SlugFiller

dskmaint.dll is in Windows/System. You installed it in the wrong folder, therefore it didn't work.This is rather amazing to me, as the post you've quoted clearly mentions BHDD30.ZIP, which includes an installer. That you've managed to improperly install it regardless is, to me, quite amazing. Incredible, even.

Wouldn't she be better off with linux? For a fixed low income, free auto-updates would be a big plus, no? If you're opting for 98, I assume Microsoft Office 2008 is not on the menu, and since it is a retiree I'm assuming the same regarding the latest games. For just eMail and web, wouldn't a small linux be much preferable? At the very least, the lack of runtime crashes after the initial configuration (by you) is done would certainly help her. Or are you offering on-going support as well?

No it won't. Unless you plan on manually editing the registry, you will need to use the add hardware wizard, which is not so cooperative. If you place the inf file in Windows/inf, it may find it in "Search for best drivers". It would still ask for the location of the dlls and vxds, even if you already placed them in the places to which they should be installed. In fact, doing that would make things even worse: It expects the drivers to be in a single installation folder, even though after installation they may end up in various system folders. This is particularly annoying when you try to reinstall a driver you already installed: Unless you still have the driver's installation folder unpacked, you will be forced to look through the individual system folders for the files, often having to go back and forth between the same folders as it installs files in an order that does not group them by destination folder. Windows will never acknowledge it already has the files, and will even mark the driver as improperly installed if you try to skip any of them.

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/Software/Microsoft/Windows/CurrentVersion/Run There is also a matching key in HKEY_CURRENT_USER, but it's fairly empty. If you don't like to get "down-and-dirty" with your registry, let me recommend Start->Run->"msconfig"->Startup. It allows limited editing of the aforementioned registry keys, namely, moving string values to and from a temporary key representing disabled startup items. The disadvantage is that it edits Run, RunServices, and Start->Programs->StartUp as one unit, making it impossible to tell one from the other. Then again, it may be seen as an advantage, as you can search for whatever you want remove in all of these at the same time, without having to think too hard about in which one it should be.

I'll repeat what I've said (and you seem to have missed): You don't actually need to install 95. You just need to prove you have it. Start the 98 installation, and at some point it would ask for a 95 CD. Insert a 95 CD, doesn't matter which version, and that's it. I'll repeat that: It doesn't matter which version of 95 you use. It doesn't actually use the files on the CD, it just wants to make sure you have it. At least this is what I know from my upgrade CD. I advise you to test if yours is the same.

