Is It Time To Stop Using Windows XP?

[98 Guy]

Win98SE has been left behind by several web formats
(especially those with flash video) and updated PDF
formats.

I have yet to come across a pdf file that Acrobat Reader 6 can't open.

And I have yet to find a pdf exploit that FUNCTIONS PROPERLY on a win-98
system when opened with Acrobat Reader 6.

Besides - there is always Foxit and other third-party readers.

Opera 10.61 is a special release - designed specifically to be
compatible with windows 98.

There is also the KernelEx project, which provides API-level
compatibility for win-98 for a number of "NT-only" applications, such as
Firefox 3.x and Adobe Flash 10.x.

By installing KernelEx, there is no real problem for a win-98 system to
watch videos on Hulu, youtube, and for Google Streetview to function
perfectly.

WinXP can be configured to be almost as fast, and can be
updated in these respects.

Windows XP was a horribly vulnerable operating system for the first 5
years of it's life. That fact is almost universally ignored by those
that favor NT over win-9x.

It was XP, that was foisted on consumers in the fall of 2001, that is to
blame for the moderm botnet and spam problem that the world has today.
The malware industry is now hard to kill because it got such a boost and
entrenched by the opportunities that XP-SP0/SP1 gave during the years
2002 - 2006.

It was more important that Micro$haft replace windows 98/me with a
registerable operating system in the form of XP with the WGA mechanism
than insure that it wasn't a vulnerable and exploitable OS in the hands
of consumers.

Windows 98 was never vulnerable to the 6 or 7 different network worms
that have emerged over the past 10 years. It was a joke that if you
took a fresh install of windows 2k or XP and connect to the internet to
perform your first WindowsUpdate session that your system would likely
become infected before the update was finished. This was known as
"Windows Survival Time" and was measured in minutes (usually 10 to 20
minutes).

The vast majority of IE6 exploits do not function properly on win-98
systems. But if you wanted your IE6 to be as up-to-date as possible on
a win-98 system, then no problem. Simply download and install the
IE6-SP1 rollups that Macro$haft released for win-2K (yes, they function
just fine on a win-98 system).

Windows 98 is compatible with hard drives up to and usually exceeding 1
tb in size (I've installed win-98 on a 500 gb SATA hard drive attached
to an Asrock motherboard) and win-98 has a "hard" limit of a little over
1gb of usable memory, and there are third-party patches that allow it to
use a full 4 gb of installed ram.

Those that are interested in knowing just what win-98 is capable of
today are advised to read the win-9x/me forums on msfn.org.

http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/8-windows-959898seme/

http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/91-windows-9x-member-projects/?s=b4beb549658d0c8a605064080d84d140

[Hot-Text]

Acrobat Reader PUG-In are for Web Browser like Internet Explorer 8
For Windows 98 go up to Internet Explorer 6 is why Acrobat Reader PUG-In DO
NOT FUNCTIONS PROPERLY!
And on XP sp6, if you not running Internet Explorer 8, is Why Acrobat
Reader PUG-In DO NOT FUNCTIONS PROPERLY ON IT TOO!

So Go Opera 10.61 Internet Brower and add Acrobat Reader PUG-In to it and
all the FUNCTIONS will work PROPERLY on win98 & XP!

Post by 98 Guy

Win98SE has been left behind by several web formats
(especially those with flash video) and updated PDF
formats.

I have yet to come across a pdf file that Acrobat Reader 6 can't open.
And I have yet to find a pdf exploit that FUNCTIONS PROPERLY on a win-98
system when opened with Acrobat Reader 6.
Besides - there is always Foxit and other third-party readers.
Opera 10.61 is a special release - designed specifically to be
compatible with windows 98.
There is also the KernelEx project, which provides API-level
compatibility for win-98 for a number of "NT-only" applications, such as
Firefox 3.x and Adobe Flash 10.x.
By installing KernelEx, there is no real problem for a win-98 system to
watch videos on Hulu, youtube, and for Google Streetview to function
perfectly.

WinXP can be configured to be almost as fast, and can be
updated in these respects.

Windows XP was a horribly vulnerable operating system for the first 5
years of it's life. That fact is almost universally ignored by those
that favor NT over win-9x.
It was XP, that was foisted on consumers in the fall of 2001, that is to
blame for the moderm botnet and spam problem that the world has today.
The malware industry is now hard to kill because it got such a boost and
entrenched by the opportunities that XP-SP0/SP1 gave during the years
2002 - 2006.
It was more important that Micro$haft replace windows 98/me with a
registerable operating system in the form of XP with the WGA mechanism
than insure that it wasn't a vulnerable and exploitable OS in the hands
of consumers.
Windows 98 was never vulnerable to the 6 or 7 different network worms
that have emerged over the past 10 years. It was a joke that if you
took a fresh install of windows 2k or XP and connect to the internet to
perform your first WindowsUpdate session that your system would likely
become infected before the update was finished. This was known as
"Windows Survival Time" and was measured in minutes (usually 10 to 20
minutes).
The vast majority of IE6 exploits do not function properly on win-98
systems. But if you wanted your IE6 to be as up-to-date as possible on
a win-98 system, then no problem. Simply download and install the
IE6-SP1 rollups that Macro$haft released for win-2K (yes, they function
just fine on a win-98 system).
Windows 98 is compatible with hard drives up to and usually exceeding 1
tb in size (I've installed win-98 on a 500 gb SATA hard drive attached
to an Asrock motherboard) and win-98 has a "hard" limit of a little over
1gb of usable memory, and there are third-party patches that allow it to
use a full 4 gb of installed ram.
Those that are interested in knowing just what win-98 is capable of
today are advised to read the win-9x/me forums on msfn.org.
http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/8-windows-959898seme/
http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/91-windows-9x-member-projects/?s=b4beb549658d0c8a605064080d84d140

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

[Shadow]

Win98SE has been left behind by several web formats
(especially those with flash video) and updated PDF
formats.

