I hate Windows 2000, miss W98 SE.

[Bill in Co.]

DaffyD® wrote:
> Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is so
> much
> more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and user
> accounts
> in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.

True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a single
user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user; very nice and
simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*. A very, very, lean
operating system. (I think it's somewhere around 200 MB in total, isn't
it?)

> But to go back to 98SE
> would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive (which
> doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.

Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always consider
getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.

> My old scanner no longer works like it
> did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when printed
> are
> practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a USB
> scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I dumbly bought
> a
> parallel port scanner back then.
>
> But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in today's
> hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the external drive will
> work with whatever is released after Vista.

Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows 2000? I'm
not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps, anyways. Actually,
I think Win98SE still has more software capability there (at least in this
one arena).

But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think. Like
Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen :-).

> I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of all
> the
> Windows groups.
> --
> DaffyD®
>
> If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.

[Dan]

Windows 98 Second Edition is not limited. Sure, if you want a more business
type interface go with Windows 2000 Professional but if you want great
multimedia and internal safety of a maintenance operating system of MS-DOS
then go with 98 Second Edition. I do not know why so many people have
trouble seeing this fact.
The problems were mainly with 3rd party drivers that caused so many issues
in 98 Second Edition and the only issues I seem to get with 98 Second Edition
these days are the denial of service errors. Okay, I did get a freeze on my
machine last night but that was due to Internet Explorer 6 reporting tool not
sending the data correctly to Microsoft after IE 6 crashed. I do not mind
the crashing and actually like to see how stable the software is. BTW, if
you use Windows XP then I would suggest updating to Internet Explorer 8 if
you have Internet Explorer 7 or downgrade to Internet Explorer 6 if you want
to do a clean install because IE 7 has some serious issues. It would be even
better to just use Mozilla Firefox 2 or 3 where you can because the browser
supports 256 bit AES encryption which is only 128 encryption with IE except
in Windows Vista. I do not know about Windows Server and I am talking about
Desktop Windows Operating Systems.

"DaffyD®" wrote:

> Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is so much
> more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and user accounts
> in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find. But to go back to 98SE
> would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive (which
> doesn't work with 98) as a bookend. My old scanner no longer works like it
> did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when printed are
> practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a USB
> scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I dumbly bought a
> parallel port scanner back then.
>
> But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in today's
> hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the external drive will
> work with whatever is released after Vista.
>
> I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of all the
> Windows groups.
> --
> DaffyD®
>
> If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.
>
>
>
>

[PCR]

Bill in Co. wrote:
| DaffyD® wrote:
|> Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is
|> so much
|> more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and user
|> accounts
|> in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.
|
| True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a
| single user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user; very
| nice and simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*. A very,
| very, lean operating system. (I think it's somewhere around 200 MB
| in total, isn't it?)

My Windows folder is 286 folders, 5,307 files, 454,827,147 bytes.
And Program Files is 323 folders, 3,905 files, 540,817,212 bytes.

|> But to go back to 98SE
|> would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive
|> (which doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.
|
| Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always consider
| getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.

I know you've done it. Would be nice if you could talk DaffyD® through
it!

|> My old scanner no longer works like it
|> did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when
|> printed are
|> practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a
|> USB scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I
|> dumbly bought a
|> parallel port scanner back then.
|>
|> But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in
|> today's hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the
|> external drive will work with whatever is released after Vista.
|
| Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows 2000?
| I'm not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps, anyways.
| Actually, I think Win98SE still has more software capability there
| (at least in this one arena).
|
| But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think.
| Like Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen :-).

XP has crashed on you, Colorado -- well-enough for you to do several
registry restores & restore point restores & maybe even a full backup
restore or two -- you've admitted it, IIRC! I don't care whether it
gives a blue screen or an XP-irradiated sickly green one!

|> I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of
|> all the
|> Windows groups.

Good to see you you back, DaffyD®. Maybe try for the proper drivers as
Colorado has suggested!

|> --
|> DaffyD®
|>
|> If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR

[Roger Fink]

Hey Daffster, try thinking outside the box. You can create a folder
"Documents" anywhere you want, like f'rinstance C:\Documents (Microsoft
actually did that already with a clone My Documents folder although some
hide it). Or with a Google search you can adjust the target of a dedicated
Windows Explorer shortcut to drill down to where the particular folder is
you want to play with, such as Application Data or Temp. What would seem
intellectually indefensible is reflexive whining without knowing what the
options are.

DaffyD® wrote:
> Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is
> so much more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin
> and user accounts in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to
> find. But to go back to 98SE would mean reformatting the hard drive
> and using my external drive (which doesn't work with 98) as a
> bookend. My old scanner no longer works like it did since it was
> designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when printed are
> practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a
> USB scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I
> dumbly bought a parallel port scanner back then.
>
> But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in
> today's hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the
> external drive will work with whatever is released after Vista.
>
> I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of
> all the Windows groups.

