It's time to Quit using Win98

[t***@toyotamail.com]

I've held on to Win98 for years, and always loved it. I've added
everything possible such as Kernal-Ex, to keep it going, and struggled
to cope with incompatible software that requires newer versions of
Windows, particularly browsers.

The time has come to retire Win98, and allow Microsoft to win their
efforts to obsolete the older versions of Windows. But Microsoft really
is NOT going to win. In fact in my case, THEY LOSE. From the moment I
first put my hands on XP, I hated their so called NT based OSs. I
tried, really tried to adapt to XP, and always hated it no matter how
hard I forced myself to use it. By that time they had created their
worst failure, Vista, and were on their way to more bloated OSs, which I
would not touch if they gave me a free computer. Just seeing a Windows
8 computer on the shelves at a store makes me nauseous. All I see on
those screens are ugly boxes with links to commercial companies I would
not even go near, such as Netflix. They cant even offer decent looking
icons anymore.

Years ago, I knew thart the time would come when I could no longer use
Win98. It appears this time has come. Mainly due to the fact that there
is no longer a browser that is made for W98 that is compatible with most
present websites. I coped with occasional websites which would not
properly load in past years, but it now seems that 4 out of 5 sites are
no longer loading properly, using Firefox 3.6.x, and worse using other
browsers that work on W98. Of course I place blame on Mozilla for not
making their newer versions of Firefox compatible with W98.

The PC computer was originally supposed to be *THE* hardware for any OS,
but Microsoft took over and made the PC the Microsoft Computer. Their
only competitor is Linux, and there is really no competition involved,
since Linux has no actual support, and there are so many different
variations of Linux that only a computer geek can begin to use it, and
even then, it wont run popular software intended for Windows witout
adding yet more software.

The bottom line is this. Either kiss Microsoft's ass, or toss your PC
in the nearest garbage can. Well, I have given this considerable
thought, and decided that I will never give Microsoft another cent.
Particularly when I hate every OS they have made since Win98. I can
still continue to use WIN98 for my personal uses, but in order to go on
the internet, I have decided to spend some money and buy a Macintosh
computer. I never thought that I'd make that switch, and being elderly,
I really hate having to relearn to use a completely different computer
system, yet, there really is no other option.

I say this with much sadness, because I really liked Win98, and still
do. It's the only decent OS made by Microsoft, and they did their best
to destroy it. I guess 2014 will be the year when all of my past 25+
years of PC computer learning and use goes down the shitter, and I
switch to Macintosh. In some ways, I wish I had begun my computer
learning with the Mac, because I would not have to start all over now.
But that's life, particularly when Misrosoft greed is involved, and they
create one of the wealthiest monopolies on earth, while creating
absolute shit.

[Bill in Co]

Post by t***@toyotamail.com
I've held on to Win98 for years, and always loved it. I've added
everything possible such as Kernal-Ex, to keep it going, and struggled
to cope with incompatible software that requires newer versions of
Windows, particularly browsers.
The time has come to retire Win98, and allow Microsoft to win their
efforts to obsolete the older versions of Windows. But Microsoft really
is NOT going to win. In fact in my case, THEY LOSE. From the moment
I first put my hands on XP, I hated their so called NT based OSs. I
tried, really tried to adapt to XP, and always hated it no matter how
hard I forced myself to use it.

But with just a little work, you can make the WinXP experience pretty
similar to that of W98. I don't see the big deal here AFTER you have made
some "adjustments" to XP and the XP interface. But I've stopped here at XP,
and have no interest in Win 7, 8, or 9. :-) I agree with you that W98SE
has faded into the twilight for some of the reasons you've mentioned. But
at least I don't have to worry about having good USB and SATA capability,
blue screens, and ever running out of resources. And still being able to
find good software that runs on it.

[Stanley Daniel de Liver]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 06:10:33 -0000, Bill in Co

Post by Bill in Co

Post by t***@toyotamail.com
I've held on to Win98 for years, and always loved it. I've added
everything possible such as Kernal-Ex, to keep it going, and struggled
to cope with incompatible software that requires newer versions of
Windows, particularly browsers.
The time has come to retire Win98, and allow Microsoft to win their
efforts to obsolete the older versions of Windows. But Microsoft really
is NOT going to win. In fact in my case, THEY LOSE. From the moment
I first put my hands on XP, I hated their so called NT based OSs. I
tried, really tried to adapt to XP, and always hated it no matter how
hard I forced myself to use it.

But with just a little work, you can make the WinXP experience pretty
similar to that of W98. I don't see the big deal here AFTER you have made
some "adjustments" to XP and the XP interface. But I've stopped here at XP,
and have no interest in Win 7, 8, or 9. :-) I agree with you that W98SE
has faded into the twilight for some of the reasons you've mentioned.
But
at least I don't have to worry about having good USB and SATA capability,
blue screens, and ever running out of resources. And still being able to
find good software that runs on it.

