Windows ME Service Pack

[soldier1st]

thats a risk you take with installing the sp

in the next sp it will give you the option of installing the win me icons or not so the risk will be lower

[zoem]

at first it can only support up to 512 but the sp resolves that,if not there are other workarounds to allow up to 1.5 gig from what i know,it's a bit of work but it's worth it

sides the original windows 98 is too buggy,se is not buggy

i thought the SP only LIMITS win98 to reading 512mb of ram?..u no, through msconfig?

[soldier1st]

ay first windows 98 doesen't allow more than 512 ram,if you want to use more than 512 you must limit the ammount of memory that vcache sees or do though msconfig/advanced and limit memory to 999(thats the highest value it will allow)

[Gape]

Windows 9x and Windows ME only supports maximum 1 GB RAM internally. For example, if you have 2 GB RAM, you can only use 1 GB of it. There are also two situations about this limit:

1- VCache problem on 512 MB or more RAM. (It can be solved by adding line into SYSTEM.INI).

2- More than 1 GB RAM problem. (It can be solved by adding line into SYSTEM.INI or with MSCONFIG).

SP fixes both of problems by adding these lines.

[erpdude8]

Hey, erpman:

Who needs 98lite micro?  I do, but not for my main system:

I make machines with LS-120 instead of a floppy.  98lite micro fits entirely on the LS-120 and boots up with no regard for the hard disk whatsoever.  From that vantage point I can diagnose various problems, run anti-virus/anti-spam, ME defrag that rearranges all files with no reservations, etc. on all of the now-looked-upon-merely-as-data hard disk partitions, etc.

I posted awhile back all of the differences between 98lite CHUBBY and 98lite SLEEK [V1].  There are people who prefer SLEEK over CHUBBY who have a free choice.  If SLEEK [V2] ever gets fixed, it might even tilt the scales a little bit more for SLEEK, since from a user's standpoint, SLEEK V2 works identically but has less "growing pains" due to ill-behaved apps, etc.

One particular point is that regardless of what you are running 98se on, SLEEK beats the hell out of CHUBBY with regard to emptying the recycle bin, running more like XP on steroids than the standard lame sloth of all other forms of 98SE 98lite or not, etc. and has no problems with copying lots of/large file manipulations

that seems to plague others [Have we resolved the BROWSEUI.DLL and BROWSELC.DLL problem?  Can I safely revert to the IE501SP2 versions if I have all of the IE60SP1 and hotfixes installed?  In SLEEK I don't care; it doesn't use them].

Believe it or not, there are users who don't care about win2K themes, ME icons, bloated screen windows that put up options on the top they never use, toolbars that waste taskbar space, active desktops, etc.  For them, SLEEK is just fine.

Also, the SHELL has nothing whatsoever to do with what the O/S does or does not support in terms of hardware.  I agree that win95 is dead, that's why I don't use it for a variety of reasons such as lack of FAT32 support [except in 95B/C], lack of large disk support [no bigger than 32 GB] and lots of drivers and apps that won't load there, but are fine with 98SE, and a general lack of hotfixes for problems it shares with other 9x that didn't get fixed there, etc.  However, the SHELL is not related to any of that, since using the 95 shell on top of  98SE changes the hardware situation not at all!

I have yet to find a machine that cannot install 98lite regardless of shell choice, unless I also cannot get plain 98SE to install either [and there are lots of cases like that unless you are prepared to do a lot of driver research in some instances, and perhaps install some stuff in safe mode, etc.  In one case, I had to do the pass one of the install up to the first boot, on another board entirely, then use GHOST to transplant the rest of the install on the problem board, which then worked fine!  This was NOT related to 98lite whatsoever, etc.] [On some boards, you have to install hotfixes before you install drivers or it crashes.  In some instances, such as on fairly recent TYAN boards, the driver installs on the provided support CD are actually installing hotfixes automagically while they install the drivers to make it even work, etc.  Installing Gape's SP can work wonders here BEFORE you install the drivers!]

So, yes, by all means install/use what you want, but please no misdirected rants here.

cjl

Well, if your system can handle 98lite micro and doesn't cause problems with

other 3rd party software installed, go ahead and use it. I DON'T CARE!

As long as your system is stable, keep it.

Like with xplite, not ALL Win98 users need 98lite micro. I don't install it because

I am using programs that conflict with it.

