ScrewUpgrading

Smith Westerns - All Die Young Bloc Party - Banquet <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Muse - Starlight Led Zeppelin - Tangerine Led Zeppelin - Going To California Led Zeppelin - Stairway to Heaven Phil Collins - Another day in paradise Sigur Ros - Hoppipolla

I can't do that with my HP Photosmart M537, or my Kodak. When I plug in the USB It prompts for A: and asks me to install the drivers.... which don't work because... ..the installation CD for my HP Camera requires Windows XP or newer.

Printer: Canon - Bj-200e Windows ME has built in support. All you have to do is plug it in, you don't have to search the net for drivers.

100+ Devices Ready for WIA under Windows ME http://www.dpreview.com/news/2000/8/14/wiawinmedevices http://www.scanhelp.com/ScanEdu/wiascanners.html It's all on the Microsoft website, but who knows for how much longer... besides, they didn't include the Digital Concept "pink camera", so their list can't be considered %100 comprehensive.

Windows 9x Compatible Digital Cameras Brand -- Model name/specifications Digital Concepts - "Pink Camera" 7 Mega pixels http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Concepts-Camera-Anti-shake-Pink/dp/tech-data/B001NGC9OK/ref=de_a_smtd ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One trick I've learned about using the above camera, is that I can swap out the memory chips from newer digital cameras, which aren't compatible with Windows 9x, and access them from the older Digital Concept camera that is Win9x compatible. For example, I have several "newer" cameras (HP Photosmart M537 for one) that takes better pictures, but requires Windows XP or higher. To work around that, I simply take the 1Gb or 2Gb memory card out of the new camera, and place them into the old camera and download the picture via USB connection. So in a sense, Windows ME can still grab pictures from "new" cameras. As long as I have that trusty old camera to act as a "go between." By the way, I don't know if that works with all cameras or just this one. Anybody else ever done that? Please share whatever cameras you got that work though. Thanks. :)

Thanks to KernelEx I can use Opera 11.11 Turbo. My favorite browser for dialup. No javascript errors, it's really fast, and everything works flawlessly. I can probably get at least a few years out of it before it starts to slow down, then I'll just upgrade to 11.50, or whatever the next higher number is. I'm in no hurry. :)

The National - conversation 16 Sigur Ros - ? some song Stone Temple Pilots - kitchenware & candybars Tegan and Sara - walking with a ghost Stone Temple Pilots - Silvergun Superman Carpenters - Ticket to Ride Neil Young - Out on the Weekend KMFDM - Revolution KMFDM - Move On (Scott Burns remix) Depeche Mode -"waiting for the night Depeche Mode - home Depeche Mode - Shine <----#1 DM song Depeche Mode - The Love thieves Tangerine Dream - Sequent C Enya - Amarantine <3 Enya - Boadicea Enya - Carribean Blue <---- love this song New Order - Regret Sia - Breathe Me Talk Talk - Such a shame Tom Petty - Something Good Coming Real Life - Send Me an Angel (from the movie "The Wizard") Tom Petty - Like a Diamond Sponge - Plowed Peter Gabriel - I Grieve The Naked and Famous - Young Blood Dragonette - Easy Phantogram - When I'm Small Foster the People - Helena Beat Wilco - Jesus

Looks like Greek or Chinese to me Here's the results for your "original" hard drive on Ebay.... http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=40+gb+western+digital+WD400BB+ata100&_sacat=58058&_odkw=40+gb+western+digital+WD400BB&_osacat=58058&_trksid=p3286.c0.m270.l1313

okay... (1) Whatever software this guy needs for DOS or Windows 98, he should have, in the last 15 years, searched for a backup copy of the original program. Has anybody with a half a brain checked Ebay for the software in question? Anyone? (2) Whatever data this guy needs, there should be a way to back it up without requiring the creation of an image of an entire operating system and hard drive. It's overkill. Basically, what you're saying is there is no way his valuable files can be separated from the Windows 98 operating system? What? Are they saved in the dang Windows folder? Because by imaging an entire drive like that, that's pretty much what it means. It's a completely senseless way of maintaining important files. It means every time you need to transfer the files, you have to screw around with creating partitions or else formatting the disk to Fat or NT. That's like saying you need to save your family photos by imaging the entire computer!!! What, didn't it occur to anyone to put the important files somewhere besides the Window folder? (3) I just don't understand how it's not possible to salvage this guy's files without resorting to imaging a bunch of empty space, a bunch of windows folders and system files, and finally the small amount of files that he needs... which end up buried under a mountain of Windows crap. Is there no way to fix this problem without imaging a hard drive? There's millions of them on Ebay for heaven's sake.... and they're cheap. What do you need a new hard drive for? Finally, you should probably just listen to Dencorso, because my anti-imaging bias is probably no help. Okay, I'll shut up now