I tried loading w98 on an XP laptop yesterday - got blue screen during
"initialising drivers", so somethings got broken (it maybe that w98
doesn't know about the widescreen, or USB mouse)

[Bill in Co]

Post by Stanley Daniel de Liver
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 06:10:33 -0000, Bill in Co

Post by Bill in Co

Post by t***@toyotamail.com
I've held on to Win98 for years, and always loved it. I've added
everything possible such as Kernal-Ex, to keep it going, and struggled
to cope with incompatible software that requires newer versions of
Windows, particularly browsers.
The time has come to retire Win98, and allow Microsoft to win their
efforts to obsolete the older versions of Windows. But Microsoft really
is NOT going to win. In fact in my case, THEY LOSE. From the moment
I first put my hands on XP, I hated their so called NT based OSs. I
tried, really tried to adapt to XP, and always hated it no matter how
hard I forced myself to use it.

But with just a little work, you can make the WinXP experience pretty
similar to that of W98. I don't see the big deal here AFTER you have made
some "adjustments" to XP and the XP interface. But I've stopped here at
XP, and have no interest in Win 7, 8, or 9. :-) I agree with you that
W98SE
has faded into the twilight for some of the reasons you've mentioned.
But at least I don't have to worry about having good USB and SATA
capability,
blue screens, and ever running out of resources. And still being able to
find good software that runs on it.

I tried loading w98 on an XP laptop yesterday - got blue screen during
"initialising drivers", so somethings got broken (it maybe that w98
doesn't know about the widescreen, or USB mouse)

I think I tried this once too, and got similar results. Then I asked myself
why was I even doing it, since some of the software I now have requires XP,
and XP has much better support for USB and SATA, etc. :-)

[98 Guy]

Post by Bill in Co
and XP has much better support for USB and SATA, etc. :-)

No, XP does not have "much better" support for SATA.

For USB - maybe. Give win-98 the Maximus Decim USB patch, and you bring
it much closer to XP in terms of support for storage devices.

But for SATA, no.

Compatibility with SATA comes from the SATA controller driver, for which
there is full support for Win-98 for at least the first generation
SATA-I controllers.

On this win-98 system that I'm using right now to type this reply, I
have two SATA drives (750 gb and 1.5 TB) running in SATA (not
IDE-emulated) mode. Both formatted as FAT32. Both drives formatted as
a single volume.

Win-98 is actually superior to XP when it comes to SATA compability. I
can install win-98 from scratch on a SATA drive running in SATA mode -
something you can't do with XP. With XP, SATA drives must be running in
IDE-emulation mode. And once you've installed XP, good luck switching
the drive to native SATA mode and getting XP to boot properly.

So stop spreading lies about win-98 not being compatible with SATA
drives.

[98 Guy]

Post by Stanley Daniel de Liver
I tried loading w98 on an XP laptop yesterday - got blue screen
during "initialising drivers", so somethings got broken (it maybe
that w98 doesn't know about the widescreen, or USB mouse)

You don't start installing win-98 on a given machine until or unless you
have tracked down and obtained all available drivers for the various
hardware components (video, motherboard / chipset, southbridge, audio,
network, wifi, etc).

The only laptops that you will be able to run win-98 with sufficient
driver support are ones that were sold new no later than the fall of
2005 or spring of 2006.

I think the best example of a laptop that had *almost* full driver
support for win-98 was the Dell Inspiron 600m. It was released in
mid-2003 but was still being sold new well into 2005. But there were no
wifi drivers for win-98. That's going to be the main problem for pretty
much any laptop you can find.

[Stanley Daniel de Liver]

Post by 98 Guy

Post by Stanley Daniel de Liver
I tried loading w98 on an XP laptop yesterday - got blue screen
during "initialising drivers", so somethings got broken (it maybe
that w98 doesn't know about the widescreen, or USB mouse)

You don't start installing win-98 on a given machine until or unless you
have tracked down and obtained all available drivers for the various
hardware components (video, motherboard / chipset, southbridge, audio,
network, wifi, etc).

Maybe that's the correct order, but this was just the install of w98 (2nd?
screen after copying files "Running Windows for the 1st time").

Post by 98 Guy
The only laptops that you will be able to run win-98 with sufficient
driver support are ones that were sold new no later than the fall of
2005 or spring of 2006.

Just getting a screen I can do stuff with would be nice! (OK I can get to
Safe Mode).

Post by 98 Guy
I think the best example of a laptop that had *almost* full driver
support for win-98 was the Dell Inspiron 600m. It was released in
mid-2003 but was still being sold new well into 2005. But there were no
wifi drivers for win-98. That's going to be the main problem for pretty
much any laptop you can find.

Sure. I doubt I'll get wifi, but a quick boot to w98 and some games would
have been nice.

[98 Guy]

Post by Stanley Daniel de Liver

Post by 98 Guy
You don't start installing win-98 on a given machine until or
unless you have tracked down and obtained all available drivers
for the various hardware components (video, motherboard / chipset,
southbridge, audio, network, wifi, etc).

Maybe that's the correct order, but this was just the install of
w98 (2nd? screen after copying files "Running Windows for the 1st
time").

