miko

MDGX is the man for this try here http://www.mdgx.com/web.htm#WIN or here http://www.mdgx.com/web.htm#OSR2 (btw have you tried windows update inside IE yet, i think i got it to work once on my moms PC under 95 long after it was supposed to be 'dead')

Of course this exists, or do you think we have manually installed and activated hundreds of XP licences in our company??? See Microsoft " Volume License Product Key " You don't have to use activation to use Windows XP. That is what the corporate edition is for. Also, there are easy ways around the activation, but such discussion is not allowed in these forums. so we have to compromise our morality to get the best out an OS now ? Corporate Edition doesn't actually exist, it's volume-licensed copies of Windows XP Professional, i doubt you have a legitimate volume-licensed copy nor could many of us legitimately attain one. what your talking about (tempered by experience methinks) is a pirated OS. and if so your espousing the virtues of something you don't even pay for ? that's just great, that is. now i fully understand why you don't see costs as prohibitive. can you read at your company ? MS produces no such product which goes by that name. if you doubt that try the searches i suggested (i did, before i posted, likewise i've already read MSs volume-licensing pages) you can buy a volume-licensed copy of Windows XP Professional (as i said) but that's what it's called. not 'Windows XP Professional Corporate Edition' or 'Windows XP Corporate Edition' that's a moniker (a nickname) and that's all. link me to an MS page where the name is used. post an image of a box cover or disc with 'Corporate Edition' on it. you should be able to pull at least one off Google image search without too much trouble if it's a real product. go on. no ? next time read the thread.

I'll say it again, not that it'll make much difference with that selective reading/hearing thing you have going on, Corporate Edition doesn't exist, there's no such issue of XP. type it (Windows XP Corporate Edition) into Google and all you'll get is warez hits, if it was legitimate you'd get a Microsoft page straight up. type it into the search @ Microsoft.com and you'll get no hits (except ones related to the individual words). it's a moniker that comes almost solely from the warez release. so you see, you can't have a copy of 'Corporate Edition' (as you suspiciously keep referring to it as) from your work because, as i said, it simply does not exist. and as for your 84 bucks, you'd be hard pushed to find a copy of Win2k where i live now, most US retailers don't ship abroad, certainly not the cheap ones, and when it was available here it cost more than XP Pro (which btw is £293.97 ($521) for full and £152.73 ($271) upgrade with XP Home coming in @ £149.98 ($266) for full and £88.92 ($157) for upgrade) i spend £20-£30 on feeding myself for a fortnight to give you some perspective, and my new system core (3000+ SoA Sempron 512KB Cache Barton/ASRock K7VT4A Pro/512MB Crucial DDR333) purchased just recently cost less than £100. and why would i buy an OS i don't want, that'll likely require me to upgrade most of my big apps (incurring more £), is dead already (mainstream support ended on 30/06/2005) and will be totally dead in four years time (extended support ends 30/06/2010) when btw i fully intend to be using exactly the same rig and apps, games and browser etc i have full use of now ? don't answer that btw. i've been hearing your reply for 33 pages now and believe me i've heard more than enough. PS. all quoted prices taken tonight from dabs.com one of the UKs best (and lowest priced) online retailers.

You don't have to use activation to use Windows XP. That is what the corporate edition is for. Also, there are easy ways around the activation, but such discussion is not allowed in these forums. so we have to compromise our morality to get the best out an OS now ? Corporate Edition doesn't actually exist, it's volume-licensed copies of Windows XP Professional, i doubt you have a legitimate volume-licensed copy nor could many of us legitimately attain one. what your talking about (tempered by experience methinks) is a pirated OS. and if so your espousing the virtues of something you don't even pay for ? that's just great, that is. now i fully understand why you don't see costs as prohibitive.

Windows XP support was recently extended because it would have ended before Vista was released. & MS doesn't care what something deserves, only about how quickly it can force repurchasing of its core suite of products to generate more revenue (in a near continuous stream).

meh, i can live with that.

jondercik, it has been said, more than a few times, that most people here understand the limits of the 9X OSs fully, in some cases more so than those now using XP because we are pushing up against them. its also been said, in the cases of of most of the points you cover that they're not really relavent to the majority of people who come here. this is a windows 9X support forum, people who come here have already made their choice, the phrase 'use XP' is an anathema (as i've said before), either because of prohibitive cost of upgrade in terms of software or hardware, or because what they have does all they need. there are a few (zealots i lovingly call em) who think that 98SE (or even Me) is the greatest thing ever produced, and thats fine because you actually need a few people like that in a forum to keep it ticking (like say someone on a Q3 forums who might espouse it as the greatest game ever) this forum sticks out on this site i think, because there seem to be a lot of system admins and IT people around (+ gamers) who love to have the latest/fastest/ etc thing out. but not everyone is like that. but i'm 35, i have no need of an alienware PC (if you'll excuse the reference) i don't want to play the latest games or run the latest apps. most of the software i do have (and make use of) i have no want to re-buy for another OS. if i could get away with it, i'd never buy another PC. it's just not that important to me. many others feel the same. but like i said we don't really fit in around the IT people, system admins and gamers. whats annoying (to some) and the reason there are 30 pages of posts in this thread is the constant bashing of our chosen OS inside its support forum, by someone (not you) who it's becoming increasingly obvious has some kind of mental problem. as was said by another poster there are better places to discuss the merits of different OSs on this site (like perhaps 'General Discussion' or the 'Software Hangout'), than inside a support forum for the OS some people (not you) are determined to slate. the simple fact is, pop up here and say 9X is a POS, and virtually the whole forum will come back with 'oh no it isn't, i use it and its fine' i really don't know what people expect other than that. if there were any decent mods around the topic would be closed (as has been begged for repeatedly by some members here) or moved, but i'm beginning to realise there possibly aren't.

