Jump to content
MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. ×

Andrew T.

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations


Everything posted by Andrew T.

  1. Yeah, I've seen the same. I wouldn't be surprised if this sudden push of deprecation was caused by corporate shenanigans. The remains of AOL were purchased by Verizon last year, and Verizon no-doubt sees AIM as competition for its own voice and SMS services. I wonder if the version of Trillian I downloaded in 2003 still works?
  2. Here's an interesting update that I discovered purely by accident today. On a whim, I fired up AIM 4.8 on my Windows 2000 laptop...and much to my surprise, it connected! Could AOL be doing platform-sniffing instead of version-sniffing, I wondered? I then rebooted my main desktop to my Win2000 partition, and tried my luck there. No dice. Then I took a closer look: I was actually running version 4.8.2616 on my laptop, and 4.8.2790 on my desktop. The slightly-older "2616" build still works and connects! Maybe because AOL has a skeleton crew these days, they unintentionally left a stone un
  3. A few weeks ago, this pop-up from the "AOL System Msg" started to appear when logging into AOL Instant Messenger using client version 4.8; the last one that didn't require Internet Explorer and worked on Windows 95: "Hello. The version of AIM you’re using is going away as of November 30th. To continue using AIM, please download the latest version here." I initially called bluff on this, since AOL had pulled stunts like this a few times before. Today, however, it finally happened: AIM 4.8 will no longer connect to the service. Now, I'm not going to say that this is of much practical significa
  4. I'm not sure which of these points is more surprising: * That Windows 95 was released 20 years ago; * that it represents the halfway point between the Altair 8800 and the present day; or * that it was good enough that I still use it more often than any other OS today. It's no secret that I have defended Windows 95 at various points over the years, and I maintain to this day that it represents a rare moment when the stars aligned and Microsoft engaged in serious usability research to make a GUI that was both powerful and flexible, didn't talk down to users, and was a joy to use. Functionally
  5. Yes, that's one of the deficiencies of this particular computer. At least 2000 is stable enough to make the need to lunge for the button (if it existed) a fairly rare occurrence! Interesting! There are some tutorials to changing the resources in NTOSKRNL.EXE on the web (mostly for the purpose of changing the boot-up screen), and all of them involve some combination of Resource Hacker and/or hex editing. Doable, but probably too much of a challenge for my mood at the moment. Since the NT-type OSes have a different technological lineage than the 9x line, I expect their behavior to be d
  6. I'm not sure what that has to do with my statement... I was pointing out that in Windows 9x, it's possible to reboot a computer by pressing Ctrl+Alt+Del from the "Safe to Turn Off" screen (much the same as doing so from a DOS prompt), whereas Windows 2000 lacks this ability. If you shut down and then change your mind, there's no way out.
  7. For the longest time, I clung to Adobe Acrobat Reader 5.1 because it was the last version compatible with Windows 95 and the last version without an IE dependancy. Unfortunately, it isn't good for much these days. Most contemporary PDF content is backwards-incompatible, and it makes 5.1 choke with a damaged-file error. So, I gave Adobe Reader 8 a try. Why 8, when Windows 2000 can run 9 as well? The 8.x versions were the last ones to include a multi-document interface...the newer versions are unusable for viewing more than one document at a time. There's a catch, though: Not only does Ad
  8. So, I... * Booted from the Windows 2000 CD * Nuked all the visible partitions on the secondary drive, and formatted a new 10GB partition to install the OS upon. * Finished installation, formatted a 27GB partition to use up the rest of the unformatted space, and deleted the "free space" pseudo-partition that was still coming up in Disk Management. * Customized Windows 2000 back to where I had it before. * Copied my data backups back to the reformatted drive. (Still chugging along...) Now my partitions are error-free, and I can use the full capacity on 95 and 2000! PartitionInfo does still
  9. Thanks! Since I was reinstalling Win2000 anyway, I hit F5 during setup and had the OS configure itself around a "Standard PC" HAL. Two caveats: Unlike in Windows 9x, you cannot reboot Win2000 from the shutdown screen by pressing Ctrl+Alt+Del. And the screen itself is very clinical in appearance...nothing like the soothing orange and black of 9x. I wonder if it's possible to customize it?
  10. How do I configure Windows 2000 so that when I shut down, it prompts me with a "It's now safe to turn off the computer" screen instead of turning off the computer automatically? With Windows 95, I was able to banish this "feature" by disabling Energy Saver Mode in the CMOS setup...but in Windows 2000, that makes no difference. No Advanced Power Management tab appears in Control Panel's Power Options, so there's nothing to configure there, and there are few other power-related options in CMOS. The computer itself is a circa-2000 Compaq Deskpro EN. I suppose I'm an anomaly, but I've always
  11. OK. I'll see if I can straighten out the drive later today.