yet another program you could try.... http://www.runtime.org/driveimage-xml.htm

Well, it might not solve your problem though. As it was never intended to replace REAL installations. Okay, but are you actually INSTALLING Windows 98 from a non-imaged, legitimate copy.... or from an image of a legitimate copy? Hehe. I don't image my operating systems, because I figure once it's installed, it's TAINTED FOR GOOD. Why copy an entire operating system, when all of the configuration files, settings, drivers, dates, registry, is all a copy of a different computer, with different HARDWARE? I've never seen the logic of that. "The disk image contains all the settings and device drivers for the hardware on the computer the image was made on. For example, the old computer may have a very different motherboard, graphics card, network card, etc."* But you said you suspect they "changed something without saying what it was" in your new hard drive that makes it incompatible with Win98.... which is why all those stat things are a crock of poo and don't really mean much. If I had a nickel for every time I installed something that "looked" like it would be compatible because it had the same stats, i'd be a millionaire. I've basically GIVEN UP on the idea of swapping different parts that look the same, meaning similar "stats." Now, I strictly just replace parts with exact replicas because it SAVES TIME AND EFFORT. Sure, sometimes it'll work, but 50% of the time, they always leave out important information from their "stats." So I guess what you're saying is those stats are useless.... aren't they? Welcome to my world. *http://www.2brightsparks.com/resources/articles/disk-imaging-is-not-a-total-backup-solution.html

What exactly are you using for the source of your image? Are you imaging a working Windows 98 from one of your hard drives? If so, what kind of hard drive?

I think for a windows 98, fat32 hard drive, you're making it too complicated. If you haven't messed with the BIOS already, then... First I would go to Ebay and try to find the exact same model HD as your original. "Original Hard drive HD 40G|WD 7K 2M ATA100 WD400BB" I would then take out your new HD, and put in a "fresh" "used" FAT32 hard drive (ie, same model as your original). Don't use anything that's already been molested and fdisked several times over, or NT partitioned in it's previous life, use only something that came from a DOS/Win 9x system or computer from that era. Then I would install 98 from the actual official disc (you can buy one off ebay for like $25). I don't waste time making images of hard drives. But whatever. It seems like people never want to bite the bullet and start over new, they always must have an "image" (an image of a different hard drive, from God knows what type of computer, whether it was virtual machine or anything, just some random image) and forget about setting up a pristine installation that has zero problems. Maybe the reason why your windows 98 doesn't work, is because your "image" is a piece of defective poo. Maybe the program that made the "image" had an error... so maybe it ain't your new hard drives fault.... just sayin'. Could really be anything. You'll never accurately pinpoint it until you systematically go step by step and verify what works and what doesn't. Have you tested your Windows 98 image on other hard drives? Have you tested other hard drives, besides your new one, with your windows 98 image. See where this is going? If you had an official windows 98 disk, then you could be %100 certain that your copy of Windows will always work. Not so with an image. Since your basically copying what could be an already screwed up Windows 98 and you wouldn't even know it. When stuff breaks on my computers, I just look at the serial number or model number, then find the exact one on Ebay. I don't put different model stuff in it. Because everything those companies tell you is a "crock of poo" when it comes to being so-called compatible. For instance, the manufacturer of my computer states on it's official webpage that my computer is capable of being upgraded to 512 MB Memory.... when in fact the limit is 384. See, everything they tell you is a crock of poo. If a certain part works, then you might as well stay with that part. (i.e. the original model HD in your computer.) Just my two cents.

Hopefully never I like Windows Me. Here's an interesting article I came across regarding IPv6 and Windows 9x/Me. "Will IPv6 break my internet on old machines?" http://ask-leo.com/will_ipv6_break_my_internet_on_old_machines.html

How long do you think you'll be able to connect using Windows 98/Me? (Assuming you're using a plain Win9x computer, and not a dual boot, or virtual machine). Any theories?

LOL at this thread. Mine was Internet Explorer 6 which was 76 MB. I was asleep so I don't know how long it took, probably all night! I've tried larger files, but it always gets disconnected. Connected for 8 days? Jumpin' Jehoshaphat!!! Leaving my connection going for one night, while I'm asleep, is my limit. Other people need the computer, so I can't hog it for 8 days. I might try one of those download managers to see whether or not I can successfully download Linux ISOs.

A compilation of Neil Young songs that I burned onto CD: (in order) 1. Big Time 2. Scattered 3. Music Arcade 4. Are You Passionate? 5. Just Singing a Song 6. Cough Up the Bucks 7. Song X 8. I'm the Ocean 9. White Line 10. Grandpa's Interview 11. Boxcar 12. Change Your Mind 13. Driveby ^ This disc is almost spiritual for me. Great music for going on a drive on a warm summer day in my old pickup truck. Just watching the trees and hills roll by, not thinking about nothing. Just driving. Endless road.

Boz Scaggs - I just go Boz Scaggs - Vanishing Point Boz Scaggs - Thanks to you

What became controversial in IrfanView 4? I agree with you though. 3 seems to be better... actually faster on my computer than 4. Also like to toss my name into the Linux hat and recommend Vector Linux Light/Standard to the OP. Try the live CD, it works on old junk computers like the one I have, and it's fast too.