And then users like us would be able to switch to any UNIX version they want. Well, assuming Microsoft didn't make proprietary changes to the API, as they are known to do (See: Microsoft Java). The fact is, they opted for a proprietary API, and not for any practical advantages it has, but rather because they knew they could corner the software that way. The proof is in the fact they did the same with any other API they laid their hands on. Until 95% of the software you can buy off-the-shelf runs on it, it's just a dream.Chicken and egg. If hardware vendors pushed Linux, software developers would follow suit. Software developers simply opt to support what people have, and currently that is Windows.It does create a cycle, a catch-22 of sorts: Software developers wouldn't support an OS that isn't widely used, and an OS without enough software wouldn't be widely used. Nevertheless, the decision on which OS most users use is usually that of hardware vendors, not users, as most wouldn't know how to switch if they wanted to. That's why hardware vendors pretty much determine the market, but Microsoft's licensing policies give them a very strict control over hardware vendors. I wasn't talking about Microsoft supporting it, I was talking about their official announcement of the matter, and the removal of related resources from their web-site. Imagine, if you will, if Microsoft simply stopped releasing updates for 9x, and had their own software NT-only, but didn't mention anything about end-of-support, and didn't remove the relevant resources and downloads from its website. Do you think software developers would have removed 9x support then?Actually, you don't have to imagine. Microsoft actually dropped support over a year before their announcement. No one noticed. They even released NT-only programs, like MSVC .Net and installers of the .Net framework. After the official announcement, though, programs gradually began to come out with built-in OS version checks. This was even before any of them used any NT-only APIs. Same reply to this: It is a fact that they only began to care after the official announcement. Before it was 10 year old, it was 9, 8, and 7, but developers didn't begin to care about that until after Microsoft officially announced it was done. They do, in every product they create that is initially supported - and it's 10 years for commercial products.Uh, do you even know what a time-bomb program is, or are you just babbling? It looks alot like the latter. A time bomb program would simply say "Sorry, your OS is to old, please upgrade" in a start-up blue-screen.While this is unheard of for OSs, I have seen commercial programs that do just that. They give you a "sorry, this is as far as we allow". However, as 98 is gradually losing its main purpose as an OS - running programs - it might as well do the same. When that happens, there is only one solution left, the same solution which always works in this case: Cracking it. Mind you that they did the opposite when the above came out. The standards used by GCC are way older than anything Microsoft came up with.Also, OpenGL is, as the name suggests, open. It is freely available in open-source OSs. DirectX is proprietary, though, but I think there may be some form of support for it in non-Microsoft OSs. I wasn't talking about dual-licenses. If hardware vendors pushed Linux instead of Windows (Microsoft license policies prevent them from doing both), software developers would simply create apps that are linux-only. The problem would be done then and there. Let me stop you right there. The 1% that use computers as part of their business, that is, companies, already use linux, probably on Sun computers.What we are talking about is that 90% of the computer-user population commonly known as "end-users". They use whatever comes with their computer, and never even realize alternatives exist. They are controlled by hardware vendors which are, in turn, controlled by Microsoft. That's how Windows becomes the most commonly-used OS on the planet. That's how Solitaire becomes the most commonly used application. I give it 5 years before that reason disappears. Wanna guess what happens after that?Finally: @crahak: Regarding your last post. It seems with every sentence you are digging yourself into a deeper hole: Compiz, the GL-based GUI for linux, already contains all of the features Vista has, and then some. Yet linux in its entirety takes less resources than XP. With each new version, the resource usage decreases. Mind you that there are linux desktops that make Compiz look like Win3.1 in comparison, and they also use very little resources. That you think resource usage should increase just goes to show how far you've been brainwashed by Microsoft: It is nothing more than a combination of poor programming and an aim to push for better hardware (to promote the symbiotic relationship between Microsoft and hardware manufacturers). It's not just the desktop either. Drivers, stability, security, networking, linux has Vista beat hands-down on all of these, even if you look at a 10-year-old linux. And yet, linux versions do not require progressive hardware updates. They do not require paradigm shifts. They maintain full backwards compatibility, with both software and usage. If you want, you can configure your latest linux to look exactly like one that is 10 or 20 years old, down to the boot options. That Vista could never be 98, that it can't be configured to do what 98 could do no matter what, that it wouldn't even run on the same hardware, that just goes to show how fundamentally flawed it is. Vista will prevail, though. Despite being far worse than the alternatives, and possibly worse than even its predecessors, it does have a few undeniable advantages that would give it market domination. In increasing responsibility for the aforementioned, they are: 1. The strongest alternative, linux, requires manual editing of poorly documented text configuration files to work properly. 2. Software developers continue to use the latest version of Win32API as determined by Microsoft. As Microsoft continues to add changes, however impractical and useless they may be, to that proprietary standard, latest software would simply require the latest OS. 3. Hardware vendors will continue to push the latest Microsoft OS with any pre-built box. Since custom built boxes are a niche market, this alone would be sufficient to ensure widespread use of Vista.

