Atmosphere XG

some web sites don't work correctly with Opera browsers, regardless of whatever version of Opera used. Firefox can be a resource hog, but I've found ways to curb its appetite. Using these Firefox Memory Tweaks mentioned here: http://www.ghacks.net/2007/02/26/firefox-memory-tweaks/ Firefox now runs better on my Win2k/XP machines. speaking of IE being crap, there IS a way to dump IE under Win2000; the steps to do it are little more complicated but possible. see here: http://www.vorck.com/windows/remove-ie.html and there's always 2000Lite which scrubs IE from Win2000 completely. Actually, I've never had any site I've visited have problems with Opera. However, Firefox is another story........... Bare in mind, surfing habits vary and what works great for some may not be the same to others. Personally, I use IE to read offline HTML files I save and that's pretty much it. While I could use Opera (Or any other browser for that matter) to do the same thing, I prefer using IE due to it's fast start up time which no browser on the market can compare. I've already have my own customized 2000 version however, I reverted back to the untouched version. While it was faster, and pulled around 30 MB of RAM, whenever I wanted to install an older program, I was confronted with an error. So, I just use 2000 SP 4, reduce my services to 12 and that's that. Not to mention, 54 MB of RAM is still minimum compared to what many are pulling upon bootup.

I use an old 400 MHZ computer for internet use. Like you, security is not the primary factor due to my surfing habits. When I had only 64 MB of RAM on this machine using Windows 98 First Edition, Opera and Internet Explorer (Although froze a lot) was best. Firefox was a resource, and, memory hog which I had to dump within a month's time. If you have a good amount of RAM (512) there really won't be a problem with Firefox. BTW, I'm still using this old 400 MHZ for Internet use although, Windows 2000 is my primary operating system for the net. Opera is still my choice. You could use an older browser version if you don't need a lot of bells and whistles. Older browsers don't stop working when a new version appears, they just lose support from the developer. Like Windows 98 Good Luck!

I have Windows 98 on separate hard drive. Whenever I feel nostalgic, I swap hard drives on my Internet PC and use it.

From my experience......... The problem with USB -Vs- Ethernet is the lack of speed from the USB standpoint. I lost ruffly 2 Mbps using USB over Ethernet. I also had Windows 98 crash instantly, if I pulled the USB cord from the socket. You may want to check your Internet Provider to find out if there are any cons when comparing the two.

I have my TTL setting at 255.

When I was on 98 (First Edition), I used TCP Optimizer to take full advantage of my bandwidth. I worked very well. No complaints. As far as handling the speed, I was exceeding my 10 Mbps bandwidth (12Mbps) almost all the time on downloads and, Windows 98 had no issues whatsoever. I'm not an uploader so, I can't tell you how stable Windows 98 is on upload speeds. I would imagine it wouldn't be a problem. The only thing I updated was my Network Card (10 Mbps to 100 Mbps) and that's it.

Actually, that's true with almost anything under 1.8 Ghz. Also, Intels seem to be better with Windows XP than AMDs, at least earlier ones. I've experienced the same thing as well in regards to old AMD computers. Can't say the what's the story with AMD today. However, when the K6 was classed as AMD's top of the line processor it offered a lousy performance on Windows XP.

Windows 2000 actually started most of the eye candy, minus Fisher Price theme. Things like mouse cursor shadow. That's still a lot, and much more than an IE-free install which requires 500+ MB. I would say Windows 2000 is very slim comparison to XP in terms of effects and, lets not even mention Vista. You can most definitely strip down Windows 2000 with N Lite. I have a Windows 2000 version I made that is 77 MB 120 MB installed. I can't tell you how fast it is using only 32 MB of RAM. But of course, those that go the N Lite route pretty much knows exactly what they need and do not need. I'll agree that Windows XP is faster than Windows 2000 on a strong computer. However, on a computer offering 500 MHZ or less, Windows 2000 exceeds XP's performance. You'll find XP is fine on 256 MB of RAM providing you have a strong processor. I've ran XP on 192 MB of RAM 500 MHZ Celeron for years and it worked very fast. On the flip side, I've tried running XP on a 400 MHZ AMD K6 with 512 MB of RAM and it was very slow. YMMV.