Radiohead - "separator"

Communion film Soundtrack - End Titles (performed by Eric Clapton)

Burn Right CD & DVD http://www.kiwialpha.com/burnright/index.htm Basically, a minimalist data CD burner. "BurnRight! CD & DVD runs on Windows 95, 98, NT, 2000, Me and XP. Features *super lightweight *completely free *latest technology *user friendly *blazing fast burning" *Edit* I tested it and it works. A couple nag screens advertising the Pro Version is all. Here's where you can download http://www.freewr.com/freeware.php?download=instant-cd-dvd-burner&lid=2898

Agree %100 Exactly. I feel the same, Windows 2000 is the last version I'd use. One thing I plan on teaching myself very soon is the basic command syntax for Linux. Start at the bottom and work my way up, just like DOS.

I agree with what everyone else said. The reason I prefer Windows Me (and Win98 to a lesser degree) is basically the software that's available. Off the top of my head, most of the programs I use are from around 2003 or older, with only a few exceptions. For example, I prefer IrfanView 3.17 and XnView 1.60 rather than than the newer versions. The old ones work faster, they're more intuitive to learn. More efficient, they use up less hard drive space.They're easier to set up because they have fewer "pointless" options to choose from, yet they retain the powerful functions like batch conversion and image editing. The most recent IrfanView isn't bad, however the newest XnView is definitely crap on Windows 9x. I'd say the last good version of XnView for Win9x was 1.82.4. (Bear in mind, I'm using an actual 11 year old computer that is a stock Pentium 3 with integrated graphics, and not some virtual machine or dual boot with a fancy video card. I'm using what Windows Me was designed to run on. Not to diminish anyone who uses Win9x on better hardware, good for them!) Moreover, I prefer the older versions of Microsoft's office programs. Word 2000 and Word 97 are more efficient than the newer ones. I really, really dislike the new ones. The menu bar, if you can call it that, is hidden in the corner in some dumb little indecipherable hieroglyph. Not very intuitive. It's like they re-designed the layout just because they needed to change something, anything, and that was the only thing left to change. From my jaded perspective, that superficial change didn't make the program run "better" or easier. When in fact, Word 6.0 on Windows 3.1 worked just as good, if not quicker and less hassle, than all the new and "improved" versions which take longer to figure out the hieroglyphs they call buttons. Another thing, I don't like newer anti-virus and firewalls. They're too intrusive. The only one I like is ClamWin because it doesn't have real time protection, thus it doesn't kill your computer. Firewalls are humongous on XP and newer, because, well I don't know why. All I know is that Tiny Personal Firewall only uses 2 Mb of RAM. There's no noticeable degradation of performance or slower boot up. It's like it's not even there, yet according to all the internet "shields up" tests, it works perfectly fine and my computer is secure. Basically, I think most newer software programs are bloatware garbage. Bloatware garbage designed to be run on bloatware garbage operating systems. And worst of all, newer operating systems and software are designed to be always connected to the internet. Image viewing program? Connected to the internet. Small PacMan game? Connected to the internet. Anti Virus program? Connected to the internet. MP3 player? Connect to the net. CD ripper? Conntected to the net. Everything is becoming more and more internet dependent. It's annoying. And it all runs in the background because THEY don't want you to know about it. THEY want to have access to what used to be your PERSONAL cOMPUTER, but with every passing year, is turning more into little tabernacles of terror used to spy on you. Oh yeah, another thing. Old parts, printers, ink, Windows Me discs, all that stuff is way cheap now. I know this stuff won't be cheap much longer though. Once people realize that the future of computers is to have one impanted into your forehead or on your sunglasses, or on your internet-connected-toilet, then personal computers will seem like such a novelty. By the time the majority of people want there privacy and anonymity back, it will be too late. Because even your car, toilet, and fridge will be connected online. *Edit I should also mention, there's a great bit of laziness involved with not having the gumption to learn another version of Windows. I read the DOS 5.5 manual inside and out, and I read every book I could on Windows 3.1 secrets, and then Windows 9x is the culmination of all that stuff. So no, I don't feel like moving on. It works, I like it the way it is, and I don't want to be forced into Microsoft's game of "upgrading." Hence my username.

Well, in that case I'll encode what I write on the paper. And the cipher will only exist in my brain. So there. Unless you can read minds... Man, If I had a cleaning lady dressed like that... yeah, good article, "3 ways to prevent cleaning lady hacks" http://4sysops.com/archives/how-to-prevent-cleaning-lady-hacks/ I think encrypting hard drives would be dumb, same with encrypting your BIOS, also dumb. Because if you need to destroy you're data before the cops bust your door down, it's not like you can quickly rip your hard drive out and start stomping on it. I can't think of many ways to %100 quickly destroy a hard drive. Stick it in the microwave, or the oven? Throw it in a boiling pot of water... shoot it. Run it over with your car. I have a 100 watt Marshall Stack, guitar amp for the uninformed, so maybe I could place the hard drive next to the huge magnet on the back of the speaker, then turn it on the amp. Probably screw up the hard quite fast. If you put all your important data on CD's or thumb drives, you can either quickly destroy them beyond repair, or else hide them in weird locations... and they can be used on any computer anywhere. So, I wouldn't bother encrypting my hard drive or BIOS. You can't destroy them as quickly as a CD. Not that I would ever need to do that stuff. Maybe if I was cool hacker or something, like in the movies!