Windows 98 second edition

Hi everyone. This might be a tough one so i appreciate
anything you can provide.

I am trying to upgrade my laptop which is running WIN 98
SE to WIN XP or WIN 2000/ME. The problem im having is that
i don't know how to go about doing this. I don't have a
WIN 98 SE disk but i do have the WIN 98 disk. How can i
delete WIN 98 SE so i can upgrade it? By the way i have a
FAT 32 file system and my pc is really old but i know i
have at least a 133mhz processor and i previously had WIN
95 if that helps any.

Thanks in advance.

[Bill Starbuck]

> How can i
>delete WIN 98 SE so i can upgrade it?

You do not have to delete Win98. What happened when you tried to
install WinXP? Did you get an error message?


Bill Starbuck (MVP)

[Hugh Candlin]

> wrote in message ...
> Hi everyone. This might be a tough one so i appreciate
> anything you can provide.
>
> I am trying to upgrade my laptop which is running WIN 98
> SE to WIN XP or WIN 2000/ME. The problem im having is that
> i don't know how to go about doing this. I don't have a
> WIN 98 SE disk but i do have the WIN 98 disk. How can i
> delete WIN 98 SE so i can upgrade it? By the way i have a
> FAT 32 file system and my pc is really old but i know i
> have at least a 133mhz processor and i previously had WIN
> 95 if that helps any.
>
> Thanks in advance.

Forget XP

Windows XP Professional System Requirements
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/sysreqs.asp

You may have the minimum system requirements for running
the Windows® 2000 Professional operating system,
depending on your RAM, hard disk, and presence of a CD-ROM drive.

Windows 2000 System Requirements
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/professional/evaluation/sysreqs/default.asp

[Gary S. Terhune]

1. You can't upgrade that machine to XP, period. Don't even try. It won't
let you.

2. I seriously doubt you can upgrade that machine to Win2000, and even if
you could, you'd be very, *very* disappointed.

3. Don't bother with Windows ME, either, since it does well on machines that
were designed for it, but not usually very well on those that weren't. I
would be *amazed* if you were happy with WinME on that machine.

4. Win98SE is *the* OS for that machine. Stick with that.

You don't mention how much RAM you have. You also don't mention which
make/model laptop. Certain of these will accept a generic Windows
installation, assuming you can still get drivers from the manufacturer, but
others *require* that you at least start with their original installation
disk and upgrade from there. I suspect yours is of the former variety, which
makes genericWin98SE a safe bet.

If Win98SE isn't performing as you would wish, I'd look at more RAM and a
clean reinstallation. Buy a Win98SE OEM CD on eBay. Make a Startup Disk
using a download from www.bootdisk.com, reformat the drive and install. 64
MB of RAM is minimum for SE, as far as I'm concerned. 128 is decent for
normal use, and 256-512 is fantastic (if you can even put that much in
there.) If you were to try Win2K, you'd want *at_least* 128 MB of RAM. And a
lot more disk space compared to SE. And you'd probably *still* have a
nightmare trying to get hardware to work properly. If you aren't familiar
with Win2K, stay as far away from it as possible.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP for Win9x

> wrote in message
...
> Hi everyone. This might be a tough one so i appreciate
> anything you can provide.
>
> I am trying to upgrade my laptop which is running WIN 98
> SE to WIN XP or WIN 2000/ME. The problem im having is that
> i don't know how to go about doing this. I don't have a
> WIN 98 SE disk but i do have the WIN 98 disk. How can i
> delete WIN 98 SE so i can upgrade it? By the way i have a
> FAT 32 file system and my pc is really old but i know i
> have at least a 133mhz processor and i previously had WIN
> 95 if that helps any.
>
> Thanks in advance.

[Bill in Co.]

Frankly, I'm surprised that machine even runs Win98S very well. Kinda
like molasses? Whatever - he's at a dead end point here.

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> 1. You can't upgrade that machine to XP, period. Don't even try. It won't
> let you.
>
> 2. I seriously doubt you can upgrade that machine to Win2000, and even if
> you could, you'd be very, *very* disappointed.
>
> 3. Don't bother with Windows ME, either, since it does well on machines
that
> were designed for it, but not usually very well on those that weren't. I
> would be *amazed* if you were happy with WinME on that machine.
>
> 4. Win98SE is *the* OS for that machine. Stick with that.
>
> You don't mention how much RAM you have. You also don't mention which
> make/model laptop. Certain of these will accept a generic Windows
> installation, assuming you can still get drivers from the manufacturer,
but
> others *require* that you at least start with their original installation
> disk and upgrade from there. I suspect yours is of the former variety,
which
> makes genericWin98SE a safe bet.
>
> If Win98SE isn't performing as you would wish, I'd look at more RAM and a
> clean reinstallation. Buy a Win98SE OEM CD on eBay. Make a Startup Disk
> using a download from www.bootdisk.com, reformat the drive and install. 64
> MB of RAM is minimum for SE, as far as I'm concerned. 128 is decent for
> normal use, and 256-512 is fantastic (if you can even put that much in
> there.) If you were to try Win2K, you'd want *at_least* 128 MB of RAM. And
a
> lot more disk space compared to SE. And you'd probably *still* have a
> nightmare trying to get hardware to work properly. If you aren't familiar
> with Win2K, stay as far away from it as possible.
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS MVP for Win9x
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hi everyone. This might be a tough one so i appreciate
>> anything you can provide.
>>
>> I am trying to upgrade my laptop which is running WIN 98
>> SE to WIN XP or WIN 2000/ME. The problem im having is that
>> i don't know how to go about doing this. I don't have a
>> WIN 98 SE disk but i do have the WIN 98 disk. How can i
>> delete WIN 98 SE so i can upgrade it? By the way i have a
>> FAT 32 file system and my pc is really old but i know i
>> have at least a 133mhz processor and i previously had WIN
>> 95 if that helps any.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.

[Gary S. Terhune]

With sufficient RAM and disk space, it's still better than Win95, <s>. Slow,
yes, but stable and at least able to handle most things anyone might want to
throw at it by way of standard apps, etc. Not that I see the need for SE. FE
would work just as well. Who would want to make a laptop the ICS gateway?
Can't imagine wanting to install USB2 or IEEE 1394 on such a machine,
either. On the other hand, given the plague of apps that wrong-headedly
*insist* on SE as MinReq....

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP for Win9x

"Bill in Co." > wrote in message
...
> Frankly, I'm surprised that machine even runs Win98S very well. Kinda
> like molasses? Whatever - he's at a dead end point here.
>
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> > 1. You can't upgrade that machine to XP, period. Don't even try. It
won't
> > let you.
> >
> > 2. I seriously doubt you can upgrade that machine to Win2000, and even
if
> > you could, you'd be very, *very* disappointed.
> >
> > 3. Don't bother with Windows ME, either, since it does well on machines
> that
> > were designed for it, but not usually very well on those that weren't. I
> > would be *amazed* if you were happy with WinME on that machine.
> >
> > 4. Win98SE is *the* OS for that machine. Stick with that.
> >
> > You don't mention how much RAM you have. You also don't mention which
> > make/model laptop. Certain of these will accept a generic Windows
> > installation, assuming you can still get drivers from the manufacturer,
> but
> > others *require* that you at least start with their original
installation
> > disk and upgrade from there. I suspect yours is of the former variety,
> which
> > makes genericWin98SE a safe bet.
> >
> > If Win98SE isn't performing as you would wish, I'd look at more RAM and
a
> > clean reinstallation. Buy a Win98SE OEM CD on eBay. Make a Startup Disk
> > using a download from www.bootdisk.com, reformat the drive and install.
64
> > MB of RAM is minimum for SE, as far as I'm concerned. 128 is decent for
> > normal use, and 256-512 is fantastic (if you can even put that much in
> > there.) If you were to try Win2K, you'd want *at_least* 128 MB of RAM.
And
> a
> > lot more disk space compared to SE. And you'd probably *still* have a
> > nightmare trying to get hardware to work properly. If you aren't
familiar
> > with Win2K, stay as far away from it as possible.
> >
> > --
> > Gary S. Terhune
> > MS MVP for Win9x
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Hi everyone. This might be a tough one so i appreciate
> >> anything you can provide.
> >>
> >> I am trying to upgrade my laptop which is running WIN 98
> >> SE to WIN XP or WIN 2000/ME. The problem im having is that
> >> i don't know how to go about doing this. I don't have a
> >> WIN 98 SE disk but i do have the WIN 98 disk. How can i
> >> delete WIN 98 SE so i can upgrade it? By the way i have a
> >> FAT 32 file system and my pc is really old but i know i
> >> have at least a 133mhz processor and i previously had WIN
> >> 95 if that helps any.
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance.
>
>

[ArtWilder]

Listen to this man because he knows what he is talking about. He is hardly
ever wrong when it comes to computers.

