azagahl

Like you said, 98 blowz. Just install XP.

deleted

Use Linux to advantage of it. What distribution would you recommend?

Sorry for the dumb question, but does this mean one should install just KB887606 (and not both KB832414 and KB887606) for MSXML 2.6 and 4.0?

main argumentation for w98 is for home users like myself Agreed, I thought the point of the thread is why are we still using 98, not what extra features does XP have that we don't need. 98 is fine for home use, especially with all of the Windows patches that have been released for it over the years and the new, fast hardware that's out now and that 98 supports. The user-created upgrades from MSFN users have also been a big boon. As to relaibility, consider the following: I have 20 year old files on my HD. FAT32 seems to be reliable enough. There is also no shortage of free backup, data recovery, or partition imaging software designed to work with FAT32. On the other hand, my XP PC once rebooted randomly once (this was about a year ago) while doing some heavy processing and it couldn't boot up again due to a corrupted NTFS partition. Thereafter the PC would reboot continually, failing to load Windows each time. The IT guy spent some time on it but told me the FAT tables were unrecoverable and I would have to reinstall completely. The lesson is to make frequent backups of data and do not just depend on the file system to magically fix things.

What do you use to listen to music? Winamp? Foobar 2000? Something else?? I use Winamp 5.0. It handles all of the plug-ins I need (for listening to weird formats or for writing OGG files). I'm not sure exactly how it's better than Winamp 2.91 - I think all of the plug-ins I have are also WinAmp 2-compatible. For listening to MIDI files, when I have more soundfonts loaded than my hardware can handle (e.g. 100 MB), I use SynthFont.

FAT32 is an enhanced version of the FAT file system that can be used on drives ranging from 512 MB to 32 GB Does this mean if my drive is > 32 GB I can't use XP64 and FAT32 on it? All of my drives are MUCH larger than 32 GB. Maybe they meant to say that FAT32 can be used on partitions up to 32 GB? BTW is this 32 GB an XP limitation? I have had 100 GB FAT32 partitions on 98. If my FAT32 partition is >32 GB, will XP 64 not be able to read it?? Syntax error

HA! Now you are dreaming. The FAT32 file system isn't capable of it first off. Um, I was thinking of extensions to utilize a 64-bit processor. I don't see how a 32-bit FAT would preclude this. I can use a FAT12 (floppy) on a 32-bit processor and it seems to work fine. So you want to say that Windows XP x64 won't work with FAT32? Yep Then I am definitely not upgrading! All my data is in FAT32 format and there is no way I am converting it. I still use FAT16 for my swap partition. I also have the ability to set up a FAT12 ram drive. Is XP flexible enough to do that? This sounds like another example of reckless handling of backward compatibility. I don't care if it takes 5 minutes to shut down. Why do I need it to shut down the moment I click the button? I dunno, but I don't like waiting for XP to shutdown. I just press a different button now and it shuts down almost instantly.

you are wasting your PC on Windows 98. Actually you are right because I have a 64-bit processor. But XP does not do any better here. After XP 64 is out for a while and patched somewhat I may switch, but I don't really want XP 64 because it has the same activation requirements as regular XP. Maybe someone will write a 64-bit extension for 98 (There are 32-bit programs for pure DOS mode...) And I don't really want to switch to 64-bit Linux. To me that feels like being a geek just for geekdom's sake. I want to actually use my PC.

deleted

more responive hardy har har Um, it's true, if you have a properly optimized 98 SE and XP on similar hardware you will see. If you are too lazy to try, well then you won't see. they want their cinderblock back . What are you talking about? Are you trying to insult my hardware?? I use 3+ GHz CPU's with 1 GB RAM. BTW, if you hate 98 so much why are you in a 9x forum? Is that the best troll you can do? talk about a resource hog. I hate Webshots. I have always hated Webshots. As an administrator I hate Webshots. I hate backgrounds too. They do nothing but waste resources too. I turn off most of its annoying functions but keep it as a screensaver. Also I like having a wallpaper even if it wastes on the order of 3 MB. Fully bloated win 98 uses well under 40 MB so I have a lot of memory to spend on things I like.

My W98 is not gray Mine neither, I use MDGx's 98SE2ME and Tihiy's Revolutions programs and use XP-style icons. I have every animation and special effect turned on and its still more responsive than XP with every animation effect turned off. I also like Webshots a lot and recommend it for good desktop wallpaper.