I used win98SE on my wife's PC until a couple of months ago.
Then I needed to install a new DVD drive and started getting crashes.
So I "upgraded".
Win98SE was just as efficient and faster than XP. But I had to
switch because of the trouble it took to find adequate drivers. Ralink
does not even link drivers for win98 anymore, probably true for other
manufacturers.
[]'s

[Hot-Text]

mm and you need was DeepBurner and the DVD would been up and running with no
crashes on win98!

http://www.deepburner.com/

So we can not help you now ..

Post by Shadow

Win98SE has been left behind by several web formats
(especially those with flash video) and updated PDF
formats.

I used win98SE on my wife's PC until a couple of months ago.
Then I needed to install a new DVD drive and started getting crashes.
So I "upgraded".
Win98SE was just as efficient and faster than XP. But I had to
switch because of the trouble it took to find adequate drivers. Ralink
does not even link drivers for win98 anymore, probably true for other
manufacturers.
[]'s

But whit XP and up all Dogs out to gave you a virus!


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

[Mitchell Kolcz]

Type your message here.

[Mitchell Kolcz]

Type your message here.

[Mitchell Kolcz]

Type your message here.

[98 Guy]

Post by Mitchell Kolcz
Type your message here.
----------------------------------------------------------------
[Image]

hillarious

[j***@myplace.com]

Post by Shadow
I used win98SE on my wife's PC until a couple of months ago.
Then I needed to install a new DVD drive and started getting crashes.
So I "upgraded".
Win98SE was just as efficient and faster than XP. But I had to
switch because of the trouble it took to find adequate drivers. Ralink
does not even link drivers for win98 anymore, probably true for other
manufacturers.
[]'s

If I am ever forced to switch to XP, I will send my computer to the
town dump and give up computing. I hated XP when it first came out,
and I still hate it. I have a much newer and faster computer which I
bought with XP on it. It was a brand new demo computer which sold
cheap, shortly before Vista hit the market. I tried to force myself
to use it and like it. I really did try hard. It's now in the closet
collecting dust. Instead of using that 3 or 4 year old computer with
5 times the power of this one, I still use my trusty 10 year old
computer with Win98se. Everything about XP is annoying at the least,
if not downright repulsive to me.

When the weather gets cold, I might see if I can install Win98 on it.
I'll just unplug the XP hard drive and use another drive to see what
happens. The only reason I'll save the drive containing XP, is for
resale value, because I will never use XP, or Vista, and probably not
Windows7 which looks a lot like XP to me.

On top of that, the XP installation was formatted with NTFS, and if I
can not access my data from dos, its not going to be saved on my
computer. That NTFS format is a guarantee to losing all important
data. But I guess all factory installations of XP come with that
crappy format. Because of that format alone, I never used the
computer. I changed the look of the desktop, and that's all I ever
did with it. I never went online or used it for anything else. I
could not even figure out how to get it to connect to my internet
service, which is very easy to do in Win98.

XP is horrid, and combined with NTFS, makes a computer worthless for
anything where a person values their data, which I do.

I should mention that on my Win98 computer, I can dual boot to Windows
2000 for the rare occasion I cant get some software to work in 98.
Win2K is tolerable, but I bet I load it 10X a year at most. At least
it's on the same Fat32 drive I use for 98, so I can access all my
date.

[98 Guy]

Post by j***@myplace.com
On top of that, the XP installation was formatted with NTFS,
and if I can not access my data from dos, its not going to be
saved on my computer. That NTFS format is a guarantee to
losing all important data.

You can install XP and Win-2k on a FAT-32 formatted drive. If you
install DOS first (like DOS 7.1) then you can have a dual-boot DOS/XP
system. I've build a few systems by doing that.

I've done it for basically the same reasons - I can access the all files
from DOS, and the system runs faster because of the lack of NTFS
overhead. And yes, your data is actually safer and more recoverable
under FAT32 vs NTFS.

You can set XP up to give it the "classic" look so it has the look and
feel of win-98, but the worst thing I hate about XP is the file-find
window. The file-find gets worse under Vista and Seven.

And the fact that XP is way more vulnerable to exploitation compared to
98.

[Anton]

Post by 98 Guy

Post by j***@myplace.com
On top of that, the XP installation was formatted with NTFS,
and if I can not access my data from dos, its not going to be
saved on my computer. That NTFS format is a guarantee to
losing all important data.

You can install XP and Win-2k on a FAT-32 formatted drive. If you
install DOS first (like DOS 7.1) then you can have a dual-boot DOS/XP
system. I've build a few systems by doing that.
I've done it for basically the same reasons - I can access the all files
from DOS, and the system runs faster because of the lack of NTFS
I've done it for basically the same reasons - I
can access the all files from DOS, and the system
runs faster because of the lack of NTFS overhead.
And yes, your data is actually safer and more
recoverable under FAT32 vs NTFS.

This is interesting. Could you please provide refer-
ences to prove these facts about FAT32 vs NTFS?

[Anton]

Sorry for quoting the post by ***@myplace.com.

[MyNews]

NTFS see Fat
But Fat see no NTFS

So if you running win 98 and you need a file off win 2000 that is in FTFS
you can not have it!
But on the older hand FTFS see all know all!

so make all Fat if you need to Share files!

[Tim Slattery]

Post by MyNews
NTFS see Fat
But Fat see no NTFS

Not exactly. Neither file system sees anything but its own files.
Operating systems that can use NTFS can also use FAT. Not all
operating systems that can use FAT can use NTFS.

In particular the NT series of systems - NT, Win2K, XP, Vista, Win7 -
can use both file systems. the Win9x systems can use FAT but not NTFS.

[MyNews]

NO NO No Tim Slattery
Network is in Fat32 that NTFS have to be able to read it or your Network
Printer Device will not work
nor the Internet for Ftp, Ttp and Ntp + More are writing in the fat32
system
For NTFS see al l<

[Tim Slattery]

Post by MyNews
NO NO No Tim Slattery
Network is in Fat32 that NTFS have to be able to read it or your Network
Printer Device will not work

Wrong. Your computer makes a request via the network to another
computer for a file. That computer reads the file and sends it to your
computer. It makes no difference to your computer what file system the
remote machine is using. All your computer sees is the file arriving
via the network.