"Gary S. Terhune" > wrote in message
...
> 1. You can't upgrade that machine to XP, period. Don't even try. It won't
> let you.
>
> 2. I seriously doubt you can upgrade that machine to Win2000, and even if
> you could, you'd be very, *very* disappointed.
>
> 3. Don't bother with Windows ME, either, since it does well on machines
that
> were designed for it, but not usually very well on those that weren't. I
> would be *amazed* if you were happy with WinME on that machine.
>
> 4. Win98SE is *the* OS for that machine. Stick with that.
>
> You don't mention how much RAM you have. You also don't mention which
> make/model laptop. Certain of these will accept a generic Windows
> installation, assuming you can still get drivers from the manufacturer,
but
> others *require* that you at least start with their original installation
> disk and upgrade from there. I suspect yours is of the former variety,
which
> makes genericWin98SE a safe bet.
>
> If Win98SE isn't performing as you would wish, I'd look at more RAM and a
> clean reinstallation. Buy a Win98SE OEM CD on eBay. Make a Startup Disk
> using a download from www.bootdisk.com, reformat the drive and install. 64
> MB of RAM is minimum for SE, as far as I'm concerned. 128 is decent for
> normal use, and 256-512 is fantastic (if you can even put that much in
> there.) If you were to try Win2K, you'd want *at_least* 128 MB of RAM. And
a
> lot more disk space compared to SE. And you'd probably *still* have a
> nightmare trying to get hardware to work properly. If you aren't familiar
> with Win2K, stay as far away from it as possible.
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS MVP for Win9x
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hi everyone. This might be a tough one so i appreciate
> > anything you can provide.
> >
> > I am trying to upgrade my laptop which is running WIN 98
> > SE to WIN XP or WIN 2000/ME. The problem im having is that
> > i don't know how to go about doing this. I don't have a
> > WIN 98 SE disk but i do have the WIN 98 disk. How can i
> > delete WIN 98 SE so i can upgrade it? By the way i have a
> > FAT 32 file system and my pc is really old but i know i
> > have at least a 133mhz processor and i previously had WIN
> > 95 if that helps any.
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
>

[ArtWilder]

:>, LOL, forced obselence by companies -- argg :>
Great points Gary although I still am very happy with my 98SE :> (eg) (ready
to get Gary fired up about how great 98 first edition is :>)

"Gary S. Terhune" > wrote in message
...
> With sufficient RAM and disk space, it's still better than Win95, <s>.
Slow,
> yes, but stable and at least able to handle most things anyone might want
to
> throw at it by way of standard apps, etc. Not that I see the need for SE.
FE
> would work just as well. Who would want to make a laptop the ICS gateway?
> Can't imagine wanting to install USB2 or IEEE 1394 on such a machine,
> either. On the other hand, given the plague of apps that wrong-headedly
> *insist* on SE as MinReq....
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS MVP for Win9x
>
> "Bill in Co." > wrote in message
> ...
> > Frankly, I'm surprised that machine even runs Win98S very well. Kinda
> > like molasses? Whatever - he's at a dead end point here.
> >
> > Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> > > 1. You can't upgrade that machine to XP, period. Don't even try. It
> won't
> > > let you.
> > >
> > > 2. I seriously doubt you can upgrade that machine to Win2000, and even
> if
> > > you could, you'd be very, *very* disappointed.
> > >
> > > 3. Don't bother with Windows ME, either, since it does well on
machines
> > that
> > > were designed for it, but not usually very well on those that weren't.
I
> > > would be *amazed* if you were happy with WinME on that machine.
> > >
> > > 4. Win98SE is *the* OS for that machine. Stick with that.
> > >
> > > You don't mention how much RAM you have. You also don't mention which
> > > make/model laptop. Certain of these will accept a generic Windows
> > > installation, assuming you can still get drivers from the
manufacturer,
> > but
> > > others *require* that you at least start with their original
> installation
> > > disk and upgrade from there. I suspect yours is of the former variety,
> > which
> > > makes genericWin98SE a safe bet.
> > >
> > > If Win98SE isn't performing as you would wish, I'd look at more RAM
and
> a
> > > clean reinstallation. Buy a Win98SE OEM CD on eBay. Make a Startup
Disk
> > > using a download from www.bootdisk.com, reformat the drive and
install.
> 64
> > > MB of RAM is minimum for SE, as far as I'm concerned. 128 is decent
for
> > > normal use, and 256-512 is fantastic (if you can even put that much in
> > > there.) If you were to try Win2K, you'd want *at_least* 128 MB of RAM.
> And
> > a
> > > lot more disk space compared to SE. And you'd probably *still* have a
> > > nightmare trying to get hardware to work properly. If you aren't
> familiar
> > > with Win2K, stay as far away from it as possible.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Gary S. Terhune
> > > MS MVP for Win9x
> > >
> > > > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >> Hi everyone. This might be a tough one so i appreciate
> > >> anything you can provide.
> > >>
> > >> I am trying to upgrade my laptop which is running WIN 98
> > >> SE to WIN XP or WIN 2000/ME. The problem im having is that
> > >> i don't know how to go about doing this. I don't have a
> > >> WIN 98 SE disk but i do have the WIN 98 disk. How can i
> > >> delete WIN 98 SE so i can upgrade it? By the way i have a
> > >> FAT 32 file system and my pc is really old but i know i
> > >> have at least a 133mhz processor and i previously had WIN
> > >> 95 if that helps any.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks in advance.
> >
> >
>

[Gary S. Terhune]

You still don't really get it, Art. Every system has its limits. Certain
generations of hardware will only support certain generations of OS
properly, and certain generations of applications will only run decently on
related generations of OS and hardware. You can't widen the gap between
these generations too much before things start falling through the gaps. It
all needs to be judged in context. In the context of *modern* applications
and consumer/business demands (and assuming a Windows platform), Windows XP
on a hardware platform starting around 2 GHz, with 1/2 to 2 or more GB of
RAM, and a video adapter with 64 to 128 or more MB RAM, USB2 and/or IEEE
1394, CD Burner... These are the *minimum* requirements for an up-to-date
Windows system in 2004.

If you want to drive a legacy machine, fine. But you are totally wrong to
insist that Win98 or any other Win9x is better than anything else in other
than a personal preference context. It's not only not better, it's really
worse in many aspects. That's why it's a legacy construct, never to be
resurrected. The only 98, 98SE and ME existed in the first place was that
the state of the art in hardware, and the amount of work it took to make NT
a user-friendly interface delayed XP until 2002.

I expect to see you two or three years from now in the Windows XP NG,
bashing Longhorn (or whatever it ends up being called) and proclaiming how
you'll never, ever release your grip on XP, given what a stable, secure,
workhorse platform it is. I'll be there, providing legacy support, along
with still hanging out here, only this time I'm hoping to be ahead of the
curve on Longhorn and to be helping out there, as well, probably
specializing in applications compatibility issues. Mooooo!

