Tommy
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Tommy
-
You know, if it is die-hard Microsoft fans, that's quite petty of them. I used to like Microsoft a lot more than I do now, especially after the Windows 8 blunder and then Windows 10 which I've used and don't like. But just because you don't like another community's opinion, it doesn't mean launch attacks at them. How would they like it if we went over there and started attack their servers? Oh, I forgot, that's different. "It's okay when I do it to you but if you do it to me, then that's not right."
-
I had that yesterday as well. You'd think people would have better things to do with their time instead of making websites inaccessible, like making a living. But apparently not. At least it seems to be it's working fine now for the most part. Except it does seem to stumble a bit when you're posting but if you open a new tab, the reply seems to have gone through.
-
Welcome! It's great to have you hear and thanks for coming out of the shadows and becoming a member! And don't worry about donating. Although it's a big part of keeping us going, if you can't do it, you can't do it. That's sometimes how life is. But we definitely appreciate any little bit that we can receive. Even $5USD is very much appreciated!
-
Let's not start talking about leaks, guys. @Destro You must either have a really good installation or the computers at my job really suck. My general operations are very internet based and of course, IE11 and I think despite this, most of these pages run in compatibility mode because if you force them onto Google Chrome that I managed to sneak on there, mostly all the pages are broken in one way or another. I guess this is what they mean by forcing IE upgrades makes company pages not work right which is actually true. Either way, even when I do other special projects such as video or even photo editing, many times it can be stable but then other times it just crashes and produces weird artifacts. Combine that with Citrix and it's a recipe for disaster. Our Citrix servers use Windows Server 2008 R2 so that's another NT6 based OS and sometimes I'm forced to do some of my operations through Citrix because of corporate restrictions on Windows 7 which is weird since they'd basically the same thing unless different group policies apply to each environment. If we want to go back to Vista though, COM Surrogate errors happened constantly on my home computers. I think the workaround solution was to place it as an exception through DEP which helped some of it, but not always. Windows 2000 will always be my main OS of choice, it's what I'm using to type this right now. Although Windows 98 holds a special place in my heart simply because it was the first OS I ever used since I got into computing a bit late in the game and so for me, it's not so much I want to use it as a main OS but rather I want to see what the heck can be accomplished in it and how usable it can become with some tweaks done to it.
-
Speed/usability > Pretty/fancy Your site is so easy to use, none of that other bloated junk. Even a dialup connection would be able to use it with no problems. Wasn't the internet always meant to transmit information in the first place? I prefer it to work so I can read what it says, not wait hours for junk. And one more thing I hate, these sites that have to hide their navibar in one of those stupid 3 lines buttons that don't work properly on older browsers, even FF9.0.1 and so it's always expanded over half the screen and you can't even read anything behind it. That irks me so bad! Stop imitating mobile garbage!
-
Windows 2000 is the perfect replacement if Windows 98 becomes so far gone that nothing modern will work on it. Windows 98's biggest handicap is obviously online usage. But you can't really blame it, web "de"evolution has come so far that browsers need to be consistently updated. As far as I'm concerned, the web itself is almost unusable without an AdBlocker these days. When I'm forced to use IE11 at work, there's at least 3 or 4 ads that surround my content and it slows me down, even on a computer from 2014. It's just too much bloat, complicated code, etc. Windows 98 wasn't coded for this gosh darn modern web. Other than that, running older applications on Windows 98 is indeed much faster than on newer operating systems. Windows 10 is a train wreck and Windows 7 gets more praise than it really deserves since the NT6 architecture is slow and there are times I have more crashes on Windows 7 than I do on Windows 98. If Windows 98 crashes on me today, it's almost always my fault. Now those COM Surrogate errors on Vista/7.....I see no reason for them as they pop up for no reason.