Do you honestly think, for one second, that if POSIX, rather than Win32, ended up being the most common API for games and other software, then Microsoft's OSs would still be used on over 90% of the world's computers? Do you think it would still happen if MS Windows was not bundled on every pre-built computer, pre-installed? In fact, the latter is probably more vital than the prior. People use whatever comes. An OS isn't something for which average Joe browses. If a certain Linux kernel was pre-installed by enough hardware vendors, it would probably be the end for Microsoft. First, Microsoft as among these software developers. They have their own programs, and are also game publishers. Besides, do you honestly think any developer would even dare drop support for any Windows version had Microsoft not publicly announced the end-of-service-term (Making it sound as if the system was no longer usable)? They may have just as well planted a "time-bomb" program in the kernel, at least as far as most developers are concerned. @BenoitRen: Nice link. Interesting read. Most of it I already knew, though.

According to those same stats, Linux is not doing significantly better. If that's not sufficient reason for open-source developers to support 9x, I don't know what is. Still, all of these stats are from personal counters in sites that are somewhat less than "public generic internet portals". Stats from Google would have better overview, but most of these sites attract developers to begin with.

Is KEx not 95 compatible? If not, how hard could it be to make it so? As for non-geeks, I doubt any of them are still using 9x. Non-geeks just go with the herd, they're probably on Vista by now.

The funny part is that, as I understand it, OOo is supposed to be multi-platform. If they have the necessary code to run it on both Windows and X-Windows, with the proper separation, there should be no problem adding an equivalent separate code to run it on 9x instead of NT. A proper program would have all of its platform-dependent code in one place, so that it can easily be modified and made compatible with any OS at any version. With such a module available, compatibility layers are much easier to provide.

Haven't tried Mac to date. Did go for Linux, and it does have many advantages over Windows. It's not a "most of us could" sort of system, though, WSOD is distinctively non-trivial to correct. There are also a couple of things I don't like about it that it pretty much shares with XP, and a few unique things average Joe wouldn't care about. The main deal-breaker, though, has to be the fact that it can't even run Quake 1 through 3 on a DX10-capable video card. Maybe if and when Wine matures, someday. The fact is, that so long as Windows remains the main platform for most new software, people are forced to use it. There is no viable alternative: The Win32API is not a public standard, even though most developers treat it like it is. Actually, if it wasn't for KEx, w9x users would have to upgrade if they want to continue using newer software. Variety of software is what makes a PC into a PC, as opposed to consoles or dedicated devices (TV, calculator, electronic dictionary, etc). But with Windows being the #1 most common platform out there, the best software turns out to be Windows-only, and usually forces the same upgrade regime as Microsoft desires. Microsoft managed, through luck or business talent (read: clever deceit and manipulation), to corner the market early on in its forming stages. They "monopolized away" most competition, and turned themselves into the industry standard. The rest of us are pretty much forced to follow suit. Changing the standard now just wouldn't work, and supporting the current odd standard appears to be too much for any current competitor to achieve. The end-user remains choiceless.

And lemmings will continue to out-breed individuals a billion to one. The ant system just works. Earth is the proof. It's sad, but that's just the way our universe is designed. Actually, I have and do, but mostly because I haven't had the chance to watch it. They really drop these suckers fast. That being said, movies have content, OSs do not. You might as well compare an OS to a computer game. Or a book. Intriguingly (Thank sweetness SeaMonkey has a spell-checker by default), the vintage automobile scene is a very flourishing one. One of the main reasons I don't watch sports... The problem is, alot of recent software just tests the OS version and refuses to run if the version isn't what they expect, even if they don't actually need any of the added APIs. If this was just applications, then it wouldn't matter. You could always opt for older, or alternative, or even open-source. But games and hardware drivers also apply, and those are not so readily replaceable. While this is not directly attributable to MS, it's not as though they had no influence on the matter. In the case of hardware drivers, you could note that it does require extra work to have one for each "version" of Windows, but then again, up until a couple of years ago that was expected, not to mention drivers are also released for non-Windows OSs. That a specific version is forsaken can only be attributed to MS officially obsoleting it. If they had simply stopped releasing updates, but didn't announce it, that may have never happened. In the case of games, though, that a game, dependent only on the cross-platform DX or GL API, with no actual GUI controls, text manipulation, or cross-process communication, even checks the current OS version is deplorable. I would equally expect a command-line md5 calculator to do the same. You don't get that sort of thing with different linux versions, where a full kernel update is both free, fast, and invisible to the actual usage. This can only be attributed to MS's "end-of-support" declaration. Of course, it's not as if it is just an accidental by-product, that Halo came out as NT-only is definitely MS's direct fault, and really was the pace-maker for all those that followed. If you'll note, I haven't actually said I love 9x, just that I hate it less than all the others. I think the OP said similar things, though I may be interpreting his/her words wrong.