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP for Win9x

"ArtWilder" > wrote in message
news:pQzxc.27998$My6.16820@fed1read05...
> :>, LOL, forced obselence by companies -- argg :>
> Great points Gary although I still am very happy with my 98SE :> (eg)
(ready
> to get Gary fired up about how great 98 first edition is :>)
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" > wrote in message
> ...
> > With sufficient RAM and disk space, it's still better than Win95, <s>.
> Slow,
> > yes, but stable and at least able to handle most things anyone might
want
> to
> > throw at it by way of standard apps, etc. Not that I see the need for
SE.
> FE
> > would work just as well. Who would want to make a laptop the ICS
gateway?
> > Can't imagine wanting to install USB2 or IEEE 1394 on such a machine,
> > either. On the other hand, given the plague of apps that wrong-headedly
> > *insist* on SE as MinReq....
> >
> > --
> > Gary S. Terhune
> > MS MVP for Win9x
> >
> > "Bill in Co." > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Frankly, I'm surprised that machine even runs Win98S very well.
Kinda
> > > like molasses? Whatever - he's at a dead end point here.
> > >
> > > Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> > > > 1. You can't upgrade that machine to XP, period. Don't even try. It
> > won't
> > > > let you.
> > > >
> > > > 2. I seriously doubt you can upgrade that machine to Win2000, and
even
> > if
> > > > you could, you'd be very, *very* disappointed.
> > > >
> > > > 3. Don't bother with Windows ME, either, since it does well on
> machines
> > > that
> > > > were designed for it, but not usually very well on those that
weren't.
> I
> > > > would be *amazed* if you were happy with WinME on that machine.
> > > >
> > > > 4. Win98SE is *the* OS for that machine. Stick with that.
> > > >
> > > > You don't mention how much RAM you have. You also don't mention
which
> > > > make/model laptop. Certain of these will accept a generic Windows
> > > > installation, assuming you can still get drivers from the
> manufacturer,
> > > but
> > > > others *require* that you at least start with their original
> > installation
> > > > disk and upgrade from there. I suspect yours is of the former
variety,
> > > which
> > > > makes genericWin98SE a safe bet.
> > > >
> > > > If Win98SE isn't performing as you would wish, I'd look at more RAM
> and
> > a
> > > > clean reinstallation. Buy a Win98SE OEM CD on eBay. Make a Startup
> Disk
> > > > using a download from www.bootdisk.com, reformat the drive and
> install.
> > 64
> > > > MB of RAM is minimum for SE, as far as I'm concerned. 128 is decent
> for
> > > > normal use, and 256-512 is fantastic (if you can even put that much
in
> > > > there.) If you were to try Win2K, you'd want *at_least* 128 MB of
RAM.
> > And
> > > a
> > > > lot more disk space compared to SE. And you'd probably *still* have
a
> > > > nightmare trying to get hardware to work properly. If you aren't
> > familiar
> > > > with Win2K, stay as far away from it as possible.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Gary S. Terhune
> > > > MS MVP for Win9x
> > > >
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > >> Hi everyone. This might be a tough one so i appreciate
> > > >> anything you can provide.
> > > >>
> > > >> I am trying to upgrade my laptop which is running WIN 98
> > > >> SE to WIN XP or WIN 2000/ME. The problem im having is that
> > > >> i don't know how to go about doing this. I don't have a
> > > >> WIN 98 SE disk but i do have the WIN 98 disk. How can i
> > > >> delete WIN 98 SE so i can upgrade it? By the way i have a
> > > >> FAT 32 file system and my pc is really old but i know i
> > > >> have at least a 133mhz processor and i previously had WIN
> > > >> 95 if that helps any.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks in advance.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

[ArtWilder]

I guess I like the operating systems that have been battle tested by time
and thanks for your input. Moo yourself -- :> LOL Any idea when Microsoft
will fix these two security issues -- one with XP and the other with the
full NT product line?

http://eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/index.html

http://eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/20031007.html

http://eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/20040318.html (this is the one that
concerns me the most)

"Gary S. Terhune" > wrote in message
...
> You still don't really get it, Art. Every system has its limits. Certain
> generations of hardware will only support certain generations of OS
> properly, and certain generations of applications will only run decently
on
> related generations of OS and hardware. You can't widen the gap between
> these generations too much before things start falling through the gaps.
It
> all needs to be judged in context. In the context of *modern* applications
> and consumer/business demands (and assuming a Windows platform), Windows
XP
> on a hardware platform starting around 2 GHz, with 1/2 to 2 or more GB of
> RAM, and a video adapter with 64 to 128 or more MB RAM, USB2 and/or IEEE
> 1394, CD Burner... These are the *minimum* requirements for an up-to-date
> Windows system in 2004.
>
> If you want to drive a legacy machine, fine. But you are totally wrong to
> insist that Win98 or any other Win9x is better than anything else in other
> than a personal preference context. It's not only not better, it's really
> worse in many aspects. That's why it's a legacy construct, never to be
> resurrected. The only 98, 98SE and ME existed in the first place was that
> the state of the art in hardware, and the amount of work it took to make
NT
> a user-friendly interface delayed XP until 2002.
>
> I expect to see you two or three years from now in the Windows XP NG,
> bashing Longhorn (or whatever it ends up being called) and proclaiming how
> you'll never, ever release your grip on XP, given what a stable, secure,
> workhorse platform it is. I'll be there, providing legacy support, along
> with still hanging out here, only this time I'm hoping to be ahead of the
> curve on Longhorn and to be helping out there, as well, probably
> specializing in applications compatibility issues. Mooooo!
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS MVP for Win9x
>
> "ArtWilder" > wrote in message
> news:pQzxc.27998$My6.16820@fed1read05...
> > :>, LOL, forced obselence by companies -- argg :>
> > Great points Gary although I still am very happy with my 98SE :> (eg)
> (ready
> > to get Gary fired up about how great 98 first edition is :>)
> >
> > "Gary S. Terhune" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > With sufficient RAM and disk space, it's still better than Win95, <s>.
> > Slow,
> > > yes, but stable and at least able to handle most things anyone might
> want
> > to
> > > throw at it by way of standard apps, etc. Not that I see the need for
> SE.
> > FE
> > > would work just as well. Who would want to make a laptop the ICS
> gateway?
> > > Can't imagine wanting to install USB2 or IEEE 1394 on such a machine,
> > > either. On the other hand, given the plague of apps that
wrong-headedly
> > > *insist* on SE as MinReq....
> > >
> > > --
> > > Gary S. Terhune
> > > MS MVP for Win9x
> > >
> > > "Bill in Co." > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Frankly, I'm surprised that machine even runs Win98S very well.
> Kinda
> > > > like molasses? Whatever - he's at a dead end point here.
> > > >
> > > > Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> > > > > 1. You can't upgrade that machine to XP, period. Don't even try.
It
> > > won't
> > > > > let you.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. I seriously doubt you can upgrade that machine to Win2000, and
> even
> > > if
> > > > > you could, you'd be very, *very* disappointed.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. Don't bother with Windows ME, either, since it does well on
> > machines
> > > > that
> > > > > were designed for it, but not usually very well on those that
> weren't.
> > I
> > > > > would be *amazed* if you were happy with WinME on that machine.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. Win98SE is *the* OS for that machine. Stick with that.
> > > > >
> > > > > You don't mention how much RAM you have. You also don't mention
> which
> > > > > make/model laptop. Certain of these will accept a generic Windows
> > > > > installation, assuming you can still get drivers from the
> > manufacturer,
> > > > but
> > > > > others *require* that you at least start with their original
> > > installation
> > > > > disk and upgrade from there. I suspect yours is of the former
> variety,
> > > > which
> > > > > makes genericWin98SE a safe bet.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Win98SE isn't performing as you would wish, I'd look at more
RAM
> > and
> > > a
> > > > > clean reinstallation. Buy a Win98SE OEM CD on eBay. Make a Startup
> > Disk
> > > > > using a download from www.bootdisk.com, reformat the drive and
> > install.
> > > 64
> > > > > MB of RAM is minimum for SE, as far as I'm concerned. 128 is
decent
> > for
> > > > > normal use, and 256-512 is fantastic (if you can even put that
much
> in
> > > > > there.) If you were to try Win2K, you'd want *at_least* 128 MB of
> RAM.
> > > And
> > > > a
> > > > > lot more disk space compared to SE. And you'd probably *still*
have
> a
> > > > > nightmare trying to get hardware to work properly. If you aren't
> > > familiar
> > > > > with Win2K, stay as far away from it as possible.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Gary S. Terhune
> > > > > MS MVP for Win9x
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > >> Hi everyone. This might be a tough one so i appreciate
> > > > >> anything you can provide.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I am trying to upgrade my laptop which is running WIN 98
> > > > >> SE to WIN XP or WIN 2000/ME. The problem im having is that
> > > > >> i don't know how to go about doing this. I don't have a
> > > > >> WIN 98 SE disk but i do have the WIN 98 disk. How can i
> > > > >> delete WIN 98 SE so i can upgrade it? By the way i have a
> > > > >> FAT 32 file system and my pc is really old but i know i
> > > > >> have at least a 133mhz processor and i previously had WIN
> > > > >> 95 if that helps any.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks in advance.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

[Gary S. Terhune]

Even if I knew, I couldn't tell you, ;-)

