azagahl

but by your arrogance and your attitude Whatever, dude. LOL, look at your own avatar. "Your Lord and Master".

And, I hate to tell you, your page file isn't just used when your system has used up all of your physical ram, it's constantly used. Usually 0 MB of my swap file is in use, at least according to programs like SiSoft Sandra. I'm not sure how much more "not used" it can be. Note that I use conservative swap settings so 98 SE goes to my 1 GB of physical memory first before going to the swap file. If you wish to give me a little background on your credentials, I will gladly listen. I thought we were discussing OS's, not posting our life histories on-line.

Just becasue Win98 informs you that it registers over 512mbs of ram it does not mean that it can actully PAGE it. Belive me Win98 tops out at 512 I'm not sure about Win98 but we have been talking about 98 SE and your statement is completely FALSE for 98 SE. As I mentioned earlier, on my Win 98 SE PC I can see free RAM ranging from 1024 through 0 MB depending on how many programs I load, while my swap partition is unused (unless I load even MORE programs, then I have over 1 GB memory usage). If the extra memory over 512 MB is magically coming from somewhere other than DIMM chips, while my hard disks remain silent, please let me know where its coming from. @Drewdatrip: Thanks for the backup. It doesn't matter how many people post wrong information, it doesn't make the information correct. If you are an IT admin as you claim then surely you have access to a 1 GB PC and a copy of 98 SE. Give it a try yourself since you don't want to listen to people that are actually using 98 SE right now.

Don't be ignorant. Windows 98 never supported more than 512MB, and never will by itself. Dude, you're totally wrong, on my PC it supports 1 GB just fine from a fresh install! And if you have any problem the very article you posted a link to tells you how you can use a single line to clamp the disk cache! Did you even read your own link?? Maybe if you fired up 98 once every few years you would be more familiar with it. When is the last time you tried XP? I use it all the time. That's why I am able to make a comparison!

Are there any good free monitor calibration utilities?

Windows 98 does not support more than 512MB of RAM. While you may have more than that installed, your system will not utilize it. Really? That's funny because SiSoft Sandra says 1997 MB total system memory, 977 MB total physical memory, 395 MB free physical memory, 1020 MB Page File size, 1020 MB Free Page File. Update: I shut down some programs and now have 605 MB free. And when I play Morrowind with hundreds of MB's of user mods installed, it drops to a few hundred MB free. Any ideas? In case you want proof... And I have never seen this "Out of memory" error. Could it be because I have the unoffical SP installed?? Sounds like you haven't used 98 SE in a while, dude. Again, I urge you to actually TRY 98 SE on a modern PC with ~ 1 GB RAM. Don't bash 98 SE by comparing your use of it on an old unpatched, untweaked computer 3 years ago vs XP on a modern PC with the latest drivers and freeware. That's not really a fair comparison

On older computers with 64 MB RAM (which would be in most computers off lease as of last year), a 98 license is generally included, and it runs a lot better, especially if those computers have 3-6 GB Hard disks and Celeron-P2 level processors. Yes, 98 SE is much better for older computers than XP. And on newer computers, 98 SE still runs better than XP. XP has, by my server's count, surpassed 98. Not sure what the counts are, but it seems like XP is the target of far more hacks, spyware, and viruses. Which is fine with me. Lets not forget that most computers have over 1GB of RAM Really? I don't know anyone with more than 1 GB RAM! Windows 98 cannot properly support more than some high number of RAM on a new computer. I've heard there are problems with 1.5 GB RAM. But I think they are solvable. Also, I think that you can have Win 98 exploit even multi-gigabyte RAM systems by creating an enormous RAM disk and setting the swap disk to be the ram disk. You can even use a compressed ramdisk. I don't have the DIMM's to test any of this however. FWIW, I have no problem starting 98 SE from a fresh install and I have 1 GB RAM. Currently I'm running 98 SE with 1 GB RAM, 1 GB swap partition, 128 MB disk cache, 128 MB AGP aperture, and 32 MB RAM DISK. Fortunately 98 SE's memory usage is so low that with 1 GB RAM, I seldom need to swap anything . I have 100's of MB of soundfonts loaded typically and my swap is used occasionally by some programs like Office that go straight to it for certain things. Running out of memory becomes more of an issue on my XP PC with it's bloated memory footprint. And yes, you should install all patches for the greatest OS stability. The unofficial SP for 98 SE fixes is compact and fixes basically everything. This is unlike like XP where you have to download monumental service packs and install critical security fixes continually. And XP, with it's disk driver optimizations, improved disk cache, memory management, and other countless reasons, can theoretically run faster than 98. I don't know about theory, but so far the posts here about actual practice show 98 SE runs circles around XP. This is the same as saying that WIndows 95 is better than 98 because 95 is 'cheaper'. Actually 95 IS better than 98 SE in terms of cost, just like 98 SE is MUCH better than XP in terms of cost. Unfortunately for me 95 is unacceptable as it does not support all my hardware (scanner, printer, digital camera, MP3 player) like 98 SE does. If 95 did everything I needed I might be using it instead of 98 SE. Actually, I agree. WPA is a stupid "feature" that hampers legit users. No argument there, I am oppposed to all Marxist software protection features. FYI, I have a valid license for XP but I still will not use it. So why not consider Windows 2000? I haven't used it very much, frankly. Most likely it's slower than 98 SE, which does everything I need. What do other forum members think about 2000 vs 98 SE? Actually, XP will not natively let you create a FAT32 partition over 32 GB because FAT32 is highly unreliable. Too bad. In win 98 SE I have a 200 GB FAT32 partition w/o problems. Also I have files about 20 years old so I am not sure what you mean by "highly unreliable". FWIW, it was actually my XP PC that booted badly once - the IT admin said it had a corrupted and unrecoverable FAT or something and they had to format the disk! if you are having problems with Windows XP it's most likely because you have not installed it correctly. I almost swore off Windows XP when I first started using it because I just couldn't get my system to take to it very well.. But I thought XP was supposed to be easier to use? If you want more speculation and anecdotes, I'd sooner blame the Dell. I's start with the memory, but I'd be afraid to test the power supply. You mean bad memory or power supply causes locked files and slow downs?!