What's wrong with you?

Just because a computer has a CD drive doesn't mean you can install and
run win-98 on it.

If the computer was originally available for retail sale no later than
2004 or 2005, then the odds are good that win-98 can be installed and
will run correctly on it. But you will need to first obtain various
hardware drivers BECAUSE THEY WON'T BE ON THE WIN-98 CD if the computer
was sold after the year 1999 or 2000.

Post by Stanley Daniel de Liver

Post by 98 Guy
The only laptops that you will be able to run win-98 with
sufficient driver support are ones that were sold new no
later than the fall of 2005 or spring of 2006.

Just getting a screen I can do stuff with would be nice!

Um, no.

Running win-98 in safe mode is useless. There's no point in doing that.

Post by Stanley Daniel de Liver
but a quick boot to w98 and some games would have been nice.

What - the win-98 versions of freecell, hearts, minesweeper or solitaire
are just so unique and compelling that they haven't been duplicated on
win-XP?

[Stanley Daniel de Liver]

[you even snipped you're own attribution here!]

Post by 98 Guy

Post by 98 Guy
You don't start installing win-98 on a given machine until or
unless you have tracked down and obtained all available drivers
for the various hardware components (video, motherboard / chipset,
southbridge, audio, network, wifi, etc).

This will be tricky, I acknowledge, as the laptop was "designed for XP"
but runs like a dog (512M memory, hence my w98 install attempt.
)
[]

Post by 98 Guy
What's wrong with you?

[]

Post by 98 Guy
What - the win-98 versions of freecell, hearts, minesweeper or solitaire
are just so unique and compelling that they haven't been duplicated on
win-XP?

You have anger issues.
It might be time to move on and rename yourself "XP Guy".

[98 Guy]

Post by Bill in Co
But with just a little work, you can make the WinXP experience
pretty similar to that of W98.

I've set up a few systems with XP-pro running on a FAT-32 formatted hard
drive, so that I can dual-boot into either DOS 7.1 or XP. One of those
systems is a HP mini-note netbook (where there wasn't enough driver
support to install win-98 - I tried). I don't use the netbook that
much, but I've set it up with the classic look to make it look and act
as much as win-98 as possible.

Post by Bill in Co
But at least I don't have to worry about having good USB and SATA
capability, blue screens, and ever running out of resources.

Yea - funny how running win-98 I don't worry about those things either.

[Axel Berger]

Post by t***@toyotamail.com
Of course I place blame on Mozilla for not
making their newer versions of Firefox compatible with W98.

You're wrong. The browser makers have got it wrong, but for just the
oppsite reason. What new browsers have is NOT features but error
correction and guessing. Non working sites are not new but objectively
and provably broken. It is not my job to buy ever more powerful machines
and run ever slower bloat just to correct other peoples mistakes. What
browser vendors should have done long ago is display nothing but "syntax
error" and NOT try to second guess idiot's inarticulate babble.

Post by t***@toyotamail.com
since Linux has no actual support, and there are so many different
variations of Linux that only a computer geek can begin to use it,
and even then, it wont run popular software intended for Windows

You have made a decision about popular OSs, why not do the same about
"popular" software? If and when the time comes for me - up to now I
don't tough a running system, but I may be forced - it will certainly be
Linux.

Axel

[t***@toyotamail.com]

Post by Axel Berger
You have made a decision about popular OSs, why not do the same about
"popular" software? If and when the time comes for me - up to now I
don't tough a running system, but I may be forced - it will certainly be
Linux.

Is there a linux type that looks and works like Win98?
Which one? Will it run older software made for 98?

[Auric__]

Post by t***@toyotamail.com

Post by Axel Berger
You have made a decision about popular OSs, why not do the same about
"popular" software? If and when the time comes for me - up to now I
don't tough a running system, but I may be forced - it will certainly be
Linux.

Is there a linux type that looks and works like Win98?
Which one? Will it run older software made for 98?

Any Linux distribution can be set up to look like Windows(-ish). It's just a
setting in the window manager. Specifically making it look like 98, that's
the hard part. Recent distros are going to try to look like recent versions
of Windows... if they try at all.

As for running Windows software (regardless of which version it's designed
for), as long as you have a recent version of Wine installed, there's at
least a *chance* that a given program will run. Wine has a user-reported
program compatibility database here:

http://appdb.winehq.org/

The appdb rates programs platinum, gold, silver, bronze, or garbage. (The
real joke is that even though the *apps* are rated as such, it's really a
rating for *Wine's compatibility*.)

If there are Windows programs you just *can't* live without, then as long as
the app works in Wine, you can probably make do. (But note that keyboard
shortcuts differ between Windows and Linux. For example, ctrl+F4 is "close
document" for many Windows apps; in Linux, it's often "switch to virtual
desktop 4".)

I have used Linux + Wine before, and it worked acceptably (for the most
part)... but really, when I'm running Windows apps, I'd much rather run them
under Windows. (My Linux server doesn't have Wine installed. Don't need it.)