-
Installing either 98SE or ME on Compaq Mini CQ10-101SA
Tommy replied to ScarletWavez's topic in Windows 9x/ME
I guess my question here is, are you planning on using the netbook for actual internet browsing or other offline activities? As much as I love 9x, especially Windows 98, using it on the internet is still quite difficult even though we have a few members working hard at trying to get a more functional browser for the operating system. If you're going to do any sort of internet activities on there, I'd recommend Windows 2000 instead for the time being because it would be fully compatible (as long as compatible drivers can be found, which shouldn't be a problem due to it originally using Windows XP) but combined with unofficial updates, you could still use the 52.4.0 esr version of Firefox. Now, if it's just a play computer that you just want to mess around with and don't care what it does, Windows 98 would be perfectly fine to install. How much RAM does it currently have? It seems it comes stock with 1GB which won't trigger the stop screen during bootup (to my knowledge and experience) but if you have more than that, you'll either have to remove some RAM or use RLoew's RAM patch. Windows Me, I believe, can use a little more without modifications but I cannot verify that from my brain alone. Another difference between 98 and Me is that Me handles newer hard disk configurations better. For example, I have a Gigabyte motherboard that I installed Windows 98 on and even though it says it's IDE, has an IDE port, and even IDE mode, I still needed RLoew's SATA patch in order to get it running correctly. Otherwise unless I operated the OS in disk compatibility mode (by disabling all 32-bit drivers via system properties), it would lock up on me during boot. This was the case for an ASRock motherboard which I don't believe I ever got working since it predated me buying the patch and using it, but Windows Me worked just fine without any special modifications. So honestly, depending on your experience, I would go with Me first and see how that works out and then if you're feeling bold or have the hang of it, try 98! -
Welcome to MSFN! It seems as though you've got quite a bit of things going on here. If you need any help on something specific, be sure to post about it in the appropriate forum!
-
Welcome to MSFN! Have a good time and yes, we do discourage shouting. It's hard on our ears (and perhaps our eyes too? I'll have to check on that one. )
-
Nice to see another diehard Windows 98 user around here. It sounds as though you'd rounded up quite a cache of updates from Microsoft which is good because most of them are non-existent now unless you visit archive.org and muck around there a bit. With printers, I've discovered that HP printers in particular aren't extremely picky at drivers and sometimes you can get newer ones to work with older model drivers. Of course you won't have your high end function drivers, but if you're just looking to print, it will get the job done. In fact when I contacted HP what seems to be quite a few years ago now about my Photosmart working on Windows 2000, he even went out of his way to find a solution for me even though on the box is says a minimum of Windows XP. He said just to use 1 of 2 DeskJet drivers which I cannot remember offhand what they are now unless I go through my emails but with that and being able to use the IP address to remote into the printer and use the scan utility within it, it was fully functional as far as I was concerned. So I'm sure something like this would be possible for Windows 98 as well.
-
Time for my next complaint! Even Google can't seem to answer this one.
This is another one that follows the mobile trend. I'm very much aware this "word", or abbreviation, has existed way before mobile technology really even became a thing. But for the love of God, why do people absolutely LOVE saying the word "app" so much?
This is a word I feel like people get ultimate pleasure in saying, particularly out loud. Listen to just about anything anymore, "blah blah blah......and DOWNLOAD OUR APP!!!"
Okay, I get it, you want people to download your free program because it makes your content better for them or something. But do you have to say it constantly, over and over again? I'm sorry, but the word isn't cool anymore. I never thought it was anyway, but now it's the most overused and abused word in technology. I think it's just one of those words though that people who know next to nothing about technology or how it works to sound hip. It's kind of like 4G LTE. I hear that all the time, even out of the mouths of regular people. Exactly how many people even know what LTE means or stands for? Probably nobody.
But to get back to what I was originally talking about. Until smartphones became a thing, I almost never heard people call something an app. When referencing something on the computer, it was either an application, a program, or web browser, a word processor, well you get the idea. Things used to differ from each other. Games used to be games. Now everything is all consolidated into one term, app. Even Microsoft wasn't happy until they cashed in on that word. Programs was used for many, many years in Windows. But what happens once it moves into the mobile era? "That no longer works.....All Apps...yep, sounds good."