[soldier1st]

for me i had a fully patched win 98 se on a GA-7N400E-L and i installed 98lite micro and on next system restart it said explorer.exe errors in explorer.exe and couldn't fix it or get into safe mode so i had to format.good thing i have other oses to save my stuff,i do like chubby even on a newer system,it has start menu editing(i edit the start menu everytime i use 98)it lacks view as webpage and preview of say a picture but i don't use that,if i wanna know what something is i go into it,active desktop is a resource hog,after it removes it i can't stretch my wallpaper but there are apps that can do the same thing without being a resource hog,so chubby is very good,i won't use sleek for the simple reason that it has no startmenu editing and some of the apps i use are resource hungry and may not work under sleek,i do have a win95b and maybe a win 95 installation disk that was given to me,overweight is the full win 98 deskop,alot of the shell enhancements i don't use as i'm used to doing it the hard way,if i was using xp as my first os i would want buttons to be here and there to be easy but coming from a windows 3.1 enviroment was very different than it is now so i don't like all those extra useless buttons as i know the keyboard shortcuts very well(i love the keyboard,best thing to come out)the mouse is also nice but keyboard is better at times,ah those wer the good ol days of computing,win me i would use if it was viable but on one system out of say 10 it was good,someone i work for used to use me,he didn't at first want to switch to 2000,xp but he did and he don't eregret it now,there now i'm done saying what i did,have a nice day.

[seraph00]

Hmmm.... a Windows Me service pack? Interesting idea. Me is and will probably remain for some time, one of those OS's that you either love or hate due to personal experience in dealing with it. I am a computer tech, and i've provided a lot of support to people with Me issues. Yes, it does offer a variety of component enhancements over 98SE, the better defrag and scandisk being a good example. Yet, my experience has almost always been the same with Me.

1. If you install Me as an upgrade to any previous Windows OS, your asking for trouble, and will almost every time end up with a system that runs as effectively as a gerbil trying to push the Titanic.

2. If you were fortunate enough to buy a PC during the times when Me was released as new, and as such have a completely unchanged system full of hardware designed to run on it, you do decently. The instant you start upgrading, changing, replacing hardware, you start running into issues every single time.

3. Out of the box, a full install of Me does decently well. Once you start adding tweaks, updates, patches, fixes, etc. in who knows what order, the OS inevitably turns into mush eventually.

4. Notice that Microsoft went from offering an MCP certification exam from Windows 98 directly to 2000, they never offered any certification or exam for Me...that should say something right there.

5. Keep in mind the events of the time when Me came out. Microsoft wasn't ready to release a new home user OS, and had planned to wait at least some time before doing so. Yet they made the mistake of badly marketing and badly informing people about Windows 2000. At the time 2000 had a rediculously picky set of hardware requirements, offered almost no worthwhile multimedia support, and cased the crash of and data loss of a large number of systems. This being caused by all the people who went "Ooooo looky new MS OS, I have to have it", and who went out by the thousands getting copies of 2000 and trying to use it. Initially 2000 was designed primarily for corporate desktop usage. Yet, due to poor marketing, MS couldn't get people to stop trying to use 2000 without something else "new" for them to buy. So basicly they reskinned 98SE, incorporated all the reased patches/fixes for 98 that were out at the time, threw in some different icons/backgrounds/gui effects, and in essence created Windows 98 third edition. Thus the groundwork was already there for a lot of additional problems to happen. Especially considering that Me still makes use of several oldschool DOS programming areas, while at the same time trying to completely prevent a user from being able to come into contact with and/or being able to use DOS. This helped lay the groundwork for people to accept XP, but still it was a good number of years that I know many PC technicians would love to forget.

6. Sure, I know there were several people who said "Hey, I had Me, I used it for 2 years and never had a problem! Why don't you like Me?" In most cases those were the blissful few who managed to get a computer that had hardware that worked nearly perfectly in Me, who never messed with doing a lot of updating or upgrading. Most everyone who did ended up with a trashed computer.

I'm not saying making a service pack for Me is a wasted effort that is useless, not at all. However, perhaps some different route might be a better option. Companies are diving off offering compatability and support to Windows 95/98 like rats fleeing a sinking ship. Microsoft is cutting support offered for both OS's, and Me will soon follow. 2000 with Service pack 4 is stable, reliable, much less bloated than XP, and likewise offers better support in certain areas(despite initially being designed as a corporate desktop OS) 2000 with current service pack offers support for a larger number of DOS games and applications that XP ever has or will. It also uses a smaller footprint, hogs fewer resources, and doesn't contain any of that rediculous "activation" software M$ is pushing on people with XP.