I went from Windows 98 First Edition to Windows 2000 nearly 2 years ago. If you want no eye candy Windows 2000 is what you are looking for. It only requires 1.6 GB of hard drive space and won’t use your memory carelessly like Windows 98 (First edition was prone to do that can’t say for 98SE) does. You can always set your services to manual or disable them. Windows 2000 only requires 11 services to run (With Internet Services) which draws around 40 MB of RAM upon booting up. 700 MHZ with 256 MB of RAM is plenty for Windows 2000. Remember, it only requires 133 MHZ, 64 MB of RAM. I’ve actually tried running it on 200 MHZ, 32 MB of RAM and it works. Very slow but, it will work. I’m currently using Windows 2000 on 400 MHZ AMD K6, 512 MB of RAM and I have no problems whatsoever. Opera is my primary browser. I’m probably one of the very few that don’t use a virus protection on my Internet PC. I just use Ad-aware on a weekly basis and, Ccleaner. I would imagine your surfing habits would play a factor and, if you keep all your personal information in your computer whether you can get away with it or not.

Thanks for the help. Hopefully one of the two options or possibly both will help.

Ebay still has a good amount of small drives available. Click Here To View

Thanks for the input. Well, moving from a 15 inch screen to 24 takes up more real estate which I don't have. I don't even have enough room for a 17 inch screen. I don't have Windows 95 only 98 SE. So, how would I go about making a compatibility mode?

I was going to throw this in the 98 forum but, it is more aimed towards XP. I have a program that only works in Windows 98, & 95. If I do an upgrade to Windows XP the program works. However, if I do a fresh install of XP I get something to the matter of not finding the sockets and it will not function. So, there is something in Windows 98, that's missing in XP. What I would like to do is pull out the Windows 98 System 32 driver files and, INF folder and throw it into XP's System 32 driver files, in addition to INF folder. Would that work? Granted it is the only program that will not work on XP and I don't need the extras that Windows 98 offers. The company of the software has moved on towards a newer version however, it will only work on a 1024x768 screen and, I'm using a small monitor and need 800x600 which the old program offers.

So I made my first lite version using Windows 2000. I was shocked to find out I reduced it down to 74 MB (ISO) and 197 MB (C:\Windows folder) installed using only 25 MB of RAM when booting up. I've decided not to have any browser as my default browser which means nothing can pop up without some means of a browser. My only problem is getting asked would I like to download xyz file from 123 site when Internet Explorer would normally pop up by Explorer. Where can I go in the registry to disable this prompt when it occurs?

Your going to find out (If you haven't already) that Windows 98 FE is not very popular around here so, you will need to experiment on your own a lot, and research old google groups pages to find answers. Also, many are using more up to date computers so, it doesn't make things easier on your part. I can say 90% of the software I installed on Windows 98FE worked even though it wasn't marketed for 98 FE. So don't believe everything based on system requirements. Many assume no one is using Windows 98 any more so, they don't even bother listing it. The most you can do is research your HP model number and save as much information as possible if you are planning to use that computer in the future years to come. While I've switched to Windows 2000 completely, I'm still using the same PC for Internet use (AMD K6 400 MHZ). So, I understand the difficulty you are having finding answers to your problems. Which is why I suggested Ebay for any extra parts. For, you will not find parts for your computer in retail stores anymore. BTW. My original hard drive is a Western Digital 10 GB that came pre installed with Windows 98 First Edition. So, I don't know who told you at Western Digital that you can't use Windows FE on their drive. Good Luck!

Well, it's obvious you don't need it. You just want it. 98 SE is definitely slower in terms or responsiveness than 98 FE. That's one of the reasons I went to Windows 2000 instead of 98 SE. While Windows 2000 is not as fast as Windows 98 FE, it offers better memory management than Windows 98 SE. I had the same issue (100 % CPU usage on idle) on one of my PCs with 98 SE. I believe it was a bug that can be remedied. You might want to jump in the registry to speed things up in 98 SE. However, using a 395 MHZ computer myself for the internet, Windows 98 SE ran slower than 98 FE overall. So, I can only imagine on 366 MHZ. It's your computer. I know the feeling. However, I refuse to put my stronger PCs on the internet for they are used for Audio processing/editing. For my internet usage this computer is more than enough. I would suggest you go back to 98 FE, add more RAM and tweak it till it can't be tweaked anymore. BTW, when I was on Windows 98 FE I was only using 6 Processes not 25. Even on Windows 2000, and XP Home, I'm using a maximum of 12 proccesses. I maxed out my motherboard's RAM capacity (384) and it made a world of a difference. You may want to reconsider registering to Ebay for it is a haven for old computer parts at dirt cheap prices. Registering is free, and you don't have to use PayPal. I've been buying on Ebay since late 1999, and only pay by money orders.

