miko

one reason ? people other that you want to use them ? how do you know what cards 9X users are using ? i myself run an 5700 FX (GF5) and previous to that a GF4ti, i would be running a 6600GT if i didn't have to upgrade my PSU along with it (note not the OS). MDGx clearly states in his post (9th in the thread) that both he and his friend run GF6800s on 98SE. and as for games there are only 3 games i know of sofar that are actually XP only on the box, and two of them can apparently be installed and run on 98SE anyway.

well mines is 98SE with IE6, WMP9, DX9 (no messenger or outlook express) just the service pack no 98SE2ME or Revolutions Pack. maybe there just not testing on 98SE anymore still newset versions aren't always best, there was quite a lot removed from the free EVEREST around the 1.5 mark or so (i still keep a copy tucked away somewhere) if the functionalty you need is there and working ok do you really need to upgrade to the latest ? i still use CPU-Z version 1.25 for this reason, and a few other programs for similar ones, things like Nero 5.5, PSP 7, Winamp 2.95 etc

2.20 seems to be quite buggy (in my experience) compared with previous releases, it doesn't recognise my processor at all or m/b cpu sensor unlike 2.01 i have to say i deleted it and went back to using 2.01 after this became evident i will still try out any new releases though...

this topic had a similar ring to it, check it out - http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=46086&hl=

read the first post in this topic about requirements and install order of the different projects - http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=38193 it is possible to have the revolutions pack and the 98SE2ME installed simultaneously, in fact i think you need 98SE2ME to install the revolutions pack, i'm not sure, i only install the SP myself (and i think maybe you might be pushing it with the revolutions pack on a P150 but i could be wrong about that) probably best to read some of the project threads before you decide to install anyway. hopefully someone else can jump in and give you more help on that error message (i dunno ) welcome to the forums

it's possible to use the explorer.exe from 95 in 98se, thereby cutting out the internet explorer integration, gives extra speed but has a few issues (maybe ok for gaming) http://www.litepc.com/ kernel ? kernel32.dll ? 4.10.2225 (03 April 2002) for win98se from the service pack of course don't know about winMe never owned it (not planning to start) http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=46349

don't waste your breath Fredledingue, after reading through the full thread, i've begun to realise that what we have here is an intolerant fascist. first he posts a poll, then he posts virtually every second post when it doesn't go his way, every single mention of 98 is preceded by POS (which is quite psychologically worrying) and he seems incapable of accepting anyone elses views or even points. next we'll be hearing how he's a buding amateur artist... so here's the thing Link21, you win, 98's a piece of sh*t. we all agree, don't we lads ? (pssst nod your head) isn't that nice mmmmm ? (walk backwards towards the door Fredledingue) (keep going) now run!

i don't think this is about that, i think he's refering to the old large file moves/deletes problem discussed here - http://technology.januario.com/2004/09/win...lorer-slow.html there are other threads on the subject but i can't find the posts very easily through the search. i think MDGx had a solution based on using two older IE files or something, i also thought it was maybe addressed in part in a recent IE patch... btw FAT32 is technically faster than NTFS but not so's you'd notice (checks for file permissions et all)

haven't tried it (still running 2.0.1) but i might know how to fix it so try booting into safe mode, remove your selections if present, and then reboot.

Jobs a Good'un If you ever want to do a format and reinstall on that machine, post, i have a few nice tips in that respect.

yup, its not installed properly, the SP installs 4.72.3612.1700 (with the icons & start menu banner hacked into it) 4.72.3110.1 is the original pre SP one. in the 'Installation Guide for Win98 SE SP 2.0' topics first post - http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=38193 Gape (SP author) says -