  12. Ugh! It looks like I've unwittingly found myself waist-deep in problems I didn't expect. After my Linux experiment six years ago, I formatted the drive under Win95 and used it as such. Color me ignorant: I wasn't aware at the time that the drive was supposed to hold 40GB, not its capacity as formatted of 32GB! And it gets worse. Windows 2000 now boots to a black screen punctuated by "droppings" of UI elements (except in Safe Mode), so something must have gotten corrupted somewhere. I ran the PartitionInfo tool. Surprisingly I wasn't able to get the 95 version to work (the "Physical Dri
  13. Yet another update... After reading this thread elsewhere on the forum, I downloaded a copy of EaseUS Partition Master 9.x. It revealed that the phantom 36.92GB partition was formatted in the EXT3 file system (!!) This means that it's an artifact from my last attempt to install Linux on this system, six years ago! Can I simply delete the partition with Win2000's administrative tools and reclaim the disk space without repercussions? I'm nervous because it overlaps with the FAT32 boot partition.
  14. In my first screenshot, D is my primary hard drive (with the Windows 95 installation), E is the secondary hard drive (with the Windows 2000 installation), and F is obviously the CD-ROM. The USB stick wasn't plugged in at the time, but if it were it would have been picked up as "C." Here's an update: I booted to 95, stuck the 2000 CD in the drive, and kicked off the installation process again...but when prompted to do so, I selected the "Repair a Windows 2000 Installation" option. After it was finished, I was left with a black screen of gibberish. Then I booted again, and Windows 2000 ca
  15. I took the plunge and "upgraded" from Windows 95 to a Win95/Win2000 dual-boot configuration today. For the most part, the install process itself was pretty painless: All my hardware was automatically identified and configured (except for the NIC), and my existing operating system was left untouched. One big caveat, though: I accidentally went through the installation process while I had a USB thumb drive plugged into the computer. When Windows 2000 was finished installing, I discovered that it had decided my thumb drive was "C:," while my actual "C:," "D:," and "E:" drives had been bumped to
  16. Ironically, I've gone the other way and continued to use the 3.1 or NT 3.51 Paintbrush accessories on Windows 95, 2000, and 7. The scalable controls and ability to control the cursor with the arrow keys are the trump cards of the earlier version...they both have their advantages and disadvantages.
  17. In my view, Windows 2000 represents the point where the raw capabilities of the Windows OS peaked: Fully 32-bit, fully stable, and with a mature API. XP, 7, and 8 were activation-addled regressions that added little new functionality and rearranged their UIs much in the same way as one would rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic. If Windows XP had actually been a functional improvement over its predecessor like Windows 95 was over 3.1, it would have been more obvious. Software would have been written at the outset to make use of the new features, and XP-only applications would have appeare
  18. Thanks for the responses. What an odd mix! I wonder if ME contained a subset of the NT API that 95 and 98 lacked.
  19. Was there ever a software title produced that was compatible with Windows ME, but not compatible with Windows 98? I've never been a fan of Windows ME, but its trajectory fascinates me. It came out after Windows 98, so logically it ought to have been supported and targeted by vendors longer...but it wasn't. It contained a few minor feature additions, but had most of its DOS functionality crippled and was popularly regarded as a net loss relative to its predecessor...and I doubt most developers did anything to dissuade this notion. I seem to remember programs from about ten years ago that c
  20. I've spent the last decade sufficing on a combination of IrfanView 3.9x, Paint Shop Pro 4, and Paintbrush from Windows 3.1...but I'm just as curious as anyone if a better product for all-around use exists. For finding older Fireworks and Photoshop versions, eBay is your best bet. 95-compatible trial demos of Fireworks also exist...but even ten years ago, Macromedia and Adobe tried their best to scrub them off the net.
  21. I've experimented with Linux distros, off and on, for more than ten years. None of them stuck (though I dual-booted Ubuntu 5 for a time). I have little interest in tinkering with computers for their own sake; I want to use them productively...which pretty much means I won't be using Linux again.
  22. Thanks for the responses so far! I wouldn't run Windows post-95 on a Pentium I, that's for sure (though I have bad memories of being asked to troubleshoot the systems of too many people who ignored that advice!). My own hardware has a bit more oomph, though: It's a Compaq Pentium III with 256MB of RAM; enough to even handle XP in a pinch. As far as I'm concerned, Windows 98 was nothing more than a transparent effort to skirt anti-trust mandates...which is why I've had a grudge against it since it first appeared, and think it should never have been released. I viewed ME's file restrictions
  23. For the better part of two decades, I've run Windows 95 OSR2 on my main home computer. Windows 95 was the last operating system that I felt I truly owned: The user had full and unfettered control of the computer, and IE wasn't welded to the UI. In spite of my affection for it (and the satisfaction of using it for over a dozen years after its maker tried to wish it goodbye), the difficulties of using Windows 95 in the modern world have reached a breaking point. I've long gotten acclimated to the idea of not using any new hardware or peripherals...but by now, the same goes for peripherals of
  24. That's the type of battery I'd expect this would have used, yes. You could rig up a homebrew replacement with AA cells, a holder, and some wire.
  • Create New...