many, many thanks that'll do very, very nicely and thanks once again to all who posted.

http://www.irfanview.com/ does this in browse mode (get the plugins you need) and the webview will give you a preview for the odd file (for pretty much anything compatible with media player). but afaik you can't have movie previews in thumbnail view (unless someone else knows of an app)

thanks very much, but, eh, that's the wrong one for me. i ment the globe with the single monitor infront and to the right. thanks for the reply though, it was exactly what i was looking for (size, transparency) except it's the wrong image for me.

hey banging the ignorance drum is fun wheeeeee . . . OpenOffice (originally StarOffice) was written to run on Java by Sun (not Linux, MAC OS X, Solaris, Windows 2000/XP, or 98/ME). the whole point of it is it's a crossplatform app. and your views about abandoning an OS and producing software for those who are only at the forefront flies in the face of a fair few OpenSource ideals. let me tell you (and anyone else reading) how much you actually know about programming (given i've read most of what you've posted in these threads.) nothing. absolutely nothing at all. i bet you've never even compiled a program from source. (PS. i also bet you're a ball at partys . . . not )

eh, hello i was wondering if anyone in round here could supply me with a large image (anything bigger than 57x57 would be ace) of the normal XP My Network Places icon/image (the one globe with one monitor in front one) to use in a webview i'm writing and i thought i'd ask here as it touches on the stuff you deal in methinks. i've been through every page of multiple different google image searches looking for a suitable image but the best i can find is a (rather bad) 52x52 jpg PS. i don't use XP, so i can't use XPize, so i can't extract any images from it myself (if there is a suitable one contained within) if you were going to suggest that. even just a link to a suitable image on the net would be a massive help. huge amounts of thanks to anyone who can be bothered with this trivial request miko.

i didn't recommend 56.72

unless there's something different in your experience, afaik nforce2s use the default IDE driver in win98SE because nvidia doesn't supply a compatable one in the unified driver package. check DMA is enabled on your drives in device manager. ensure in DMA access controller 'Reserved memory' is ticked and set to 64K ensure the ASPI is properly installed (i recommend 4.60) but you've probably tried all that you could try asking around here if nothing useful turns up in this thread.

the 44.03s are somewhat famously hacked to give artifically good result in benchmarks, it could have something to do with that. some linkage - here and here 45.23 (WHQL in XP) are nice on GF 3s & 4s (if i remember rightly) you should also possibly try the 45.32 betas (after much testing i ran one of these two on my GeForce 4 Ti 4200, just can remember which ).

oh well done ! pick the most processor intensive activities a modern OS can do and do them all at once, sure. like a sub 2Ghz pc won't grind to a halt doing all that at once . . . sure i should stay out of this but i resent the way you continually quote the weaker posts and sections of posts (my apologies to those concerned) yet totally ignore the stronger points when they are made and continue, endlessly continue, as if they were not made at all. and yet i've done all those things on 98SE (except the digital video editing) and i've never had a problem i don't do them at the same time (well except for video and audio encoding) but then i don't think anyones really going to master a HD-DVD and play Quake 4 at the same time. and FYI 98SE can multitask just fine. if you wanna talk real life usage, last night i was compressing 600MB of PSX iso into an Ultra compressed Zz file, while scanning another for errors using CDmage (which was loaded into virtual drive in daemon tools), and downloading another eh, large 'file' and surfing 8-10 webpages using Firefox at the same time with AV and a firewall running in the tray as well. and 98SE was nimbly opening windows as i browsed for notes and files thoughout. in emulation circles its commonly known that 9X is faster than XP (i've seen the graphs) the reason ? most emulators focus on only a very few task threads which have 'less hoops to jump through' on 9X than on XP (MAME doesn't even support multiple cores, you can't complie it to do so, nor is it ever likely to be able to, yet it represents some of the most efficient code you can find openly on the net (and there is no difference in compiling it for 9X or XP either btw)) the holes in your knowledge have been poked through many times before by people far more knowledgeable people that you or i, and the bottom line is this, you don't have that much of a clue. you never say (in essence) 'gee, that's interesting' or 'i didn't know that' and you never take anything on board. you just wait till a few posts have past (hoping, i assume, that the other readers can't remember) then turn into the wind again. 9X is a 32 bit (& 16 bit & 8 bit) OS and it can multitask (even DOS can multitask). you shout on and on about 'the kernel, the kernel, the kernel' when really what's important (when it comes to the similarities and differences) are the APIs and the filesystem and the networking stack, you have a little knowledge and Google to hand (and god knows the internet is a gift to the slow-witted) none of which really matter because in the end your constant posting comes down to one thing - you are, at the very least, an obsessive compulsive, and at worst probably mentally ill. you have wrote thousands of words by now on your chosen diatribe in a 9X support forum, to express your chosen view for what ? do you really expect us all to agree ? do you expect us to down tools and all go out and buy Win 2000 tommorow (which by the way costs way more than XP) do you expect to log in after you've finally (oh please God) finished and see nothing but tumbleweed blowing through these forums and then lean back in you chair safe in the knowledge of a job well done ? because it's not going to happen. seriously, what are you trying to achieve ? all your doing is p***ing off some of the appreciative and constructive users of this forum. (and the remainder are just laughing at your pontificated piffle now) the ones who come here wanting to now how to fix issues with their OS of choice, and the ones who know far more about the OS than you and have shown so by making constructive contibutions to help the others. they answer 'use 2000/XP' is an anathema (go look that up) and is not appreciated in anyway, shape, or form. your not even addressing the original topic of the thread. the question was why use it, not why not to use it. yes there is - because we want to and because we can.

