herbalist

Kaspersky may be a good AV but 98 can be secured very well without it, or any other AV for that matter. It's rather pointless to go through the work of getting 98 to run well on new hardware, then drag it down with an AV. The loss of AV support might be a problem for the average user, but anyone who is willing to take the time to get 98 running on new hardware isn't an average user and doesn't need to rely on such inefficient security software and the outdated policies on which they're based. Rick

I'm looking for answering machine and phone call recording software for Win98. It needs to work with my USB Faxmodem. I'd prefer one that will run in the system tray and can save calls to a common audio format, doesn't matter which one. Prefer Open Source or freeware, will buy if it's good. Rick

I also got that error message after installing 5.1. After a boot into safe mode, the next reboot was normal, with Virtual PC 5.1 working normally. Occasionally I still get that error but it usually boots fine on the next try. I haven't figured out how to completely eliminate this problem yet. Rick

No CD drive? You can save yourself a lot of time and grief if you download your updates and software with another PC, and save them to a hard drive. After you get the basic OS installed, put the 2nd hard drive in as a slave and install the updates. You'll want to get copies of the latest drivers for your sound card, display drivers, modem drivers, etc. If you're using them, you'll need drivers for the network card, USB card or updated USB drivers. Check the site of the PCs vendor for more updates specific to that hardware. My FE unit is an old HP. They had several updates just for the model I use. You can either install individual MS updates or pick up the unofficial service pack for FE from MDGX. If you're going to install individual updates, you'll want to include VBRun 6 and a VC redistributable. One of the fist apps you'll want is an unzipping program like 7zip or WinZip. 98 has nothing built in that handles zip files. If you can use a 2nd hard drive to transfer updates, add this to it, along with whatever alternate browser you'll be using. FYI, SeaMonkey is excellent on FE. It would help to know what you'll be using this FE box for. Will you be sharing files over a network? General purpose single PC? Will you be using Internet Explorer? Wireless? Will you be adding a CD or CDRW later? What other external hardware will you be using? Ext hard drive? USB modem? WebCam? Printer, Scanner, etc? There are numerous tweaks and changes that can be made to FE, depending on what you will and will not be doing with it. Before I installed the CDRW, I did everything on this FE box with floppies. Did data backups on spanned sets, many of which used 50 or more floppies. I'd hate to guess how many hundreds of floppies I have laying around. They were such a headache. One bad floppy caused problems for the whole spanned set, and it was soooooo slow! Wore out 2 floppy drives. IMO, the CDRW is well worth installing. FE burns CDs just fine. Rick

That's what MS and security software vendors would like you to believe in order to separate you from your money. The only place 98 falls short in security is with local threats, where unauthorized people have access to the keyboard. Against threats from the net, 98 can be made very secure at little or no cost. Rick

I don't recall seeing anyone claim that FE is better on old hardware. I made the statement that it's slightly faster than SE on old hardware. That's mainly because FE is a bit smaller. As installed, it also has one or two fewer running processes. In most other areas, SE is better. Rick

I can live with that. Natural abuse resistance. It probably helps not having the outer case on as well. Wide open air flow. I swap hard drives so often that the case just gets in the way. The last time I never put it back on. Rick

With 98SE, I'm pretty much limited to using VirtualPC 5.1 so I can't help with the "which is best" questions. VirtualPC will run 98 and 2K guest systems with no problems. It also has the ability to let you transfer files between the real and virtual systems. Somehow I managed to delete my image of the 98SE testbox that had VirtualPC installed, so I made a new one last night, along with a 2K guest system. Neither is completely finished at the moment, lots of updating to do, but they're working well. My system is older and has much lower specs than yours, 366mhz, 160MB RAM. There are no problems with excess heat, memory, or processor usage from using Virtual PC, or any other app I've tried. A Screenshot of Win2K running in VirtualPC on 98SE. The screenshot was taken on the 98host, then transferred and uploaded with the 2K guest. Both Process Explorer and MemUse are running on the host system to show that it is not being overworked. An app like CPUIdle shouldn't be necessary. Rick

Running VirtualPC with a 98 guest system shouldn't cause overheating or 100% processor usage, unless you've got something else that's conflicting. At this moment, I'm posting with IE6 on a virtual 98FE box, running on a 98SE host. Nothing is getting hot. Processor usage is averaging 40 to 45%. With a 366mhz Celeron in the host OS, the guest system is quite slow, but both are working normally. Rick

