Multibooter

If I remember right, in the window "Select Directory" of Windows 98 Setup no menu selections (e.g. 'Other directory') have an underlined letter, using the cursor keys and pressing Ctl+Space is the only way to make a selection there without a mouse, and no idea why MS did not allow the hitting of an underlined letter (maybe the keyboard driver is necessary for entries of Alt+Character and is not yet installed at that stage of the installation). Please correct me if I remember wrong.

This is a perfect recipe for wasting many hours, or for a long learning experience. Since you have already thrown out the old computer, I would also throw out the old HDD. Only a few modern motherboards work with Win98. If the motherboard of your Acer M5630 does not officially support Win98, then you will get from one mess into the next with this HDD.

With Tab & Space you can move the focus, but you cannot make menu selections (=make a black dot appear to the left of the selected menu item). Use cursor keys and select items by pressing Control+Space. I also had encountered this mouse problem a few times during a Win98 installation, just after ScanDisk and before the Select [Windows] Directory comes up. I don't quite remember, I think it depended on the type of mouse I used, either with a round PS/2 connector or with a regular serial connector. Win98 at the problematic point during installation has not yet loaded the required (serial port?USB?) driver; if the cursor of the USB mouse could be moved before that point, I would assume because of a setting in the BIOS to support USB devices with legacy operating systems. In any case I would rather not use a USB mouse for the installation of Win98.

Just paranoia. herbalist gave an excellent answer:http://www.msfn.org/board/Last-Versions-of...808#entry767808

No, primarily security in the internet. Hiding stuff on old 5.25" media with CP/M format can be done under DOS 6. On more readily available 3.5" floppies data can be secured/hidden with a modded Win3.x using a modded code page. BTW, DOS 6 works fine with Core 2 Duo.

I still use these apps that do not work very well with 98se... Digital Editor Plus, Cakewalk Pro 3.0 Samplitude Master 3.21, Micrographics Picture Publisher 4.0 (faster than any version of Photoshop), Aldus Photostyler (best digital airbrush ever made) Are these Win 3.x applications? It is a good idea to create a list of good Win95 applications which don't run well under Win98. BTW, my single most-used and most-important software is a Win 3.x application: InfoSelect 3. It is a free-form personal information manager & contains my personal notes, computer installation & usage notes, diary, contacts, whatever one would write down on paper - of the last 18 years. I upgraded in 1995 from the DOS-version to v3. It works under Win95, 98, XP without installation, all personal notes in a single set of files & updatable/accessible at the tip of my fingers under various opsys, ideal for a multibooter. I would give Infoselect 3 my personal rating "most useful software ever written" - even if it cannot be found anywhere anymore, not on eMule, nowhere. Other top software might have been forgotten & buried like Infoselect 3 - I appreciate comments like "Aldus Photostyler (best digital airbrush ever made)". I am a multibooter because I like to be able to continue using my old software, just as I like to be able to read old books. When M$ fanfares a new opsys, M$ basically says: "Now you can throw away all your old books" - not with me.

I am not into benchmarking, any suggestions for a good benchmarking software, which runs under Win98 & WinXP?Also, my objective is not to run a top Win98 system. My objective is rather to run WinXP (and later a Unix-variant and maybe Vista) with recent hardware; but on the same hardware I also want to be able to run Win98. In a combo WinXP/Win98/DOS/Linux/Vista you have to make compromises somewhere, it starts with the motherboard. I am using the Asus P5PE-VM, which only allows 2GB of RAM; only AGP, no PCIe; Core 2 Duo up to X6800, no quad core; only 3 PCI slots; only 1 floppy drive from which you can boot. The difficulty of getting a combo to work continues with finding drivers/workarounds to get other hardware to work (PCI-cards, printer, scanner, etc). The overall strength of such a combo is more in its ability to use the opsys best fitted to specific tasks (e.g. secure access of the Internet). The results of a benchmark software will not reflect this. Here an example of some simple tasks: try to transfer an encrypted file from a 5.25" floppy disk, written in Osborne CP/M format, to Win98/XP and decrypt it then. Or encrypt a file under Win98/XP, then save it onto a 5.25" floppy in, for example, the KayPro 4 CP/M format?