[98 Guy]

Post by t***@toyotamail.com
Is there a linux type that looks and works like Win98?
Which one? Will it run older software made for 98?
Any Linux distribution can be set up to look like Windows(-ish).
It's just a setting in the window manager. Specifically making it
look like 98, that's the hard part. Recent distros are going to
try to look like recent versions of Windows... if they try at all.

Did you ever stop and think that anyone asking if linux can run win-98
software is probably not ready for linux?

[t***@toyotamail.com]

Post by 98 Guy

Post by t***@toyotamail.com
Is there a linux type that looks and works like Win98?
Which one? Will it run older software made for 98?
Any Linux distribution can be set up to look like Windows(-ish).
It's just a setting in the window manager. Specifically making it
look like 98, that's the hard part. Recent distros are going to
try to look like recent versions of Windows... if they try at all.

Did you ever stop and think that anyone asking if linux can run win-98
software is probably not ready for linux?

Actually, you're probably right. I tried linux many years ago and hated
it. I could not get it to do anything except piss me off. But I just
thought I'd ask. I might take a spare computer and try it, since I
heard it changed for the better. But in all honesty, if I have to
relearn to use a computer, including every program, I may as well get a
Macintosh. At least that has a future. Linux seems to change and
change and there are so many types it's a nightmare just thinking about
it, and it's not used by many. I have years and years of creations on
my computer, and I need my software that I have been using to make it
work. I dont just use a computer for the internet. And add to that
that I'm elderly, and not wanting to start over.

Win98 seems to work just fine for all my software except the internet,
mostly due to that goddamn HTML5 and all the worthless flash crap they
stick on sites. None of which has made it any more useful, compared to
the websites from the 90s. If anything, it make them less useful
because they are slow to load and bloated to shit.

Maybe I'll just pull the plug on the internet, on my Win98 machine, and
just get a Mac for internet use. That way I only have to relearn to use
the internet software, not everything. Or there's my XP machine that
has been sitting in the closet for the last 5 or 6 years. But I already
know MS will soon kill XP too. They want us all to use their ugly Win8
or 9 or whatever is the latest bloated crap they sell., which appears to
consist mostly of advertising for Netflix, and other companies that they
make profits from. After all, MS is only interested in money, they dont
care what *WE* want or like.

[Axel Berger]

Post by t***@toyotamail.com
mostly due to that goddamn HTML5 and all the worthless
flash crap they stick on sites.

Wrong on both counts. Graceful degradation is part of the definition of
HTML5 and there has been total agreement for years that no active
elements must ever be required for basic function. A site may become
ugly and hard to use, but it has to keep fully functional with
everything in the browser turned off by the user. All that has been
elementary stuff for decades.

Non conforming sites are not modern but broken and what older browsers
miss is not features but bloated error correction. It is not my job as a
visitor and reader to correct incompetent web designers' mistakes.

My browser is Firefox 1.5.0.12 and the number of sites that are worth it
to me to be opened on another machine can be numbered on one hand with
several fingers left open.

Axel

[R.Wieser]

Axel,

A site may become ugly and hard to use, but it has to keep
fully functional with everything in the browser turned off by
the user.

The problem is that the *specs* may say that, but there is noone who can/is
allowed to enforce it.

And as the consortium that is maintaining the HTML spec must be quite aware
of that, their choice to include active content as native they are directly
responsible for undermining that basic "must run" of theirs/yours.
Something stinks here, and it aint my socks ... :-)

My browser is Firefox 1.5.0.12 and the number of sites that are
worth it to me to be opened on another machine can be numbered
on one hand with several fingers left open.

Mostly true (FF 1.5.0.5 here). Than again, I make the consious choice to
just ignore any site which refuses to run when I, as most always, have JS
and ActiveX disabled. With the HTML5 spec (nativily supporting all kinds
of active content crap) I wonder how long it will be before that one hand of
yours will be the number of still viewable sites ....

I think I would like to see some of those youtube movies (some of them sound
as if they could be fun or educational), but I'll be damned if I will let
them send me whatever Flash-script they want.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Post by t***@toyotamail.com
mostly due to that goddamn HTML5 and all the worthless
flash crap they stick on sites.

Wrong on both counts. Graceful degradation is part of the definition of
HTML5 and there has been total agreement for years that no active
elements must ever be required for basic function. A site may become
ugly and hard to use, but it has to keep fully functional with
everything in the browser turned off by the user. All that has been
elementary stuff for decades.
Non conforming sites are not modern but broken and what older browsers
miss is not features but bloated error correction. It is not my job as a
visitor and reader to correct incompetent web designers' mistakes.
My browser is Firefox 1.5.0.12 and the number of sites that are worth it
to me to be opened on another machine can be numbered on one hand with
several fingers left open.
Axel

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Post by R.Wieser

Post by Axel Berger
My browser is Firefox 1.5.0.12 and the number of sites that are
worth it to me to be opened on another machine can be numbered
on one hand with several fingers left open.