A network has no concept of "FAT" or "NTFS" or "UFX" (Unix File
System) or anything else. In your web surfing everyday you probably
get files from computers using several different file systems, your
machine neither knows nor cares.

[MyNews]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table
Take your time and read!

[Tim Slattery]

Post by MyNews
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table
Take your time and read!

what am I supposed to find? Everything I've said is true, this article
does not contradict any of it.

[MyNews]

Just keep reading it all will come together!

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

Post by Tim Slattery

Post by MyNews
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table
Take your time and read!

what am I supposed to find? Everything I've said is true, this article
does not contradict any of it.
--
Tim Slattery
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt

[MyNews]

Is TCP/IP Internet Layer a File_system?
Can you put a Fat File_system on a NTFS File_system?
And if not Why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_layer
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms817899.aspx

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc787653(WS.10).aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc785369(v=WS.10).aspx

[dadiOH]

Post by MyNews
Can you put a Fat File_system on a NTFS File_system?

What you *CAN* do is put a *file* from* a FAT file system computer onto a
computer with a NFS file system.

[dadiOH]

Post by dadiOH

Post by MyNews
Can you put a Fat File_system on a NTFS File_system?

What you *CAN* do is put a *file* from* a FAT file system computer
onto a computer with a NTFS file system.

Or vice versa via networking.

[Tim Slattery]

Post by MyNews
Just keep reading it all will come together!

No point arguing with somebody who doesn't know what he's talking
about. I quit.

[MyNews]

Look good to http://mynews.ath.cx it's all in a 32 File Allocation Table
from Start to End!

I not arguing but giving you Info Links to back me up!

Post by Tim Slattery

Post by MyNews
Just keep reading it all will come together!

No point arguing with somebody who doesn't know what he's talking
about. I quit.
--
Tim Slattery
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt

[FromTheRafters]

Post by MyNews
Look good to http://mynews.ath.cx it's all in a 32 File Allocation
Table from Start to End!
I not arguing but giving you Info Links to back me up!

You're quite wide of the mark. I think *you* should look up "abstraction
layer" - maybe you will see why FAT and/or NTFS and is irrelevant to the
network.

[MyNews]

In Programming
Allocation distributed source control system!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irrelevant

In the world of Micro it is relevant!

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc304370.aspx

Post by FromTheRafters

Post by MyNews
Look good to http://mynews.ath.cx it's all in a 32 File Allocation
Table from Start to End!
I not arguing but giving you Info Links to back me up!

You're quite wide of the mark. I think *you* should look up "abstraction
layer" - maybe you will see why FAT and/or NTFS and is irrelevant to the
network.

[MyNews]

NTFS see Fat
But Fat see no NTFS

So if you running win 98 and you need a file off win 2000 that is in NTFS
you can not have it!
But on the older hand NTFS see all know all!

so make all Fat if you need to Share files!

Now we come back to the Beginning!
Allocation is relevant in a File system remember Microsoft Stop making
updates for Win 98 is Why 98 can not see NTFS!
But can get a Third Party Software the will make a abstraction layer for
DOS and Fat to be able to read NTFS!
Hmm

[FromTheRafters]

Post by MyNews
NO NO No Tim Slattery
Network is in Fat32 that NTFS have to be able to read it or your Network
Printer Device will not work
nor the Internet for Ftp, Ttp and Ntp + More are writing in the fat32
system
For NTFS see al l<

Networks uses NFS (Network File System) or some other protocol not NTFS
(New Technology File System).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_File_System_(protocol)

[thanatoid]

***@myplace.com wrote in news:***@4ax.com:

<snip>

Post by j***@myplace.com
If I am ever forced to switch to XP, I will send my
computer to the town dump and give up computing. I hated
XP when it first came out, and I still hate it.

It /is/ ridiculous. You are lucky not to have tried using the
Pro version (I will assume that since you bought a demo machine
from a normal store, it came with Home preloaded).

I was FORCED to install XP on another partition because I have
an analog video card and they do NOT come with drivers for
anything except XP, Vista and 7. That is the ONLY thing I use it
for.

Well, VLC for XP /is/ better than the no-longer in development
version for 98 - although the interface is FUCKED, since it was
designed for XP.

Everything XP is a FUCKING NIGHTMARE. Programs which were a
delight on 9x are a NIGHTMARE on XP (not because they are "not
compatible", but because XP is INSANE). 16-bit programs which
the DEVELOPER says will not run on XP run fine. What a fucking
scam.

/thanatoid listens to the ongoing sounds of bleating sheep
carrying XP and Vista and Win7 laptops outside his windows.../

Post by j***@myplace.com
I have a
much newer and faster computer which I bought with XP on
it. It was a brand new demo computer which sold cheap,
shortly before Vista hit the market. I tried to force
myself to use it and like it. I really did try hard. It's
now in the closet collecting dust.

It's not that difficult to put 98 on it. Basically, make a CD-R
(or 2 or 3) from the original XP hard drive "restore" section.
[I understand those sections/hidden partitions/MS mind fucks
exist somewhere, but the fact you do not just get the fucking
original disks is one of the reasons I will never buy a computer
with preloaded Windows (not to mention I am never touching what
MS is selling these days to begin with).]

Then you wipe the drive and partition it. 5-10 GB partitions are
good. You can have up to 23 and it makes life a LOT easier. I
used to have 16 on a 40 (forty) GB drive and it was GREAT.

Install 98SE.

(I /strongly/ recommend using Lite from www.litepc.com. 95 was
better than 98 except for no USB. The Maximus Decim Native USB
ver. 3.1 driver for 98 works, but installing it on 98SE lite
with its 3 main sys files from 95B is a major pain. It can be
done, though.)

Install XP to another partition. It will create a dual-boot menu
automatically.