My FE box shuts down in 6 seconds. Regarding the bootup, my FE box has additional items that add quite a bit to the boot time. There's the bootloader, which has a 3 second delay to the default selection. There's a batch file that's called from autoexec.bat. which adds over a full minute to the boot time. It's a multi-profile PC, so there's the password prompt, which the "escape" key won't bypass. My boot cycle includes 6 "run once" processes, loaded from several locations. A standard bootup ends with 16 running processes. It takes 30 seconds to leave the BIOS since I switched the 3rd drive. Used to take about 5 seconds. Not sure why this drive takes so long. It takes another 5 seconds at the bootloader until 98 starts booting. From there, it's about 95 seconds to the profile password prompt, most of which is used by the batch file. After entering the password, it's another 40 seconds until hard drive activity ceases. The total is 3:05 with the batch file, 1:55 without it. When I account for time used by the BIOS and for entering passwords, windows itself and the autostart processes takes just over a minute. With most of the "Run Once" entries removed, it's under 45 seconds. The additional 70 seconds of startup time from running the batch file is a small price to pay for booting with a clean, compacted, and optimized registry, clean copies of the core system files, and protected copies of the other autostart locations. Rick

Maybe I've missed something here, but why don't you make your own bootable virtual 98 system. I have VirtualPC 5.1 on one of my SE test systems. A standard 98FE install CD ran on it just fine and installed a normal virtual OS. It saved normally. I can load it whenever I want, install apps on it for testing, etc. Haven't tried installing a virtual 2K system yet, but don't see any reason it wouldn't work. Regarding the clock losing time, I didn't see that using VirtualPC, even on my slow hardware. It did happen on rare occasions when I was downloading multiple files with a download manager and had an AV scanning files "on access", holding the processor at 100%. The mouse movement was very choppy. Nothing would work properly until I either stopped the downloads or disabled the resident AV. The clock went back to the correct time when I rebooted. Rick

Are the files reaching the maximum size limit that notepad can handle?

Vista can be blocked too if you're that paranoid... Why do you consider this paranoid? When user software does this, it's classified as spyware. Why should it be different for an OS? When you look at the behavior of their anti-piracy and WGA, it definitely qualifies as spyware, especially when it messes up. A user shouldn't have to compete with the vendor for control over the OS, or repeatedly prove that they didn't steal it, or fight the anti-piracy when you upgrade hardware, drivers, etc. That's one of the best things about 98. The user has control of it, not Microsoft. Rick

Maybe this will work? http://support.wdc.com/product/download.as...=38〈=en I compared the contents of this archive to the one I used from my install CD. They contain files with the same names but different versions. I'd set fixed drive letters for the CD drives in the device manager before installing the drivers for the external. Rick

How long has it been since you've tried it? I'm using Miranda version 0.7.4, Yahoo Protocol support via libyahoo2 library. [built: Apr 6 2008 18:31:48]. It usually logs in and connects in 2-3 seconds. Miranda updates quite often. I installed it in late February and I'm already 3 versions behind.

If it was my PC, I'd choose 98FE or SE over WinME or an NT system any time, but I'm very prejudiced. You're going to have to tweak and update things no matter which you choose. Which one you choose really depends on what's important to you. You really need to decide just what this PCs primary usage will be before making any choices. How important are graphics to you? Will you be gaming or working a lot with video or imaging software? Will it be a general purpose PC, a "daily driver" type of unit? Office duties? Test unit? Each OS has its strengths. On older hardware, FE will be the lightest, and probably the fastest. It will also need the most updating and will have the most compatibility issues. SE has fewer compatibility issues, software and hardware. Many of the member projects are specifically for SE. ME has the most features of the three. IMO it also has the most problems and will need the most work to make it stable and reliable. Some people like it. For me, it's been nothing but problems. Don't be in too big of a hurry to give up on the built in graphics. Check the PC vendors website and see if they offer updated drivers for the on-board graphics. If your planned usage for this PC doesn't require the power of a separate graphics card, you may be pleasantly surprised. The number of PCI slots you have available and the cards you need to use might make that decision for you. If you do have 2 hard drives installed and if your BIOS lets you choose which hard drive the PC will boot from, you could easily install 2 9X systems and choose which you use from the BIOS. I have both 98FE and SE installed. Both work well. If you decide to install 2 separate 9X systems, disconnect the hard drive the first OS is installed on before installing the second one. Rick