This thread seems to be full of opinions and anecdotes on which OS is faster or more stable. Plus there are the emotional rants like "Windows XP is better, hands down!" and the cute car analogies. And finally name-calling and racist insults. So far Fredledingue is the only one who went to the trouble of doing an actual test, and it shows that 98 SE is faster. If someone can produce actual data on which OS is more stable please come forward. FWIW, I have more problems on my XP PC including locked files and inexplicable slowdowns and I have to reboot more frequently. I also have random reboots during heavy processor usage. I guess this could be a hardware problem but this is a standard PC from DELL whereas the Athlon 3400, 1 GB RAM, 300 GB HD PC running 98 SE is one I pieced together from random components. Do all the posters here actually have access to 98 AND XP? Or are some of you XP users speaking about your memory of 98 SE from many years, and many patches, ago? 98 SE is running better than ever for me, especially with the recent upgrade packs some of the users here have produced. Maybe you should give it a try?

FYI the free version of the new WindowsBlinds 3 does not support 9x So no point in trying it out to see if you want to buy it I guess You can still find free 2.11 floating around though, I'll try it out and let you know if it's any good.

Hi guys I'm using Sygate and it works well except - -it crashes when I shutdown / restart my PC -often smc.exe locks up, I think this is sygate -especially when I'm not connected, it causes the system to stutter every few seconds. By stutter I mean my mouse will freeze and stop moving for an instant. Very irritating. Are there any good free alternatives?

I have never messed with using the Stardock products like WindowBlinds, Object Bar, etc I am curious what other peoples experiences with this softer on older OS's has been I tried it a few years ago. It's very good looking, but it was slightly buggy and very sluggish. Also, the free version was quite limited.

"Anyone have any valid reasons why someone should choose 98 over XP? Give me proof or sources... Every one of you wants to fight about how 98 is better... I don't think one of you has just said, "I'm not too keene about learning something new and Windows XP intimidates me..."" Actually I DID say something like that, plus I gave a whole PILE of other valid reasons. Maybe you should go back and reread the older posts, dude. The only thing I am seeing in your vapid posts is "Power users have to use XP, XP is easier and better and faster and stabler and funner, hands down! blah blah". FYI since you obviously work for Microsoft OS marketing department, please convince them to NOT to use Big Brother activation schemes and sell $300 coasters with expiry dates. Then maybe I'll sign up. Most homes can not do with out a computer today Bollocks, I know plenty of people in US who cannot even locate the power switch on a PC. And in some places you are more worried about getting a bowl of rice, not the latest XP security patch. For most people, a PC is just an expensive toy to download porn with.

>>>And about the hanging problem when deleting a very large number of files with W98/ME + IE6.x" >>FYI this can be avoided by using IE 5.5 DLL's (BROWSEUI.DLL 815376 bytes and BROWSELC.DLL 35328 bytes, both version 5.50.4807.2300). >using IE 5.5 Dlls when IE6 is installed? that sounds rather contradictorily... Trust me it's better than having the system resources leaked away and having it hang every time u delete a file.