Mostly true (FF 1.5.0.5 here). Than again, I make the consious choice to
just ignore any site which refuses to run when I, as most always, have JS
and ActiveX disabled. With the HTML5 spec (nativily supporting all kinds
of active content crap) I wonder how long it will be before that one hand of
yours will be the number of still viewable sites ....

I've been running FF v2 on my laptop (running Linux actually, I won't bother
with the why). The only site I regulatly use that presents problems is Ebay,
along with Paypal and another auction site. It works, but slows to a crawl
(while it works much faster when I boot a Live DVD Linux running a newer FF),
plus the formatting is getting progressively more and more broken as they make
tweaks. Every other site I regularly visit works quite adiquately, and FF 3.6
running on my XP desktop displays Ebay etc. fine. I have no intention of
updating either (not that I really can with the FF2 case).

Last resort: look at the webpage's source code and track down the link/s you
want. Not the most user friendly option though.

Post by R.Wieser
I think I would like to see some of those youtube movies (some of them sound
as if they could be fun or educational), but I'll be damned if I will let
them send me whatever Flash-script they want.

I download them, it allows you to control their file size as well. I generally
use www.keepvid.com, though recently it began redirecting every page to a blank
one after correctly loading the intended page (happens in FF 2 & 3.6, but not the
latest versions), now I have to be quick on the "stop" button to show the page I
want. Anyhow, you can click a link at the bottom of the pages to enable a HTML
version that doesn't use Java, though you need cookies enabled to do so.

deturl.com shows a list of all the downloading sites around for a video (they
often change).

[R.Wieser]

Hello Kev,

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
Last resort: look at the webpage's source code and track down
the link/s you want. Not the most user friendly option though.

When the information I'm after is hard to find I will sometimes do just
that. Always funny when you bypass the "wait before downloading" JS crap
that way too. :-)

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
I generally use www.keepvid.com,

Lol: That site only runs when you have JS enabled. Worse, it also expects
you to install Java. I also see that the JS tries to use an ActiveX
component (XMLHttpRequest).

All-in-all, exactly the kind of site I don't want to see. :-\

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by R.Wieser

Post by Axel Berger
My browser is Firefox 1.5.0.12 and the number of sites that are
worth it to me to be opened on another machine can be numbered
on one hand with several fingers left open.

Mostly true (FF 1.5.0.5 here). Than again, I make the consious choice to
just ignore any site which refuses to run when I, as most always, have JS
and ActiveX disabled. With the HTML5 spec (nativily supporting all kinds
of active content crap) I wonder how long it will be before that one hand of
yours will be the number of still viewable sites ....

I've been running FF v2 on my laptop (running Linux actually, I won't bother
with the why). The only site I regulatly use that presents problems is Ebay,
along with Paypal and another auction site. It works, but slows to a crawl
(while it works much faster when I boot a Live DVD Linux running a newer FF),
plus the formatting is getting progressively more and more broken as they make
tweaks. Every other site I regularly visit works quite adiquately, and FF 3.6
running on my XP desktop displays Ebay etc. fine. I have no intention of
updating either (not that I really can with the FF2 case).
Last resort: look at the webpage's source code and track down the link/s you
want. Not the most user friendly option though.

Post by R.Wieser
I think I would like to see some of those youtube movies (some of them sound
as if they could be fun or educational), but I'll be damned if I will let
them send me whatever Flash-script they want.

I download them, it allows you to control their file size as well. I generally
use www.keepvid.com, though recently it began redirecting every page to a blank
one after correctly loading the intended page (happens in FF 2 & 3.6, but not the
latest versions), now I have to be quick on the "stop" button to show the page I
want. Anyhow, you can click a link at the bottom of the pages to enable a HTML
version that doesn't use Java, though you need cookies enabled to do so.
deturl.com shows a list of all the downloading sites around for a video (they
often change).
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Post by R.Wieser

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
I generally use www.keepvid.com,

Lol: That site only runs when you have JS enabled. Worse, it also expects
you to install Java. I also see that the JS tries to use an ActiveX
component (XMLHttpRequest).
All-in-all, exactly the kind of site I don't want to see. :-\

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
Anyhow, you can click a link at the bottom of the pages to enable a HTML
version that doesn't use Java, though you need cookies enabled to do so.

But yes, you do need to enable Javascript. At one point there was a site
listed by deturl.com that I believe didn't use scripts. I think it went
down pretty soon after I discovered it though, perhaps worth a look.

As I believe the YouTube download URLs are generated on request, these URL
fetchers are probably far easier to design using scripting.

There is free software to download the videos too. But from what I've seen,
it looks less trustworthy than the website scripts.

[R.Wieser]

Hey Kev,

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by R.Wieser

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
Anyhow, you can click a link at the bottom of the pages
to enable a HTML version that doesn't use Java,

Ah, I must have missed that in your message. But if it was once there, it
isn't anymore. :-\

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
As I believe the YouTube download URLs are generated on
request, these URL fetchers are probably far easier to design
using scripting.