So the too long, don't read version. I'm tired of that word, no it doesn't sound hip, and no, it doesn't make you sound like a tech professional. No wonder new technology is so boring now.
Now I feel better!
-
And you're absolutely right on that. It's actually kind of like Windows XP, it won't stop working but using it in modern settings, it's likely to start becoming unusable. The most common setting is for people to use their devices on the internet so even though local things will still work just fine with flash, as you said, using it on big websites that follow trends will mainly make it useless to have. I suppose something like YouTube you could always download the videos using one of those online capture services. Not sure exactly how safe, legal, or morally right it is, but it is an option nonetheless. @jumper I completely missed the replies above. But as I posted in the thread, I do have this working. The only issue I'm facing though is that right now sometimes YouTube videos start flickering or go black all together but I think it might be due to my PC because it didn't do this until I backed up my profile, built a new machine with a few new pieces of hardware, and reinstalled Windows and my Firefox profile. I have read of other people saying this happens to them on modern OSes as well. But that's a little out of scope of this thread so we can discuss it more in the link I posted if you wish.
-
Oh, you mean because it used to be owned by Macromedia and then Adobe basically bought them out and took it over? That would make sense but what I was driving at when I said planned obsolescence is that many older devices basically depended on Flash to give them the capability to watch or interact with multimedia, especially and particularly on the web. Like YouTube basically axing Flash. Since I'm no expert when it comes to this field...is this one of the main reasons that YouTube applications spanning from many older devices like earlier iPod touches and even more recently, the Nintendo Wii, no longer work, because they continue to change their technology that delivers their content? Did these applications use Flash to deliver videos to you on these devices? And those are honest questions because I really don't know and am assuming. But if that is the case, either you have to plunk down more money on new devices in order to continue watching something that worked perfectly fine in the past or you're just up a creek in a boat with a hole.
-
Just more planned obsolescence. At least it's not happening like right this second but you'll still need to make sure you have a powerful enough computer to handle all the new standards. Probably by 2020 most computers in use will have plenty of power but people like me just has another nail in the coffin. Although since we've got YouTube working properly with HTML5 and H.264 on Windows 2000, we should be good for a little while. Not to make this a discussion about Windows 10 and how I won't use it, but since Microsoft had said it was the last Windows operating system they will make, it makes me wonder how they'll actually keep up with so many new standards. Or maybe Microsoft is going to ditch Windows all together in the future and create a new operating system. But if it's the former, why didn't they just leave stuff alone like Windows XP or Windows 7, operating systems most people want to use, and just follow a similar business model. I don't know if Windows 10 will have free updates or eventually charge people to update to a better core every so often, but if it's the latter, then to me they should just keep all of their customers happy and support several different platforms. It's certainly better than chasing them away to other companies. But that's my two cents.
-
One thing I could never understand: Why do some websites INSIST on letting you know someone posted with a mobile device? They don't make a special note letting people know you posted via PC, so why is mobile so special? Facebook used to be really bad with this but as the years went on, they dropped it. But to be honest, I couldn't care less that you posted something with your precious phone. To me, all I see in "Posted via mobile" means, "Look at me, I'm cool! I have a phone!
"
-
I haven't tried other versions. Right now I'm just using whatever was put into tomasz86's unofficial rollup from 2013. I can probably test a few of the other ones but after translating his site, it looks as though he made a few changes to a few video files in version 16a, the one I was using. I just don't really understand exactly what the changes meant so maybe he can provide us some insight.
-
It's generally faster as well if you post your name change request here because then any admin can change it. xper doesn't always get on a lot so you might be waiting a while if you only message him about it. And since Trip and Den are on here regularly, it'll most likely get done quite quickly if just requested here.
-
BUG FOUND! *Extended core Windows2000-KB979683-v16a-x86-ENU is flawed* After thorough investigation into why my dualview was not working, I did a clean install on a test hard drive and everything was working fine, until I installed this core update package. As soon as I did and rebooted, dualview stopped working and only my primary monitor would work despite Windows knowing there were (multiple monitors). So I hooked up my original configuration of drives to get back to my regular install of Windows, removed extended core which I had installed on this installation, went to install duelview again from the nvidia control panel, rebooted, and sure enough it works like a charm. Both monitors work as an extended desktop just like they should. @blackwingcat Basically, using this extended core package means nvidia dualview compatibility is broken and will not work.