[Bill in Co.]

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> DaffyD® wrote:
>>> Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is
>>> so much more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and
>>> user
>>> accounts in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.
>>
>> True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a
>> single user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user; very
>> nice and simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*. A very,
>> very, lean operating system. (I think it's somewhere around 200 MB
>> in total, isn't it?)
>
> My Windows folder is 286 folders, 5,307 files, 454,827,147 bytes.
> And Program Files is 323 folders, 3,905 files, 540,817,212 bytes.

Program Files doesn't count! That's by far mostly your applications in
there! We were talking about the operating system!

And the reason your system folder is that large is due to all those updates
you added and some stuff added by some applications, no doubt.

Go check out your original installation size (if you still have a copy). I
still think it's around 200 MB, as I said. WITHOUT applications and
"updates" being installed/

>>> But to go back to 98SE
>>> would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive
>>> (which doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.
>>
>> Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always consider
>> getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.
>
> I know you've done it. Would be nice if you could talk DaffyD® through
> it!
>
>>> My old scanner no longer works like it
>>> did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when
>>> printed are practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it
>>> been a
>>> USB scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I
>>> dumbly bought a parallel port scanner back then.
>>>
>>> But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in
>>> today's hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the
>>> external drive will work with whatever is released after Vista.
>>
>> Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows 2000?
>> I'm not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps, anyways.
>> Actually, I think Win98SE still has more software capability there
>> (at least in this one arena).
>>
>> But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think.
>> Like Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen :-).
>
> XP has crashed on you, Colorado -- well-enough for you to do several
> registry restores & restore point restores & maybe even a full backup
> restore or two -- you've admitted it, IIRC! I don't care whether it
> gives a blue screen or an XP-irradiated sickly green one!

No, not quite accurate. (I said I got blue screens in XP??? When)?
But - I *have* done several registry or disk image restores in XP, but NOT
due to blue screens! Those restore operations were done due to my desire
to put my system back exactly as it was prior to some software installations
(just to play it safe), and/or if some settings got changed that I didn't
"appreciate" (and it was an easy way to get back). That's all, unless you
remember something I don't. I'm still waiting for blue screens, unless you
recall some I mentioned (in XP, I mean).

>>> I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of
>>> all the Windows groups.
>
> Good to see you you back, DaffyD®. Maybe try for the proper drivers as
> Colorado has suggested!
>
>>> --
>>> DaffyD®
>>>
>>> If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.
>
> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> Should things get worse after this,
> PCR
>

[PCR]

Bill in Co. wrote:
| PCR wrote:
|> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>> DaffyD® wrote:
|>>> Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It
|>>> is so much more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the
|>>> admin and user
|>>> accounts in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.
|>>
|>> True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a
|>> single user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user; very
|>> nice and simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*. A very,
|>> very, lean operating system. (I think it's somewhere around 200 MB
|>> in total, isn't it?)
|>
|> My Windows folder is 286 folders, 5,307 files, 454,827,147 bytes.
|> And Program Files is 323 folders, 3,905 files, 540,817,212 bytes.
|
| Program Files doesn't count! That's by far mostly your
| applications in there! We were talking about the operating system!
|
| And the reason your system folder is that large is due to all those
| updates you added and some stuff added by some applications, no doubt.
|
| Go check out your original installation size (if you still have a
| copy). I still think it's around 200 MB, as I said. WITHOUT
| applications and "updates" being installed/

On 2nd thought, yea, you are right, this machine came with a bunch of
extra packages already installed, like MS Works. The stuff I've
installed afterwards is all minor, though. Yea, you're likely correct,
but I can't check it on this machine.

|>>> But to go back to 98SE
|>>> would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive
|>>> (which doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.
|>>
|>> Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always
|>> consider getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.
|>
|> I know you've done it. Would be nice if you could talk DaffyD®
|> through it!
|>
|>>> My old scanner no longer works like it
|>>> did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when
|>>> printed are practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that
|>>> had it been a
|>>> USB scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I
|>>> dumbly bought a parallel port scanner back then.
|>>>
|>>> But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in
|>>> today's hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the
|>>> external drive will work with whatever is released after Vista.
|>>
|>> Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows 2000?
|>> I'm not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps, anyways.
|>> Actually, I think Win98SE still has more software capability there
|>> (at least in this one arena).
|>>
|>> But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think.
|>> Like Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen :-).
|>
|> XP has crashed on you, Colorado -- well-enough for you to do several
|> registry restores & restore point restores & maybe even a full backup
|> restore or two -- you've admitted it, IIRC! I don't care whether it
|> gives a blue screen or an XP-irradiated sickly green one!
|
| No, not quite accurate. (I said I got blue screens in XP???
| When)? But - I *have* done several registry or disk image restores in
| XP, but NOT due to blue screens! Those restore operations were done
| due to my desire to put my system back exactly as it was prior to
| some software installations (just to play it safe), and/or if some
| settings got changed that I didn't "appreciate" (and it was an easy
| way to get back). That's all, unless you remember something I don't.
| I'm still waiting for blue screens, unless you recall some I
| mentioned (in XP, I mean).