Hmmm... So all the site does is to provide you a script which than allows
your browser to get the actual movie directly from YouTube (no further need
of that keepvid site) ? Maybe I should try to figure out how they are
doing it and recreate the method for myself. :-)

Either that, or the dynamic generation of the URL could be done with some
PHP on the keepvid site (as they need to do some transcoding on the movie
?), doing away with the need for the remaining JS.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by R.Wieser

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
I generally use www.keepvid.com,

Lol: That site only runs when you have JS enabled. Worse, it also expects
you to install Java. I also see that the JS tries to use an ActiveX
component (XMLHttpRequest).
All-in-all, exactly the kind of site I don't want to see. :-\

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
Anyhow, you can click a link at the bottom of the pages to enable a HTML
version that doesn't use Java, though you need cookies enabled to do so.

But yes, you do need to enable Javascript. At one point there was a site
listed by deturl.com that I believe didn't use scripts. I think it went
down pretty soon after I discovered it though, perhaps worth a look.
As I believe the YouTube download URLs are generated on request, these URL
fetchers are probably far easier to design using scripting.
There is free software to download the videos too. But from what I've seen,
it looks less trustworthy than the website scripts.
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[Axel Berger]

Post by R.Wieser
Maybe I should try to figure out how they are
doing it and recreate the method for myself. :-)

As we're talking Win98: Set the write protect bit on the cached file and
it won't be deleted when you leave the site and van be renamed to *.flv.

In eXPeriomental they don't let you do that (which is why I never will
downgrade, I am the arbiter on my own computer). But what you can do
when the video is fully loaded is hit the hard reset button (yes, all my
cases and boards still have one). After reboot the file is all yours.

In those cases where the file isn't cached (so you can't come back and
view it without all those stops and starts, bastards!) or the browser
hides the cache so well, I could not yet find it (newer Opera) you're
stuck.

Axel

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Post by Axel Berger

Post by R.Wieser
Maybe I should try to figure out how they are
doing it and recreate the method for myself. :-)

As we're talking Win98: Set the write protect bit on the cached file and
it won't be deleted when you leave the site and van be renamed to *.flv.

Thing is, that needs Flash installed and the will to use it. It's probably
harder to choose format and file size as well.

By the way, I know of (but have never used) FireFox plugins to effectively
add that function to the GUI as well.

Post by Axel Berger
In eXPeriomental they don't let you do that (which is why I never will
downgrade, I am the arbiter on my own computer). But what you can do
when the video is fully loaded is hit the hard reset button (yes, all my
cases and boards still have one). After reboot the file is all yours.

Ouch, well I guess if you're desperate. Also, I really have been living
under a rock in the computer world these last few years - I didn't know
they've stopped putting the reset button on. Wierd...

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion Axel Berger

[]

Post by Axel Berger
In eXPeriomental they don't let you do that (which is why I never will
downgrade, I am the arbiter on my own computer). But what you can do
when the video is fully loaded is hit the hard reset button (yes, all my
cases and boards still have one). After reboot the file is all yours.

Ouch, well I guess if you're desperate. Also, I really have been living
under a rock in the computer world these last few years - I didn't know
they've stopped putting the reset button on. Wierd...

In all cases I've encountered, though, holding in the power button
causes a hard shutdown - or of course you could cut the power.

FWIW, the DownloadHelper extra for Firefox brings up a list of links to
various qualities of the video currently being watched (sometimes a list
of only one, usually - especially for YouTube - several), and I don't
think these use on-the-fly conversion, I think they all come from the
YouTube (if it's YouTube you're looking at) server, since selecting one
seems to trigger an immediate download start. (If you pick the one
corresponding to the quality you're currently watching, the download can
appear instant.)

I'm not sure which versions of Firefox DownloadHelper works with, though
- possibly not as far back as 2.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Post by R.Wieser
Hey Kev,

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
Anyhow, you can click a link at the bottom of the pages
to enable a HTML version that doesn't use Java,

Ah, I must have missed that in your message. But if it was once there, it
isn't anymore. :-\

It's still there, but it uses Javascript (they're determined).

Post by R.Wieser

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
As I believe the YouTube download URLs are generated on
request, these URL fetchers are probably far easier to design
using scripting.

Hmmm... So all the site does is to provide you a script which than allows
your browser to get the actual movie directly from YouTube (no further need
of that keepvid site) ? Maybe I should try to figure out how they are
doing it and recreate the method for myself. :-)

There's probably some some good tecnical information hidden behind the wall
of adware Youtube downloaders that pop up with any Google search on the topic,
you just need to find it. There might even be a simple pre-made script.

A couple of years ago I worked out a fairly simple method for downlaoding
videos embedded in pages on the BBC website. They use RTMP video streams that
can be decoded with a program called RTMPdump. I used a grogram called (I
think) IPsniffer to follow the trail of identifier URLs and used that to
work out how to grab them without playing the video, then just plugged them
in (with some tweaking) to RTMPdump. Youtube doesen't use RTMP, but a similar
method might be usable.