Post by j***@myplace.com
Instead of using that 3
or 4 year old computer with 5 times the power of this one,
I still use my trusty 10 year old computer with Win98se.
Everything about XP is annoying at the least, if not
downright repulsive to me.

Amen.

Post by j***@myplace.com
When the weather gets cold, I might see if I can install
Win98 on it. I'll just unplug the XP hard drive and use
another drive to see what happens.

That is another, VERY simple way of doing it. Unless it is a
tiny toy box, you do NOT have to remove the original drive. Just
put in the second drive and make IT bootable in the BIOS. Use
the other drive for backup or whatever.

Post by j***@myplace.com
The only reason I'll
save the drive containing XP, is for resale value, because
I will never use XP, or Vista, and probably not Windows7
which looks a lot like XP to me.
On top of that, the XP installation was formatted with
NTFS, and if I can not access my data from dos, its not
going to be saved on my computer. That NTFS format is a
guarantee to losing all important data.

Amen.

Post by j***@myplace.com
But I guess all
factory installations of XP come with that crappy format.
Because of that format alone, I never used the computer. I
changed the look of the desktop, and that's all I ever did
with it. I never went online or used it for anything else.
I could not even figure out how to get it to connect to my
internet service, which is very easy to do in Win98.
XP is horrid, and combined with NTFS, makes a computer
worthless for anything where a person values their data,
which I do.

Amen.

Post by j***@myplace.com
I should mention that on my Win98 computer, I can dual boot
to Windows 2000 for the rare occasion I cant get some
software to work in 98. Win2K is tolerable, but I bet I
load it 10X a year at most. At least it's on the same
Fat32 drive I use for 98, so I can access all my date.

The same thing can be done with XP, see above. You can choose to
install XP with FAT32 instead of the NeuteredTrashForSuckers
"file system".

[Bill in Co]

Post by j***@myplace.com

Post by Shadow
I used win98SE on my wife's PC until a couple of months ago.
Then I needed to install a new DVD drive and started getting crashes.
So I "upgraded".
Win98SE was just as efficient and faster than XP. But I had to
switch because of the trouble it took to find adequate drivers. Ralink
does not even link drivers for win98 anymore, probably true for other
manufacturers.
[]'s

If I am ever forced to switch to XP, I will send my computer to the
town dump and give up computing. I hated XP when it first came out,
and I still hate it. I have a much newer and faster computer which I
bought with XP on it. It was a brand new demo computer which sold
cheap, shortly before Vista hit the market. I tried to force myself
to use it and like it. I really did try hard. It's now in the closet
collecting dust. Instead of using that 3 or 4 year old computer with
5 times the power of this one, I still use my trusty 10 year old
computer with Win98se. Everything about XP is annoying at the least,
if not downright repulsive to me.
When the weather gets cold, I might see if I can install Win98 on it.
I'll just unplug the XP hard drive and use another drive to see what
happens. The only reason I'll save the drive containing XP, is for
resale value, because I will never use XP, or Vista, and probably not
Windows7 which looks a lot like XP to me.

The successors to XP are too bloated for my taste.

Post by j***@myplace.com
On top of that, the XP installation was formatted with NTFS, and if I
can not access my data from dos,

Not really. You can, with some utilities like NTFS4DOS, and the like.

Post by j***@myplace.com
That NTFS format is a guarantee to losing all important data.

Not so. In truth, NTFS is a more robust file format with its journaling.

Post by j***@myplace.com
But I guess all factory installations of XP come with that
crappy format.

You're a few years behind the times. It's gone, and is "replaced" now with
Windows 7 (thanks, but no thanks). At least XP wasn't as bloated as all
its successors. One thing I do love about XP is the almost complete
absence of blue screens, in comparison to Win 98. It's been a LONG time
since I've gotten a blue screen on XP - in stark contrast to Win 9x

You might be able to still find Windows 3.1, if you're interested. :-)

[98 Guy]

Post by Bill in Co

Post by j***@myplace.com
That NTFS format is a guarantee to losing all important data.

Not so. In truth, NTFS is a more robust file format with its
journaling.

NTFS is not "more robust" compared to FAT32.

There are passive and active components to file systems.

The most simple of file systems have no active component. There is
really no active component to FAT32. When a file needs to be written,
it's target sector locations are computed and the data is handed off to
the hard drive.

With NTFS, there are active processes that are always "supervising" the
state or condition of open files (yes, journalling is one such process).

FAT32 could have journalling and it would still be FAT32.

When a write operation happens in NTFS, and the operation does not
complete properly, journalling rolls back the state of the file to that
of it's last known good state. Any data that may actually have been
written to the file during the so-called failed write operation is
lost. And actually, much more data can be lost depending on the
write-buffer settings.

Example: I have an NT-4 web server running IIS. It creates daily logs
of who is surfing to it and what pages they are requesting. When that
server unexpectedly loses power, I can expect that not only will I lose
the contents of the currently-opened log file, I will also lose the
contents of the previous 14 days log files. Put that into your
NTFS-is-robust pipe and smoke it.

When orphaned sectors are created in FAT32, there is no supervisory
process that corrects them in real-time. The orphaned sectors simply
remain on the drive and are dealt with when (or if) the user runs
scandisk (or scandisk is run automatically at the next system bootup).

NTFS performs the eqivalent of scandisk every time an NT-based system is
started, and it removes orphaned sectors in real time, and because these
operations are transparent, the user is left with the impression that
orphaned sectors are never created under NTFS, giving the user the
impression that NTFS is more robust. The reality is that NTFS simply
makes it seem that way be not giving the user the ability to rescue data
from orphaned sectors - it simply wipes them away.

NTFS was created and given certain abilities for these reasons:

1) microsoft needed a file system that contained permission structures
that would allow various levels of access to individual files. Home and
soho users don't really need that ability, but they're stuck with it
because NT and it's derivatives are designed first and formost for
corporate / enterprise use.

2) NT and it's derivatives (2k, XP, etc) when used as servers requires a
file system that can handle multiple users accessing the same file, and
some files can be rather large (larger than 4 gb). NTFS was designed
with this ability in mind. Again, home and soho users don't need this.

