Foxbat

What I mean by manual update is pulling from my collection of individual exe files that I have stored away. These files were downloaded either in the past when Windows Update was working and then pulled from the browser's cache, or downloaded from Microsoft's KB articles or other mirrors, or unofficial updates which you can obtain from this forum and mdgx.com. I went though the trouble of obtaining them individually because I prefer to choose which updates to install. Otherwise, packages like Auto-Patcher or Unofficial Service Pack will have you covered without all that work involved. If you used Windows Update in the past, you will have most likely installed the security updates KB891711 and KB918547. These updates placed entries in windows startup and permanent background processes under the same name. You may have seen them before in msconfig and they also show up in Process Explorer. The background process must run in order for the security fix to function. They took very little memory and hardly any processing power, but it was still a sloppy implementation. When Microsoft released these two band aide fixes they mentioned the possibility of releasing a more permanent fix later, but Windows 98 SE at that time was becoming aged under Microsoft's standards, so it never happened. And that leads us to the unofficial versions, which finally applied the fixes to the offending files without the need to have 2 separate running processes in the background. I hope this answers your questions.

I don't think any OS can truly ever die. Even if the OS were to disappear from mainstream computing, there will always be someone, somewhere, running it for any number of reasons, if it haven't already developed a cult following. Windows 98 still has much go to before it even reaches that stage. It only lost Windows Update. Judging from this thread, 98 users are hardly rattled by it. We are still using this OS as if nothing happened. I've completed a fresh install last week, and for the first time, I went straight to manual updating instead of going to Windows Update first as I usually do. It's as if Windows 98 finally left Microsoft's roof and found a place of its own. I found that two of the unofficial updates work much better than if they were installed after a a trip to Windows Update; KB891711 and KB918547. These two security updates normally places permanent running process in order to function. The unofficial versions elegantly fixed the issues directly at the core, so no running processes are needed EVER AGAIN. Thank you Microsoft for kicking 98 out of the house! Yes, Windows 98 is all grown up and fully independent now. Edited for grammar.

MDGx's website doesn't have everything, mostly the unofficial updates and the few others that he did mirror (still a wonderful resource nonetheless). I used Soporific's mega list of updates as a guide, and gathered the broken/missing ones scattered across the web.

I scheduled a format, reinstall, and Windows Update for this part of the year, and plan to finally store all the files from the update. It's too late now. I was able to work from a listing of those files that I saved last year. Spent hours manually looking for the updates these past couple of days. They can still be downloaded from the update server through links; however, some of those files are disappearing. When downloaded, only a 1.3 KB incomplete file is created. Some KB articles and Windows 98 references are disappearing too. I have been able to track down some of the missing files from external mirrors and unofficial versions, but there's still a few that I am unable to locate, so I will have to rely on unofficial service packs and compilations now.

ScrewUpgrading, learning to use the search function will help a lot when you're at MDGx's website. Click on the link provided by rilef, hit Ctrl + F to open your browser's search window and search for "MDIE6CU". Bull's eye. I'm no cryptologist, just a Win9xer who's thankful that MDGx still maintains his invaluable website.

Firefox 2.0.0.20 and K-Melon 1.5.4, both using the Gecko engine, render web pages essentially the same (K-Melon's engine is slightly more recent, but makes little difference). K-Melon is a little faster, but both will run into the same rendering problems with many websites, and both have the same non-responsive scripts problem. Opera 10.10 is by far the fastest browser I have used, rendering web pages much quicker and does not heavily load the processor. It also doesn't have the scripts issue. Despite that, Firefox is still my primary browser due to the add-ons that I depend upon, and the way I have everything intertwined around it. Otherwise, Opera would have been my browser of choice. Even though certain web site sites do not render correctly, some of them can still be navigated. I still use Firefox on Ebay. Opera is relegated to my fall back browser for web sites with rendering issues, scripting problems, and those that are just plain slow. Internet Explorer 6 is my final fall back for when Firefox and Opera still doesn't cut it. I use all three of them every day. Sometimes, I find myself with all three running at the same time. It won't be long until the web passes by these frozen browsers, so we may have to use KernelEX to take one more step forward. The current frozen status of KernelEX doesn't look too good though.

Today, I came upon the Epson Stylus C88+ printer from Epson's current lineup. I checked the specs and whaddya know? It officially supports Windows 98SE/ME at this day and age! An active lineup printer no less! Unfortunately for me, it is a consumer level inkjet printer, which is not much of an improvement over my Epson Stylus Color 740 that I still own from 11 years ago. Epson's website is out of stock, so it looks like the C88+ might be dropped out of the lineup very soon. The printer is still widely available. I should probably snap one up since the 740's ink cartridges are selling for very high prices. Two and a half of those and I have a brand spanking new C88+ complete with ink. This is probably one of the last modern printers to support 98SE/ME, if not the only one left.