API, API, API taken from this pageAFAIK MS's most current Programming API is essentally .net 1.1 SP1, guess what, 98SE and XP run the same version of .net both can do the same. AFAIK MS's most current Gaming API is Direct X 9.0c, guess what, 98SE and XP run the same version of Direct X. both can do the same. AFAIK the most current versions of the OpenGL API are 1.5-2.0 guess what, 98SE and XP run the same version of OpenGL. both can do the same. whether the types of programs your talking about run or not is not dependant on the advantages XP has over 98SE (like NTFS, or file permissions, or the enhanced security, or more up-to-date drivers or even the fact it's a full 32bit OS) but on whether or not the OS supports the current APIs like i have mentioned above and guess what, it does. both OSs are equally as capable at running the kind of software your bothered about and quite frankly your little rants just show that you don't know what your talking about, i may be dumb when it comes to some things but your posts make me look like a Nobel laureate. hey i'm a programmer, i have my own Quake engine and MAME & FBA builds and other bits and pieces, oh and i did the transparency hacks for kof2003 (thats ASM) i write websites & HTML in notepad btw i'm also an id*ot, can i be an authority now ? can i ? please... LMAOas for your examples iTunes and Napster 2.0 i suspect these won't install on 98 because of security issues, these programs want to securely track your usage and so will use security related parts of XP that are not in 98. oh wow that's soooooo significant, in XP i can have my music collection spied on and securely tracked and you can't aha,ha,ha,ha . . . . . . . . . . . . hang on. the main reason devs are starting not to put 98SE on game boxes and such now is because they can't spare the time to test them, basically companys won't assign the money for testing on an OS if MS says it's dead (not that that's actually happened yet), if it's not tested it can't go on the box because people will buy it and if it doesn't work right the sh*t will hit the fan. it's not because the programs won't work on the OS, if they're code was .net or Direct X or OpenGL and bug free it should run equally well on both OSs. as for drivers - 98SE/ME share the Windows Driver Model (WDM) with XP so there's no reason (except for badly written drivers) not to support them both (9X & XP) together (in relation to some hardware) up until the release of Vista.

i was thinking this, but also, "nah that's too obvious" mitsubishi is right, a lot of the time you need to refresh (F5) "My Computer"

strange maybe someone else can explain.... are your sure it installed ok ? what's the version number of the explorer.exe now (on that install) ?

just a thought, but doesn't it normally say "***.exe is not a valid Win32 application" when an .exe file is corrupted ?

ok, ok, don't panic, first off the relavent files have the icons hacked into them, so you need to replace them, these files are explorer.exe and shell32.dll. go here and download CopyLock http://noeld.com/programs.asp?cat=misc download this update http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/nts/down...829/default.asp install it (or extract the Shel95.dll and rename it to shell32.dll and use CopyLock to put it in the right place (the 'windows/system' folder)) it should be version 4.72.3812.600 with a crc32 of bd29ebc3 next the explorer.exe search the internet for IE4SHL95.CAB, (the ones from IE 501 SP2, IE 502, & IE 5.5 are all the same) extract the explorer.exe from this cab file and use CopyLock to put it in the right place (the 'windows' folder) it should be version 4.72.3612.1700 with a crc32 of 255fb85e if you want 256 colour icons in the tray just not the hacked in icons download a relavent hex edited explorer.exe from here - http://www.dr-hoiby.com/TrayIconIn256Color/index.php personally i just use SFC to restore the 98SE explorer.exe from the install files but that's a personal thing. delete your ShellIconCache, log off and on, and the icons should be back to normal.

no icon, probably corrupted during download, either that or one of your illegal cracks contains a file corrupting virus

You must...feel the power... of the Dark Side... [insert James Earl Jones' voice here] <{POST_SNAPBACK}> must.......buy.......XP.......NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

no, only i'm the guard, NOW GET BACK IN LINE !

hello i like, and have always liked, dinosaurs its best to start with a clean windows install (though not i believe essential) you just need the latest one 2.0.2 (plus any drivers you require, Direct X etc) yes it is worth it (it includes many updates not classed as critical and therefore not posted on Windows update for example) check this thread here for more details on the install procedure http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=38193 welcome to the forums miko.

mmmm it doesn't mix well with Zonealarm in my experience, but then i stopped using that a long while ago too, maybe their e-mail scanning parts don't like to co-exist (just theorising here) version 7 allows you to install without selected components, so now i don't install the e-mail part (i have no need, windows is installed without Outlook Express and all my e-mail usage is web based) on my system i purrs quite nicely alongside Sygate Personal Firewall, a-squared and Spybot. i still think its a good free alternative, but i'm not going to try and convince you to switch, with these kind of things its best to stick to the 'suite' that works best for you.

other than most of their product being enormous bloatware (most of which don't work without IE) and making your computer grind to near halt you mean ? i don't know, i've had their anti-virus & firewall etc free with hardware and installed it only ONCE (it did work on 98SE though, although 'work' is being generous) it's so crap, imo undoubtedly the worst product in common usage after IE. one things for sure Symantec will not be offering anything for 'free', i don't think they ever have.

Symantec has bought Sygate so eh, maybe we should ringfence the last working version of their firewall for 98 (MDGx ?) before Symantec get their crappy hands on it.

no, it doesn't crash with IPF on Win98SE (unless there's something else wrong) i've used it for years and it's always been 'stable' and i have tried Avast btw and AVG is far lighter on resources (and dependencys for that matter) anyway choice is yours/whoever's.

well if were doing free 9x anti virus-es AVG http://free.grisoft.com/