Post by R.Wieser
Either that, or the dynamic generation of the URL could be done with some
PHP on the keepvid site (as they need to do some transcoding on the movie
?), doing away with the need for the remaining JS.

They have an MP3 download option that processes on demand and takes quite
some time (much longer than simply downloading it yourself and converting
it locally by the way, I'm not doing that again!). Considering that, I
doubt any of the video formats are converted by them (plus I think all the
download links are to the YouTube servers).

[Axel Berger]

Post by 98 Guy
anyone asking if linux can run win-98
software is probably not ready for linux?

That's simplistic. In my Win98 one of the most frequently used programs
is still an Atari ST database run in an emulator -- try as I can I have
still not managed to find an even half decent replacement. So if I were
to got to Linux, one of the first requirements would be a reliable Atari
emulator.

There are better alternatives for most Windows programs in Linux, but
not for everything. Niche programs for Linux would have to be written
for a niche squared[1], i.e. probably too few users to be worth it.

[1] Not always, nerds tend to cluster.

[t***@toyotamail.com]

Post by Axel Berger

Post by 98 Guy
anyone asking if linux can run win-98
software is probably not ready for linux?

That's simplistic. In my Win98 one of the most frequently used programs
is still an Atari ST database run in an emulator -- try as I can I have
still not managed to find an even half decent replacement. So if I were
to got to Linux, one of the first requirements would be a reliable Atari
emulator.
There are better alternatives for most Windows programs in Linux, but
not for everything. Niche programs for Linux would have to be written
for a niche squared[1], i.e. probably too few users to be worth it.
[1] Not always, nerds tend to cluster.

One of my most used programs is a Dos based data base. This contains my
entire life's worth of phone/address contacts. On top of that, I have
all of my business contacts for my own (self employed) business. If
that's not enough, I have contact lists for three different non-profit
volunteer organizations, two for which I am a member, one that is now
defunct, but still contains valuable lists of persons who like to
volunteer for events.

In the end, there are nearly 10,000 entries in this database. I began
using it in the database around 1989, the software was created in 1987.
This is not the old Dbase, but a highly advanced program for it's time,
and was used for professional businesses. I was originally introduced
to it by a friend who worked at a hospital, and that hospital used this
software to do all their records. This friend was a volunteer for one
of these non-profits, and he obtained a copy, and assigned me to
maintain the volunteer list for that org., which was quite extensive.
Eventually, I bought my own copy of it for personal use. I have used it
since.

It's still excellent, and still works well. I can boot directly to dos
and that program if I wish and not have to wait for Windows to load,
just to retrieve a phone number. The problem is that the data from this
program can not be transferred to any other database, aside from
retyping everything. I have never found any other database I liked as
well, or works as easily.

No matter what I do, I need some form of Dos. It will run on any
version of dos from Dos3 and up. (Maybe earlier versions too, but I
never tried it). Does Linux have any way to run Dos programs? I have
my doubts. Of course I know a Macintosh wont either. But I can take
any old computer, even a XT or 386 and run this dadtabase. The entire
program can be run from one floppy if needed, althought due to the large
amount of records I have, several floppies would be needed for the data.

I used to carry around a floppy with that entire DB and could access my
data on any dos (or early dos-based windows) computer. The bottom line
is that this program can not be replaced. If I have to switch to some
non-MS computer, all I can do is get some old laptop, install Dos, and
use that exclusively for my database.

[Bill in Co]

Post by t***@toyotamail.com

Post by Axel Berger

Post by 98 Guy
anyone asking if linux can run win-98
software is probably not ready for linux?

That's simplistic. In my Win98 one of the most frequently used programs
is still an Atari ST database run in an emulator -- try as I can I have
still not managed to find an even half decent replacement. So if I were
to got to Linux, one of the first requirements would be a reliable Atari
emulator.
There are better alternatives for most Windows programs in Linux, but
not for everything. Niche programs for Linux would have to be written
for a niche squared[1], i.e. probably too few users to be worth it.
[1] Not always, nerds tend to cluster.

One of my most used programs is a Dos based data base. This contains my
entire life's worth of phone/address contacts. On top of that, I have
all of my business contacts for my own (self employed) business. If
that's not enough, I have contact lists for three different non-profit
volunteer organizations, two for which I am a member, one that is now
defunct, but still contains valuable lists of persons who like to
volunteer for events.
In the end, there are nearly 10,000 entries in this database. I began
using it in the database around 1989, the software was created in 1987.
This is not the old Dbase, but a highly advanced program for it's time,
and was used for professional businesses. I was originally introduced
to it by a friend who worked at a hospital, and that hospital used this
software to do all their records. This friend was a volunteer for one
of these non-profits, and he obtained a copy, and assigned me to
maintain the volunteer list for that org., which was quite extensive.
Eventually, I bought my own copy of it for personal use. I have used it
since.
It's still excellent, and still works well. I can boot directly to dos
and that program if I wish and not have to wait for Windows to load,
just to retrieve a phone number. The problem is that the data from this
program can not be transferred to any other database, aside from
retyping everything. I have never found any other database I liked as
well, or works as easily.
No matter what I do, I need some form of Dos. It will run on any
version of dos from Dos3 and up. (Maybe earlier versions too, but I
never tried it). Does Linux have any way to run Dos programs? I have
my doubts. Of course I know a Macintosh wont either. But I can take
any old computer, even a XT or 386 and run this dadtabase. The entire
program can be run from one floppy if needed, althought due to the large
amount of records I have, several floppies would be needed for the data.
I used to carry around a floppy with that entire DB and could access my
data on any dos (or early dos-based windows) computer. The bottom line
is that this program can not be replaced. If I have to switch to some
non-MS computer, all I can do is get some old laptop, install Dos, and
use that exclusively for my database.