Does anyone know where else i can download .net Framework V1.1.4322 besides from the microsoft website? for windows ME ? I wanna burn the files to disk for a friend Do you want the redistributable or the SDK? The redistributable is called DOTNETFX.EXE and there is also a SP for it. Why not use Microsoft's website?

I never ran the disk after install since my computer recognized the the new hard drive. Could this be a problem? It sounds unlikely but it might be worth a try? Your original error message said VDD and now I think DD means disk drive! It might also be worth repartitioning and reformatting. For this I suggest using Ranish partition manager. BTW, when you boot up and press Delete, is the drive listed in your BIOS as Auto or LBA or something? I looked at the first program recommended. . . it requires an internet connection Prime95 should run without an Internet connection. When installing, select "Just stress testing" and you don't have to participate in the prime number search. Give Prime95 a try; but Prime95, SuperPi, and Memtest86 won't really help if the problem turns out to be related to the disk. Memtest86. I don't like this program personally. I've had extremely bad RAM chips (ones where the PC crashes randomly during POST depending on which slots they are in) and Memtest failed to detect a problem even after running overnight. Windows would crash within minutes. BTW what is the safest way to clean the dust and keep the dust out of the computer? I don't know how to keep dust out, but there isn't much danger in cleaning a PC. Some people use a canister of compressed air to blow dust away. I have tiny vacuum attachments such as a brush or hose. If there is enough dust you can just use tweezers to pull large pieces away.

VXD errors are software errors that occur in system files or drivers. Usually rebooting is required if one occurs. VXD errors are usually hard to diagnose, and the numbers in the error message aren't much help. If it is due to a bad software installation, you might try installing the latest versions of things. For eample, you might try installing the Directx 9.0c April 2005 redistributable: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...&displaylang=en Also, did you install Win 98 SE Unofficial SP 2.0RC3? Did you install the latest drivers for your hardware? If you have a Via motherboard, did you install Hyperion (formerly known as 4-in-1) drivers? If you installed a fresh version of Windows and installed the things above then it sounds like it may be related to bad hardware. I have personally seen VXD errors occur randomly due to bad RAM chips. Did you recently install new hardware? It may be that your PC it is clogged with dust and has thermal problems. It may help to clean dust out of the PC and check for loose chips or boards. Removing and reinserting your RAM chips may also help. If you feel your CPU or RAM is suspect, then try these stress test tools and see if the VXD errors can be triggered: Prime95 (http://www.mersenne.org/freesoft.htm) - Be sure in the menu to go to Advanced, enter the password 9876, and then set Priority to 10. This will stress your PC as much as possible. SuperPi (http://files.extremeoverclocking.com/file.php?f=36)

Could this be due to FF not having any cached Internet files? I see you caught this and edited. Yes, FF caches too unless you shut it off. Sorry, I knew FF has a cache but I thought maybe lack of cached files was slowing down un4given1 the first time he switched to FF. But I figured he probably would not have made his comparison of IE and FF on that basis.

Firefox takes 2-3 seconds longer I haven't noticed this or heard of it before. I just did some tests and they seem about equal. Is it more of a problem when you have cached Internet files, or when you do not have them? Hmm, I wonder how they compare on memory or disk space usage? Anyway, it is just one app and does not slow down everything I do like an OS can. Also it is not like I am paying $200 for the right to call up and ask permission to use it.

You are arguing that Windows XP is slow to delete files? I can't believe this is one of your problems with it. Everything is slow, deleting files is just one example. Is it possible you had the index service still on? Or System Restore? Two services that while they may not be needed by all, they are nice things to have. I believe System Restore is off. I don't know about index service, are you saying I should disable these XP features so my PC behaves as if 98 were installed? Is that what you do? Also, I would like to know how you went about measuring 1/2000th of a second. It was obviously just a joke. I meant that the time is negligible. I press Delete and *poof* the file is gone. The disk doesn't grind and the UI doesn't stutter for seconds at a time. EDIT: deleting a folder is instant on 98 SE. On XP the pain seems to increase as the total number of files recursively selected increases. This allows for you to do things without having the effects of a hanging system. I don't know if it's strictly "hanging"; but whatever you call it, it prevents any meaningful work from being performed. Let me ask you... what internet browser do you use? Sometimes IE, but usually FireFox. (I like all the features like tabbed browsing, RSS support, extensions, etc.)