You are right it's Nero 7 Nero 6 works with Windows 98 SE and it supports DVD Writing. See if you can contact Nero on getting your hands on Nero 6.

You need the Windows 98 SE Upgrade CD for Windows 98 FE. If you try to upgrade a Windows 98 SE disk that is not upgradable it won't work. Go to Ebay and search for a Windows 98 SE Upgrade Disk. I actually used Windows 98 FE for 8 years before moving to Windows 2000. So this is coming from an Windows 98 FE veteran. The problem Microsoft made was calling Windows 98 SE and not Windows 99 or whatever. They (Windows 98 FE & 98 SE) are totally different which is why you need the upgrade Windows 98 SE disk for Windows 98 FE. IMHO the Windows 98 SE upgrade CD is more of a Service Pack for Windows 98 FE for, it cannot be used to do a fresh install like the Windows 98 SE non upgradable CD.

I've used Windows Media Player on Windows 98 First Edition and, upgraded to Windows 2000 around a year ago on one of my PCs. There is no reason Windows Media Player cannot work on Windows 2000. Maybe it's time for you to step away from programs that came bundled with your computer. Try to get your hands on Nero 6. It is far superior than Sonic Record Now. I actually have Sonic Record Now on one of my PCs, and there's nothing special about that any other program can't do. Being heavily into audio, unless the program demands Windows XP, there is no reason Windows 2000 cannot do the same job.

When using my Windows 2000 machine, I get Windows Media Player enabling everytime I hover over an MP3 file in my folders. I would like to disconnect this from happening. Thank you.

Thanks for the reply. looks like 500 - 600 Mb is the way to go. Thanks again.

Hey, Atomosphere, Newbie's explanation is rather detailed, simple and clear. So probably you would like to use task manager instead. Performance is more often used on server system, that is, it logs your system stress over all computer up time to catch some particular moments that heavy demanding happened, in order to do improvment according to those demands. Open it on the System Monitor tree, right click on the right panel, you will see a pull-down menu, select Add Counters, at Performance Object, choose Page File, you will got two counters, Usage and Usage Peak, apply them, and you will see a time bar sweep across the plot area. Keep it open to see how your swapfile demand over time. This is the traditional way to monitor system performance (Those mature Operating Systems usually got their own built in system monitor like Performance), that's why i mentioned it at first, however, after second thought, task manager can also give a rough number of how your pagefile being used. Like to play safe, so the better suggestion would be to put your pagefile at 1.5 times of your total physical RAM. Yes. I'm a Newbie to Windows 2000's method. Now I see why I didn't see anything........... I'm not running a Server. I have reduced the size down 576 after taking the above picture. Thanks again for the help.

You probably have read about Win9X's usage of swap file... NT4 and all 'next of kins' built on NT (2K, XP, 2K3...) don't use swap file until the 'real' RAM is fully taken. Leaving virtual memory management at windows' discretion is IMHO best solution (unlike on Win 9x). Yes. And seeing that I used to have Windows 98 First Edition (aka Gold) on this Computer, I do wonder why I have so much RAM available. On Windows 98, it would take use up all the RAM and resort to the swap file. I guess I'm just so shocked how efficent Windows 2000 is (Not using a lot of RAM) I assumed it's running to ward's the swap file. Thanks. Here's mine before I changed the swap file http://img515.imageshack.us/my.php?image=statusml9.png Windows 2000 seems to be the step child of Microsoft. You just don't hear much about it in comparison to Windows 98 & XP. Thanks again.

Thanks for the reply. I will reduce my swap file down to the appropriate size. I did look in my performance settings and, found nothing. What exactly am I supposed to be looking for? I've clicked on Counter Logs, Trace Logs, and Alerts which shows nothing. Thanks again.

So, I use Windows 2000 Professional (Service Pack 4) for my primary internet use. No Complaints on stability whatsoever. I've noticed out of 384 MB of RAM, I'm using 64 MB of RAM at idle, and 84 MB of RAM when I'm using Opera. Even when listening to Windows Media Player as I surf the net, I'm at around 86 - 87 MB of RAM. I have a Spare 10 Gig Hard drive in which, I use as the Swap File. I have the settings configured to 4 Gigs. My question is; Am I waisting Hard Drive Space with the Swap File? How much does Windows 2000 rely on the Swap File upon starting up if any? Thanks.