Jump to content

ZortMcGort11

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    717

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

  • Country

    United States

 Content Type 

Posts posted by ZortMcGort11

    Don't Be in a Hurry to Eat Your Fast Food Meal ... It'll Keep

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by LostInSpace2012

    thanks Monroe

    The display is now more for education and the clinic hopes that people think about what they are eating. Marshall says there is nothing better than a visual.

    I wonder when they're going to start listing the individual ingredients on the wrappers. MSG probably would be near the top of the list. Along with other "natural" in gredients.

    Like my dad says, if it came from the universe, and it exists, it's natural. Like, plastic is natural, rubber is natural, farmed salmon is natural, you get the idea :-) Molecules are natural.

    LOL. He likes to bug me like that.

    0

    Don't Be in a Hurry to Eat Your Fast Food Meal ... It'll Keep

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by LostInSpace2012

    I was just on my way to get some sausage egg mcmuffins.... who knows what kind of mystery meat is in those.

    But is it any worse than eating a bowl of cereal? That stuff is like pure sugar and refined grain, mixed in with some high fructose corn syrup, and "enriched" with vitamins that probably do nothing but prevent scurvy and rickets. (Assuming your diet is poor enough)

    I remember being in school in 3rd grade and the teacher left a chicken bone in a cup of coca-cola.... one week or so later, the bone had turned to rubber and you could bend it back and forth.

    0

    Compatible Graphics Program for Win95?

    in Windows 9x/ME

    Posted · Edited by LostInSpace2012

    Do you need an image viewer with basic editing functions, or are you looking for some professional quality "Paint Shop Pro" type program?

    Well, I've been using older versions of IrfanView for many years. I prefer them over the newer bloated, "messy" versions with too many options.

    IrfanView 2.98

    IrfanView 3.17

    http://www.oldapps.com/irfanview.php

    These are my two favorite versions of IrfanView.

    XnView 1.66 works really good and is totally stable on Windows ME, so I assume it would be good for Win95. In fact, the "Readme.txt" document indicates that it is Windows 95 compitable. All the versions before 1.6x seem to have various bugs, and often crashed my computer. I wouldn't use anything older than version 1.60 of XnView. Version 1.66 is what I've been using for a while, and I definitely recommend.

    http://www.oldapps.com/old_version_XnView.php

    PhotoFiltre 6.5.3 works flawlessly on WinME, I haven't tested it on Win95. I think it's probably one of the best freeware programs available for batch conversion, image editing, and doing lite graphics creation.

    http://photofiltre.free.fr/frames_en.htm

    NewView Graphics Viewer is powerful, has nice features, and has a total Win9x style interface. Should work on Windows 95.

    http://www.newviewgraphics.com/viewer/viewer.htm

    FineView 0.67

    Another nice Win95 compatible viewer, much like IrfanView, but has some different features.

    ftp://ftp.sac.sk/pub/sac/graph/finevw67.zip

    ImgViewer 2.8

    http://www.arcatapet.com/software/imgv32.cfm

    Pic_View

    ftp://ftp.sac.sk/pub/sac/graph/pic_view.zip

    iView 2.4

    http://www.freewareweb.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?ID=928

    SlowView Image Viewer

    (scroll down the page until you see SlowView)

    http://www.completelyfreesoftware.com/grp14_w95.html

    .........

    You can always try some DOS programs too.....

    Sea Image Viewer

    http://www.filewatcher.com/m/sea12c.zip.628780-0.html

    PictView 1.94

    ftp://ftp.sac.sk/pub/sac/graph/pictv194.zip

    0

    Last Versions of Software for Windows 98SE

    in Pinned Topics regarding 9x/ME

    Posted · Edited by LostInSpace2012

    A couple of small, minimalist MP3 Players... ones I've never heard of before... all freeware

    (1) Ho MP3 Player 2.0

    A nice clean interface, no skins (thank goodness), includes a play list editor. Nice program.

    ftp://ftp.sac.sk/pub/sac/sound/homp3.zip

    (2) VinAmp 1.5 (yes, that's a "V" not a "w")

    This is a nice little program. No BS crap like so many mp3 players. Simple.

    ftp://ftp.sac.sk/pub/sac/sound/vinamp.zip

    (3) Diegote MP3 Player

    All it does is allow you to open an MP3 and play a single file at a time. I suppose if you hate Windows Media Player, you could use this thing :-) Funny looking interface.