3) hard drives of the early 1990's to the early 2000's had limited
on-board write buffers and limited or no ability to perform internal
bad-sector re-mapping, so the NTFS was given journalling capability and
bad-sector remapping capability, neither of which is needed today given
the built-in error handling capability of drives made during the past 7
or 8 years.

NTFS is proprietary and is not fully, publically documented. The
command and control structures of NTFS is distributed throughout the
drive space, making it hard to piece together if it has been corrupted.
FAT32's command and control structures are concentrated in specific
sectors of the drive, making recovery easier because file data is not
mixed in with those control structures. FAT32 is fully documented, and
there exists more software (free and paid) that can recover FAT32
drives.

Post by Bill in Co
One thing I do love about XP is the almost complete
absence of blue screens, in comparison to Win 98.

Windows 98 got a bad rap early in it's life because computers at the
time had very pathetic hardware. AGP was a new video bus format, and
there were lots of buggy drivers and even AGP hardware during the years
1998 - 2002. The amount of memory that systems had back then was a joke
(32 mb, 64 mb if you were lucky). Blue screens were common.

But if you are running 98 on at least a P-3 system with 256 mb of ram
and a motherboard made after 2002 (or ideally, a P-4 system with 512 mb
ram and a motherboard made after 2003) then you will see hardly any blue
screens.

The frequency with which you see a blue-screen under win-98 is, in my
experience, a function of the age of the system hardware and the amount
of installed memory - NOT anything inherent in the code of the OS
itself.

Post by Bill in Co
It's been a LONG time since I've gotten a blue screen on XP
- in stark contrast to Win 9x

I don't know about you, but I run 98 daily at work and at home. I can't
remember the last time I got a blue screen on win-98.

If you actually do run win-98 on a frequent basis today, then tell us
something about the hardware it's installed on. What is the CPU? What
is the vintage of the motherboard and video card? How much installed
ram?

[MotoFox]

"If you actually do run win-98 on a frequent basis today, then tell us
something about the hardware it's installed on. What is the CPU? What
is the vintage of the motherboard and video card? How much installed
ram?"

CPU: 64-bit AMD Phenom X3 (I run 32-bit 98/2K and 64-bit Mandriva on it,) 3GHz
Motherboard: mid-2008 MSI
Video "card": the built-in AGP-esque chipset
RAM: 2 gigs
Hard drive: 750GB Seagate SATA drive
Floppy drives: 1.44MB 3.5" Mitsumi; 1.2MB 5.25" Mitsumi D509V3 (salvaged from an
old Frankenstine piece-of-junk computer I built in the '90s)
CD drives: 2007 TSST/Toshiba Samsung SH-S202N (halfway decent IDE multiformat
CDVD recorder)
2009 Sony Blue Ray/CDVD recorder SATA drive that I snagged for $20 at an estate
sale earlier this year

98 just screams on this machine, despite that it's a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit chip.
I can bring it up 98 on it and it'll be ready in about 10 seconds flat (compared
to the 25 it took my previous 2.4 GHz P4 with 512 MB of RAM!) I think you can
figger out what I run my Audacity on.

2KSP4 is a little sluggish, but usable. I mainly only have it so I can run
Andlinux, because Ardour runs like utter crap on my Mandriva. Andlinux runs in a
6GB NTFS partition, whilst everything else is FAT32 (save for Mandriva, which is
on a separate EXT3 partition.)

Interestingly, some programmes in 2000 (like 7-Zip and Andlinux) see the
triple-core architecture of the Phenom as being three seperate CPUs, and can
utilise it as such.

[dadiOH]

Post by MotoFox
Floppy drives: 1.44MB 3.5" Mitsumi; 1.2MB 5.25" Mitsumi D509V3
(salvaged from an old Frankenstine piece-of-junk computer I built in
the '90s)

Would you tell me please, how do you have the 5.25" floppy hooked up? That
is, what sort of power and (especially) data cables?

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by dadiOH

Post by MotoFox
Floppy drives: 1.44MB 3.5" Mitsumi; 1.2MB 5.25" Mitsumi D509V3
(salvaged from an old Frankenstine piece-of-junk computer I built in
the '90s)

Would you tell me please, how do you have the 5.25" floppy hooked up? That
is, what sort of power and (especially) data cables?

Can't speak for MotoFox, but the old 5.25" floppy drives I have all use
(a) the same sort of power plug as my (EIDE) hard drives (and a few fans
IIRR), (b) the same 34-way (I think) data cable the 3.5" drives use,
with a different sort of connector. (Some of the conductors are twisted
between drive A: and drive B:, but that's the same if you use two 3.5"
drives.)

[MotoFox]

Well, you spoke for MotoFox. That's how I have it set up.

The power connector on my 5.25 is the regular four-pin Molex plug, like you'd
probably find on your hard drive or CD drive, and the data cable is an
edge-connector type (look at the row of gold contacts in the upper right-hand
corner of the 5.25" disk drive's circuit board shown in this photograph:
Loading Image...
). It's IMPOSSIBLE to connect one of those things backwards! I wish they'd used
the same interface for 3.5" drives, too......

[dadiOH]

Post by MotoFox
Well, you spoke for MotoFox. That's how I have it set up.
The power connector on my 5.25 is the regular four-pin Molex plug,
like you'd probably find on your hard drive or CD drive, and the data
cable is an edge-connector type (look at the row of gold contacts in
the upper right-hand corner of the 5.25" disk drive's circuit board
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Floppy_Disk_Drives_8_5_3.jpg/800px-Floppy_Disk_Drives_8_5_3.jpg
). It's IMPOSSIBLE to connect one of those things backwards! I wish
they'd used the same interface for 3.5" drives, too......