I would strongly recommend that you just work on another drive, cloning the working partition, rather than the empty one. It would be much safer all-around. In fact, if you have another drive, you can probably try some of the programs mentioned above to at least copy/restore files you need short-term to it (e.g. your work so far on the anniversary). If I were you, I wouldn't risk anything that may permanently remove all of my data. I don't know how important that data is for you, but there's always a chance you'll suddenly remember some important document there that did not have a recent back-up. Just think about it from this angle, a new harddrive will quite commonly cost alot less than the worth of lost data, or the cost of post-abuse restoration.

Just an educated guess: This could be the result of inter-process communication. Sometimes certain methods of inter-process communication cause a program to freeze whenever any other process freezes or uses 100% CPU (Does not test messages often enough, or tests them selectively or improperly), since it runs through the current accessible processes and waits for each to process the sent message. Method to test: Start by checking if other programs with poor event loops effect your AIM. Any program that does massive calculations (a la MD5 on a big file) in the event loop thread would do. You can also write a small program that opens a window, but then goes into a "while(true);" instead of starting an event loop, and see if that has a similar effect.

I'm not sure if there are different versions of the 98 upgrade or what-not, but the one I've had a chance to fiddle with is simply a full 98 installation that has an added check which makes it refuse to install if you don't have a previous operating system. In fact, you could start up the installation on a fresh harddrive, and at some point it would simply ask you to insert the 95 CD just to verify that you actually have one, not even using it at all. Theoretically, one could crack the installation to never require the presence of 95 at all. To date, I haven't heard of a 3.11->98 update CD, but it's not as though I've made a thorough check or anything. One might exist (In theory, at least).

To further prove my prior claims, consider the current state of the iPhone: A new version every couple of months, and people continue to spend all of their money on every new version that comes out. Many shout out about how annoying and unfair it is that people who jump the bandwagon earlier simply get the shaft. Or, to put it better, people get to choose between being ripped off (buying a product that will become obsolete in a few weeks), and being left out (having to wait for a "final version" that may not come, while not being able to enjoy it right now). But with all of that anger directed towards Apple, they are still making quite a killing on this business model. One could practically label it "the business model of the future". In the past, one might consider releasing a product too early to be a bad business choice, risking in turning down potential customers. Nowadays, releasing and re-releasing a product all through its beta phases turns out to be quite smart - being able to make double and triple profit off of consumers paying for the same product over and over. This business model works perfectly, and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. The same applies to the release and re-release of Windows versions one after another, even if there is no apparent advantage to those extra few widgets and flashes each adds.

Copying with Explorer always works for me...

I'd dare you to run Notepad from DOS Actually, while I haven't tested it, I don't think there's any program that's XP-only. Since 2000 has the same NT kernel, it's capable of running all of the same programs (drivers non-withstanding, of course), no? Last time I've heard statistics about it was at least a year ago, but it was "80% of the common web-user use IE 6" IIRC (or was it IE 5?) It's too bad I don't know how to rig Google trend to report statistics on the browser-reported OS. I do know that w3schools, a site that is generally targeted towards the computer savvy, still shows over 60% use of IE. So, my point is, you shouldn't assume people are getting in any way "better" or "smarter". Simple biology dictates the universal trend is downwards - people have and are getting dumber, not smarter. The more advanced out technology become, the less "advanced" the common masses need to be in order to operate it. Or, as Rich Cook put it: "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better id***-proof programs, and the universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning." I predict Microsoft's business model will continue to serve it well for decades to come. If you want, we can put this up on Long Bets. The way I see it, I've got pretty good odds there.