No, I don't recall you said any color. But I was fairly sure you said
you had a crash of some kind in XP. And I strongly suspect Terhune
thinks so too! But "Hitchhiker's Guide" just started & I must go. So,
fine, I'll try to remember you never crashed yet.

|>>> I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite
|>>> of all the Windows groups.
|>
|> Good to see you you back, DaffyD®. Maybe try for the proper drivers
|> as Colorado has suggested!
|>
|>>> --
|>>> DaffyD®
|>>>
|>>> If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.
|>
|> --
|> Thanks or Good Luck,
|> There may be humor in this post, and,
|> Naturally, you will not sue,
|> Should things get worse after this,
|> PCR
|>

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR

[Bill in Co.]

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> PCR wrote:
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>> DaffyD® wrote:
>>>>> Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It
>>>>> is so much more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the
>>>>> admin and user
>>>>> accounts in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.
>>>>
>>>> True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a
>>>> single user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user; very
>>>> nice and simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*. A very,
>>>> very, lean operating system. (I think it's somewhere around 200 MB
>>>> in total, isn't it?)
>>>
>>> My Windows folder is 286 folders, 5,307 files, 454,827,147 bytes.
>>> And Program Files is 323 folders, 3,905 files, 540,817,212 bytes.
>>
>> Program Files doesn't count! That's by far mostly your
>> applications in there! We were talking about the operating system!
>>
>> And the reason your system folder is that large is due to all those
>> updates you added and some stuff added by some applications, no doubt.
>>
>> Go check out your original installation size (if you still have a
>> copy). I still think it's around 200 MB, as I said. WITHOUT
>> applications and "updates" being installed/
>
> On 2nd thought, yea, you are right, this machine came with a bunch of
> extra packages already installed, like MS Works. The stuff I've
> installed afterwards is all minor, though. Yea, you're likely correct,
> but I can't check it on this machine.

I think it was somewhere around 200 MB, before installing apps. That's
pretty lean! And IIRC, WinXP is about 10 times that (about 2 GB). But
then again, WinXP is pretty damn robust by comparison, I do have to admit.
And I bet Vista is 10 times that of WinXP!! (like maybe 20 GB) - ugh, forget
Vista!!

>>>>> But to go back to 98SE
>>>>> would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive
>>>>> (which doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always
>>>> consider getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.
>>>
>>> I know you've done it. Would be nice if you could talk DaffyD®
>>> through it!
>>>
>>>>> My old scanner no longer works like it
>>>>> did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when
>>>>> printed are practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had
>>>>> it been a
>>>>> USB scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I
>>>>> dumbly bought a parallel port scanner back then.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in
>>>>> today's hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the
>>>>> external drive will work with whatever is released after Vista.
>>>>
>>>> Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows 2000?
>>>> I'm not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps, anyways.
>>>> Actually, I think Win98SE still has more software capability there
>>>> (at least in this one arena).
>>>>
>>>> But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think.
>>>> Like Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen :-).
>>>
>>> XP has crashed on you, Colorado -- well-enough for you to do several
>>> registry restores & restore point restores & maybe even a full backup
>>> restore or two -- you've admitted it, IIRC! I don't care whether it
>>> gives a blue screen or an XP-irradiated sickly green one!
>>
>> No, not quite accurate. (I said I got blue screens in XP???
>> When)? But - I *have* done several registry or disk image restores in
>> XP, but NOT due to blue screens! Those restore operations were done
>> due to my desire to put my system back exactly as it was prior to
>> some software installations (just to play it safe), and/or if some
>> settings got changed that I didn't "appreciate" (and it was an easy
>> way to get back). That's all, unless you remember something I don't.
>> I'm still waiting for blue screens, unless you recall some I
>> mentioned (in XP, I mean).
>
> No, I don't recall you said any color. But I was fairly sure you said
> you had a crash of some kind in XP. And I strongly suspect Terhune
> thinks so too! But "Hitchhiker's Guide" just started & I must go. So,
> fine, I'll try to remember you never crashed yet.