Thanks to both you and JP for the info. Got a ton of old 5.25 floppies that
I can no longer read on my TRS-80s (I think the heads are out of adjustment)
and someday I'd like to reclaim what they contain.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by dadiOH

Post by MotoFox
Well, you spoke for MotoFox. That's how I have it set up.
The power connector on my 5.25 is the regular four-pin Molex plug,
like you'd probably find on your hard drive or CD drive, and the data
cable is an edge-connector type (look at the row of gold contacts in
the upper right-hand corner of the 5.25" disk drive's circuit board
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Floppy_Disk_Dr
ives_8_5_3.jpg/800px-Floppy_Disk_Drives_8_5_3.jpg
). It's IMPOSSIBLE to connect one of those things backwards! I wish
they'd used the same interface for 3.5" drives, too......

Thanks to both you and JP for the info. Got a ton of old 5.25 floppies that
I can no longer read on my TRS-80s (I think the heads are out of adjustment)
and someday I'd like to reclaim what they contain.

Ah. There may be more to it than just connecting the drive correctly. MY
memory is rather dim, but I _think_ the old trusty (or trashy) 80 was
_not_ an "IBM compatible" as they used to be called, and thus may well
use a different format (number of sectors per track, or at least
directory structure) than/to/from PCs.

[Bill in Co]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by dadiOH

Post by MotoFox
Well, you spoke for MotoFox. That's how I have it set up.
The power connector on my 5.25 is the regular four-pin Molex plug,
like you'd probably find on your hard drive or CD drive, and the data
cable is an edge-connector type (look at the row of gold contacts in
the upper right-hand corner of the 5.25" disk drive's circuit board
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Floppy_Disk_Dr
ives_8_5_3.jpg/800px-Floppy_Disk_Drives_8_5_3.jpg
). It's IMPOSSIBLE to connect one of those things backwards! I wish
they'd used the same interface for 3.5" drives, too......

Thanks to both you and JP for the info. Got a ton of old 5.25 floppies that
I can no longer read on my TRS-80s (I think the heads are out of adjustment)
and someday I'd like to reclaim what they contain.

Ah. There may be more to it than just connecting the drive correctly. MY
memory is rather dim, but I _think_ the old trusty (or trashy) 80 was
_not_ an "IBM compatible" as they used to be called, and thus may well
use a different format (number of sectors per track, or at least
directory structure) than/to/from PCs.

I seem to recall something like this too, but I'm not sure.

[MyNews]

The Old Delta system
Unable to fine Info on it But the am looking!

Here all to days system!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_file_systems

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by dadiOH

Post by MotoFox
Well, you spoke for MotoFox. That's how I have it set up.
The power connector on my 5.25 is the regular four-pin Molex plug,
like you'd probably find on your hard drive or CD drive, and the data
cable is an edge-connector type (look at the row of gold contacts in
the upper right-hand corner of the 5.25" disk drive's circuit board
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Floppy_Disk_Dr
ives_8_5_3.jpg/800px-Floppy_Disk_Drives_8_5_3.jpg
). It's IMPOSSIBLE to connect one of those things backwards! I wish
they'd used the same interface for 3.5" drives, too......

Thanks to both you and JP for the info. Got a ton of old 5.25 floppies that
I can no longer read on my TRS-80s (I think the heads are out of adjustment)
and someday I'd like to reclaim what they contain.

Ah. There may be more to it than just connecting the drive correctly. MY
memory is rather dim, but I _think_ the old trusty (or trashy) 80 was
_not_ an "IBM compatible" as they used to be called, and thus may well use
a different format (number of sectors per track, or at least directory
structure) than/to/from PCs.
--
... "Peter and out." ... "Kevin and out." (Link episode)

[MotoFox]

That, and the recording on the disks might physically be incompatible. Some
diskettes (Apple II and Commodore disks come immediately to my mind, but I think
there were probably others) use a modulation system called "group code recording
(GCR) whilst PC floppy drives tend to use modified frequency modulation (MFM). I
couldn't begin to tell you a thing about their characteristics, all I really
*do* know is disks recorded on a GCR-based drive won't work in an MFM-based
drive and vice versa. I have never worked with a Trash-80 and don't know what
sort of modulation format the disk drives use. (My gut instinct says it's GCR,
but it's also been known to be wrong from time to time.)

That's one of several reasons why if you put, say, an Apple IIE disk into your
PC and try to read it up, the PC will think it blank and tell you to format it.

[dadiOH]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by dadiOH

Post by MotoFox
Well, you spoke for MotoFox. That's how I have it set up.
The power connector on my 5.25 is the regular four-pin Molex plug,
like you'd probably find on your hard drive or CD drive, and the
data cable is an edge-connector type (look at the row of gold
contacts in the upper right-hand corner of the 5.25" disk drive's
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Floppy_Disk_Dr
ives_8_5_3.jpg/800px-Floppy_Disk_Drives_8_5_3.jpg
). It's IMPOSSIBLE to connect one of those things backwards! I wish
they'd used the same interface for 3.5" drives, too......

Thanks to both you and JP for the info. Got a ton of old 5.25
floppies that I can no longer read on my TRS-80s (I think the heads
are out of adjustment) and someday I'd like to reclaim what they
contain.

Ah. There may be more to it than just connecting the drive correctly.
MY memory is rather dim, but I _think_ the old trusty (or trashy) 80
was _not_ an "IBM compatible" as they used to be called, and thus may
well use a different format (number of sectors per track, or at least
directory structure) than/to/from PCs.

I am sure they are not IBM compatible as IBM wasn't around then (in the mini
computer field). The floppies are RX50, double sided.

I have a TRS-80 emlulator, no idea if it can read or not, will find out
someday. If not, there are programs that will.
http://users.bart.nl/users/pb0aia/vax/rx50.html

[MyNews]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80 << About

http://support.radioshack.com/setup.htm << The Old OP Sysm. from A to Z

http://support.radioshack.com/soft_tandy.htm << Drives for Hard Wares like
CD, and move!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandy_Corporation << About

Post by dadiOH

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by dadiOH

Post by MotoFox
Well, you spoke for MotoFox. That's how I have it set up.
The power connector on my 5.25 is the regular four-pin Molex plug,
like you'd probably find on your hard drive or CD drive, and the
data cable is an edge-connector type (look at the row of gold
contacts in the upper right-hand corner of the 5.25" disk drive's
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Floppy_Disk_Dr
ives_8_5_3.jpg/800px-Floppy_Disk_Drives_8_5_3.jpg
). It's IMPOSSIBLE to connect one of those things backwards! I wish
they'd used the same interface for 3.5" drives, too......