-
Still not having much success. I've even tried that particular package listed in the link and it's still not letting me enable dualview. What's crazy is right now I'm running Ubuntu in a live cd environment on said computer...and guess what? Both monitors work JUST FINE and are independent from each other. So either something is very messed up in the Windows 2000 install or there's other issues going on that prevent it from actually happening. But now we know for sure that my card indeed supports dualview.
-
My duelview thread merged into this one It is not working! This isn't even something I'm new at because I've been using dual monitors since the turn of the decade. However, with my new machine, no matter how much I play around with it, I cannot get dualview working. So, my old card was a NVidia GeForce 8600GT dual DVI output, my new card is a NVidia GeForce 9800GT with dual DVI output as well. Whether it makes a difference or not, it's the energy efficient version so it doesn't require extra power to run. Now here's where things get very interesting. I can clone my desktop so both monitors show the same thing, I can also do horizontal/vertical view which doubles the resolution. But I cannot get dualview to have two independent monitors working. The video card recognizes two monitors are there, it knows that for a fact. But when I go to the display properties, even though it says multiple monitors, it only shows the one and extend my desktop is grayed out. The things I've tried were basically changing driver versions which I've used both Tomasz86's 270.61 driver, no luck. I've tried a few of Blackwingcat's drivers, no luck either. I've even tried removing all the drivers via safe mode and removing the device all together and even running my registry cleaner to remove old entries, makes no difference. The only thing I can think of that might be fouled is the NVidia GeForce 8400GS that I originally had in there, it had DVI/VGA and HDMI, and apparently you cannot dualview a digital and analog connection, it's either one or the other. The other resources I looked for online on this issue is about as helpful as going out in the rain and covering your head with a spaghetti strainer. No real insight is offered. But with Dual DVI, I'm sure dualview should work. Am I to the point I might just have to reinstall Windows or what? I'm pulling my hair out because I've never had this much trouble getting it going before. Usually all I'd have to do is go through the control panel, enable dualview, restart at the prompt, and when Windows returned it would install the Dualview driver (which this doesn't), restart again, and then I could extend my desktop. So why this isn't happen with this, I have no clue. Now I'm turning to the ones who know even more than I do.
-
I was the one that closed the thread and nobody contacted me about it, my inbox is open to those who have any concerns. Hence why I have a super moderator badge on my profile. I have no issues with discussing quality of OSes, not one bit. In fact I'm one that questions the quality that goes into Microsoft products these days myself. However, it was a pointless thread and it wasn't going anywhere, it made no sense. I will let this one stay open as long as meaningful discussion takes place in it. I wasn't even aware this thread was created until just now. I don't close threads without reason. If you want to have a meaningful discussion about how you feel the quality of Windows has declined, have at it! But let's just keep it that way, okay? And please try not to double post so much unless a large amount of time has elapsed otherwise it just continues bumping the thread and pushing other ones off the radar. If you can do those two things, that would be much appreciated. And we are not affiliated with Microsoft, not at all. So we are not biased based on their products but instead of our own opinions.
-
MSFN will be online as long as donations allow
Tommy replied to Tripredacus's topic in General Discussion
Actually, before this month rotated over, we were at $400, so actually we did make the goal, twice over. -
There's no need for this thread to be open any longer, it's been long answered. If you want to talk about DOS in general, feel free to make a thread in the appropriate forum and continue discussion. This is no longer a site issue. Topic LOCKED
-
Welcome to the community, and thank you VERY much for donating to the forum as well! We appreciate it very much! I hope you enjoy your stay with us.
-
I do too, but as I said, if you just reduce your zoom to something like 90% for MSFN in your browser, it should work out just fine. @xper might be able to figure out something else but that's what I've been doing for quite a while now.
"