I have had a couple of occasions where the computer locked up and I had to
reboot, that's all (no blue or green screens, though). But no restore
operation was necessary - it was just due to some software hiccups that
occurred at the same time.

>>>>> I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite
>>>>> of all the Windows groups.
>>>
>>> Good to see you you back, DaffyD®. Maybe try for the proper drivers
>>> as Colorado has suggested!
>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> DaffyD®
>>>>>
>>>>> If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks or Good Luck,
>>> There may be humor in this post, and,
>>> Naturally, you will not sue,
>>> Should things get worse after this,
>>> PCR
>>>
>
> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> Should things get worse after this,
> PCR
>

[Bill in Co.]

wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:10:37 -0600, "Bill in Co."
> > wrote:
>
>> DaffyD® wrote:
>>> Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is so
>>> much more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and user
>>> accounts in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.
>>
>> True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a single
>> user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user; very nice and
>> simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*. A very, very, lean
>> operating system. (I think it's somewhere around 200 MB in total, isn't
>> it?)
>>
>>> But to go back to 98SE
>>> would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive
>>> (which
>>> doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.
>>
>> Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always consider
>> getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.
>>
>>> My old scanner no longer works like it
>>> did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when printed
>>> are practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a
>>> USB
>>> scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I dumbly
>>> bought
>>> a parallel port scanner back then.
>>>
>>> But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in
>>> today's
>>> hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the external drive
>>> will
>>> work with whatever is released after Vista.
>>
>> Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows 2000?
>> I'm
>> not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps, anyways.
>> Actually,
>> I think Win98SE still has more software capability there (at least in
>> this
>> one arena).
>>
>> But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think. Like
>> Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen :-).
>>
>>> I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of all
>>> the Windows groups.
>>> --
>>> DaffyD®
>>>
>>> If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.
>>
>
> I know someone who gets nothing but a blue screen in XP. The computer
> boots up, gets a blue screen, and that is all it does.

Amazing. But I think that's pretty atypical :-) Wonder what s/he did
to it.

> They asked me
> to fix it for them. I told them I would except when they got it back,
> it would have Win98 installed. I refuse to work on XP computers.

In some ways it can be harder, I admit. Like I miss the ability of having
DOS as the "fallback operating system", when doing some low-level stuff
(which is a LOT simpler in DOS/Win98SE). So in that regard, things are
indeed simpler with Win98SE/DOS. And, you don't have deal with multiuser
profiles, and all that stuff and overhead, and the somewhat weird locations
some things are stored in. :-).

But the tradeoff in "robustness" (meaning few, if any, blue screens!), and
in the capability of running more current apps, is a significant drawback.
(all this assuming your computer is of relatively recent vintage, and is
really up to it - the older ones won't cut it too well)

> As for the OP, why not install BOTH Win98 and Win2K. Just dual boot it.
>
> As for the original size of Win98. I have a fresh install zipped up.
> The zip file is 80megs.
> Unzipped, it's 2357 Files 161,461KB (161megs)

Well, I was talking about Win98SE, which may be a bit larger. But that's
pretty close, or at least in the same ballpark, anyways. :-)

> That's with those damn AOL, MSN, and other such files/folders removed.
> I delete those things the second I get 98 installed.......
> (or, wait a minute, those are installed in Program Files, so forget
> that). It's 161megs.....

[DaffyD®]

Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is so much
more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and user accounts
in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find. But to go back to 98SE
would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive (which
doesn't work with 98) as a bookend. My old scanner no longer works like it
did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when printed are
practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a USB
scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I dumbly bought a
parallel port scanner back then.

But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in today's
hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the external drive will
work with whatever is released after Vista.

I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of all the
Windows groups.
--
DaffyD®

If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.

[Bill in Co.]

wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 00:07:51 -0600, "Bill in Co."
> > wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:10:37 -0600, "Bill in Co."
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> DaffyD® wrote:
>>>>> Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is
>>>>> so
>>>>> much more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and
>>>>> user
>>>>> accounts in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.
>>>>
>>>> True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a single
>>>> user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user; very nice and
>>>> simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*. A very, very, lean
>>>> operating system. (I think it's somewhere around 200 MB in total,
>>>> isn't
>>>> it?)
>>>>
>>>>> But to go back to 98SE
>>>>> would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive
>>>>> (which doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always consider
>>>> getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.
>>>>
>>>>> My old scanner no longer works like it
>>>>> did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when
>>>>> printed
>>>>> are practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a
>>>>> USB
>>>>> scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I dumbly
>>>>> bought a parallel port scanner back then.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in
>>>>> today's
>>>>> hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the external drive
>>>>> will work with whatever is released after Vista.
>>>>
>>>> Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows 2000?
>>>> I'm not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps, anyways.
>>>> Actually,
>>>> I think Win98SE still has more software capability there (at least in
>>>> this one arena).
>>>>
>>>> But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think. Like
>>>> Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen :-).
>>>>
>>>>> I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of
>>>>> all
>>>>> the Windows groups.
>>>>> --
>>>>> DaffyD®
>>>>>
>>>>> If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I know someone who gets nothing but a blue screen in XP. The computer
>>> boots up, gets a blue screen, and that is all it does.
>>
>> Amazing. But I think that's pretty atypical :-) Wonder what s/he
>> did
>> to it.
>>
> I was wondering the same thing......
> Maybe a virus, or bad hardware, or some critical files removed ?????

