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

Sign in to follow this  
nil

Ideas for future service packs

Recommended Posts

I know about the 'Thumbnails' folder view capability in 98, zoem.

The Thumbnails view option in Win2000, ME, XP & 2003 is already

available for ALL folders in those versions of Windows.

Just seems to me like its a hidden feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i had problems cloning windows 2000

none of the other comps run 98 anymore or the win 9x/me oses,only 2000,xp

Ive cloned 2000 quite a bit on a number of machines and never ran into a problem. I have not done any testing porting to different hardware configs except with 98se, so when Im talking about 2000/XP I mean restoring it to the same computer from which the computer was initially made.

I did run into a problem with XP where it would fail shortly after the windows boot process started. I found a thread describing a few weeks ago describing the exact symptoms I ran into and aparently it was the system restore of XP that was causing the problem, and the fix was to disable system restore before imaging the drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well a simple fix for xp is to remove system restore not just disable it

norton goback is kinda like system restore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
diesel_98a, sure it can all be done via 98batch or any time after an install (and I do, and do enough checks in my batch file to allow it to be done any time after install without problems on other people's systems), but your comments equally apply to a number of the (optional) additions and changes made by the service packs, most of which can be done manually.

An example of that is "DOS prompt here". I understand it's benefits for some and think its inclusion as an option is a great idea, especially for those who don't know how to manually modify the registry entry for themselves (or even know that it was possible). I personally use quite a few menu extensions and find "DOS prompt here" just adds to context menu clutter so I don't use it (I have a DOSBox shortcut in quicklaunch so just drag and drop folders when I need to, and the frequency of needing to doesn't outweigh the negatives of having it around on my system). It's for much the same reason that I'm glad the service packs no longer add "Copy To" and "Move To" on the context menus by default (they were also basically redundant on my system because I use the Microsoft Powertoy "Sent to Anyfolder").

I do appreciate all the comments and aren't bothered in the slightest if people don't like the ideas (** says nil wiping tears from his eyes ** :) ). I was interested in hearing what people thought of the ideas themselves, and of hearing about similar ideas that (simple as they might be) might enhance the usability of Windows98 in ways that might not be obvious to others. Any comments on that aspect?

Actually nil, the Copy To and Move To context menus are slightly better than

the SendTo AnyFolder powertoy. You have to go through an extra menu to

access the SendTo AnyFolder, whereas the Copy To and Move To context menus

are already available by just right-clicking on a file. Also the Copy To and Move

To dialog boxes allow creating a New Folder from those dialog boxes and

the SendTo AnyFolder dialog box does not have the option to create a new folder

from there.

I'd like to see the Copy To and Move To context menus added in future SPs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goback is actually better than system restore. Goback used to be owned

by Roxio but looks like it's now owned by Symantec/Norton.

I wouldn't dare to un-install/remove SR under XP. bad idea. Ok to turn it

off from the System Restore tab of the System Properties control panel app.

NOT OK to remove the XP system restore files. that can make things worse.

Turn off SR and use Goback instead. Note that before upgrading from a 9x

version of Windows to XP, you MUST disable or remove Goback or any system

recovery program. Otherwise you may encounter a blue screen error during

XP setup as I looked up this problem mentioned in MS article 330134:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/330134

Goback can restore a complete hard disk, including document files and can

save you from major PC crashes, unlike system restore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know about the 'Thumbnails' folder view capability in 98, zoem.

The Thumbnails view option in Win2000, ME, XP & 2003 is already

available for ALL folders in those versions of Windows.

Just seems to me like its a hidden feature.

It was a 'hidden feature', sort of; back in the time of

Win95/NT4 + IE4 w/ Active Desktop, before Win98 came out.

I think if you copy certain registry settings from Win2000, ME or XP

and input them in Win98's registry editor tool, you'll be able

to have the Thumbnails view option without having to enable

the option from the Folder properties dialog box. I just have to

figure out which registry settings to copy & then test them on

a Win98 PC.

Enabling Thumbnail view on a folder enables the option on that

folder only and NOT including the subfolders within that folder.

I don't mind removing the system restore files in ME, but in XP

NO WAY do I do that. The windows file protection feature [WFP]

of XP may restore the system restore files. To shut off System

Restore completely in XP, I just set the 'System Restore Service'

from the Services MMC dialog box to Disable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

XPLite is not freeware, and I don't like the idea of disabling WFP under XP.