    ftp://ftp.sac.sk/pub/sac/sound/diegote.zip

    0

    Would it be worth upgrading from 95 to 2000?

    in Windows 2000/2003/NT4

    Posted · Edited by LostInSpace2012

    There are various adjustments you can make to Windows ME, which might make it more appealing to you:

    Real-Mode DOS Patch (restore Autoexec.bat usage)

    http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/real_dos_mode_patch_for_me.html

    IE Eradictaor

    http://www.litepc.com/ieradicator.html

    98Lite Professional

    http://www.litepc.com/98lite.html

    Windows ME Tweaks

    http://www.blackviper.com/WinME/supertweaks.htm

    And of course, KernelEx

    http://kernelex.sourceforge.net/

    Windows ME/98 Add-ons

    http://erpman1.tripod.com/w9xmeupd.html

    Windows ME Secrets (book)

    http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Windows-Secrets-Brian-Livingston/dp/0764534939/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418933481&sr=1-1&keywords=windows+me+secrets

    A lot of the features people hate about Windows ME (System Restore, for example) can be turned off very easily. I always turn that off when I do a fresh install. Doing that solves about 95% of the reboot problems, crashing, and freezing. (System restore shouldn't be confused with the more helpful System File Protection feature, I might add).

    0

    Would it be worth upgrading from 95 to 2000?

    in Windows 2000/2003/NT4

    Posted · Edited by LostInSpace2012

    I gave Windows 2000 a shot last year, since I was feeling the same way about Windows ME. However, there weren't really enough improvements to get me to stay with Windows 2000. So, I'm back with Windows ME.

    Windows 95 would be my first choice for any old computer with, say, 128 Mb or less for a maximum amount of RAM. And anything from a 486 CPU to Pentium 1 or Pentium 2. I think it's optimal for that hardware.

    I didn't like Windows 98 when I had it back in the day, it was the most bug ridden OS of all time, IMO. I've been content with Windows ME's improvements such as System File Protection, the elimination of Autoexec.bat and all that DOS bootup stuff. Seems like spyware, viruses, malware, and half the installation programs for games and such, always tried to alter the autoexec.bat without permission. Windows ME completely got rid of that, which I think was a great idea.

    Furthermore, you can still run any DOS programs on ME, but you don't have to fuss with config.sys, autoexec.bat, and other stuff by yourself. (I didn't mind doing that with just plain DOS, or Windows 3.1) Windows 95 was great because it was like a WAY better version of Windows 3.1. I saw no point installing Windows 3.1 on anything, when Windows 95 will run on the same hardware, but work 100% better, faster, and it's more usefull. Not to mention a plethora of better software is available on 95.

    Windows 2000 I figured would be great because, like you said, there's no product activation. However, it opened up new cans of worms... like digital signatures, more fuss with installing and upgrading components. It has a way slower boot time then Windows ME, and as far as web browsers go, they are both pretty much equal, as long as you install KernelEx for Windows ME. Because as far as I know, theren't aren't any modern browsers that are still being updated for Windows 2000.

    As you mentioned, the "security through obsolescence" will probably cease with Windows 2000.

    Does KernelEx even work on Windows 95??

    If you "upgraded" to Win98 or ME, you could at least install slighly newer versions of Firefox, Opera, Foxit Reader, AbiWord, Microsoft Office XP/2002, and you could install ClamWin Antivirus, to name a few.

    The way I look at it, Windows 95 is great for 486's, Pentium 1's and such. Might as well get the most bang out of Win9x by using Windows ME.I'm crossing my fingers that Windows XP will someday be released with a patch that eliminates activation. I LIKE Windows XP. The fact that you could still run DOS programs full screen in XP is big plus to me.I've had a second Ubuntu 12 computer for the last year... it's okay, the fact that it's free is awesome. The fact that it's harder to find Internet Service Providers who support Linux is not so great.

    Moreover, it may simply be exchanging one popularly-deprecated, obsolesced OS for another.

    ^This. I didn't notice anything better compared to Windows ME. In fact, Win2000 was more annoying. I went back to Windows ME post haste :-)
    0

    The architecture of Windows 9x

    in Windows 9x/ME

    Posted · Edited by LostInSpace2012

    When I hear people saying that Windows runs on "top" of DOS, I imagine something like this....

    File Manager (WINFILE.EXE in your C:\WINDOWS\ directory), whenever it needs to do something it makes calls, passes arguments, or transfers control over to, say, MOVE.EXE or COMMAND.COM, because, you know, THOSE files do all the ACTUAL work of copying things. File Manager is just a SHELL. File manager is just the middle man between the user and DOS. It's purpose is mysterious... will it function without DOS??