I don't know what the maximum is, but in 98 SE I use 2 x 512 MB DIMM's + 1 GB swap partition now. FWIW, I also am able to create 32 MB RAM disk and 32 MB smartdrv cache from DOS with no problem. I also have *piles* of TSR's in UMB's including sound driver, mouse driver, CD-ROM driver, etc... 512 MB disk cache works but I prefer 128 MB. EMMExclude=A000-FFFF is very good for stable operation, with my sound card anyway. I use AGP aperture size 128 MB but I have gone up to 256 MB. Games are slightly faster at 128 MB vs. 64 MB. For a while the PC (one I recently built) was limited to 0.5 GB swap, and I had difficulty with SB Live! Value CT4832 card and using lots of xms from dos (e.g. limited to 16 MB XMSDSK), but installing SP 2.0 and 98SE2ME.exe apparently have helped clear some things up

OK, so you want to get technical about that... 6 years (it was 1999) Dude, it's not even 6 years old yet. sounds like you might want to look into hiring a better IT staff... I am now director of IT Wow, you must be good. Can you please answer my above question then: > in XP, can you create a ram disk from your autoexec.bat and then mount a drvspace volume on it? Windows XP will get you there quicker Fredledingue: "XP is slower than W98SE. Thought the opinions differ on this, I made a test on both fresh default installs: replace with Word 100,000 characters by another: XP slower 30%.." Someone is lying here.

98 SE is not 7 years old. And 7 years is not very long. XP is already a few years old. I will probably still be using 98 SE in 2008. I'm not sure about 2018. Perhaps if Gape and Mdgx can put out a nice 982Longhorn.exe Basically, 98 SE does everything I want. I have 3.4 GHz CPU, 1 GB RAM, and 300 GB of disk space. This system kicks a**. Also I have an MP3 player that hooks up to it, LCD monitor, color scanner/printer, joysticks, mice, microphone, digital camera, CD burner, etc.. everything works with it. It also has excellent DOS support. I play everything from old DOS games like Moria to bloated Morrowind with hundreds of MB of user mods. I can develop everything from tiny mutlti-kb 16-bit COM files to gigantic C++ apps. And 98 is still supported by Microsoft, not to mention the users here. Also, I am very used to using 98 - in XP, can you create a ram disk from your autoexec.bat and then mount a drvspace volume on it? I have no idea, but I can do it easily in 98. My work PC has XP, but it just seems sluggish and bloated and I don't see a compelling reason to upgrade. I do not want 100 services running on my CPU. And XP certainly has its share of bugs. I still have to reboot my XP PC a few times a day to deal with problems like locked files and inexplicable slow downs. Oh yeah, I forgot to say that I absolutely WILL NOT subject myself to communist activation schemes either. I'd rather go to DOS 6.22 than do that.

I'm not certain what this does, but should it be included for SP 2.0 RC2? http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...&displaylang=en

"And about the hanging problem when deleting a very large number of files with W98/ME + IE6.x" FYI this can be avoided by using IE 5.5 DLL's (BROWSEUI.DLL 815376 bytes and BROWSELC.DLL 35328 bytes, both version 5.50.4807.2300).

I noticed that PSP bytes 80-FF are used for the command-line of DOS programs. So I use MOV WORD PTR [80h],0D00h to safely blow away the command line. (Some memory analysis tools try to show arguments of loaded TSR's, so I do not want to corrupt PSP too badly). Then in the transient part of the TSR, I can copy the resident part of my code to 0x82 and on. Using this trick I can decrease memory usage of loaded TSR by 0x7E bytes. For example, one of the PC Magazine TSR's I like, QUICKEYS.COM, uses 464 bytes + environment normally, but I've optimized it down to 320 bytes. Surely there are more ways to exploit storage in the PSP. Anyone know any good info on this? Also, is there anyway to get rid of the PSP completely? It seems like a big waste of space.

I'm not a VB6 expert, but maybe your app depends on DLL's not present on the user's systems? Try to find dependency walker (DEPENDS.EXE), it can help find missing DLL's.

Where in the order should 98 plus ! or 98 resource kit go?

On one PC I have (Win98), I was trying to optimize my conventional DOS memory by clearing out all my environment variables before loading TSR's. Most variables are easy to clear using "set X=". Unfortunately the variable "winbootdir" is set as soon as command.com is loaded, and there is no easy way to clear it. Using "set winbootdir=" doesn't work because it automatically capitalizes winbootdir for you and sets WINBOOTDIR, which is the wrong variable name. I figured out one way to delete this environment variable. Basically I have a small batch file that runs "mem /m command" and looks at the segment of the environment memory block, and clears it out using a couple of calls to debug.exe. This works well and if anyone is interested in this batch file I can post it. But does anyone know of a more elegant way of clearing out the environment? E.g. using a COM file to traverse through memory blocks and zeroing out the master environment block?

I'm curious, why do you want to use SP6? Personally I prefer SP5 plus the processor pack. There is no processor pack compatible with SP6

Does anyone know where these DLL's come from? I didn't get them from SP2.0b3 or 98SE2ME. msvcirt.dll 6.10.8637.0 6/8/2000 5 PM 77877 bytes msvcrt.dll 6.10.9844.0 6/19/2003 12 AM 286773 bytes rpcltccm.dll 4.71.3328 3/29/1999 12 AM 26896 bytes

" Link: http://www.annoyances.org/downloads/ftp/disappr.zip" Doesn't work fcr me. It just makes the icon text black on a solid white background. Blech.