I don't know, but it sure sounds suspicious. Sounds like he needs a repair
reinstall, or maybe a completely fresh install. I think there is an option
in the Windows XP boot CD to Repair XP, assuming he can boot to the CD.
(If he can't even do that, then I'm not sure what he can do).

>>> They asked me
>>> to fix it for them. I told them I would except when they got it back,
>>> it would have Win98 installed. I refuse to work on XP computers.
>>
>> In some ways it can be harder, I admit. Like I miss the ability of
>> having
>> DOS as the "fallback operating system", when doing some low-level stuff
>> (which is a LOT simpler in DOS/Win98SE). So in that regard, things are
>> indeed simpler with Win98SE/DOS. And, you don't have deal with
>> multiuser
>> profiles, and all that stuff and overhead, and the somewhat weird
>> locations
>> some things are stored in. :-).
>>
> That's the thing. When 98 gets screwed up, I can resort to dos. I
> tried to do that to an XP computer once and only made more of a mess.

Yup, it ain't easy for XP, at that level. It is a bit more convoluted.
There is the XP Repair Console, but I haven't played around with it too
much. And there are things out there like Bart's PE (CD), to access it
without windows running.

> If it was at least a FAT32 format I may have been able to do something....
> I just dont like XP, and dont want to touch it.

But also do keep in mind Windows XP can be made to look like Win98SE with
some customizations (I hate the original look). But that is not to refute
all we've said about getting down to using DOS as a backup operating system,
and all that stuff.

> If I work on hardware only, I'll use my own harddrive, and install XP
> from scratch. That's no big problem, but if the problem is XP itself,
> I refuse to touch it.
>
>> But the tradeoff in "robustness" (meaning few, if any, blue screens!),
>> and
>> in the capability of running more current apps, is a significant
>> drawback.
>> (all this assuming your computer is of relatively recent vintage, and is
>> really up to it - the older ones won't cut it too well)
>>
>
> I just dont like XP, period.....
> I will use Win2K though, just as long as the drive is FAT32 formatted.
> I use 2K on my laptop, but my desktop (which I use 95% of the time),
> is still Win98SE.
>
>>> As for the OP, why not install BOTH Win98 and Win2K. Just dual boot it.
>>>
>>> As for the original size of Win98. I have a fresh install zipped up.
>>> The zip file is 80megs.
>>> Unzipped, it's 2357 Files 161,461KB (161megs)
>>
>> Well, I was talking about Win98SE, which may be a bit larger. But
>> that's
>> pretty close, or at least in the same ballpark, anyways. :-)
>
> This IS for Win98SE.....

Oh, ok then.

> It's an original install, with IE5 and all of that.
> I just let it run as a typical install. If I have a problem and am
> not sure what's going on, I rename the windows folder, and unzip that
> file to a new folder called WINDOWS, then I run it. That way I know
> if my problem is software or hardware related.
>
> PS. My actual USING Windows folder with all the programs installed,
> plus extra fonts, wallpapers, etc. is 668megs. (IE cache and cookies
> were cleared).

I forgot what mine got up to. I have it over here, but I'm too lazy to
power it up tonite and check (I'm almost always using my newer and faster XP
computer). :-)

>>
>>> That's with those damn AOL, MSN, and other such files/folders removed.
>>> I delete those things the second I get 98 installed.......
>>> (or, wait a minute, those are installed in Program Files, so forget
>>> that). It's 161megs.....