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP for Win9x

"ArtWilder" > wrote in message
news:A_Oxc.29186$My6.5632@fed1read05...
> I guess I like the operating systems that have been battle tested by time
> and thanks for your input. Moo yourself -- :> LOL Any idea when
Microsoft
> will fix these two security issues -- one with XP and the other with the
> full NT product line?
>
> http://eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/index.html
>
> http://eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/20031007.html
>
> http://eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/20040318.html (this is the one that
> concerns me the most)
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You still don't really get it, Art. Every system has its limits. Certain
> > generations of hardware will only support certain generations of OS
> > properly, and certain generations of applications will only run decently
> on
> > related generations of OS and hardware. You can't widen the gap between
> > these generations too much before things start falling through the gaps.
> It
> > all needs to be judged in context. In the context of *modern*
applications
> > and consumer/business demands (and assuming a Windows platform), Windows
> XP
> > on a hardware platform starting around 2 GHz, with 1/2 to 2 or more GB
of
> > RAM, and a video adapter with 64 to 128 or more MB RAM, USB2 and/or IEEE
> > 1394, CD Burner... These are the *minimum* requirements for an
up-to-date
> > Windows system in 2004.
> >
> > If you want to drive a legacy machine, fine. But you are totally wrong
to
> > insist that Win98 or any other Win9x is better than anything else in
other
> > than a personal preference context. It's not only not better, it's
really
> > worse in many aspects. That's why it's a legacy construct, never to be
> > resurrected. The only 98, 98SE and ME existed in the first place was
that
> > the state of the art in hardware, and the amount of work it took to make
> NT
> > a user-friendly interface delayed XP until 2002.
> >
> > I expect to see you two or three years from now in the Windows XP NG,
> > bashing Longhorn (or whatever it ends up being called) and proclaiming
how
> > you'll never, ever release your grip on XP, given what a stable, secure,
> > workhorse platform it is. I'll be there, providing legacy support, along
> > with still hanging out here, only this time I'm hoping to be ahead of
the
> > curve on Longhorn and to be helping out there, as well, probably
> > specializing in applications compatibility issues. Mooooo!
> >
> > --
> > Gary S. Terhune
> > MS MVP for Win9x
> >
> > "ArtWilder" > wrote in message
> > news:pQzxc.27998$My6.16820@fed1read05...
> > > :>, LOL, forced obselence by companies -- argg :>
> > > Great points Gary although I still am very happy with my 98SE :> (eg)
> > (ready
> > > to get Gary fired up about how great 98 first edition is :>)
> > >
> > > "Gary S. Terhune" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > With sufficient RAM and disk space, it's still better than Win95,
<s>.
> > > Slow,
> > > > yes, but stable and at least able to handle most things anyone might
> > want
> > > to
> > > > throw at it by way of standard apps, etc. Not that I see the need
for
> > SE.
> > > FE
> > > > would work just as well. Who would want to make a laptop the ICS
> > gateway?
> > > > Can't imagine wanting to install USB2 or IEEE 1394 on such a
machine,
> > > > either. On the other hand, given the plague of apps that
> wrong-headedly
> > > > *insist* on SE as MinReq....
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Gary S. Terhune
> > > > MS MVP for Win9x
> > > >
> > > > "Bill in Co." > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > Frankly, I'm surprised that machine even runs Win98S very well.
> > Kinda
> > > > > like molasses? Whatever - he's at a dead end point here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> > > > > > 1. You can't upgrade that machine to XP, period. Don't even try.
> It
> > > > won't
> > > > > > let you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. I seriously doubt you can upgrade that machine to Win2000,
and
> > even
> > > > if
> > > > > > you could, you'd be very, *very* disappointed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. Don't bother with Windows ME, either, since it does well on
> > > machines
> > > > > that
> > > > > > were designed for it, but not usually very well on those that
> > weren't.
> > > I
> > > > > > would be *amazed* if you were happy with WinME on that machine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4. Win98SE is *the* OS for that machine. Stick with that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You don't mention how much RAM you have. You also don't mention
> > which
> > > > > > make/model laptop. Certain of these will accept a generic
Windows
> > > > > > installation, assuming you can still get drivers from the
> > > manufacturer,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > others *require* that you at least start with their original
> > > > installation
> > > > > > disk and upgrade from there. I suspect yours is of the former
> > variety,
> > > > > which
> > > > > > makes genericWin98SE a safe bet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If Win98SE isn't performing as you would wish, I'd look at more
> RAM
> > > and
> > > > a
> > > > > > clean reinstallation. Buy a Win98SE OEM CD on eBay. Make a
Startup
> > > Disk
> > > > > > using a download from www.bootdisk.com, reformat the drive and
> > > install.
> > > > 64
> > > > > > MB of RAM is minimum for SE, as far as I'm concerned. 128 is
> decent
> > > for
> > > > > > normal use, and 256-512 is fantastic (if you can even put that
> much
> > in
> > > > > > there.) If you were to try Win2K, you'd want *at_least* 128 MB
of
> > RAM.
> > > > And
> > > > > a
> > > > > > lot more disk space compared to SE. And you'd probably *still*
> have
> > a
> > > > > > nightmare trying to get hardware to work properly. If you aren't
> > > > familiar
> > > > > > with Win2K, stay as far away from it as possible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Gary S. Terhune
> > > > > > MS MVP for Win9x
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > >> Hi everyone. This might be a tough one so i appreciate
> > > > > >> anything you can provide.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I am trying to upgrade my laptop which is running WIN 98
> > > > > >> SE to WIN XP or WIN 2000/ME. The problem im having is that
> > > > > >> i don't know how to go about doing this. I don't have a
> > > > > >> WIN 98 SE disk but i do have the WIN 98 disk. How can i
> > > > > >> delete WIN 98 SE so i can upgrade it? By the way i have a
> > > > > >> FAT 32 file system and my pc is really old but i know i
> > > > > >> have at least a 133mhz processor and i previously had WIN
> > > > > >> 95 if that helps any.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thanks in advance.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

[ArtWilder]

Alright, thanks Gary. I have let Microsoft customer service know about
these vulnerabilities, talked with technical support and have also e-mailed
them to Microsoft. It is in Microsoft's ball park now. :>

"Gary S. Terhune" > wrote in message
...
> Even if I knew, I couldn't tell you, ;-)
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS MVP for Win9x
>
> "ArtWilder" > wrote in message
> news:A_Oxc.29186$My6.5632@fed1read05...
> > I guess I like the operating systems that have been battle tested by
time
> > and thanks for your input. Moo yourself -- :> LOL Any idea when
> Microsoft
> > will fix these two security issues -- one with XP and the other with the
> > full NT product line?
> >
> > http://eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/index.html
> >
> > http://eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/20031007.html
> >
> > http://eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/20040318.html (this is the one
that
> > concerns me the most)
> >
> > "Gary S. Terhune" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > You still don't really get it, Art. Every system has its limits.
Certain
> > > generations of hardware will only support certain generations of OS
> > > properly, and certain generations of applications will only run
decently
> > on
> > > related generations of OS and hardware. You can't widen the gap
between
> > > these generations too much before things start falling through the
gaps.
> > It
> > > all needs to be judged in context. In the context of *modern*
> applications
> > > and consumer/business demands (and assuming a Windows platform),
Windows
> > XP
> > > on a hardware platform starting around 2 GHz, with 1/2 to 2 or more GB
> of
> > > RAM, and a video adapter with 64 to 128 or more MB RAM, USB2 and/or
IEEE
> > > 1394, CD Burner... These are the *minimum* requirements for an
> up-to-date
> > > Windows system in 2004.
> > >
> > > If you want to drive a legacy machine, fine. But you are totally wrong
> to
> > > insist that Win98 or any other Win9x is better than anything else in
> other
> > > than a personal preference context. It's not only not better, it's
> really
> > > worse in many aspects. That's why it's a legacy construct, never to be
> > > resurrected. The only 98, 98SE and ME existed in the first place was
> that
> > > the state of the art in hardware, and the amount of work it took to
make
> > NT
> > > a user-friendly interface delayed XP until 2002.
> > >
> > > I expect to see you two or three years from now in the Windows XP NG,
> > > bashing Longhorn (or whatever it ends up being called) and proclaiming
> how
> > > you'll never, ever release your grip on XP, given what a stable,
secure,
> > > workhorse platform it is. I'll be there, providing legacy support,
along
> > > with still hanging out here, only this time I'm hoping to be ahead of
> the
> > > curve on Longhorn and to be helping out there, as well, probably
> > > specializing in applications compatibility issues. Mooooo!
> > >
> > > --
> > > Gary S. Terhune
> > > MS MVP for Win9x
> > >
> > > "ArtWilder" > wrote in message
> > > news:pQzxc.27998$My6.16820@fed1read05...
> > > > :>, LOL, forced obselence by companies -- argg :>
> > > > Great points Gary although I still am very happy with my 98SE :>
(eg)
> > > (ready
> > > > to get Gary fired up about how great 98 first edition is :>)
> > > >
> > > > "Gary S. Terhune" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > With sufficient RAM and disk space, it's still better than Win95,
> <s>.
> > > > Slow,
> > > > > yes, but stable and at least able to handle most things anyone
might
> > > want
> > > > to
> > > > > throw at it by way of standard apps, etc. Not that I see the need
> for
> > > SE.
> > > > FE
> > > > > would work just as well. Who would want to make a laptop the ICS
> > > gateway?
> > > > > Can't imagine wanting to install USB2 or IEEE 1394 on such a
> machine,
> > > > > either. On the other hand, given the plague of apps that
> > wrong-headedly
> > > > > *insist* on SE as MinReq....
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Gary S. Terhune
> > > > > MS MVP for Win9x
> > > > >
> > > > > "Bill in Co." > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > Frankly, I'm surprised that machine even runs Win98S very well.
> > > Kinda
> > > > > > like molasses? Whatever - he's at a dead end point here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> > > > > > > 1. You can't upgrade that machine to XP, period. Don't even
try.
> > It
> > > > > won't
> > > > > > > let you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. I seriously doubt you can upgrade that machine to Win2000,
> and
> > > even
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > you could, you'd be very, *very* disappointed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3. Don't bother with Windows ME, either, since it does well on
> > > > machines
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > were designed for it, but not usually very well on those that
> > > weren't.
> > > > I
> > > > > > > would be *amazed* if you were happy with WinME on that
machine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 4. Win98SE is *the* OS for that machine. Stick with that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You don't mention how much RAM you have. You also don't
mention
> > > which
> > > > > > > make/model laptop. Certain of these will accept a generic
> Windows
> > > > > > > installation, assuming you can still get drivers from the
> > > > manufacturer,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > others *require* that you at least start with their original
> > > > > installation
> > > > > > > disk and upgrade from there. I suspect yours is of the former
> > > variety,
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > makes genericWin98SE a safe bet.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If Win98SE isn't performing as you would wish, I'd look at
more
> > RAM
> > > > and
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > clean reinstallation. Buy a Win98SE OEM CD on eBay. Make a
> Startup
> > > > Disk
> > > > > > > using a download from www.bootdisk.com, reformat the drive and
> > > > install.
> > > > > 64
> > > > > > > MB of RAM is minimum for SE, as far as I'm concerned. 128 is
> > decent
> > > > for
> > > > > > > normal use, and 256-512 is fantastic (if you can even put that
> > much
> > > in
> > > > > > > there.) If you were to try Win2K, you'd want *at_least* 128 MB
> of
> > > RAM.
> > > > > And
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > lot more disk space compared to SE. And you'd probably *still*
> > have
> > > a
> > > > > > > nightmare trying to get hardware to work properly. If you
aren't
> > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > with Win2K, stay as far away from it as possible.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Gary S. Terhune
> > > > > > > MS MVP for Win9x
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >> Hi everyone. This might be a tough one so i appreciate
> > > > > > >> anything you can provide.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I am trying to upgrade my laptop which is running WIN 98
> > > > > > >> SE to WIN XP or WIN 2000/ME. The problem im having is that
> > > > > > >> i don't know how to go about doing this. I don't have a
> > > > > > >> WIN 98 SE disk but i do have the WIN 98 disk. How can i
> > > > > > >> delete WIN 98 SE so i can upgrade it? By the way i have a
> > > > > > >> FAT 32 file system and my pc is really old but i know i
> > > > > > >> have at least a 133mhz processor and i previously had WIN
> > > > > > >> 95 if that helps any.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Thanks in advance.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