Are those times for a 9X box? If so, that's fantastic! Rick

I'm using a WD80 external drive with 98FE. It's a couple years old, so I can't say if the installer for yours is different. The CD that came with it installed Retrospect, apparently some kind of backup software I didn't want. Instead of using setup on the CD's root directory, I ran PL2507_Driver_WD_16250.exe which is in :\English\Installer\roem\WD\USB. This installs the drivers and a disk removal utility. On mine, the ext drive wasn't usable without that utility. It wasn't necessary to have it running, but it did have to be installed. Yours might be similar. If I remember correctly, Retrospect wouldn't work with 98FE but the drivers themselves do. This is taken from my 98FE box. The installer added both the USB Mass storage device in hard disk controllers and the WD entry in disk drives. In your device manager, do you have fixed drive letters assigned to the CD drives or are you letting Windows assign the drive letters? I've had better results choosing my own drive letters for the CD. On my PC, the built in USB is 1.0. The external drive worked poorly when connected to it. The nusb update didn't help much. It worked much better when I installed a new USB card and the 2.0 Orangeware drivers. For me, version 2.3 of the drivers works the best, better than the newer ones. Connected to the USB card, it's almost as fast as the internal drives. Rick

I very seldom watch flash videos. Normally, I block flash content. Most of the time, it displays ads or something equally useless. There's very little content that's worth watching, but I went to YouTube just to see what this box will do. In full screen, the video isn't as smooth as I'd like but was very watchable. Yes, a 366 Celeron will play a full screen flash video running 98FE, with 18 processes running. FYI, this box was last rebooted on Friday afternoon, 44 hours ago. Still has 62% free resources. 98SE may be regarded are the more stable OS, but FE can be just as stable and reliable, and on my hardware, a bit faster. If I'd get around to giving it that cleanup it needs, it would probably do even better. It's getting a bit bloated, 2.86GB at the moment. The desktop alone is a 350MB+ mess. Regarding Yahoo, if Yahoo gives you trouble on a 9X box, maybe you should give Miranda a try. They have a 9X version that works quite well. I use it for Yahoo and MSN. Much better than running 2 separate IM programs. On the original subject, "why use 9X", for me the primary reasons are security and privacy. These are best achieved by having control over the OS and the software you use. Control requires total access that you don't have with an NT system. The more I look at the NTFS file system, the more convinced I get that it was designed to hide things from the user, processes, files, usage records, etc. Microsofts attempt to lock the kernel on Vista has only reinforced that belief. On 98 units, DOS lets you access everything. A 98 box doesn't complain if the OS components don't have internet access. It can be secured very well with a couple of freeware apps and a little tweaking. A simple batch file can keep your registry exactly the way you want it, fully optimized, emptied of usage records. What combination of apps are needed to accomplish that on XP? I can let someone else use this PC and not worry about what they might open, where they go, or what exploit they might run into. To me, a computer is a tool. For a tool to do what you want, you need to have control over it. If you don't have the final say over what it's doing, it may do more than you expect. For me, that's more than enough reason to not "upgrade." Little to gain and a lot to lose. Rick

How did this thread go from: "why do you still use 9X" to: "How many of which processor is better?" 98 wasn't designed to use multiple processors. If that's the criteria for comparing 98, then this thread is pointless. No, I can't do heavy multitasking on a single 366mhz Celeron. I can run a P2P app with multiple transfers and an IM in the background while still performing normal internet activities. I'd like to see XP or Vista do that or anything else of consequence on 366mhz and 160MB RAM. Getting work out of a high power system is no big deal. Getting the same work from hardware that won't run a modern bloated OS is more of a challenge. On conventional single processor hardware, 9X systems will get more usable work out of it than an NT system. An OS is supposed to harness the hardware and make its power available to the users software, not use up as much of it as possible. Regarding Yahoo and high speed file transfers, I can't verify that with 864/160 DSL service, but back when I used Yahoo (now a Miranda user), I had no problems transferring files and still browsing or doing something else. Rick

wow i could have never pulled that off with my luck Smoothwall uses a Linux kernel. Long uptimes are very normal. Some Smoothwall units run for well over a year between restarts. I'm running Smoothwall 2.0, which works very well on old PCs that can't even run 98 well. It's an excellent way to make good use of old hardware. The total cost was for 2 network cards and one crossover cable. It's plenty fast enough for 864/160 DSL even with a 133MHZ processor. My 98 box has several user profiles. Logoff is disabled for security reasons. If I can get everyone else to leave it on the default profile, maybe I can see just how long it will run without rebooting. At the moment, it's at 21 hours uptime, 66% free resources with 18 processes running, running fine. Rick