[John John (MVP)]

wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:10:37 -0600, "Bill in Co."
> > wrote:
>
>
>>DaffyD® wrote:
>>
>>>Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is so
>>>much
>>>more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and user
>>>accounts
>>>in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.
>>
>>True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a single
>>user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user; very nice and
>>simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*. A very, very, lean
>>operating system. (I think it's somewhere around 200 MB in total, isn't
>>it?)
>>
>>
>>>But to go back to 98SE
>>>would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive (which
>>>doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.
>>
>>Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always consider
>>getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.
>>
>>
>>>My old scanner no longer works like it
>>>did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when printed
>>>are
>>>practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a USB
>>>scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I dumbly bought
>>>a
>>>parallel port scanner back then.
>>>
>>>But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in today's
>>>hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the external drive will
>>>work with whatever is released after Vista.
>>
>>Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows 2000? I'm
>>not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps, anyways. Actually,
>>I think Win98SE still has more software capability there (at least in this
>>one arena).
>>
>>But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think. Like
>>Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen :-).
>>
>>
>>>I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of all
>>>the
>>>Windows groups.
>>>--
>>>DaffyD®
>>>
>>>If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.
>>
>
> I know someone who gets nothing but a blue screen in XP. The computer
> boots up, gets a blue screen, and that is all it does.

And I know lots of people who get absolutely no blue screens at all and
who were constantly getting them when they were using Windows 98. That
you know *one* person who gets blue screens with Windows XP is not much
of a convincing reason to not use Windows XP.


> They asked me
> to fix it for them. I told them I would except when they got it back,
> it would have Win98 installed. I refuse to work on XP computers.

Should go hand in hand with folks who run typewriter repair shops! If
the computer is fairly new you won't be doing anyone any favours by
removing a modern operating system to replace it with an antiquated
relic! Along with the removal of Windows XP the users can kiss goodbye
to things like memory support for up to 4GB of RAM, multi-core or
multi-processor support, support for 48-bit LBA and large disks, support
for files sizes over 4GB, support for much of the newer hardware
available today and a host of other things.

Windows 98 may have been good in its time but its time is now over and
for all but the most devoted aficionados maintaining and getting Windows
98 to work properly with new hardware and software is most often an
exercise in futility, or at the very least a very frustrating exercise.
Like it or not Windows 98 is not an operating system for todays
computing needs. You might have more luck clamoring for the return of
top hats and steam engines...

John

[John John (MVP)]

wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:58:48 -0300, "John John (MVP)"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Windows 98 may have been good in its time but its time is now over and
>>for all but the most devoted aficionados maintaining and getting Windows
>>98 to work properly with new hardware and software is most often an
>>exercise in futility, or at the very least a very frustrating exercise.
>> Like it or not Windows 98 is not an operating system for todays
>>computing needs. You might have more luck clamoring for the return of
>>top hats and steam engines...
>>
>>John
>
>
> I do not agree. Sure, Win98 is 10 years old, but it does everything I
> need. I run internet software, I watch movies, edit my camera photos,
> run basic office software, and more...... It works just fine. If I
> had to use XP or Vista, I'd first need a new computer. Then I'd get
> it home and stick it in the closet, while continuing to use my old
> Win98 computer, or I'd just stop using computers completely. I can't
> stand XP. Everything about it ****es me off. When the day actually
> comes that I can no longer use Win98, I will either buy a Macintosh,
> or hope that by that time there's a new OS (non-microsoft), or Linux
> developed a user friendly OS. Better yet, maybe someone will come up
> with an extension for Win98 that makes it work with the new MS
> garbage, (but I wont hold my breath). I installed Win 2000, and while
> it's not as abrasive as XP. I still disliked it. Yes, Win98 lacks
> some USB support and gets an occasional blue screen, but I'd much
> rather cope with a few minutes of hassles from time to time, than hate
> using my computer 24/7.

Sure it suits you, you are using it on an old computer with old software
and old peripherals, there is nothing wrong with that at all, if it does
what you need and if you like it I say stick with it. But if you intend
on running newer applications and if you intend on running some of the
new hardware out there you will quickly find out that Windows 98 just
doesn't cut it, even printers are becoming harder to find for Windows
98, it is not a suitable operating system for the modern computing
environment.

John

[PCR]

Bill in Co. wrote:
| PCR wrote:
|> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>> PCR wrote:
|>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>>>> DaffyD® wrote:
|>>>>> Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It
|>>>>> is so much more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the
|>>>>> admin and user
|>>>>> accounts in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.
|>>>>
|>>>> True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a
|>>>> single user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user;
|>>>> very nice and simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*.
|>>>> A very, very, lean operating system. (I think it's somewhere
|>>>> around 200 MB in total, isn't it?)
|>>>
|>>> My Windows folder is 286 folders, 5,307 files, 454,827,147 bytes.
|>>> And Program Files is 323 folders, 3,905 files, 540,817,212 bytes.
|>>
|>> Program Files doesn't count! That's by far mostly your
|>> applications in there! We were talking about the operating system!
|>>
|>> And the reason your system folder is that large is due to all those
|>> updates you added and some stuff added by some applications, no
|>> doubt.
|>>
|>> Go check out your original installation size (if you still have a
|>> copy). I still think it's around 200 MB, as I said. WITHOUT
|>> applications and "updates" being installed/
|>
|> On 2nd thought, yea, you are right, this machine came with a bunch of
|> extra packages already installed, like MS Works. The stuff I've
|> installed afterwards is all minor, though. Yea, you're likely
|> correct, but I can't check it on this machine.
|
| I think it was somewhere around 200 MB, before installing apps.
| That's pretty lean! And IIRC, WinXP is about 10 times that (about 2
| GB). But then again, WinXP is pretty damn robust by comparison, I
| do have to admit. And I bet Vista is 10 times that of WinXP!! (like
| maybe 20 GB) - ugh, forget Vista!!