[Gary S. Terhune]

Believe me, they already knew about them, long before you did. The first
people EEye tells about things they find are the manufacturers of the
affected product.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP for Win9x

"ArtWilder" > wrote in message
news:XYSxc.29241$My6.14791@fed1read05...
> Alright, thanks Gary. I have let Microsoft customer service know about
> these vulnerabilities, talked with technical support and have also
e-mailed
> them to Microsoft. It is in Microsoft's ball park now. :>
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Even if I knew, I couldn't tell you, ;-)
> >
> > --
> > Gary S. Terhune
> > MS MVP for Win9x
> >
> > "ArtWilder" > wrote in message
> > news:A_Oxc.29186$My6.5632@fed1read05...
> > > I guess I like the operating systems that have been battle tested by
> time
> > > and thanks for your input. Moo yourself -- :> LOL Any idea when
> > Microsoft
> > > will fix these two security issues -- one with XP and the other with
the
> > > full NT product line?
> > >
> > > http://eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/index.html
> > >
> > > http://eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/20031007.html
> > >
> > > http://eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/20040318.html (this is the one
> that
> > > concerns me the most)
> > >
> > > "Gary S. Terhune" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > You still don't really get it, Art. Every system has its limits.
> Certain
> > > > generations of hardware will only support certain generations of OS
> > > > properly, and certain generations of applications will only run
> decently
> > > on
> > > > related generations of OS and hardware. You can't widen the gap
> between
> > > > these generations too much before things start falling through the
> gaps.
> > > It
> > > > all needs to be judged in context. In the context of *modern*
> > applications
> > > > and consumer/business demands (and assuming a Windows platform),
> Windows
> > > XP
> > > > on a hardware platform starting around 2 GHz, with 1/2 to 2 or more
GB
> > of
> > > > RAM, and a video adapter with 64 to 128 or more MB RAM, USB2 and/or
> IEEE
> > > > 1394, CD Burner... These are the *minimum* requirements for an
> > up-to-date
> > > > Windows system in 2004.
> > > >
> > > > If you want to drive a legacy machine, fine. But you are totally
wrong
> > to
> > > > insist that Win98 or any other Win9x is better than anything else in
> > other
> > > > than a personal preference context. It's not only not better, it's
> > really
> > > > worse in many aspects. That's why it's a legacy construct, never to
be
> > > > resurrected. The only 98, 98SE and ME existed in the first place was
> > that
> > > > the state of the art in hardware, and the amount of work it took to
> make
> > > NT
> > > > a user-friendly interface delayed XP until 2002.
> > > >
> > > > I expect to see you two or three years from now in the Windows XP
NG,
> > > > bashing Longhorn (or whatever it ends up being called) and
proclaiming
> > how
> > > > you'll never, ever release your grip on XP, given what a stable,
> secure,
> > > > workhorse platform it is. I'll be there, providing legacy support,
> along
> > > > with still hanging out here, only this time I'm hoping to be ahead
of
> > the
> > > > curve on Longhorn and to be helping out there, as well, probably
> > > > specializing in applications compatibility issues. Mooooo!
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Gary S. Terhune
> > > > MS MVP for Win9x
> > > >
> > > > "ArtWilder" > wrote in message
> > > > news:pQzxc.27998$My6.16820@fed1read05...
> > > > > :>, LOL, forced obselence by companies -- argg :>
> > > > > Great points Gary although I still am very happy with my 98SE :>
> (eg)
> > > > (ready
> > > > > to get Gary fired up about how great 98 first edition is :>)
> > > > >
> > > > > "Gary S. Terhune" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > With sufficient RAM and disk space, it's still better than
Win95,
> > <s>.
> > > > > Slow,
> > > > > > yes, but stable and at least able to handle most things anyone
> might
> > > > want
> > > > > to
> > > > > > throw at it by way of standard apps, etc. Not that I see the
need
> > for
> > > > SE.
> > > > > FE
> > > > > > would work just as well. Who would want to make a laptop the ICS
> > > > gateway?
> > > > > > Can't imagine wanting to install USB2 or IEEE 1394 on such a
> > machine,
> > > > > > either. On the other hand, given the plague of apps that
> > > wrong-headedly
> > > > > > *insist* on SE as MinReq....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Gary S. Terhune
> > > > > > MS MVP for Win9x
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Bill in Co." > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > Frankly, I'm surprised that machine even runs Win98S very
well.
> > > > Kinda
> > > > > > > like molasses? Whatever - he's at a dead end point here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> > > > > > > > 1. You can't upgrade that machine to XP, period. Don't even
> try.
> > > It
> > > > > > won't
> > > > > > > > let you.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2. I seriously doubt you can upgrade that machine to
Win2000,
> > and
> > > > even
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > you could, you'd be very, *very* disappointed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 3. Don't bother with Windows ME, either, since it does well
on
> > > > > machines
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > were designed for it, but not usually very well on those
that
> > > > weren't.
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > > would be *amazed* if you were happy with WinME on that
> machine.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 4. Win98SE is *the* OS for that machine. Stick with that.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You don't mention how much RAM you have. You also don't
> mention
> > > > which
> > > > > > > > make/model laptop. Certain of these will accept a generic
> > Windows
> > > > > > > > installation, assuming you can still get drivers from the
> > > > > manufacturer,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > others *require* that you at least start with their original
> > > > > > installation
> > > > > > > > disk and upgrade from there. I suspect yours is of the
former
> > > > variety,
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > makes genericWin98SE a safe bet.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If Win98SE isn't performing as you would wish, I'd look at
> more
> > > RAM
> > > > > and
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > clean reinstallation. Buy a Win98SE OEM CD on eBay. Make a
> > Startup
> > > > > Disk
> > > > > > > > using a download from www.bootdisk.com, reformat the drive
and
> > > > > install.
> > > > > > 64
> > > > > > > > MB of RAM is minimum for SE, as far as I'm concerned. 128 is
> > > decent
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > normal use, and 256-512 is fantastic (if you can even put
that
> > > much
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > there.) If you were to try Win2K, you'd want *at_least* 128
MB
> > of
> > > > RAM.
> > > > > > And
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > lot more disk space compared to SE. And you'd probably
*still*
> > > have
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > nightmare trying to get hardware to work properly. If you
> aren't
> > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > > with Win2K, stay as far away from it as possible.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Gary S. Terhune
> > > > > > > > MS MVP for Win9x
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > >> Hi everyone. This might be a tough one so i appreciate
> > > > > > > >> anything you can provide.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I am trying to upgrade my laptop which is running WIN 98
> > > > > > > >> SE to WIN XP or WIN 2000/ME. The problem im having is that
> > > > > > > >> i don't know how to go about doing this. I don't have a
> > > > > > > >> WIN 98 SE disk but i do have the WIN 98 disk. How can i
> > > > > > > >> delete WIN 98 SE so i can upgrade it? By the way i have a
> > > > > > > >> FAT 32 file system and my pc is really old but i know i
> > > > > > > >> have at least a 133mhz processor and i previously had WIN
> > > > > > > >> 95 if that helps any.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Thanks in advance.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

[ArtWilder]

Thanks for the newsflash. Why does Microsoft take so long to get patches
for its operating system that EEye finds? Is it that complicated to fix the
problem or is it a low priority?