Is IE 5.5 any better?Do you have a version of IE6 which is definitively pre-Sebt.2001? I only have v6.0.2600.0000IC which (according to my personal download notes) I downloaded from MS on 20-Sebbt.2001 "Internet Explorer 6.0 was released on August 27, 2001" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer

Thanks for the correction. Somehow I was under the erroneous assumption that Nero 7 didn't support Win98 anymore. Here the download link for the trial version for Win98: http://www.nero.com/eng/downloads-nero7-98me.phpDo you know why there is this comment in parentheses? "LAST - $$$$ - Nero Burning ROM 7.2.7 (6 offers greater stability)" http://www.msfn.org/board/Last-Versions-of...98-t105936.html Taiyo Yuden CDs & DVDs are top.In my previous posting #20 I mentioned archiving my old software CDs, and they were quite old (1994-1996, i.e. 12-14 years), somewhat older than your first CDs (8 years). Before archiving, I ran a CD quality test on the first batch of 18 (avg.age: 13 years) with Nero CD-DVD Speed v4.7.7.15, producing the following interesting results: 1 CD had an unrecovered read error 4 CDs had a quality rating of 0, with a C2 total between 94 and 1454 13 CDs had the following quality ratings: 74,76,80,84, 87,88,89,91,92,93,2x94,97 giving an avg of 88 The best CD had Q=97, C1 avg= 1.20, C1 max=20, C1 total=5226 These were all golden CDs by TDK, Mitsui & 1 bad Kodak. They were stored at room temperature, except for 3 summers in an attic with temperatures reaching 40-45 Centigrade. The golden CDs were part of the Fate series, burnt by Numbers, so probably with the best burn quality possible in those days.

If you install WinXP on a FAT32 partition, you can even virus check WinXP while under Win98. Of the whole Nero software-accumulation I only use Nero Burning ROM & the standalone Nero CD-DVD Speed, and I am quite satisfied with Nero. For rare special burns I use (under Win98) old ClonyXXL v2.0.0.6/CloneCD v5.2.1.1 (e.g. Oxford English Dictionary v3.0) and old Alcohol 120% v1.95 (build 2802), both can co-exist with Nero. The burn quality of Win98 vs WinXP differs substantially for DVDs, less so for CDs, maybe under Win98 4GB are harder on the cache than 700MB. When Nero CD-DVD Speed indicates a DVD burn quality of less than 95, I throw it out as a coaster, my target is 97-99%, I use Japanese DVDs (Panasonic, taiyo yuden). A DVD displaying a quality of 95 shortly after the burn, usually will have deteriorated to a quality around 75 after 12 months, etc. On one of the older CDs (10+ years) which I recently archived, after successful archiving with repeated read-attempts & cleaning, a flake of the golden layer had just fallen off, producing a CD with a small hole in the golden layer to look thru I have seen quite a few old gold CDs where the golden layer had fallen off at the outside rim, but maybe ammonia-based Windex was too strong (I have seen Windex only in the US, not in Europe) My concern about outdated browsers is less the security aspect. My major concern is that some websites (often those where money transactions are involved) don't work properly with older browsers. Under Win98 www.youtube.com/user/CSPAN for example displays Ok with IE6, but nothing is displayed when you use IE5.5, even if Flash Player 9.0.124.0 (!!) is installed

Except for the trojans Just try to burn 2 identical DVDs with Nero v6.6 (the last Win98 version), one under Win98, the other under WinXP. Then run Nero CD-DVD Speed. Disk Quality Test: The DVD burnt under WinXP will most likely have a better/higher score than the one burnt under Win98.By the way, I am currently archiving my old software CDs (about 200) dating back to 1994 - onto USB HDD!! Don't trust plastic, about 20% of the old CDs would have been unreadable by most current CD/DVD-burners! I am lucky to own a LiteOn SOHR-5239V, a CD-burner with exceptional error correction, and was able to recover about 99.95% of the old softwares, with the help of Beyond Compare [it doesn't stop copying after the first bad file, and you can easily repeat the copying attempt of individual bad files]; Windex ammonia-based glass cleaner also helped in a few instances.

