BenoitRen

Windows 2000 secure? While it's more secure than XP, it's still a services-based OS. So what if a lot of software is stopping support for Win98? There are always alternatives, and you can always keep using a stable old version. Newer is not always better.

I still want videdit.exe

Yes. Well, that's the old URL. Don't know where to find another one. Maybe on that Toshiba site? :/

This thread would be better on a webpage, especially when it comes to organising. You forgot about the timing problems which stop Windows 95 from being usable on CPU speeds higher than 350 Mhz, and Windows 98 FE (and consequently Win95) from being usable on CPU speeds higher than 2.2 Ghz. Windows 95 does not support all gamepads. At least not USB gamepads.

It's not just that I hate IE, it's a fact that it's a piece of crap that should be exorcised from Windows. A Windows 95 PC without IE is more stable and more secure. "But I'm secure having IE on my computer as long as I don't use it!"

Because people complained about IE4 installing the Desktop Update. The Start Menu is just as practical, and it's ORGANISED. Oh no, that's so hard! Right-click task bar > Minimise all windows -You can accidently move stuff, causing confusion and annoyance -No auto-sorting (alphabetic) -It's meant to be accessed, there's a reason it doesn't look like a file folder Yes, it makes it so much easier, which is why you don't use it, right? Just the fact that it taxes your system more is proof enough that it isn't all that good. It just creates redundancy. The Start Menu already is a sort of advanced Favorites menu. The Go menu is just the toolbar. The Back button copies to "Go up" button. Just a bad idea created by M$' desire to integrate their browser.

I would install the unofficial service pack 2.1 anyway. It doesn't hurt, and might make the system run better.

Many improvements? Only a couple minor features that don't really matter in the end, and some features that unnecessarily add BLOAT to the system. There isn't much point in Quick Launch when you can create desktop shortcuts. Start Menu organising should be done in Explorer, where it makes sense. The Start Menu itself is to be used. Web view and Active Desktop don't belong on any OS. Browsing your hard drive like a web page, complete with Go and Favorites menus, Back & Forward buttons and an IE logo on the upper right? Why? A web page as your background? WHY? It doesn't make sense. It's just bloat. And for all of those so-called 'improvements', you make the OS worse. You integrate IE, making it unstable and use more memory than it's needed (since IE is always loaded). And did I already mention the bloat? Bulls***. Especially considering that IE itself IS a security hole! It's been a long time, so I wonder why I said that. Looking at the KB entry, it seems to be the reverse: "Microsoft has also released Winsock2, a complete redesign of the Winsock architecture. Winsock2 is fully compatible with the Dial-Up Networking 1.4 Upgrade. If Winsock2 has already been installed, the Dial-Up Networking 1.4 Upgrade will not overwrite it."

Yeah, the lay-out could be improved. The OSR2 updates page isn't very clear either. ERPMan's/erpdude8's is much better, though I still thought it could be better. I made my own page. Enjoy. Good. Eh? What's the point of removing IE from the install only to then install IE5 anyway? A Windows computer without IE is a good thing. It's obsolete, full of security holes, and there are superior alternatives available. Yes, even for Windows 95. Grab the latest Firefox 1.5, the latest SeaMonkey (wait until 1.1.6 though, it's released soon), or the latest Opera. Yes, some have. But it's not possible to get it working correctly. Yes. Some even still run it as their primary OS, like me.

Wow, that's really neat. I would use it, but I can't miss the handy Replace feature of NotePadEx anymore.

I meant the general concensus in this forum. Win98 is not a multi-user system, and doesn't have a file system with permissions. And that's part of why we like it.

What? Since when? I thought the general consencus was that it would be trying to make Win98 into something it's not.

Steps 1 to 4 sound good for a clean installation.

Those fonts were designed with XP's ClearType in mind. Without it, they look UGLY.

Because it's 16-bit, I can't use the Dependency Walker on it. I also took a look with Regmon, but I can't figure out what it needs.

I can't find the program for download anywhere.

People just like eye candy. (Not me, though.) That's all there is to it. Being able to use those newer programs? I never understood why it's such a crime to run newer programs on older OSs. Bulls***. No. It will tax my system more, include crap I don't want, bloat Explorer and integrate IE4. Maybe some people like that, but I don't.

I guess Win95 wins, then? My system already boots under 30 seconds, so I can't see how recreating the swap file would decrease boot speed. I've looked up my swap file, and it's 0 kB.

There's no point. IE5 is severly outdated and a web developer's nightmare. There are better web browsers available.

Actually, he did, in the thread description. It has 160 MB, which is enough for decent multi-tasking and a modern web browser. If you go for Windows 98, you can use WMP Classic instead of Microsoft's. On Windows 95, though, I find the official WMP 6.0 (or 6.1 if you can find it) to be best. I use both Acrobat Reader 5.0 and Foxit Reader 1.3. Foxit Reader is a good reader, but at least on my machine, the printing support is broken, so I keep Acrobat Reader for that. Proxomitron seems like an advanced edition of Adblock Plus, an extension for SeaMonkey, Firefox and K-Meleon. I don't see why one wouldn't just use Adblock Plus if (s)he doesn't need the advanced features of Proxomitron. Years back when I tried AVG Free, it seemed very light on resources, even with the shield on. I don't know if it's still that way today.

I'm not sure how much HDD space Win98 needs, but without IE and other crap, Windows 2000 doesn't look too bad.

Hey, that laptop has the same basic specs as my home PC! Windows 95 OSR2 is running fine on it. OSR2 can also be installed without IE, and is just as fast. Plus, it has USB support and FAT32. According to this thread there's a Wifi network card that works with Windows 95. IE is obsolete. There are other, better web browsers out there, and they work with Win95 too.

And pigs fly! Get real. It's a security mess, and its rendering engine is ancient. There's no excuse with the several free web browsers out there. The HTML support is only decent, and the CSS support is lackluster (51% versus 90+% of others).

That doesn't explain anything, really. No distinction is needed between family members on the computer. All they need is a separate directory for their own files. That's it. Because they either have been developed for business use or are based on UNIX design.

What's the point? Nobody should use that piece of crap in the first place.