"Gary S. Terhune" > wrote in message
...
> Believe me, they already knew about them, long before you did. The first
> people EEye tells about things they find are the manufacturers of the
> affected product.
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS MVP for Win9x
>
> "ArtWilder" > wrote in message
> news:XYSxc.29241$My6.14791@fed1read05...
> > Alright, thanks Gary. I have let Microsoft customer service know about
> > these vulnerabilities, talked with technical support and have also
> e-mailed
> > them to Microsoft. It is in Microsoft's ball park now. :>
> >
> > "Gary S. Terhune" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Even if I knew, I couldn't tell you, ;-)
> > >
> > > --
> > > Gary S. Terhune
> > > MS MVP for Win9x
> > >
> > > "ArtWilder" > wrote in message
> > > news:A_Oxc.29186$My6.5632@fed1read05...
> > > > I guess I like the operating systems that have been battle tested by
> > time
> > > > and thanks for your input. Moo yourself -- :> LOL Any idea when
> > > Microsoft
> > > > will fix these two security issues -- one with XP and the other with
> the
> > > > full NT product line?
> > > >
> > > > http://eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/index.html
> > > >
> > > > http://eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/20031007.html
> > > >
> > > > http://eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/20040318.html (this is the
one
> > that
> > > > concerns me the most)
> > > >
> > > > "Gary S. Terhune" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > You still don't really get it, Art. Every system has its limits.
> > Certain
> > > > > generations of hardware will only support certain generations of
OS
> > > > > properly, and certain generations of applications will only run
> > decently
> > > > on
> > > > > related generations of OS and hardware. You can't widen the gap
> > between
> > > > > these generations too much before things start falling through the
> > gaps.
> > > > It
> > > > > all needs to be judged in context. In the context of *modern*
> > > applications
> > > > > and consumer/business demands (and assuming a Windows platform),
> > Windows
> > > > XP
> > > > > on a hardware platform starting around 2 GHz, with 1/2 to 2 or
more
> GB
> > > of
> > > > > RAM, and a video adapter with 64 to 128 or more MB RAM, USB2
and/or
> > IEEE
> > > > > 1394, CD Burner... These are the *minimum* requirements for an
> > > up-to-date
> > > > > Windows system in 2004.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you want to drive a legacy machine, fine. But you are totally
> wrong
> > > to
> > > > > insist that Win98 or any other Win9x is better than anything else
in
> > > other
> > > > > than a personal preference context. It's not only not better, it's
> > > really
> > > > > worse in many aspects. That's why it's a legacy construct, never
to
> be
> > > > > resurrected. The only 98, 98SE and ME existed in the first place
was
> > > that
> > > > > the state of the art in hardware, and the amount of work it took
to
> > make
> > > > NT
> > > > > a user-friendly interface delayed XP until 2002.
> > > > >
> > > > > I expect to see you two or three years from now in the Windows XP
> NG,
> > > > > bashing Longhorn (or whatever it ends up being called) and
> proclaiming
> > > how
> > > > > you'll never, ever release your grip on XP, given what a stable,
> > secure,
> > > > > workhorse platform it is. I'll be there, providing legacy support,
> > along
> > > > > with still hanging out here, only this time I'm hoping to be ahead
> of
> > > the
> > > > > curve on Longhorn and to be helping out there, as well, probably
> > > > > specializing in applications compatibility issues. Mooooo!
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Gary S. Terhune
> > > > > MS MVP for Win9x
> > > > >
> > > > > "ArtWilder" > wrote in message
> > > > > news:pQzxc.27998$My6.16820@fed1read05...
> > > > > > :>, LOL, forced obselence by companies -- argg :>
> > > > > > Great points Gary although I still am very happy with my 98SE :>
> > (eg)
> > > > > (ready
> > > > > > to get Gary fired up about how great 98 first edition is :>)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Gary S. Terhune" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > With sufficient RAM and disk space, it's still better than
> Win95,
> > > <s>.
> > > > > > Slow,
> > > > > > > yes, but stable and at least able to handle most things anyone
> > might
> > > > > want
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > throw at it by way of standard apps, etc. Not that I see the
> need
> > > for
> > > > > SE.
> > > > > > FE
> > > > > > > would work just as well. Who would want to make a laptop the
ICS
> > > > > gateway?
> > > > > > > Can't imagine wanting to install USB2 or IEEE 1394 on such a
> > > machine,
> > > > > > > either. On the other hand, given the plague of apps that
> > > > wrong-headedly
> > > > > > > *insist* on SE as MinReq....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Gary S. Terhune
> > > > > > > MS MVP for Win9x
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Bill in Co." > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > Frankly, I'm surprised that machine even runs Win98S very
> well.
> > > > > Kinda
> > > > > > > > like molasses? Whatever - he's at a dead end point here.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 1. You can't upgrade that machine to XP, period. Don't
even
> > try.
> > > > It
> > > > > > > won't
> > > > > > > > > let you.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2. I seriously doubt you can upgrade that machine to
> Win2000,
> > > and
> > > > > even
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > you could, you'd be very, *very* disappointed.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 3. Don't bother with Windows ME, either, since it does
well
> on
> > > > > > machines
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > were designed for it, but not usually very well on those
> that
> > > > > weren't.
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > would be *amazed* if you were happy with WinME on that
> > machine.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 4. Win98SE is *the* OS for that machine. Stick with that.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You don't mention how much RAM you have. You also don't
> > mention
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > make/model laptop. Certain of these will accept a generic
> > > Windows
> > > > > > > > > installation, assuming you can still get drivers from the
> > > > > > manufacturer,
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > others *require* that you at least start with their
original
> > > > > > > installation
> > > > > > > > > disk and upgrade from there. I suspect yours is of the
> former
> > > > > variety,
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > makes genericWin98SE a safe bet.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If Win98SE isn't performing as you would wish, I'd look at
> > more
> > > > RAM
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > clean reinstallation. Buy a Win98SE OEM CD on eBay. Make a
> > > Startup
> > > > > > Disk
> > > > > > > > > using a download from www.bootdisk.com, reformat the drive
> and
> > > > > > install.
> > > > > > > 64
> > > > > > > > > MB of RAM is minimum for SE, as far as I'm concerned. 128
is
> > > > decent
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > normal use, and 256-512 is fantastic (if you can even put
> that
> > > > much
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > there.) If you were to try Win2K, you'd want *at_least*
128
> MB
> > > of
> > > > > RAM.
> > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > lot more disk space compared to SE. And you'd probably
> *still*
> > > > have
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > nightmare trying to get hardware to work properly. If you
> > aren't
> > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > > > with Win2K, stay as far away from it as possible.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Gary S. Terhune
> > > > > > > > > MS MVP for Win9x
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > >> Hi everyone. This might be a tough one so i appreciate
> > > > > > > > >> anything you can provide.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> I am trying to upgrade my laptop which is running WIN 98
> > > > > > > > >> SE to WIN XP or WIN 2000/ME. The problem im having is
that
> > > > > > > > >> i don't know how to go about doing this. I don't have a
> > > > > > > > >> WIN 98 SE disk but i do have the WIN 98 disk. How can i
> > > > > > > > >> delete WIN 98 SE so i can upgrade it? By the way i have a
> > > > > > > > >> FAT 32 file system and my pc is really old but i know i
> > > > > > > > >> have at least a 133mhz processor and i previously had WIN
> > > > > > > > >> 95 if that helps any.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Thanks in advance.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

[Gary S. Terhune]

It's that it's complicated. First, you gotta figure out how to fix the
problem. Then you have to test that fix ten thousand different ways to make
sure it didn't break anything else, security wise or otherwise. As you've
noticed, even *after* such extensive testing, patches released into the
public domain turn out to have problems that simply weren't caught--or the
patch was considered of such importance that they put it out, anyway,
knowing about the problems, and following up with mitigating procedures.