    For example, go into File Manager and highlight a bunch of random files in a directory, like 100 files. Holding down the CTRL key, click away on a bunch of things. Then go up to the File Menu and click on copy... it will ask you where to copy the files to.

    Now, I'm wondering, is it FILE MANAGER that copies those files, or is it COMMAND.COM? Seems like DOS wouldn't be able to handle such a huge amount of files to copy. Probably overflow the buffer or stack or something. Fill up the memory pretty quickly.

    Either way, I'd rather use File Manager, except in the simplest cases of duplicating files, or copying/deleting/moving a single file at a time at the dos prompt. Either way, File Manager offers superior FILE MANAGEMENT over DOS. So you must wonder if they are really the "same" program, except one is just a graphical shell with fancy menus.

    But, is it a DOS program that copies those files, or is it a Windows Program?

    Anyways, that's the thought that comes to mind whenver this discussion of DOS "running" windows comes up.

    It's like the QBasic "Chain" command. Control of a program is transferred to another program. Is that what Windows does, simply dumps all it's problems onto poor old DOS? Of course, using a BASIC command is a terrible example, but it's all I could think of. I'm sure there is a better command in C++ or Assembly or whatever they used to write Windows and DOS.

    It's like a zen riddle.... I really don't know who to believe. But this topic has never been answered to my understanding in the last 20 years...

    0

    I'm having trouble understanding the install process of windows 98

    in Windows 9x/ME

    Posted · Edited by LostInSpace2012

    You only provided one screenshot... so

    Is the computer booting to the DOS command prompt: "C:\>"

    If so, that's good. Means DOS is installed. In that case, try typing "Win" and press Enter.

    If Windows doesn't start aftering entering "win", then you can install Windows.

    So, again, what does it do when you simply turn the computer on and let it boot?

    0

    I'm having trouble understanding the install process of windows 98

    in Windows 9x/ME

    Posted · Edited by LostInSpace2012

    The install process of Windows 98 usually requires a Windows 98 CD. If you don't have a Windows 98 CD, and you haven't bothered inserting it into the CD-Rom, then your problem isn't a Windows 98 installation, but lack of an operating system. Do you have a Windows 98 CD, and is Win98 already installed? If you don't, and it isn't, then you don't really have a Windows 98 problem.

    Your pictures are too large for dial-up, but I viewed the top portions. All I see is some BIOS information, and I saw some external and internal pictures of your computer. Those are all fine and dandy, but they tell me absolutely nothing about whether or not your Windows 98 installation is working.

    Here are some tips:

    -If you turn your computer on and it says, "non system disk or disk error" then that means DOS or Windows IS NOT installed. Therefore the hard drive is empty.

    -If you turn your computer on and some sort of Windows logo appears, then that means you have SOMETHING installed on your computer.

    -If you turn your computer on, and absolutely nothing happens (blank empty screen, just hangs there), then you may need to return your computer, because it's probably broken in some way or another.

    So, in conclusion, there are three LIKELY common possibilties.... which are:

    (1) When you turn the computer on, if DOS or Windows IS NOT installed, you'll get a "Non system disk or disk error" statement. Meaning it needs to be formatted.

    (2) some other (I don't know what) operating system will start up.

    (3) a third possibility, nothing happens at all when computer is started, like a totally blank, empty screen... meaning it will require more work/troubleshooting.

    P.S.

    IF you don't even have the Windows 98 CD, then why are you asking about the "install process of Windows 98?" A pentium III computer with those specs should work fine with 98... but I'd suggest ME instead, because Windows 98 is an unstable pile of junk IMO, and lacks WinME's background "file protection system."

    Basically, if you have the CD, all you need to do is start your computer, insert the CD, then restart the computer and follow the instructions....... but that depends on what your computer is doing on startup... which you haven't specified. One little picture doesn't tell me much.

    P.P.S.

    If there is a different version of windows already installed, you'll need to FDISK and/or REFORMAT the hard drive before installing Windows 98... that's assuming it is NTFS... if it's already FAT32, then you won't need to FDISK.

    P.P.P.S

    If you can get into the BIOS, and I'm assuming you are pressing some F1 or whatever key, then what happens when you start the computer without pressing F1 (or whatever key) to enter the BIOS. What does it do when you start it up and just let it run??????????????

    0
×
×
  • Create New...