For years, I had my Win 98SE main hard drive partitioned in the following scheme: C: (OS) @ slightly < 8GB to take make use of 4KB clusters while allowing capacity leeway. D: (programs, games) @ 30GB, 16KB clusters. All other partitions (storage) @ 32KB clusters. My thinking at the time when I created that partition scheme was to keep slack space down for the first two partitions. The D: partition ended up at 16KB clusters because I needed 30GB, but I kept it under 32GB so the clusters does not inflate to 32KB. My annual routine format C: and reinstall maintenance is overdue, and with my current mindset no longer concerned with slack space, it might be a good time for a new partition scheme, perhaps slightly more performance oriented. One thing the old schemed bothered me is the C: partition. It was pushed to the brim right before the clusters hit 8KB, resulting in 2,094,388 4KB clusters and a large FAT that takes a little longer to maintain with Scandisk and Defrag. I am thinking about bringing it to slightly over 8GB so I get 8KB clusters for a slight performance increase. The same would be done for the D: partition as well, enlarging it to 32GB for 32KB clusters. I briefly thought about creating a 1.5GB partition for swap, temp, and internet cache files. But this would mean having one non-flexible unusable partition, and even more drive letters assigned (it's up to M, and worse if I plug in a card reader). The C: partition usually stays at low fragmentation levels and the solid contiguous swap file rarely grows larger than my specified size of 256MB. The general consensus are larger clusters give a slight performance increase for big files. I work with both small and large files, from tiny text docs to video, so no emphasis either way. This is splitting hairs. If I had not thought about changing my cluster paradigm, I would have had a fresh installation two months ago. What do you good folks think? Is my old partition scheme worth changing for a slight performance increase, or is that just voodoo dancing?

Me too.

Here are some professional level programs; Macromedia Flash MX, Adobe Illustrator 10, and Corel Draw 11. These are for 98SE/ME. For 95, you'll need to drop down a few versions.

Although I personally don't use KernelEx as I don't have a pressing need to run XP programs yet, I will try to help explain a few basics. From the KernelEx thread: "KernelEx is an Open Source compatibility layer with an aim to allow running Windows 2000/XP-only applications on Microsoft Windows 98 and Microsoft Windows Millennium operating systems." So what's it doing behind the scenes? When you try to run an XP program on Windows 98/ME, nothing happens, or it crahses. Why? 98/ME doesn't have the Windows XP APIs. KernelEX adds some of these missing APIs to allow these programs to run. It "extends" Windows 98/ME to include the XP APIs where it did not exist before. Now you can run some XP only programs (but not all). Does KernelEx affect my firewall? It shouldn't, but I don't use it, so I have no experience here. Does it make your system less secure? By allowing some XP programs to function, this could potentially allow some XP viruses to function where it would not have before. When you connect to the web, do you think about how you are opening up your computer to so many dangers? Is it risky to cross the street? Use common sense. Don't go to suspicious websites, don't open unknown emails, update virus definitions, look before crossing the street, etc. Basically is it safe to use for like shopping on ebay or amazon? Same as before. Use common sense. KernelEX is uncharted territory. You're doing things that most people (and even Microsoft) haven't done before. Some XP programs may run smoothly, some may require fiddling around, and some won't run at all. It is a work in progress, not a silver bullet, but what it does is pretty amazing. Have a look at the KernelEX wiki as well: http://kernelex.sourceforge.net/wiki/ And allow time for KernelEx users to reply. Edited for grammar

That's expected the older an OS gets. But, two antivirus programs still support Windows 95: Avast 4.8 Eset NOD32 2.7 See post #32 for support dates.

Those updates are for WIndows 98 FIRST Edition, as mentioned towards the top of the page. You have Windows 98 SECOND Edition.

The glitch in its current form is not really usable. It would need some additional work, and blurring of the underlying background, that is if this feature/glitch will even be considered at all. I noticed that this can also be done by right clicking on the title bar of a window (either restored or maximized state) and then left clicking the start button, but this takes more tries before it happens.

I accidentally discovered an unintended "feature"/glitch. What does it do? It makes the start menu transparent. Some of you may have also encountered this as you use RP9. How to reproduce this: 1. You need to have "use fade effects" selected under "menu animations" in RPConfig. 2. Right click anywhere on the desktop. 3. Left click on the start menu. It may take several tries before it happens. Now your start menu is transparent (temporarily until you move your mouse over it). Doing this multiple times will yield varying degrees of opacity. Apparently, RP9 does not complete the fade in animation and stopped midway. This isn't true transparency but it's close enough. Currently, this is not very practical as it is hard to read with the icons in the background. But it would be interesting if this glitch can be harnessed as a possible feature for a future version of RP.