It depends on how much valuable data you have. It's a bit more difficult to have a running-backup of several gigs. I have enough trouble just keeping a local backup of my bookmarks up-to-date. Besides, it's easier to just keep the phone number of a good data recovery company at hand.

Who? ...and, who^2?

You'll probably need a Window or Background plugin. Unfortunately, plugins may be OS-dependent, so you might not find any that work on 98.

Good thing we're not resorting to personal insults, eh? Of course not. You are right about one thing: Considering your latest batch, I completely agree. You've proven exactly to what your arguments amount. @Fredledingue: I still think you're being optimistic. So long as the latest Windows is bundled with nearly every new pre-built computer, Microsoft's business model will stay afloat. Every new version they make, they can force computer dealers to purchase new licenses, and they have the power to enforce it. They can also continue to influence hardware vendors, or even software vendors, to only support their new OSs. Even now "Vista ready" is slapped onto every other piece of hardware sold nowadays. Eventually, you'll need KEx to run any future Windows program on any of the current Windows versions, even if all it does is change the return value of GetVersion(Ex).

Just because 98 isn't there, doesn't mean it won't run on it. I've recently noticed similar requirements on the MSDN entry of MultibyteToWideChar, a Win32 API available since 95, if not earlier. I think Microsoft are now denying the system even exists.

Everyone thinks that. Even the ones that "remember" being abducted by UFOs after being hypnotized to "help them remember". But 6-year-old memory is nothing more then anecdote. Even if it was only a few months old, it's simply not the same as concurrent comparison, and can never be. "Was then, is now" is simply not reliable comparison. To deny that is to deny the very foundations of empirical science. Maybe if you were to reinstall 98 today and still believe it's more crash-prone, then you would have a proper argument. I gave it in the following line. Re-read it and you will see. No, you fail at reading. Even if you've change nothing about the hardware (technically, I find it hard to believe you haven't, at least, replaced a RAM chip for over 6 years, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), just by installing XP you've changed all of your memory and cache settings, and, by your own admission below, you've tweaked the hell out of these. And again: Even if it was the exact same PC with the exact same configuration it would not be, and can never be the exact same Ultima Online. It's a MMORPG. It updates. Automatically, and forcibly. And continuously at that. That's another reason why you can't make comparisons 6 years apart: Things never stay the same, and you're a fool if you think they do. If you must know, I installed my current 98SE from my harddrive. The DOS came from sys-ing from a second harddrive (which is no longer plugged in). In fact, I don't think I have a 98 bootable CD anywhere. I don't really care, since it would take divine intervention to prevent my harddrive from booting up, at least in DOS mode. Can you say the same about your XP? As for BIOS support, while I've recently replaced my motherboard, the previous one was a bit picky on where it would boot from. BIOSs sometimes do that. If you've never had that problem, you haven't been tweaking with PCs enough. "A bit more tweaking"... I shouldn't start listing what I can do with 98 with "a bit more tweaking". If you're going to invest the time and expertise, there's no real problem making an OS very fast and very stable. An finally: If you're not an expert, don't label your anecdotes as facts, and don't spread around myths surrounding them. XP can be a reasonable OS, but it is not be-all-end-all, and it is not crash proof. 98 may crash on certain occasions and conditions, but it does not repeatedly and consistently crash at random, as some would have you believe, and can be fairly stable and fast after long up-times. When actually used, rather than gossiped upon, it does not crash, on average, more than other OSs. The people who claim that it does are always the people which have not used it in years, if they have ever used it at all. @cyberformer: While I'm not completely convinced of your scenario, it doesn't seem that unlikely.

There is a free Word viewer provided by Microsoft.