Thanks to both you and JP for the info. Got a ton of old 5.25
floppies that I can no longer read on my TRS-80s (I think the heads
are out of adjustment) and someday I'd like to reclaim what they
contain.

Ah. There may be more to it than just connecting the drive correctly.
MY memory is rather dim, but I _think_ the old trusty (or trashy) 80
was _not_ an "IBM compatible" as they used to be called, and thus may
well use a different format (number of sectors per track, or at least
directory structure) than/to/from PCs.

I am sure they are not IBM compatible as IBM wasn't around then (in the
mini computer field). The floppies are RX50, double sided.
I have a TRS-80 emlulator, no idea if it can read or not, will find out
someday. If not, there are programs that will.
http://users.bart.nl/users/pb0aia/vax/rx50.html
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

[MotoFox]

Okay, what's with this "MyNews" guy? Is s/he a spambot or something?

*plonk*

[Bill in Co]

Is that a rhetorical question?

Post by MotoFox
Okay, what's with this "MyNews" guy? Is s/he a spambot or something?
*plonk*
--
MotoFox
Former superstar of the Muzak Forums, 2003-2009
Do not staple, fold, spindle or mutilate; keep away from sources of magnetism.
If ingested, do not induce vomiting.

[MotoFox]

Yes, it was.

I guess that's what I get for having been inactive on Usenet for too many
years.........

[MyNews]

MyNews is a New Free/Pay NS I working on like News.aioe.org!

as for the free NG site it be the same as Aioe on how manly post / or how
big the Message you send in a 24 hour day>
As for the pay site it be the same as
http://www.easynews.com/partners/?a_aid=102156&a_bid=414f5171
but working on how much!


MotoFox in the Head of your post
References:<***@Guy.com>
this is 98Guy why you ask?
Coming January 2011
guy? Is s/he a spambot or something?
Now do tell!

Post by MotoFox
Okay, what's with this "MyNews" guy? Is s/he a spambot or something?
*plonk*
--
MotoFox
Former superstar of the Muzak Forums, 2003-2009
Do not staple, fold, spindle or mutilate; keep away from sources of magnetism.
If ingested, do not induce vomiting.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by MotoFox
Okay, what's with this "MyNews" guy? Is s/he a spambot or something?
*plonk*

I suspect s/he is someone for whom English is far from his/her first
language. Not sure what is - the plethora of exclamation marks suggests
German, but the strange grammar suggests otherwise.

I suppose s/he _could_ be something automated, but if so, it only
posting in this newsgroup - and not that much of that - seems very
restrained.

[j***@someplace.com]

Post by Shadow

Win98SE has been left behind by several web formats
(especially those with flash video) and updated PDF
formats.

I used win98SE on my wife's PC until a couple of months ago.
Then I needed to install a new DVD drive and started getting crashes.
So I "upgraded".
Win98SE was just as efficient and faster than XP. But I had to
switch because of the trouble it took to find adequate drivers. Ralink
does not even link drivers for win98 anymore, probably true for other
manufacturers.
[]'s

Makes me wonder if MS pays companies to quit offering drivers and
support for Win98. I mean, how hard is is to have a few drivers on a
website. People still use Win98 and probably will for years to come.
Older computers still exist and still work, and I bet half the people
who own computers really dont need anything more than Win98 for what
they do.

Of course we all know that MS will do anything to cram their lousy and
bloated NT based operating systems up our assholes, making all older
computers obsolete. I dont doubt the hardware manufacturers pay MS
for their own gain too.

Remember when an Opearting System was simply software to *OPERATE* the
hardware. That's until MS decided we needed all sorts of added shit,
which much was garbage, such as IE. This was even true in Win95 and
Win98, and Win2K, but at least in these versions it was mostly just
applications such as Wordpad, Outlook, and IE. Then came the joke of
the century, XP. Now we all needed to have stupid animated cartoons
on our desktop and other totally useless shit, at the expense of
requiring a load of extra memory, CPU power, and in the end, buying a
new computer. If MS had added this stuff to their install CD but
given us the option of installing a plain jane OS, or a fully bloated
cartoon, I would not object, but that option never existed.
Especially with their worst addons, which are IE and Outlook.

[MotoFox]

Well, now, I don't think lumping Wordpad into the "garbage" category along with
Outlook and Idiot Exploiter is quite fair. At least Wordpad is _useful_ software.

NOTEpad, on the other hand.....

[j***@myplace.com]

Post by 98 Guy
I have yet to come across a pdf file that Acrobat Reader 6 can't open.
And I have yet to find a pdf exploit that FUNCTIONS PROPERLY on a win-98
system when opened with Acrobat Reader 6.
Besides - there is always Foxit and other third-party readers.

For some reason, Foxit used to work fine for me, in Win98se. Lately,
it seems to crash quite often when I load large PDF files. I dont
recall the version number, but I have the last version of Foxit that
will run in Win98.

I have not installed Acrobat reader in many years. I never liked its
slowness and bloat. Foxit used to work flawlessly, but it seems there
is a new generation of PDF files that is flawed in the sense that it
crashes Foxit. I even removed Foxit, and went back the earlier
version I had used for years, but that one crashes too. It often will
lock up my entire system. I have no other software that causes Win98
to crash. IE was always my biggest source of crashes in Win98, but I
no longer use IE at all, in fact I renamed the IEXPLORE.EXE file to
IEXPLORE.EX_. I did that over a year ago when I got fed up with IE
loading when I thought it was not set to the default browser. This
change solved that problem. I never liked IE anyhow. Now I use
Firefox and K-Meleon. Both work well, K-Meleon is faster and more
similar to IE except very stable. My entire Win98 setup is extremely
stable, until I load those damn PDF files.

