in the day. I find the future will be most exciting for Windows
and computing and electronics in general and hopefully we will all learn from
the lessons of the past to help us with the future. Finally, Windows 7 will
be NT based but hopefully the new source code Microsoft is working on will be
awesome and maybe it can really bring business, home and government under one
true awesome source code but that may only end up being a pipe dream. I will
wait and see if Microsoft can really deliver when its brand new operating
system with the source code it is currently working on makes it to the
shelves and it certainly is an exciting time for all of us involved with
computers.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:

> In message <f4u3d41c7csld8c3igivs4pljlt2ntjjrg@4ax.com>,
> letterman@invalid.com writes
> []
> >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
>
> Do you mean you actually put 2k on just to get a wifi card working, or
> was it (2k) there already? If the former, I'd have said give up and get
> a wifi card that _does_ work with '98 they're very cheap, or were last
> time I looked.
> []
> >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.
>
> Would you use an NTFS partition for the 2k (in which case '98 won't be
> able to see it - which may or may not be a good thing), or run it under
> FAT (assuming it can)?
> >
> >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.
> >
> What is the software/
> >>
> >>> 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.
>
> Actually, the new breed of "netbooks" are giving XP a new lease of life
> when they came out, and Linux finally started to go mainstream, M$
> changed their plans for the ditching of XP - i. e. you can still buy a
> new computer with XP on it, provided it's a limited performance one.
> (That's limited compared to today's other laptops and desktops these
> netbooks are, by the standards of what most '9x users are used to, no
> slouches - usually 1G RAM, 1.6G processor, 80G HD.) XP is now in the
> sort of position '9x were a few years ago: M$ wants to end it, but lots
> of users want to keep on using it. The netbooks have made the situation
> not identical, but it is similar.
> --
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
> ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **
>
> Archduke Ferdinand found alive - First World War a mistake!
>

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <02DDC1CB-3511-4EB5-837A-A9C6EDC446C5@microsoft.com>, Dan
<Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> writes
[]
>ended VPN connection to the elementary school. The funny thing is that Steve
>Riley of Microsoft likes to say how much better XP Professional is then 98
>Second Edition and it is true to a point but the larger surface area because
>of more services makes it easier to hack as well as the fact of having remote
>access which is another attack vector. In addition, because Windows 98

That is my feeling too (XP is in theory safer but a much bigger target).
Also, since XP is much commoner, it's the target of choice in most
cases.

>Second Edition has Disk Operating System as an underlying maintenance
>operating system it is very safe internally according correctly to Chris

Do you mean safe from attack, or safe from (unintentional owner)
corruption of important files?
[]
>Edition back in the day. I find the future will be most exciting for Windows
>and computing and electronics in general and hopefully we will all learn from
>the lessons of the past to help us with the future. Finally, Windows 7 will
>be NT based but hopefully the new source code Microsoft is working on will be
>awesome and maybe it can really bring business, home and government under one
>true awesome source code but that may only end up being a pipe dream. I will
>wait and see if Microsoft can really deliver when its brand new operating
>system with the source code it is currently working on makes it to the
>shelves and it certainly is an exciting time for all of us involved with
>computers.

Yes.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

If you are afraid of being lonely, don't try to be right. - Jules Renard,
writer (1864-1910)

 

[DaffyD®]

The scanned image looks fine on the monitor. It was distorted on the
printer. I still think the problem was that the scanner driver was designed
for Windows 98, not Windows 2000. A message box would pop up when starting
the scanner software that the program may not run as expected with this
version of Windows. My solution was to buy a USB scanner off Ebay that works
with 2000 and my hope is that the new scanner driver will still interface
with the printer driver. The rest of my answer is below.


"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
newsYZDk+k3Dk1IFwW5@soft255.demon.co.uk...
> In message <u1t$roUGJHA.4568@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, DaffyD®
> <daffyd@woohoo.com> writes
> >
> >"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
> >news:O2Ww1$EGJHA.3576@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> []
> >> 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.
> >
> >
> Do you mean that the problems are because the scanner is connected
> between the PC and the printer, in the "parallel port" lead?

The scanned image looks fine on the monitor. It was distorted on the
printer. I still think the problem was that the scanner driver was designed
for Windows 98, not Windows 2000. A message box would pop up when starting
the scanner software that the program may not run as expected with this
version of Windows.
>
> Can you print OK, images that are from sources other than the scanner?

Yes.
>
> Can you scan images such that they look OK on screen (e. g. by using
> IrfanView as Philo suggests, or some other software) - I suppose we need
> to know if the scanner interface (software) is TWAIN-type (assuming
> Windows 2000 uses TWAIN, I don't know).

Yes, it is a TWAIN interface. Windows 2000 does use it.
>
> If either of these is no (either you can't print _any_ image OK, or you
> can't scan OK _to screen_), do either of them change to yes if you have
> only the scanner or only the printer connected? If so, then either
> Philo's suggestion of a USB-to-parallel port, or (my preference) a
> second parallel port (they're pretty cheap - probably cheaper than the
> USB-to-parallel adapter), might solve the problem - those
> scanner-in-series-with-the-printer arrangements, while they could be got
> working trouble-free, often _are_ the cause of problems. (And with two
> parallel ports, [a] it might be faster and you should be able to
> print even when the scanner isn't powered, which wasn't always the case
> otherwise.)