Alright. I never knew the figure, so your memory must be trusted. You
are the last one apparently who even remembers that much, as looks like
Terhune has fallen into another earthquake. But who'd have thought even
200 MB would turn out to be a small number!

|>>>>> But to go back to 98SE
|>>>>> would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external
|>>>>> drive (which doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.
|>>>>
|>>>> Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always
|>>>> consider getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.
|>>>
|>>> I know you've done it. Would be nice if you could talk DaffyD®
|>>> through it!
|>>>
|>>>>> My old scanner no longer works like it
|>>>>> did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when
|>>>>> printed are practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that
|>>>>> had it been a
|>>>>> USB scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I
|>>>>> dumbly bought a parallel port scanner back then.
|>>>>>
|>>>>> But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in
|>>>>> today's hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the
|>>>>> external drive will work with whatever is released after Vista.
|>>>>
|>>>> Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows
|>>>> 2000? I'm not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps,
|>>>> anyways. Actually, I think Win98SE still has more software
|>>>> capability there (at least in this one arena).
|>>>>
|>>>> But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think.
|>>>> Like Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen :-).
|>>>
|>>> XP has crashed on you, Colorado -- well-enough for you to do
|>>> several registry restores & restore point restores & maybe even a
|>>> full backup restore or two -- you've admitted it, IIRC! I don't
|>>> care whether it gives a blue screen or an XP-irradiated sickly
|>>> green one!
|>>
|>> No, not quite accurate. (I said I got blue screens in XP???
|>> When)? But - I *have* done several registry or disk image restores
|>> in XP, but NOT due to blue screens! Those restore operations were
|>> done due to my desire to put my system back exactly as it was prior
|>> to some software installations (just to play it safe), and/or if
|>> some settings got changed that I didn't "appreciate" (and it was an
|>> easy way to get back). That's all, unless you remember something I
|>> don't. I'm still waiting for blue screens, unless you recall some I
|>> mentioned (in XP, I mean).
|>
|> No, I don't recall you said any color. But I was fairly sure you said
|> you had a crash of some kind in XP. And I strongly suspect Terhune
|> thinks so too! But "Hitchhiker's Guide" just started & I must go.
|> So, fine, I'll try to remember you never crashed yet.
|
| I have had a couple of occasions where the computer locked up and I
| had to reboot, that's all (no blue or green screens, though). But
| no restore operation was necessary - it was just due to some software
| hiccups that occurred at the same time.

Ah-- freeze-ups! That's what I was remembering, then! A freeze-up is a
lot like a crash-- don't you think!? I'm fairly sure you'd have gotten a
sickly green XP-irradiated death screen-- if it weren't frozen!

|>>>>> I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite
|>>>>> of all the Windows groups.
|>>>
|>>> Good to see you you back, DaffyD®. Maybe try for the proper drivers
|>>> as Colorado has suggested!
|>>>
|>>>>> --
|>>>>> DaffyD®
|>>>>>
|>>>>> If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.
|>>>
|>>> --
|>>> Thanks or Good Luck,
|>>> There may be humor in this post, and,
|>>> Naturally, you will not sue,
|>>> Should things get worse after this,
|>>> PCR
|>>>
|>
|> --
|> Thanks or Good Luck,
|> There may be humor in this post, and,
|> Naturally, you will not sue,
|> Should things get worse after this,
|> PCR
|>

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR

[PCR]

Bill in Co. wrote:
| wrote:
|> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 00:07:51 -0600, "Bill in Co."
|> > wrote:
|>
|>> wrote:
|>>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:10:37 -0600, "Bill in Co."
|>>> > wrote:

....snip
|>>> As for the original size of Win98. I have a fresh install zipped
|>>> up. The zip file is 80megs.
|>>> Unzipped, it's 2357 Files 161,461KB (161megs)
|>>
|>> Well, I was talking about Win98SE, which may be a bit larger. But
|>> that's
|>> pretty close, or at least in the same ballpark, anyways. :-)
|>
|> This IS for Win98SE.....
|
| Oh, ok then.
|
|> It's an original install, with IE5 and all of that.
|> I just let it run as a typical install. If I have a problem and am
|> not sure what's going on, I rename the windows folder, and unzip that
|> file to a new folder called WINDOWS, then I run it. That way I know
|> if my problem is software or hardware related.
|>
|> PS. My actual USING Windows folder with all the programs installed,
|> plus extra fonts, wallpapers, etc. is 668megs. (IE cache and cookies
|> were cleared).
|
| I forgot what mine got up to. I have it over here, but I'm too lazy
| to power it up tonite and check (I'm almost always using my newer and
| faster XP computer). :-)

Well, I feel better about my sizes now, which were...