Guys, if you're going to run a Win9x OS along with a Win2k or XP OS on

separate hard drive partitions, make sure that BOTH partitions are using FAT32.

Win9x systems can NOT recognize NTFS partitions. Perhaps that's why

ssmokee had problems getting a Win98 OS to work and only Win2k/XP OS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well ntfs is the best for large drives under 2000/xp

ntfs is better for these oses,i don't need win98 to see the other oses,i would like to but i'm not switching from ntfs just for that,if i need something i boot under those oses,transfer what i need to win 98 and thats simple,fat32 under 2000/xp is too slow

erpdude8:you should buy it or find it,it's only 50 bucks,i got mine for free,i disable wfp cuzz i don't need it,if i change an important file it nags me to replace it with the original and i change my system files 24/7 to the best ones around=no problems.

i have windows 98 se,xp sp1,xpsp2,w2ksp3 running all on one drive=not a problem,maybe he doing it wrong or sumthin,if you install 98 after xp u need a 3rd party boot app*winks cuzz i already got one*if install 98 then xp then no problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guys, if you're going to run a Win9x OS along with a Win2k or XP OS on

separate hard drive partitions, make sure that BOTH partitions are using FAT32.

Win9x systems can NOT recognize NTFS partitions. Perhaps that's why

ssmokee had problems getting a Win98 OS to work and only Win2k/XP OS.

Huh? :blink: I wasnt having any problems with win98...and all my partitions are FAT32.

It is probably a better idea to say that win98 cannot natively recognize NTFS, because most people know by now that additional software is available for that functionality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well ntfs is the best for large drives under 2000/xp

ntfs is better for these oses,i don't need win98 to see the other oses,i would like to but i'm not switching from ntfs just for that,if i need something i boot under those oses,transfer what i need to win 98 and thats simple,fat32 under 2000/xp is too slow

erpdude8:you should buy it or find it,it's only 50 bucks,i got mine for free,i disable wfp cuzz i don't need it,if i change an important file it nags me to replace it with the original and i change my system files 24/7 to the best ones around=no problems.

i have windows 98 se,xp sp1,xpsp2,w2ksp3 running all on one drive=not a problem,maybe he doing it wrong or sumthin,if you install 98 after xp u need a 3rd party boot app*winks cuzz i already got one*if install 98 then xp then no problem

Hey, NOT everyone can use XPLite, soldier1st. I DONT need it anyway.

Disabling WFP in XP makes is LESS reliable because some 3rd party programs

that use older setup installers can overwrite some XP system files with

older versions and can potentially break XP.

I'm not sure why I made a big deal whether to remove or disable System

Restore, it actually makes NO difference doing either one. For XP users that

use XPlite and want to remove system restore, go ahead. For XP users that

DON'T have XPlite disabling system restore is good enough.

Thanks for clarifying what I said of Win98 not having 'native' NTFS support,

ssmokee. ALL 9X versions of Windows including Win95 and WinME do not

have native NTFS support.

NTFS is definitely better than FAT32 for Win2k/XP systems.

Only Win2000 Pro & WinXP Pro support EFS [encrypting file system], which

has native file & folder encryption on NTFS partitions. XP Home edition

doesn't have EFS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are apps that can allow windows 98 to see ntfs partitions

also i disable wfp cuzz some of the apps i use bring warnings and there annoying,sides i watch what i install

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there are tools that can see NTFS partitions for Win9x/ME systems.

It's just that you can't 'boot' from an NTFS partition when using Win9x/ME.

The apps that recognize NTFS in Win9x/ME load AFTER a Win9x/ME OS starts up.

Reason why I don't remove system restore in XP is because I may need it

in certain situations such as testing out demo software or trialware. I enable

SR before installing demoware, then whenever I'm done testing the demoware

I use SR to restore my XP system to a time before I installed the demoware.

I don't replace certain XP system files. That can risk breaking XP and I don't

want to end up seeing any blue screen errors on my system. FAT32 too slow

on W2k/XP systems? Not true if using at least a superfast 1Ghz computer with lots

of RAM installed and using a large hard drive. Again, the goal is to achieve

a 'balance' of speed and stability, which I said earlier at this forum. Large capacity

hard drives are not only huge, but also fast. There are several ways to improve

performance on a computer without sacrificing reliability.

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...