As for priority, add that to the "complicated", and you will find that the
fix often gets subsumed into a later patch or Service Pack--rather than
putting a whole crisis team onto it, they make that issue part of the next
"build".

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP for Win9x

"ArtWilder" > wrote in message
news:UTZxc.30337$My6.15098@fed1read05...
> Thanks for the newsflash. Why does Microsoft take so long to get patches
> for its operating system that EEye finds? Is it that complicated to fix
the
> problem or is it a low priority?
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Believe me, they already knew about them, long before you did. The first
> > people EEye tells about things they find are the manufacturers of the
> > affected product.
> >
> > --
> > Gary S. Terhune
> > MS MVP for Win9x
> >
> > "ArtWilder" > wrote in message
> > news:XYSxc.29241$My6.14791@fed1read05...
> > > Alright, thanks Gary. I have let Microsoft customer service know
about
> > > these vulnerabilities, talked with technical support and have also
> > e-mailed
> > > them to Microsoft. It is in Microsoft's ball park now. :>
> > >
> > > "Gary S. Terhune" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Even if I knew, I couldn't tell you, ;-)
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Gary S. Terhune
> > > > MS MVP for Win9x
> > > >
> > > > "ArtWilder" > wrote in message
> > > > news:A_Oxc.29186$My6.5632@fed1read05...
> > > > > I guess I like the operating systems that have been battle tested
by
> > > time
> > > > > and thanks for your input. Moo yourself -- :> LOL Any idea when
> > > > Microsoft
> > > > > will fix these two security issues -- one with XP and the other
with
> > the
> > > > > full NT product line?
> > > > >
> > > > > http://eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/index.html
> > > > >
> > > > > http://eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/20031007.html
> > > > >
> > > > > http://eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/20040318.html (this is the
> one
> > > that
> > > > > concerns me the most)
> > > > >
> > > > > "Gary S. Terhune" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > You still don't really get it, Art. Every system has its limits.
> > > Certain
> > > > > > generations of hardware will only support certain generations of
> OS
> > > > > > properly, and certain generations of applications will only run
> > > decently
> > > > > on
> > > > > > related generations of OS and hardware. You can't widen the gap
> > > between
> > > > > > these generations too much before things start falling through
the
> > > gaps.
> > > > > It
> > > > > > all needs to be judged in context. In the context of *modern*
> > > > applications
> > > > > > and consumer/business demands (and assuming a Windows platform),
> > > Windows
> > > > > XP
> > > > > > on a hardware platform starting around 2 GHz, with 1/2 to 2 or
> more
> > GB
> > > > of
> > > > > > RAM, and a video adapter with 64 to 128 or more MB RAM, USB2
> and/or
> > > IEEE
> > > > > > 1394, CD Burner... These are the *minimum* requirements for an
> > > > up-to-date
> > > > > > Windows system in 2004.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you want to drive a legacy machine, fine. But you are totally
> > wrong
> > > > to
> > > > > > insist that Win98 or any other Win9x is better than anything
else
> in
> > > > other
> > > > > > than a personal preference context. It's not only not better,
it's
> > > > really
> > > > > > worse in many aspects. That's why it's a legacy construct, never
> to
> > be
> > > > > > resurrected. The only 98, 98SE and ME existed in the first place
> was
> > > > that
> > > > > > the state of the art in hardware, and the amount of work it took
> to
> > > make
> > > > > NT
> > > > > > a user-friendly interface delayed XP until 2002.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I expect to see you two or three years from now in the Windows
XP
> > NG,
> > > > > > bashing Longhorn (or whatever it ends up being called) and
> > proclaiming
> > > > how
> > > > > > you'll never, ever release your grip on XP, given what a stable,
> > > secure,
> > > > > > workhorse platform it is. I'll be there, providing legacy
support,
> > > along
> > > > > > with still hanging out here, only this time I'm hoping to be
ahead
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > curve on Longhorn and to be helping out there, as well, probably
> > > > > > specializing in applications compatibility issues. Mooooo!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Gary S. Terhune
> > > > > > MS MVP for Win9x
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "ArtWilder" > wrote in message
> > > > > > news:pQzxc.27998$My6.16820@fed1read05...
> > > > > > > :>, LOL, forced obselence by companies -- argg :>
> > > > > > > Great points Gary although I still am very happy with my 98SE
:>
> > > (eg)
> > > > > > (ready
> > > > > > > to get Gary fired up about how great 98 first edition is :>)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Gary S. Terhune" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > With sufficient RAM and disk space, it's still better than
> > Win95,
> > > > <s>.
> > > > > > > Slow,
> > > > > > > > yes, but stable and at least able to handle most things
anyone
> > > might
> > > > > > want
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > throw at it by way of standard apps, etc. Not that I see the
> > need
> > > > for
> > > > > > SE.
> > > > > > > FE
> > > > > > > > would work just as well. Who would want to make a laptop the
> ICS
> > > > > > gateway?
> > > > > > > > Can't imagine wanting to install USB2 or IEEE 1394 on such a
> > > > machine,
> > > > > > > > either. On the other hand, given the plague of apps that
> > > > > wrong-headedly
> > > > > > > > *insist* on SE as MinReq....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Gary S. Terhune
> > > > > > > > MS MVP for Win9x
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Bill in Co." > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > Frankly, I'm surprised that machine even runs Win98S very
> > well.
> > > > > > Kinda
> > > > > > > > > like molasses? Whatever - he's at a dead end point
here.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > 1. You can't upgrade that machine to XP, period. Don't
> even
> > > try.
> > > > > It
> > > > > > > > won't
> > > > > > > > > > let you.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2. I seriously doubt you can upgrade that machine to
> > Win2000,
> > > > and
> > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > you could, you'd be very, *very* disappointed.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 3. Don't bother with Windows ME, either, since it does
> well
> > on
> > > > > > > machines
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > were designed for it, but not usually very well on those
> > that
> > > > > > weren't.
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > would be *amazed* if you were happy with WinME on that
> > > machine.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 4. Win98SE is *the* OS for that machine. Stick with
that.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You don't mention how much RAM you have. You also don't
> > > mention
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > make/model laptop. Certain of these will accept a
generic
> > > > Windows
> > > > > > > > > > installation, assuming you can still get drivers from
the
> > > > > > > manufacturer,
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > others *require* that you at least start with their
> original
> > > > > > > > installation
> > > > > > > > > > disk and upgrade from there. I suspect yours is of the
> > former
> > > > > > variety,
> > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > makes genericWin98SE a safe bet.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If Win98SE isn't performing as you would wish, I'd look
at
> > > more
> > > > > RAM
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > clean reinstallation. Buy a Win98SE OEM CD on eBay. Make
a
> > > > Startup
> > > > > > > Disk
> > > > > > > > > > using a download from www.bootdisk.com, reformat the
drive
> > and
> > > > > > > install.
> > > > > > > > 64
> > > > > > > > > > MB of RAM is minimum for SE, as far as I'm concerned.
128
> is
> > > > > decent
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > normal use, and 256-512 is fantastic (if you can even
put
> > that
> > > > > much
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > there.) If you were to try Win2K, you'd want *at_least*
> 128
> > MB
> > > > of
> > > > > > RAM.
> > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > lot more disk space compared to SE. And you'd probably
> > *still*
> > > > > have
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > nightmare trying to get hardware to work properly. If
you
> > > aren't
> > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > > > > with Win2K, stay as far away from it as possible.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Gary S. Terhune
> > > > > > > > > > MS MVP for Win9x
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > >> Hi everyone. This might be a tough one so i appreciate
> > > > > > > > > >> anything you can provide.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> I am trying to upgrade my laptop which is running WIN
98
> > > > > > > > > >> SE to WIN XP or WIN 2000/ME. The problem im having is
> that
> > > > > > > > > >> i don't know how to go about doing this. I don't have a
> > > > > > > > > >> WIN 98 SE disk but i do have the WIN 98 disk. How can i
> > > > > > > > > >> delete WIN 98 SE so i can upgrade it? By the way i have
a
> > > > > > > > > >> FAT 32 file system and my pc is really old but i know i
> > > > > > > > > >> have at least a 133mhz processor and i previously had
WIN
> > > > > > > > > >> 95 if that helps any.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Thanks in advance.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

[ArtWilder]

Thanks for the information, Gary. You are always willing to make things
crystal clear for me and I appreciate it. :>