Oldschool DOS can be used in Win2k Pro either via the built in virtual DOS emulator or from runing DOSbox. The problem that unfortunatey many people are running into via Win2k or XP is the lack of any real backwards compatability support for applications and game that require some part of 9.x to be there to install much less run.

Perhaps instead, some means of getting needed system files from Windows98SE/Me/DOS incorporated into Win2k/XP to offer some real backwards compatability support that has previously not existed, might be a good avenue to explore.

As far as my personal system goes, at the moment, i'm using a dual-boot setup of Windows98SE and Win2k. I use 98 for getting all my old games and apps to run properly and use 2k for anything that requires a more modern computing system. I would honestly love to find some ability to merge the 2 in a way that I could keep the stability, reliability and functionality of Win2k Pro, but at the same time be able to acquire the legacy game, application, and DOS support offered by Win98SE. That might be a dream that I never see happen, but it would truly kick some major butt if it were ever possible.

[soldier1st]

and if this sp for me makes it very viable then thats good

if only 98 could support NTFS then it would be very stable

also you should be able to slipstream these sp's into a 9x install like what 98lite can do.

[erpdude8]

i use microsoft windows millennium edition installed with 98lite micro. the only problem i have is installing directx, but i think i got a solution... get the directx files from the .cab and copy them to the right folders.

do you get error messages when installing DX, msfn1? Try disabling WinME's

system file protection feature, then try to install the latest version of DirectX.

I disable SFP on my cousin's WinME PC and run DX setup and it worked.

More convenient than just trying to copy the dx files from the .cab files.

[erpdude8]

and if this sp for me makes it very viable then thats good

if only 98 could support NTFS then it would be very stable

also you should be able to slipstream these sp's into a 9x install like what 98lite can do.

Only 3rd party tools can make W95/98/ME read NTFS. Some tools can only read

but NOT write to NTFS partitions. Remember that Win9xME systems can NEVER

use NTFS as a 'boot' partition, meaning you can NOT boot from an NTFS volume

with Win9x/ME because Win9x/ME's system startup files can't recognize NTFS from

the start. It's just a limitation of 9xME. You can read NTFS volumes AFTER W9xME

loads but you CANT boot from them. Also note that third party tools that can read

NTFS volumes under W9xME have 'limitations'. We can NOT ignore these limitations, people.

[erpdude8]

And when installing 3rd party tools to add NTFS support under 9xME systems, DONT expect the same or equal level of NTFS support as featured in NT-based Windows versions. That is the reality.

Hopefully after Win98se SP is in 2.0 final, Gape might consider making an unofficial WinME SP sometime in the second half of 2005. Or how about an unofficial Win98 FE (1st edition) post-SP1 Update Rollup Pack. There are still some users out there using Win98fe and can't upgrade to Win98se.

[Acheron]

I am able to play Games like Need for Speed Underground 2 of from an NTFS partition under Windows 98 with Paragon NTFS reader and didn't notice anything strange

[horsecharles]

Uh, Oh.... here we go............ 98SE2XP, followed by 98SE2Longhorn......

[smokeyjoint]

98selonghorn lol thats funny but hey why not only time will tell i never dreamed me files in 98se i read mdgx killer replacement page a year ago and say i dont have a clue and now its done one exe and sp2 and and now xp sp2 files into 98se its wild good work guys .and thxz.

[Shadow_Fi]

I dont know much about this new servicepack, but i know WIN98SE. I would wanna to know, is in this SP good NTFS support`? Can this SP be integrated on Installation CD? And, are you thinking about of making easier way to configure network (like in Windows XP)? And can you make the whole Windows look better? Something like, shadowed cursor, and nice blue skin from XP? Is it possible anyway? Ive noticed that my old PC with Ali Aladin P5A motherboard, 450mhz CPU, and 256mb SDRAM (133), runs much better and smoother on Windows 2000, or Windows 2003 Server. Anyway i realize, that they maybe eat more mamory and so on.. But, they are just much smoother, and faster. Ive noticed that when 98SE works hard, and hangs for a 0.5 second, the mouse cursore does that too.. Windows XP, and all other new one, doesnt do that crap..

Well sorry if i speak sh*t, im kinda of a n00bie here