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. ×

frogman

Member
  • Content Count

    568
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    $0.00 

Posts posted by frogman

  1. There's a lot more to it than 'just taking a chance' but I certainly can't bothered explaining except I'll say it's proactive defense...

    I appreciate your short reply, but the question was directed at BenoitRen, and I still would like to hear his answer.

  2. I'm not going to do anything when Avast drops support, as I don't use an anti-virus program.

    I take it you go on-line, so you just don't bother with AV protection, and just take a chance that you don't get a virus?

    Sorry for asking, but it's that I may be doing something similar, and I want to know what it's like from someone that doesn't use an anti-virus program, but that still goes on the internet to browse etc.

    You use 95 right?

    I get slated on other forums for using 98. but I do so for the stability and ease of use.

  3. I know this has been talked about by many forums, but as Avast are very near to releasing their new Avast 5 and will eventually drop support to 95/98 and ME.

    As there aren't many anti virus real time programs available now for those older operating systems I am now concerned for users that want to keep using their system as to what they will use in this instance once they can no longer use Avast that is.

    I have been informed that they intent to keep Avast 4.8 running for this year anyway, beyond this they don't know, or perhaps they just don't want to say at this time.

    Unless you have any other ideas I would be interested to hear them.

    The time to be thinking about this is now, as we may not have that long come December.

    I will start off by listing ClamWin which will apparently support 95/98/ME but unfortunately it is a resident program and not real time, but at this point in time beggars can't be choosers it would appear.

    Also SAS superantispyware, again the free version not real-time, but a very good scanner for spyware cookies etc.

    Please list as many types of programs, whether it be anti virus real time or resident, and spyware and Malware progs again real time or resident that you know will work and be supported for the older systems, this will help our community and hopefully keep those systems alive.

    Many thanks in advance.

    :thumbup

  4. They did it because they hate Win9x. There's nothing more to it. Their excuse: it makes the code cleaner! Not a good excuse, considering that most of their source code is a mess, regardless of Win9x support.

    They already had emulation of Unicode API, and most of the API calls that Cairo added aren't even used (like SetWorldTransform).

    I see you use windows 95, can I ask what you intend do do when Avast eventually drops support?

  5. Because if igor makes 7-zip compatible with .zipx then the new update may not support windows 98, and that was the point I was trying to make.

    See how you tie the implementation of the zipx spec to possible incompatibilty. This does not make sense. The only data file format that could be incompatible with 9x I can think of would be a format whose spec specifies that the filesize must be at minimum bigger than the maximum file size a 9x system can handle. Other than that I can't see anything that would make a data file format intrinsically incompatible with the given system.

    But we are not talking about the file format not being compatible, it's the actual program itself when and if this guy upgrades it.

    Let me supply an example of what I am trying to say to you.

    At the moment Avast supports windows 98, right, but very soon they will be upgrading it to Avast 5, and I know for a fact that it will not be compatible with windows 98.

    So if we take this on the same ground as the 7-Zip program, and when it's been upgraded then perhaps this will fall into the same category.

    Of course I am aware that Igor may just make it compatible with windows 98 as before, but my worry was and is that it wont be compatible.

    :whistle:

  6. I don't know why you posted this again, we do know that 7-zip works for windows 98, but it don't work for the new zip format .zipx, so I don't see the point you are trying to make.

    I am not trying to make any point. :blink:

    You made a question (pretty much conjectural BTW and IMHO :whistle:):

    Yeah, but will he support windows 98?

    The only known fact is that Igor Pavlov is aware of the problem and that he may add support to the .zipx format, as per given links, I guess that if and when this will happen, then we will see if support to Windows 98 will be kept.

    As said, my personal advice if you are interested in such features, would be to post on the 7-zip Forum saying so.

    jaclaz

    Because if igor makes 7-zip compatible with .zipx then the new update may not support windows 98, and that was the point I was trying to make.

  7. Yeah, but will he support windows 98?

    I don't see why it shouldn't. :unsure:

    Currently 7-zip:

    http://www.7-zip.org/

    7-Zip works in Windows 98/ME/NT/2000/XP/Vista. There is a port of the command line version to Linux/Unix.

    jaclaz

    I don't know why you posted this again, we do know that 7-zip works for windows 98, but it don't work for the new zip format .zipx, so I don't see the point you are trying to make.

  8. It's just too new a format to be supported by anything but Winzip right now I guess.

    Things appear to be in the works ;):

    http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=7488010

    http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=7498208

    http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=7488138

    http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=7488238

    I guess one should give Igor Pavlov :thumbup some time, the specs are public:

    http://www.winzip.com/comp_info.htm

    You may want to issue on the said Sourceforge thread a request, so that the importance of adding the format to 7-zip is notified to to Igor.

    jaclaz

    Yeah, but will he support windows 98?

  9. It's just too new a format to be supported by anything but Winzip right now I guess.

    Yeah, but the problem will be that when winrar starts to support it we won't be supported by that either.

    It does look like we are going to be forced to upgrade 98 eventually doesn't it.