"Gary S. Terhune" > wrote in message
...
> It's that it's complicated. First, you gotta figure out how to fix the
> problem. Then you have to test that fix ten thousand different ways to
make
> sure it didn't break anything else, security wise or otherwise. As you've
> noticed, even *after* such extensive testing, patches released into the
> public domain turn out to have problems that simply weren't caught--or the
> patch was considered of such importance that they put it out, anyway,
> knowing about the problems, and following up with mitigating procedures.
>
> As for priority, add that to the "complicated", and you will find that the
> fix often gets subsumed into a later patch or Service Pack--rather than
> putting a whole crisis team onto it, they make that issue part of the next
> "build".
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS MVP for Win9x
>
> "ArtWilder" > wrote in message
> news:UTZxc.30337$My6.15098@fed1read05...
> > Thanks for the newsflash. Why does Microsoft take so long to get
patches
> > for its operating system that EEye finds? Is it that complicated to fix
> the
> > problem or is it a low priority?
> >
> > "Gary S. Terhune" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Believe me, they already knew about them, long before you did. The
first
> > > people EEye tells about things they find are the manufacturers of the
> > > affected product.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Gary S. Terhune
> > > MS MVP for Win9x
> > >
> > > "ArtWilder" > wrote in message
> > > news:XYSxc.29241$My6.14791@fed1read05...
> > > > Alright, thanks Gary. I have let Microsoft customer service know
> about
> > > > these vulnerabilities, talked with technical support and have also
> > > e-mailed
> > > > them to Microsoft. It is in Microsoft's ball park now. :>
> > > >
> > > > "Gary S. Terhune" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > Even if I knew, I couldn't tell you, ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Gary S. Terhune
> > > > > MS MVP for Win9x
> > > > >
> > > > > "ArtWilder" > wrote in message
> > > > > news:A_Oxc.29186$My6.5632@fed1read05...
> > > > > > I guess I like the operating systems that have been battle
tested
> by
> > > > time
> > > > > > and thanks for your input. Moo yourself -- :> LOL Any idea
when
> > > > > Microsoft
> > > > > > will fix these two security issues -- one with XP and the other
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > full NT product line?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/index.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/20031007.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/20040318.html (this is
the
> > one
> > > > that
> > > > > > concerns me the most)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Gary S. Terhune" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > You still don't really get it, Art. Every system has its
limits.
> > > > Certain
> > > > > > > generations of hardware will only support certain generations
of
> > OS
> > > > > > > properly, and certain generations of applications will only
run
> > > > decently
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > related generations of OS and hardware. You can't widen the
gap
> > > > between
> > > > > > > these generations too much before things start falling through
> the
> > > > gaps.
> > > > > > It
> > > > > > > all needs to be judged in context. In the context of *modern*
> > > > > applications
> > > > > > > and consumer/business demands (and assuming a Windows
platform),
> > > > Windows
> > > > > > XP
> > > > > > > on a hardware platform starting around 2 GHz, with 1/2 to 2 or
> > more
> > > GB
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > RAM, and a video adapter with 64 to 128 or more MB RAM, USB2
> > and/or
> > > > IEEE
> > > > > > > 1394, CD Burner... These are the *minimum* requirements for an
> > > > > up-to-date
> > > > > > > Windows system in 2004.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you want to drive a legacy machine, fine. But you are
totally
> > > wrong
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > insist that Win98 or any other Win9x is better than anything
> else
> > in
> > > > > other
> > > > > > > than a personal preference context. It's not only not better,
> it's
> > > > > really
> > > > > > > worse in many aspects. That's why it's a legacy construct,
never
> > to
> > > be
> > > > > > > resurrected. The only 98, 98SE and ME existed in the first
place
> > was
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > the state of the art in hardware, and the amount of work it
took
> > to
> > > > make
> > > > > > NT
> > > > > > > a user-friendly interface delayed XP until 2002.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I expect to see you two or three years from now in the Windows
> XP
> > > NG,
> > > > > > > bashing Longhorn (or whatever it ends up being called) and
> > > proclaiming
> > > > > how
> > > > > > > you'll never, ever release your grip on XP, given what a
stable,
> > > > secure,
> > > > > > > workhorse platform it is. I'll be there, providing legacy
> support,
> > > > along
> > > > > > > with still hanging out here, only this time I'm hoping to be
> ahead
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > curve on Longhorn and to be helping out there, as well,
probably
> > > > > > > specializing in applications compatibility issues. Mooooo!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Gary S. Terhune
> > > > > > > MS MVP for Win9x
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "ArtWilder" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:pQzxc.27998$My6.16820@fed1read05...
> > > > > > > > :>, LOL, forced obselence by companies -- argg :>
> > > > > > > > Great points Gary although I still am very happy with my
98SE
> :>
> > > > (eg)
> > > > > > > (ready
> > > > > > > > to get Gary fired up about how great 98 first edition is :>)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Gary S. Terhune" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > With sufficient RAM and disk space, it's still better than
> > > Win95,
> > > > > <s>.
> > > > > > > > Slow,
> > > > > > > > > yes, but stable and at least able to handle most things
> anyone
> > > > might
> > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > throw at it by way of standard apps, etc. Not that I see
the
> > > need
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > SE.
> > > > > > > > FE
> > > > > > > > > would work just as well. Who would want to make a laptop
the
> > ICS
> > > > > > > gateway?
> > > > > > > > > Can't imagine wanting to install USB2 or IEEE 1394 on such
a
> > > > > machine,
> > > > > > > > > either. On the other hand, given the plague of apps that
> > > > > > wrong-headedly
> > > > > > > > > *insist* on SE as MinReq....
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Gary S. Terhune
> > > > > > > > > MS MVP for Win9x
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Bill in Co." > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > Frankly, I'm surprised that machine even runs Win98S
very
> > > well.
> > > > > > > Kinda
> > > > > > > > > > like molasses? Whatever - he's at a dead end point
> here.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. You can't upgrade that machine to XP, period. Don't
> > even
> > > > try.
> > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > > won't
> > > > > > > > > > > let you.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2. I seriously doubt you can upgrade that machine to
> > > Win2000,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > you could, you'd be very, *very* disappointed.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 3. Don't bother with Windows ME, either, since it does
> > well
> > > on
> > > > > > > > machines
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > were designed for it, but not usually very well on
those
> > > that
> > > > > > > weren't.
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > would be *amazed* if you were happy with WinME on that
> > > > machine.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 4. Win98SE is *the* OS for that machine. Stick with
> that.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You don't mention how much RAM you have. You also
don't
> > > > mention
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > make/model laptop. Certain of these will accept a
> generic
> > > > > Windows
> > > > > > > > > > > installation, assuming you can still get drivers from
> the
> > > > > > > > manufacturer,
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > others *require* that you at least start with their
> > original
> > > > > > > > > installation
> > > > > > > > > > > disk and upgrade from there. I suspect yours is of the
> > > former
> > > > > > > variety,
> > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > makes genericWin98SE a safe bet.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If Win98SE isn't performing as you would wish, I'd
look
> at
> > > > more
> > > > > > RAM
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > clean reinstallation. Buy a Win98SE OEM CD on eBay.
Make
> a
> > > > > Startup
> > > > > > > > Disk
> > > > > > > > > > > using a download from www.bootdisk.com, reformat the
> drive
> > > and
> > > > > > > > install.
> > > > > > > > > 64
> > > > > > > > > > > MB of RAM is minimum for SE, as far as I'm concerned.
> 128
> > is
> > > > > > decent
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > normal use, and 256-512 is fantastic (if you can even
> put
> > > that
> > > > > > much
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > there.) If you were to try Win2K, you'd want
*at_least*
> > 128
> > > MB
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > RAM.
> > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > lot more disk space compared to SE. And you'd probably
> > > *still*
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > nightmare trying to get hardware to work properly. If
> you
> > > > aren't
> > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > > > > > with Win2K, stay as far away from it as possible.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Gary S. Terhune
> > > > > > > > > > > MS MVP for Win9x
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > >> Hi everyone. This might be a tough one so i
appreciate
> > > > > > > > > > >> anything you can provide.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> I am trying to upgrade my laptop which is running WIN
> 98
> > > > > > > > > > >> SE to WIN XP or WIN 2000/ME. The problem im having is
> > that
> > > > > > > > > > >> i don't know how to go about doing this. I don't have
a
> > > > > > > > > > >> WIN 98 SE disk but i do have the WIN 98 disk. How can
i
> > > > > > > > > > >> delete WIN 98 SE so i can upgrade it? By the way i
have
> a
> > > > > > > > > > >> FAT 32 file system and my pc is really old but i know
i
> > > > > > > > > > >> have at least a 133mhz processor and i previously had
> WIN
> > > > > > > > > > >> 95 if that helps any.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks in advance.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>