You could also make a bootable DOS USB pen drive, and put all your DOS stuff
on there, and then it wouldn't matter what Windows OS you were using.

[Auric__]

Post by t***@toyotamail.com
One of my most used programs is a Dos based data base.

[snip]

Post by t***@toyotamail.com
The problem is that the data from this
program can not be transferred to any other database, aside from
retyping everything. I have never found any other database I liked as
well, or works as easily.

There are ways around almost any obstacle. What is the program called?

Post by t***@toyotamail.com
Does Linux have any way to run Dos programs?

Using emulation, yes. DOSBox:

http://www.dosbox.com/

...or DOSEMU:

http://www.dosemu.org/

...or any general-purpose PC emulator (with DOS installed in the emulated
PC). There are several free ones -- VMware Player, QEMU, VirtualBox, etc.

[Axel Berger]

Post by t***@toyotamail.com
The problem is that the data from this
program can not be transferred to any other database, aside from
retyping everything.

Not even to old standard CSV? The point about mine is its excellent out
programability. I can dial phone numbers, insert addresses and e.g.
customer numbers into letters and faxes, write a fully formated (no
limit on available formats) references section from my sources database,
get a list of birthdays from addresses.
When both were on the real Atari I could even "type" data into other
programs without any other import facility (aacount data for very old
wire transfer), doesn't work across platforms of course.
You should at least be able to "print" to the generic text-only printer.

Axel

[Axel Berger]

Post by Axel Berger
You should at least be able to "print" to the generic text-only printer.

And you ought to, if only for backup.

Axel

[Bill in Co]

Post by t***@toyotamail.com

Post by Axel Berger
You have made a decision about popular OSs, why not do the same about
"popular" software? If and when the time comes for me - up to now I
don't tough a running system, but I may be forced - it will certainly be
Linux.

Is there a linux type that looks and works like Win98?
Which one? Will it run older software made for 98?

You might look into Linux Mint (Cinnamon). I would have suggested good old
venerable Ubuntu in the past, but I can't stand its new Unity desktop design
(nor do many others, from what I've been reading), nor the direction it
seems to be going.

As for looking and working like Win98, well, just sorta, I'd say. Running
software made for Windows requires installing Wine, as Auric pointed out,
and it may or may not work depending on the software (IOW, it's a bit of a
crapshoot). And tweaking Linux is a bit more challenging, unless you don't
mind spending a lot of time at the command shell line.

[dadiOH]

Post by t***@toyotamail.com
The bottom line is this. Either kiss Microsoft's ass, or
toss your PC in the nearest garbage can. Well, I have
given this considerable thought, and decided that I will
never give Microsoft another cent. Particularly when I
hate every OS they have made since Win98. I can still
continue to use WIN98 for my personal uses, but in order
to go on the internet, I have decided to spend some money
and buy a Macintosh computer. I never thought that I'd
make that switch, and being elderly, I really hate having
to relearn to use a completely different computer system,
yet, there really is no other option.

Actually, there is.

My PC has WinXP; it looks and behaves just like it did when it had Win98.
The main difference is that it never crashes.

My laptop has Win8. It looks and behaves very similarly to my PC. It also
has WinXP on it in a virtual drive.

[Bill in Co]

Post by dadiOH

Post by t***@toyotamail.com
The bottom line is this. Either kiss Microsoft's ass, or
toss your PC in the nearest garbage can. Well, I have
given this considerable thought, and decided that I will
never give Microsoft another cent. Particularly when I
hate every OS they have made since Win98. I can still
continue to use WIN98 for my personal uses, but in order
to go on the internet, I have decided to spend some money
and buy a Macintosh computer. I never thought that I'd
make that switch, and being elderly, I really hate having
to relearn to use a completely different computer system,
yet, there really is no other option.

Actually, there is.
My PC has WinXP; it looks and behaves just like it did when it had Win98.
The main difference is that it never crashes.

+1

[t***@toyotamail.com]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:13:14 -0700, "Bill in Co"

Post by dadiOH
My PC has WinXP; it looks and behaves just like it did when it had Win98.
The main difference is that it never crashes.

+1

I cant remember ther last time my Win98 crashed. Browsers crash
regularly, from script errors and fuckled up websites, but not my W98
OS.