Using an adapter wouldn't have solved the scanner 98 driver/Windows 2000
incompatiblity. My solution was to buy a USB scanner off Ebay that works
with 2000 and my hope is that the new scanner driver will work with the
printer driver. There was never a problem with my old 98 machine using the
parallel port between the scanner and the printer so that's why, to me, the
problem is with the OS. In fact, Visioneer has made 2000-compatible drivers
for just about all of their scanners except for the parallel port scanner I
own.

> --
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985
MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
> ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on
PCs. **
>
> Archduke Ferdinand found alive - First World War a mistake!

 

[Dan]

It is safe from remote attacking. If someone has physical access to the
Windows 98 Second Edition you are sunk unless you have external software
programs to keep it safe. A user can very easily mess up Windows 98 Second
Edition and it does not have all the user restrictions so it is not practical
in a business setting except as part of the safety and security network
monitoring the incoming flow of information to the businesses and
governments. In other words, it works well as a Gateway to the Network. In
addition, I would trust only a few individuals with the Windows 98 Second
Edition operating system as part of a business and as part of a defense
network for a government. If the businesses and governments can use
customized closed source Windows 98 Second Edition operating systems as well
as open source operating systems like Ubuntu Linux as part of their defense
networks it would go a long way towards preventing DNS Pollution of servers
because of the limitations of 98 Second Edition and because it has been so
hardened by Microsoft who has patched the operating system from 1998-2006.
Also, as long as the users use tools such as SpywareBlaster, Mozilla Firefox
with its 256 bit AES encryption and are careful then it can solve a lot of
problems that we currently have with technology. Furthermore, one must
remember the external components of Windows 98 Second Edition are now mostly
useless if you are connected to the Internet because they present the
appropriate and easily attackable vectors that a hacker can access to cause
the denial of service and/or freeze of the network(s). Programs such as
Internet Explorer are replaced by Mozilla Firefox, Windows Media Player by
the proper program, Outlook Express by another good newsgroup, and so forth.
Finally, realize that Windows 98 Second Edition can sometimes use Windows ME
drivers fine as well as Windows 2000 Professional drivers and do not install
Windows Scripting Host because it automates scripts and can present the
appropriate attack vector for hackers. I hope these tips help you John as
well as others.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:

> In message <02DDC1CB-3511-4EB5-837A-A9C6EDC446C5@microsoft.com>, Dan
> <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> writes
> []
> >ended VPN connection to the elementary school. The funny thing is that Steve
> >Riley of Microsoft likes to say how much better XP Professional is then 98
> >Second Edition and it is true to a point but the larger surface area because
> >of more services makes it easier to hack as well as the fact of having remote
> >access which is another attack vector. In addition, because Windows 98
>
> That is my feeling too (XP is in theory safer but a much bigger target).
> Also, since XP is much commoner, it's the target of choice in most
> cases.
>
> >Second Edition has Disk Operating System as an underlying maintenance
> >operating system it is very safe internally according correctly to Chris
>
> Do you mean safe from attack, or safe from (unintentional owner)
> corruption of important files?
> []
> >Edition back in the day. I find the future will be most exciting for Windows
> >and computing and electronics in general and hopefully we will all learn from
> >the lessons of the past to help us with the future. Finally, Windows 7 will
> >be NT based but hopefully the new source code Microsoft is working on will be
> >awesome and maybe it can really bring business, home and government under one
> >true awesome source code but that may only end up being a pipe dream. I will
> >wait and see if Microsoft can really deliver when its brand new operating
> >system with the source code it is currently working on makes it to the
> >shelves and it certainly is an exciting time for all of us involved with
> >computers.
>
> Yes.
> []
> --
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
> ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **
>
> If you are afraid of being lonely, don't try to be right. - Jules Renard,
> writer (1864-1910)
>

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <OTt7hqqHJHA.3884@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, DaffyD®
<daffyd@woohoo.com> writes
>
>The scanned image looks fine on the monitor. It was distorted on the
>printer. I still think the problem was that the scanner driver was designed
>for Windows 98, not Windows 2000. A message box would pop up when starting
[]
>> Can you print OK, images that are from sources other than the scanner?
>
>Yes.
[]
>Using an adapter wouldn't have solved the scanner 98 driver/Windows 2000
[]
So. You can use the scanner OK on its own (images from the scanner look
OK on screen - right?), and you can use the printer OK on its own
(images from some other source print OK) it's only when you use the two
at once that you get problems - presumably when printing at the same
time as scanning?

If you save the scanned image to disc, then do something else (maybe
including a restart), then print them back out - still OK, or still
distorted? If still distorted, try saving them in a different format
(gif/jpg/png/bmp/whatever), reloading them, and _then_ printing. If this
_still_ gives distorted results, then very puzzling!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

"Bollocks," said Pooh, being more forthright than usual.