I am using Kaspersky only as an on-demand scanner, mainly for checking eMule software downloads, not for securing Win98. About 10% of eMule software downloads are infected, so a top AV is essential.The Internet is the principal source of malware. The major reason for using Win98 with new hardware is its limited malware/spyware/etc vulnerability in the Internet. So I stick to my crystal ball, which says that Win98 will be dying when there are no more new Win98 browser versions OR when there is no more anti-virus support under Win98. Whenever there will be no more anti-virus support under Win98, the task of on-demand scans of internet downloads could be done under another opsys (e.g. WinXP, Linux). This is not convenient, but it could be done. The task of burning CDs/DVDs, for example, I have moved from Win98 to WinXP, because the burn-quality (and longevity of the CDs/DVDs) under WinXP is much superior. As a multi-booter, I am using the opsys best fitted to the respective task.

My experience has been an average uptime of eMule under Win98 of 2-3 days, with a wide range from an hour to about 7-8 days. It seems to depend on what you are downloading: If you are downloading for example M$-stuff, the system may crash/hang every hour, I guess their IP-etc-software is not Win98 compatible Also, frequent attempts by unruly hackers and by maliciously modded eMule-versions seem to cause quite a few eMule hangs.So a frequently crashing Win98 may actually be something positive: Win98 may just keep unwanted guests out and give them the boot.

I can recommend the Asus P5PE-VM. It is compatible with Core 2 Duo CPU, even with the X6800. Its major disadvantage is that it has only 3 PCI slots and a 2 GB memory limit. I was so satisfied with this board that I bought at ebay 19 of them, as spare parts for several identical computers. Sounds eccentric, but I intend to use a Win98/WinXP combo for another 8-10 years.The end of Win98 will come when Kaspersky will not provide virus updates for v6.0 (last version for Win98) anymore and when Opera will not provide an updated browser for Win98. By the way, Kaspersky is still providing current virus updates for the really old v4.5 (2003), which I never bothered to upgrade, and their v6.0.2.621 (Win98 compatible version) is still available for download/purchase at their website.

US software released after Sepptember of that year may or may not contain special goodies. In any case, the US official agencies must be pleased that the relative secure Win98 has come into disuse.

Welcome to this forum. Win98 on new hardware is a great luxury: it cost a lot of time getting there. The reward is a highly secure system, where Big Brother has a hard time listening. A new WinXP or Vista computer costs very little, but Win98 on new hardware money cannot buy.

eMule has under Win98 a [recommended] connection limit of 100 (eMule - Options - Connection - Max.connections). If you set the Max.Connections to >100, eMule produces the following warning msg:"The number you have selected for "Max.connections" is larger than your OS supports: 100. This may cause your system to become unstable. Are you sure you want to do this?" Do you have any experience with settings >100?

Thanks. This backup method also works if you install a 2nd Win98 opsys. With 2 Win98 or a Win98/XP combo you have a rock-solid situation, it really doesn't matter anymore if Win98 gets shot up with same bad software.The next level of system resilience is when you have several identical computers. About 2 years ago one of my laptops went dead, black screen, just after a reboot. After 15 minutes I concluded that something on the motherboard went bad. I removed the HDD, inserted it into an identical spare laptop, and within 5 minutes I continued my work as usual. Win98 detected a couple of new hardware devices (even identical laptop models have different chips), and after a reboot everything Ok. And WinXP also accepted the spare laptop immediately! About a year ago I closed my laptop, but I had to use more force than usual & it made an unusual noise. I opened again the laptop and found a hinge completely broken & the cables from the motherboard to the screen partially torn. The 2nd dead laptop! I pulled out the HDD, put it into another identical spare laptop, and everything was back to normal. A 2nd identical computer is a wise backup measure, in contrast to, for example, a RAID system, which for an individual person is just a waste. I only once had a nearly-bad HDD, and I could hear it coming. And what would you do with 100 nicely backed up applications, if your computer goes bad? Buy a new computer, re-install windows and lock yourself away for 4 weeks installing 100 applications. Win98 will choke on the RAID backup because you will not find drivers for the new hardware, and WinXP will choke with the new hardware because of problems with the transfer of the license for activation and problems with repair installs. I put SecondChance onto my list of software to be tried out, even if it's not popular with the mule, thanks.