nope, 6 (plus it's updates) pdf is an open format now, so as you said there are plenty of alternatives (OpenOffice supports authoring for example) edit - atomizer beat me to the post, my reply was aimed @ timeless

oh it gets better, there's been at least 3 threads like this in the last 6 months . . . what i don't understand is why they're allowed to persist. this is a Windows 95/98/98SE/ME Support forum, if it was a Linux forum and people kept stating that that OS was a 'POS' and everyone should use Windows they wouldn't last long before some (half decent) mod shut down the topic or banned the users who just didn't get it. some people just don't seem to understand that the people who visit here have made their choice already.

because i want to. EOD and Link21, next time i offer you an olive branch remind me to beat you with it PS. and i'm buying a 6800 next month so

if 1.5 is like 1.6 and upwards it has win 2k icons and a new start menu banner bitmap (the bit that runs up the side of the start menu) hacked into the explorer.exe. 32bit windows files (dlls and some exes) have resources stored in them which can be changed using a resource script compiler and decompiler like this - http://www.angusj.com/resourcehacker/ it's not as dodgy a procedure as it sounds and in fact that particular program was even recommended by microsoft at one point for people to use to change their logon 'images' (the little squares for users in XP) or it might have been the start up logos i'm not that sure (not an XP user you see). the programs core 'code' is not touched, only graphic resources and menus. quite amazing things can be done with 'resource hacking', witness - http://wint.virtualplastic.net/hackindex.php the procedure is sometime used post complie to change icons or menus in a program without having to recomplie the app from source, for example Delphi comes with a resource script compiler and decompiler as part of its package i believe. this is what should be behind the differences in file sizes/crc

That is another good reason to run Windows 98SE. If all you use is older and slow PCs to play old games, and basic e-mail and Internet browsing, then Windows 98SE will be ok and in fact may be required to run some much older games on much older hardware. By Jove, i think he's getting it now if your favourite game is something like say Dungeon Keeper 2 (still rated the best ever 'god' game in some PC mags) which isn't compatible with XP and you still have occasional trips to Dungeon Keeper 1 (which really doesn't like newer systems), and you have already paid good money for perfectly capable apps which do all the things you want and run on 98SE but probably not on XP, and maybe your a little older and are actually growing out of games (except the ones you used to play, say for example 16 bit console emulation, and your still working at those 96 stars) wouldn't it be nice also to be able to do all that on the fastest hardware you can find which is probably now dirt dirt cheap (seriously, my SoA 3000+ core (CPU/MB/Mem) cost less than £100 total (although i have changed the board once)). and if these things are true then a forum full of nice people willing to help you with support and tips for this retro OS (and the others) is maybe a good thing then ? anyway microsoft has ended support so your old arguments no longer stands really, 98 is holding no one back anymore. guess were kinda like classic car enthusiasts now, having to fashion replacement wings from sheet metal and store the last remaining spare parts (which reminds me i must download .net 2.0) and somewhat thankful for the few companys still producing compatible bits (like Firefox) me offers um peace pipe . . .

if you really want to do this just use SFC.EXE to extract explorer.exe from the install files, it doesn't need to tie in with the other dlls (as long as it's a valid 98SE explorer.exe) further if you're that interested in file versions set SFC to append its log file and run it every time you update something/apply a patch and you'll get a nice list of changed files and their version numbers (as stated above newer is generally better). if you just want to avoid the hacked files (afaik there are only currently 3 which are going to be changed to optional patches applied during the SPs install) this topic may be of help - http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=53875 don't know if 1.5 is the same, i came in at 1.6, but you should really upgrade to the latest anyway imo . . . i use explorer.exe 4.72.3110.1 btw (i have my doubts about the file version on the later one and exactly what OS it's intended for, but that's a personal thing with me and i don't espouse it) hth.

http://grc.com/sn/notes-020.htm nice

Happy Holidays, and have a great new year everyone !