Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


Sign in to follow this  
Gape

Windows ME Service Pack

Recommended Posts

As long as I can remember, I used ME for about 18 months without any problem at all, running stable on a Asus A7V + Duron 800 MHz.  B)

But at that time I noticed something that must explain this. I customized my whole installation from the very beggining, and some friends of mine *never*  became happy using ME, maybe because they installed it with the default settings.  :wacko:

Of course it's just a hint, can't assure if this was the difference - or not - for a stable ME to a "average erratic" ME...  :whistle:

--ThundernetBR

do you have a guide about customizing me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well me is picky,you just happened to have hardware that me liked,once you add the sp to 98 it isin't really outdated and is a bit more modern,98 performs best on older hardware and can be good on new,me is better on newer

More accurately, Win98 can run ok on older/slower computers such as

those ancient Pentium 1 PCs [133 Mhz or slower] with 32 megs of memory.

WinME works best on faster PCs such as Pentium 2 [233 Mhz or faster] with

64 megs of memory or more.

Win98 SE (2nd edition) can run just fine on newer PCs as long as the

appropriate patches are installed. It can have the same benefits as running

WinME on newer PCs. Win98 FE (1st edition) may have problems running

on newer/faster PCs made in the 21st century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
do you have a guide about customizing me?

Not exactly... Just unmark and check some features here and there when requested by ME's own installation procedure :P and after that installing the most recent (at that time) versions of DirectX, IE6 and WMP. I cannot remember which ones, but probably DirectX 8.1, IE6 (not SP1 yet) and WMP 8. :whistle:

Worked like a charm for some time before migrating to W2K Pro. :thumbup

By the way, Merry Christmas for all ! :hello:

--ThundernetBR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

98lite version 4.7 works with me so yea it is possible but me may not like you and crash on you till you put ie back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i tried using 98lite micro

on startup it gave me explorer.exe errors n stuff=format

use ie iradicator instead to save yourself a format

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rememer that a 98lite micro install install the files from microsoft windows 95. everyone here is so stressed about installing internet explorer. i wish i could NEVER install it hehehe.

Ah, dump 98lite micro. Who needs it if you have a superfast PC with lots

of RAM installed & using a large hard drive? That old classic Win95-style

Explorer interface is pitiful and inefficient. Win95 is already obsolete and

can't handle the hardware made in the 21st century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

correct,i tried installing it on a new mobo n it gave errors when trying to start,plus 98micro gave problems so you don't need it,98chubby will do just fine,well me got 512 ram,will go to 1 gig soon,win98 will work with 1 gig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
correct,i tried installing it on a new mobo n it gave errors when  trying to start,plus 98micro gave problems so you don't need it,98chubby will do just fine,well me got 512 ram,will go to 1 gig soon,win98 will work with 1 gig

why don't you tell that to soldier1st, CLASYS?

I agree with him on not needing 98micro. Changing the shell

of win98se can actually break certain programs like Wordpad

which requires the shell32.dll file of Win98se.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...