Nice to hear. By the way, old Windows 3.x (based on DOS 6) still has some value today, it is a private little Enigma machine, if you know the Farsi/Arabic alphabet: in the early 90's the code of Win 3.x was extensively hacked and 4-5 functioning versions were created with non-standard code pages. If under these non-standard versions of Win 3.x you save files with Farsi file/directory names, operating systems with a differing code page just get file error messages when trying to access these files/directories. A floppy with such files looks pretty much like a bad floppy, and to access these directories/files you need an opsys with the corresponding non-standard code page. The Windows Explorer under Win98 is definitely weak. Under Win98 Beyond Compare can be used as a semi-replacement of Windows Explorer. Copying, moving and deleting files with Beyond Compare does not cause one-minute-system freezes http://www.msfn.org/board/98-FE-98-SP1-98-...fix-t84451.html Copying files under XP is about 2 times faster than under Win98.So if the Windows 95 Explorer is the major benefit of having Win95, the combination of Beyond Compare under Win98 and Explorer under WinXP may make Win95 superfluous. Thanks, but under Win98 I prefer to have security holes rather than MS updates after Setpember 2001, and under WinXP I have not set up an internet access

I don't know how CPUIdle works with Core 2 Duo under Win98SE, but it WORKS & the system is stable. The indicated percentage of available CPU seems to be Ok.http://www.cpuidle.de/news.php gives some info, but the version in question may not be on the download page. The right version is CpuIdle Extreme v7.5.0.10 Win9x-Me.exe 590.069 bytes modification date Jan.7, 2008 2:07:34pm I am currently travelling in Europe & my dual-core Win98 desktop is in the US. When I am back in Sept/Oct, I will test the THG Task Assignment Manager v1.0 (freeware, made in 2004) under Win98/dual core, which allows the manual assignment of tasks to various cores. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/bang-d...g-buck,815.html My gut feeling says that you CAN use multiple cores under Win98 with this software.

Are there any applications/utilities which run under Win95 but not under Win98SE? I am using Win98SE/WinXP/DOS 6.22 via System Commander. Assuming I could find the hardware drivers, would there be any benefit in installing also Win95 as another opsys? Does Win95 OSR2 already come with the proto-root kit which secretly stores browsing histories in the cloaked (=not visible & access denied) Index.dat files? http://support.it-mate.co.uk/?mode=Product...=index.datsuite

I am not sure whether SecondChance is even worth while installing, the mule has only two instances, which looks like a thumbs down. If you have on your computer a 2nd opsys which can handle long filenames, a system backup/restore of Win98 is very easy: Backup: just copy, while in the other opsys, the 3 directories \Windows\, \Program Files\ and \My Documents\ Restore: while in the other opsys, delete the 3 Win98 directories \Windows\, \Program Files\ and \My Documents\, then copy the 3 backed-up directories into their locations. This procedure has worked for me for over 8 years, is very simple & doesn't require the installation of tricky software.

CPUIdle is especially useful under Win98, the Percent-CPU available is displayed in the system tray and helps to decide whether the system is hung or doing something. CPUIdle v7.5.0.10 also works fine with dual-core CPUs under Win98 (I am using Pentium Dual Core E2200 & Core 2 Duo E4400).

With Win98 I only make on-demand scans of new downloads. Kaspersky detects in my eMule-downloads about 1-3 trojans per day, but these files get deleted right away. About 4 weeks ago I had made a complete scan of all files on the computer, and Kaspersky could not find any malware, even if the previous system-wide virus-check was made over a year ago!What is worrying however, is that the current flood of trojans seems to overwhelm even Kaspersky: When I re-checked older eMule downloads of a year ago, Kaspersky identified a LOT of trojans in them, even if Kaspersky at the time of download issued a clean bill of health. My guess is that in every 20th software download with eMule, there is a not-yet-identified trojan. Despite treading in sometimes very murky waters with Win98, my computers had not had a noticeable malware infection for several years. On the WinXP opsys on my computers I never had an infection since I have not set up an internet connection under XP, only under Win98.

Is that so for the Win98SE version of Scandisk.exe (143.818 bytes) and the version of Scandisk.exe for WinME (245.324 bytes)?Livingston & Straub claim on the same p.1091 that WinME Scandskw.exe (=Windows version) calls code located in Dskmaint.dll AND Shell.dll. Is this correct or incorrect also? If correct, should one use the WinME version of Shell.dll when using the WinME versions of Scandskw.exe+Dskmaint.dll under Win98?