  10. As some people are now using the latest winzip that uses smaller files when extracting, this is now causing a problem for users like myself that are unable to extract these files with their current extraction programs such as Winrar, and Winrar 8.

    I fear that we are going to miss out, and wondered if there was an alternative?

    This post concerns files that have the .zipx extention.

    Any ideas folks?

  11. No, of course not. Your USB1 host controller cannot provide USB2 speed, regardless which cable you use. If thydreamwalker gets USB2 speed, he has an USB2 controller without knowing it.

    Just plugin an USB2 controller. I wouldn't be surprised if it's cheaper than that Belkin cable.

    Mijzelf,

    Where will I find a USB2 controller? is this similar like when I added an ethernet card to my motherboard?

    thydreamwalker,

    Do you know if you do indeed have a USB2 controller?

  12. :whistle: Make sure to use a "Belkin2.0-USB"cable on your external Hdd , it'll save time transfering files and acts like a Usb2.0 on a Usb1.0 :thumbup It may take a day(at least) ,if you are organized with transfers of your files :hello:

    So if I buy a Belkin 2.0 USB cable I should then find that the transfer speed will act similar to USB2?

    I do have maximus nusb3.3 installed.

  13. I suppose they will transfer slow as my computer doesn't have a USB2 slot.
    You realize that it will last 500000 seconds ~ 1 week to fill a 500GB disk with USB 1 transfer speed?

    BTW, while you can create and use 500GB partitions, W98 scandisk and defrag should not be used on partitions bigger than about 126GB (the FAT size may mot exeed 16MiB minus 64 KiB). I have read somewhere the WinME tools doesn't have this problems. This is a bit imaginary in this case, since you don't want to scandisk a 500GB partition via USB1. It will take days to finish.

    I understand what you say, however I don't have 500GB of data anyway, it's around 194GB

    I have 23 dual layer DVD's of around 7.84 GB on them, plus 14GB of data on my computer, so every time I have some files I would transfer them on a daily basis to stop long time delay's while transferring.

  14. I would be looking at a 250 GB External Hard Drive, but folks on another forum have said that I would need to partition it, as the maximum size of drive for windows 98 is 127GB, would I really need to partition the 250 GB drive? My current internal drive is 80GB
    Internal PATA/SATA drives have this 127GB limitation of disk/partition size, but NOT external USB drives. I don't know about the size limitations of other external connections (Firewire, eSata) under Win98.

    I have in one of my external Adaptec ACS-100 3.5" USB enclosures a 250GB PATA HDD, which has actually only 232.9GB and runs fine connected to a 10-year-old laptop with an old BIOS which does not support 48-bit LBA (the internal 120GB HDD is reported by the BIOS as 65535MB, but everything works fine) With an actual disk size <240GB (a size limitation of Norton Disk Doctor under Win98) there is NO compelling need to partition the drive.

    One of the main purposes of partitioning is to limit the damage in case of disk corruption: disk corruption due to a buggy program/driver has happened to me many times under Win98, but the damage was always limited to a single partition. The last disk corruption that happened to me under Win98/FAT32 was just a few days ago when I had 2 external 1TB HDDs connected to the USB 2.0 Cardbus card in the PCMCIA slot of my old laptop, and I was copying/moving large files from one external drive to the other. Using Windows Explorer I got a msg on a blue screen: "Disk Write Error. Unable to write or to disk in drive O:. Data or files may be lost." After power off and on again and fixing the HDD with NDD, I repeated the file move with Beyond Compare, with the same Disk Write Error, plus 2 different file allocation tables. I eventually deleted the whole partition. The most likely cause was a buggy Win98 driver for the Texas Instruments Cardbus controller, written by Microsoft.

    BTW, I never had a physically damaged disk and this is probably an extremely rare event for home users, unless the disk drops from a table onto a stone floor or you play soccer with it, so the benefit of a RAID for home users is mainly imaginary.

    Thanks for all of that info.

    So you think all I would be required to do is purchase an External Hard Drive say 250GB or 500GB, then add it to my USB hub, it should then be recognised by the nusb 3.3 by Maximus Decim, then I should be able to add files to it, I suppose they will transfer slow as my computer doesn't have a USB2 slot.

    Btw, did you install the nusb 3.3 by Maximus Decim too? if so, what are the dates on the driver in device manager? the reason I ask is that I have this bug that when I close a full screen picture I then have an empty minimised rectangle box on the taskbar at the bottem of the screen, and I have been told this is a user/32 bug, it has been like this since I installed the nusb 3.3 by Maximus Decim, so I can only imagine it was this that causes this to occur, so I tried the version nusb 2.4 Maximus Decim, and th problem was still there, unfortunately there is no un-install for the 2.4, so I installed the newer one again3.3, but I want to know if it installed over the 2.4 version, I think it did as I saw a window when the files were being written, I see the 3.3 version is included in the add/remove programs whereby the 2.4 wasn't.

    No big problem though with this bug as all I do to get rid of the rectangle box is to left click it, the funny thing is there is the odd time I can close a full screen picture without the minimised empty box showing in the taskbar, oh how strange computers can be, but I still love my Windows 98 S.E

×
×
  • Create New...