Deleting a file on my P4 1.8 Ghz - 512DDR - W98SE is taking 1/1000 of a second. And deleting a file on my 3400+ 1 GB W98 SE is taking 1/2000 of a second. On 3 GHz dual-core 1 GB XP, the system often hangs and the disk grinds away for seconds at a time. My disk is not especially fragmented, I have GB's of free space, I have all animation effects turned off, recycle bin disabled, and I have a reasonable page file (1.5 GB). Maybe it is one of the 100 services or 50 processes that are running continously?

And WinXP needs atleast 1.5 GHz and 256 MB memory for that speed. So, as you can see.... if you are running win98 on a system with 1.5GHz proc and 256M memory, then you'd rather move to XP. So you are saying that XP requires more resources to reach the same speed? Doesn't that mean that changing to XP, while your resources remain constant, would cause things to slow down? There is no problem with people using a 98 machine as long as they don't connect it to the internet. Unpatched XP machines are very dangerous to attach to the Internet. Unpatched 98 is safer in my experience, and if it's patched its very reliable. There's never been the equivalent of the Blaster fiasco with 98.

The EULA of Windows 98SE does not give you ownership either. It simply only gives you the rights to USE the software. You still don't own it. Exactly, I like having the right to use software that I buy. Also, you cannot really equate an EULA with activation. I think reading an EULA is much less of a hassle then making a 15-minute phone call everytime I change hardware. I like my OS to be resistant to bugs, viruses, worms, hackers, etc. You're delusional if you believe that you are resistant to these because you use Windows 98SE. An unpatched 98 SE machine will last far, FAR longer on the internet than an unpatched XP machine. You're delusional... That's one of the most intelligent things I have heard you say azagahl, that wasn't a lie. I knew it wouldn't take long for the "moderator" to appear and start posting personal attacks. Name a piece of software or a piece of hardware that isn't compatable with Windows XP SP2. Easy enough: http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=878478 FYI the suggested "Resolution" isn't really adequate.

after 7 years why arent u using xp?i want to know why u still use 98se Why do you say 7 years? 98 SE is in fact only 5 years old. Also, in my 98 SE installation, not all of my OS files are 5 years old - some are quite recent (e.g. from Windows 2003 SP1). Anyway, I use both 98 SE and XP frequently. I strongly prefer 98 SE due to the following reasons: 1. I reject the humiliation and degradation of having to get permission to use software that's already been paid for, every time I change my hardware. 2. XP is quite expensive. I actually bought an OEM XP SP2 disk a while ago (I think it was $260) but I changed my mind and decided to keep the money - I simply returned it for a refund. 98 SE can be had on ebay for much cheaper. 3. I like my OS to be small and efficient. 4. I like my OS to be resistant to bugs, viruses, worms, hackers, etc. 5. I don't need any of the features that XP offers over 98 SE. 6. I like the hardware and software compatability advantages of 98 SE over XP SP 2.

Windows XP is to Windows 98 as a Corvette is to a Honda Civic with a "fart pipe" 98 is like a Toyota Prius. Efficient and gets you where you need to go. XP is more like a motorhome. Large, expensive, sluggish, hard to control, consumes a lot of resources, and has all kinds of features that you don't need while driving. Unforgiven1, your name says it all, & your avatar tells what you think about other people besides yourself. Agreed - it's disturbing to see such an offensive image multiple times. Even worse, it's being posted by a moderator.

With a good download manager 500 MB is not too much with dial-up. It just takes time. I like Free Download Manager.

Does anyone even know how much win98 was opposed tooth-and-nail? Now the same ppl wanna stay with it. I didn't oppose Win 98 so I guess I am not one of these "same ppl". Here's a challenge. 2-5 years down the line, lets see whether you stick to win98, or instead start saying that XP is best for you and that longhorn and blackcomb are not good. Anyone take up this? Or do you accept defeat already? What is blackcomb? I doubt I will ever warm up to XP. I am curious about Longhorn. However, when Microsoft decides to finally release Longhorn as Windows 2012, I cannot be sure that I will even accept its license agreement.