I don't have a problem with real progress. When change is for the sake of profits and doesn't represent any real benefit to the user, it's a whole different story. As for the ability to integrate into our daily lives, what can XP or Vista do that 9X wouldn't be able to handle? Many of us don't like the direction windows is going. IMO, an OS should be a platform for the users software, no more. BTW, don't take those OS usage percentages as accurate. Many 9X users use browser extensions or other apps to spoof the browser and OS data sites obtain from us. It's partially a privacy/security issue and partially to deal with sites which try to force users to "upgrade". The 9X systems are the last ones over which the user has full control. Each new version of Windows stores more usage records and takes more control away from the user than the one before. With 98, one adjustment closes all of the open ports. That's much harder to do on XP. Most anything malware can do to a 9X box can be fixed with DOS. With XP, to gain that kind of access, a linux CD, Barts PE, or something similar is necessary. How's that an improvement? I do have both FE and SE installed. So far, I haven't got as much performance from SE as I get from FE. The difference isn't much, but it's enough that I prefer FE. I use SE as more of a testbox. As for how to "tune" 98, that subject would be several threads in itself. Many threads here cover a lot of the details, like optimizing memory usage, swap file settings, etc. Most 98 boxes came with a lot of junk installed, just like XP does today. Much of it has autostart entries. The big problem is the hardware these came with. Much of 98s alleged instability was due to the weak hardware it was installed on, combined with the ever growing demands placed on it by new software. Microsoft's own software is some of the worst for this. One of the best things you can do for 98 is to stop using Internet Explorer. I can't make this box run day after day if I browse with IE6, but I can with SeaMonkey. Security suites are another problem. Most are too bloated for 9X systems and much of what they do isn't needed on a 98 box. There's better ways to secure a 9X box that are more effective and don't add several more autostart processes at the same time. DOS batch files top that list. When I first got this PC, I knew nothing about computers, save that you "needed" an AV to protect them. A co-worker steered me to Norton. I fell for the "one suite does it all" pitch and installed NIS 2002. It took almost 5 minutes to boot this thing up with Norton. One hour of browsing with IE6 would run it out of resources. One malicious site killed Norton and infected me, the only time this box ever got infected without my choice. Dumping Norton for a separate AV and firewall and switching to Mozilla enabled it to run all day. An upgrade from 64 to 160MB RAM, a good tuneup, and dumping the AV entirely enabled it to run for days with no problems. The same PC now boots up in 45 seconds. 98 does have memory usage issues in its design. It wouldn't surprise me if someone here figured out how to fix that too. Until then, getting long run times from 98 means using software that makes efficient use of memory. With SeaMonkey, I can browse for a while, then shut it off and have almost the same amount of free resources I started with. Not so with IE6. Maybe Vista or XP need multiple processors to do that. 98 doesn't. Screenshot This is with a 366MHZ Celeron and 64MB RAM. Rick

There have been many threads here about this. See this one. IMO, it's the best OS Microsoft made. Support? Is that what you call a steady stream of patches and having to put up with WGA? Besides, 98 is supported, just not by Microsoft. Look at the member projects here. When 98 is properly updated and tuned, BSODs are very rare. I haven't seen one on my 98FE box in months. Microsofts policy of planned obsolescence is directly responsible for much of this. See the threads here regarding compatible hardware, motherboards, and software that still supports 98. There's more than you think. Also see the KernelEX project. 98 is faster one one good processor than XP or Vista is with 2 or more. Regarding hard drive capacity, see Enable48BitLBA | Break the 137Gb barrier! Regarding RAM, see Day-to-day running Win 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM. 98 doesn't need the huge quantities of RAM that Vista or XP does to fly. The same applies to CPU speed. Interesting that you use the term "disease". XP and its NTFS file system have made rootkits a common computer disease, one which 9X systems are largely resistant to. 9X systems are immune to much of todays malware and is unaffected by many of the exploits that cause havoc on NT systems. When properly configured and equipped, 98 is a very secure and reliable OS that runs very well on hardware that XP can barely run on, and Vista has no chance of running on at all. 98 users don't have to put up with all the anti-piracy irritations that users of Vista and XP do. For users who value their privacy and won't tolerate an OS that wants to "call home", 98 is ideal. Unlike XP and Vista, the user can access and delete any and all usage records with no specialized software. When my OS does everything I ask of it, runs 24/7 on hardware a new OS couldn't, and is easily secured at no cost, why should I buy anything newer? Rick

My 98FE box usually runs for several days between restarts. Most of the time, a reboot is to switch operating systems. I'm very short on usable hardware, one functional PC at the moment. It serves as both default PC and testbox, depending on which OS I load. Regarding uptime, I have an old Gateway P5-133 with 32MB RAM running Smoothwall. It's been running flawlessly for 96 straight days. The last time it was rebooted was for a power outage. Rick

I contacted the developer of SSM regarding its conflicting with Media Player Classic, and got this reply: Apparently, SSM is as developed as it will be as far as 9X systems are concerned. For Win98/ME, 2.0.8.583 is the last recommended version. 584 and 585 are for NT systems. So far MPC is the only application I'm aware of that conflicts with SSM free, but I'm not skilled enough to determine why. The only other conflict I know of with SSM is with KernelEX. Rick