The source of the definitions support date was directly from Avast's website over a year ago. Now, a Google search brings up multiple forums all referring to one user asking an Avast rep whose response was that definitions will be supported until the end of 2010. This causes some confusion. It's possible Avast may have changed the date somewhere down the line, but they are still releasing updated 4.8 definitions from their website, which is concurrent with their original end date.

Thanks. I was wondering when Avast! was going to discontinue support for Win9x as it was originally supposed to end last year. Just curious, where did you find that information? Yes, Win 9x support ended at the end of 2009. I was referring to the support of virus definitions. I'll fix my post to reflect that.

With most support for Win 9x antivirus and antimalware programs coming to an end, I try to keep an eye on some that are still supported. Kaspersky 6.0.2.621 virus definitions will be provided until October 2012. Avast 4.8.1335 virus definitions will be provided until May 2012. Eset NOD32 2.70.39 virus definitions will be provided until February 2012. AVG 7.5.557 support has officially ended. Their definitions continue to work, but compatibility could end at any time. Spybot 1.6.2 is currently supported, but with Beta 2.0 available and quite overdue, it could end soon. SpywareBlaster 4.4 is currently supported. No sign of when that may end. 2012 is the magic year. Like Multibooter, I suggest downloading and archiving definitions while we still can so at the very least we'll have the most recent version that can still be used years from now when all support has finally ceased. Edited for clarity

I admit I was exaggerating for effect. I experimented with many registry cleaners, and some detect significantly more "errors" than others by a wide margin, a very wide margin. Unfortunately, inexperienced users can be fooled by those inflated numbers, thinking that certain cleaners are more thorough, when they're really increasing the chances of a corrupt registry.

All registry cleaners should be used with caution. CCleaner isn't foolproof either, as it listed registry entries that I know are in use. They should be used as a guide while manually cleaning the registry. Since it's really tedious to often check every nook and cranny of the registry by hand, I find that these can aide in that area. Always review what they've found first before allowing them to delete any entry, and always backup before committing the removal. I personally use Eusing Free Registry Cleaner as part of my registry cleaning toolkit, along with a few others (a second or third or fourth opinion is always nice), and it has been working fine for me. One thing I never liked about registry cleaners is the way they often refer to the detected entries, "215 errors found"... issues/problems/etc. It should be more like "215 possible unused entries, remove only if you are sure of what you're doing." And beware of registry cleaners that detects an exorbitant number of entries, "2154 errors found." Why not just flag the entire hive while you're at it?

Nero 6 did not suddenly end with the release of Nero 7. When 7 was the latest version, 6 was still still supported with maintenance releases, so the higher versions of 6 will be dated more recently than the earlier versions of 7 due to the support cycle overlap.

Sleek replaces your shell with Win 95's. The problem is that some applications expects, or even requires the Win 98 shell. That's one of the trade offs of using the lighter, older shell. And if you want to add updates/patches/packs, it could get potentially hairy. If you prefer to go this route, maybe one of the members with experience running 98lite and the various updates/patches could advise on how to go about this. Edited for grammar

You're off to a good start with Gape's Unofficial Service Pack 2.1a (this has been updated a few times since, now at beta 4, but sticking with 2.1a is fine either way). Next, you can get Maximus-Decim's Native USB Drivers (NUSB) for USB support, and call it a day for now, or continue from there. It could be a lot of research depending on how updated you want to be. Since you're a former programmer, you'd already know to check the details to see if you really need those updates, versus installing them because they're available. The first place you should look at is the pinned Important Stickified Thread, which will lead you to a ton of details and download links. Find the service packs, updates, patches, add-ons, etc. that are relevant to you, and then read up on them. Even though most of them are well-tested, always backup before proceeding just in case. Keep in mind that since you have 98lite SLEEK, you may encounter compatibility and/or functionality issues due to the watered down shell.

You will need a graphics filter in order to save images as JPEGs within MSPaint. The filter is installed by Microsoft Office.

The last version of BS.Player that supported Win98SE was 2.43.1008. Unfortunately, many software developers use "Windows all" as their OS requirement, even though they usually mean Windows 2000 and above. Are they aware of how many OSs they're skipping in using that statement? Windows 1, 2, 3, NT, 95, 98, ME, CE, Mobile, etc? They might as well say "Bill's OS".