[Franc Zabkar]

Post by j***@myplace.com
For some reason, Foxit used to work fine for me, in Win98se. Lately,
it seems to crash quite often when I load large PDF files.

Foxit is resource hungry.

You can watch the resources disappear with RSRCMTR.EXE which ships
with Win98SE.

- Franc Zabkar

[legg]

Post by j***@myplace.com

Post by 98 Guy
I have yet to come across a pdf file that Acrobat Reader 6 can't open.
And I have yet to find a pdf exploit that FUNCTIONS PROPERLY on a win-98
system when opened with Acrobat Reader 6.
Besides - there is always Foxit and other third-party readers.

For some reason, Foxit used to work fine for me, in Win98se. Lately,
it seems to crash quite often when I load large PDF files. I dont
recall the version number, but I have the last version of Foxit that
will run in Win98.
I have not installed Acrobat reader in many years. I never liked its
slowness and bloat. Foxit used to work flawlessly, but it seems there
is a new generation of PDF files that is flawed in the sense that it
crashes Foxit. I even removed Foxit, and went back the earlier
version I had used for years, but that one crashes too. It often will
lock up my entire system. I have no other software that causes Win98
to crash. IE was always my biggest source of crashes in Win98, but I
no longer use IE at all, in fact I renamed the IEXPLORE.EXE file to
IEXPLORE.EX_. I did that over a year ago when I got fed up with IE
loading when I thought it was not set to the default browser. This
change solved that problem. I never liked IE anyhow. Now I use
Firefox and K-Meleon. Both work well, K-Meleon is faster and more
similar to IE except very stable. My entire Win98 setup is extremely
stable, until I load those damn PDF files.

So go for Acrobat 6, until....

Anything over 6.1 gave me grief.

RL

[j***@myplace.com]

Post by legg

Post by j***@myplace.com

Post by 98 Guy
I have yet to come across a pdf file that Acrobat Reader 6 can't open.
And I have yet to find a pdf exploit that FUNCTIONS PROPERLY on a win-98
system when opened with Acrobat Reader 6.
Besides - there is always Foxit and other third-party readers.

For some reason, Foxit used to work fine for me, in Win98se. Lately,
it seems to crash quite often when I load large PDF files. I dont
recall the version number, but I have the last version of Foxit that
will run in Win98.
I have not installed Acrobat reader in many years. I never liked its
slowness and bloat. Foxit used to work flawlessly, but it seems there
is a new generation of PDF files that is flawed in the sense that it
crashes Foxit. I even removed Foxit, and went back the earlier
version I had used for years, but that one crashes too. It often will
lock up my entire system. I have no other software that causes Win98
to crash. IE was always my biggest source of crashes in Win98, but I
no longer use IE at all, in fact I renamed the IEXPLORE.EXE file to
IEXPLORE.EX_. I did that over a year ago when I got fed up with IE
loading when I thought it was not set to the default browser. This
change solved that problem. I never liked IE anyhow. Now I use
Firefox and K-Meleon. Both work well, K-Meleon is faster and more
similar to IE except very stable. My entire Win98 setup is extremely
stable, until I load those damn PDF files.

So go for Acrobat 6, until....
Anything over 6.1 gave me grief.
RL

So there are no other alternatives? You'd think as popular as PDF
files are, there would be more readers. Foxit used to be great, but
not anymore. I hated Acrobat, I almost hate to install it again. I
recall it was a major bitch to get rid of it.

[legg]

Post by j***@myplace.com

Post by legg

Post by j***@myplace.com

Post by 98 Guy
I have yet to come across a pdf file that Acrobat Reader 6 can't open.
And I have yet to find a pdf exploit that FUNCTIONS PROPERLY on a win-98
system when opened with Acrobat Reader 6.
Besides - there is always Foxit and other third-party readers.

For some reason, Foxit used to work fine for me, in Win98se. Lately,
it seems to crash quite often when I load large PDF files. I dont
recall the version number, but I have the last version of Foxit that
will run in Win98.
I have not installed Acrobat reader in many years. I never liked its
slowness and bloat. Foxit used to work flawlessly, but it seems there
is a new generation of PDF files that is flawed in the sense that it
crashes Foxit. I even removed Foxit, and went back the earlier
version I had used for years, but that one crashes too. It often will
lock up my entire system. I have no other software that causes Win98
to crash. IE was always my biggest source of crashes in Win98, but I
no longer use IE at all, in fact I renamed the IEXPLORE.EXE file to
IEXPLORE.EX_. I did that over a year ago when I got fed up with IE
loading when I thought it was not set to the default browser. This
change solved that problem. I never liked IE anyhow. Now I use
Firefox and K-Meleon. Both work well, K-Meleon is faster and more
similar to IE except very stable. My entire Win98 setup is extremely
stable, until I load those damn PDF files.

So go for Acrobat 6, until....
Anything over 6.1 gave me grief.
RL

So there are no other alternatives? You'd think as popular as PDF
files are, there would be more readers. Foxit used to be great, but
not anymore. I hated Acrobat, I almost hate to install it again. I
recall it was a major bitch to get rid of it.

Not really popular, but pervasive, perverted and strangled by their
claim-jumping IP 'owners'.

Nowadays, disc file size is seldom an issue, and 500Mb of ram
commonplace - making sure that it doesn't run at start-up or as a
background process renders it largely harmless, in-situ.

As long as you don't pay them money, you're doing about as much as you
honestly can to demonstrate your stand on this issue. If their
published documents become increasingly unreadable or buggy, they lose
- you don't.

RL

[j***@someplace.com]

Post by 98 Guy
Opera 10.61 is a special release - designed specifically to be
compatible with windows 98.

What does Opera have to do with PDF files? It's a browser.

Post by 98 Guy
There is also the KernelEx project, which provides API-level
compatibility for win-98 for a number of "NT-only" applications, such as
Firefox 3.x and Adobe Flash 10.x.

Where does someone get this thing?