My Windows folder is 286 folders, 5,307 files, 454,827,147 bytes.
And Program Files is 323 folders, 3,905 files, 540,817,212 bytes.

And Compaq did install some big stuff in here, like MS Works, MS
Encarta, ArcSoft PhotoPrinter, Built-In Technician, CeQuadrat, etc!

My Win98SE Options folder (holds the .cabs) is...
1,057 files, 40 folders, 236,287,224 bytes.

And, using EXTRACT /D /A to display the file names in the various .cab's
in there, here are the bottom lines...

6,014 Files 325,963,535 bytes base4.cab
413 Files 2,628,329 bytes
8 Files 16,960 bytes
31 Files 1,186,883 bytes
434 Files 11,517,232 bytes precopy1.cab

This is what produces that (plus the file names & sizes)...

EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\Base4.cab > "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt" /A
EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\Catalog3.cab >> "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt"
EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\CHL99.cab >> "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt"
EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\MINI.cab >> "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt"
EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\Precopy1.cab >>"E:\My Documents\CABS.txt" /A

Better do it exactly like that! Using "/A" where it doesn't belong seems
to get some other .cabs anyhow! Also, that is the order SFC will work on
the .cabs. If there are duplicates, it's first found that's used. (And,
if one exists in the root folder, THAT is taken.)

">" starts CABS.txt from scratch, which wipes any existing one.
">>" adds to CABS.txt, or starts it if non-existent.
Quotes are needed around LFNs (Long File Names).
Adjust locations of .cabs & destination as necessary.

Some/all files in MINI.cab have updated versions in other Win98SE .cab
files. So, I can't figure why I have that one. But SFC somehow knows to
extract for instance Keyboard.drv from WIN98_44.CAB instead of from
MINI.cab, probably because Base4.cab sorts under Mini.cab.

CHL99.cab has old but unique files. SFC does get these...
C:\>extract /d E:\Options\cabs\chl99.cab
Cabinet chl99.cab
08-21-1997 10:42:14p A--- 389 chang.cdf
08-18-1997 10:51:48a A--- 4,710 chang.ico
08-14-1997 3:35:24p A--- 1,806 chang_sl.gif
09-03-1997 5:11:28p A--- 2,714 chang_wl.gif
09-10-1997 11:50:00a A--- 4,499 chl99.inf
08-21-1997 10:38:48p A--- 227 ieupdate.cdf
08-11-1997 6:53:12p A--- 1,537 ieupdate.gif
09-10-1997 11:27:56a A--- 1,078 ieupdate.ico
8 Files 16,960 bytes

Those all exist in my system (all in C:\WINDOWS\WEB except chl99.inf in
C:\Windows\Inf), but with dates of 7/30/2001.

CATALOG3.cab is filled with 413 ".cat" files of 4/23/99 found in no
other .cab. (A find on "*.cat" doesn't find that many in my system,
mysteriously.) Precopy1.cab & Precopy2.cab also have the later dates,
but at least Command.com is duplicated in another .cab.

WARNING: DO INCLUDE "/D", which says "display only". OTHERWISE, you
will actually extract them! They will extract into the current folder.
(Then, maybe an MVP may save you, & I will be in some distant Afghan
cave, if needed!)

|>>
|>>> That's with those damn AOL, MSN, and other such files/folders
|>>> removed. I delete those things the second I get 98 installed.......
|>>> (or, wait a minute, those are installed in Program Files, so forget
|>>> that). It's 161megs.....

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR

[Bill in Co.]

wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:58:48 -0300, "John John (MVP)"
> > wrote:
>
>> Windows 98 may have been good in its time but its time is now over and
>> for all but the most devoted aficionados maintaining and getting Windows
>> 98 to work properly with new hardware and software is most often an
>> exercise in futility, or at the very least a very frustrating exercise.
>> Like it or not Windows 98 is not an operating system for todays
>> computing needs. You might have more luck clamoring for the return of
>> top hats and steam engines...
>>
>> John
>
> I do not agree. Sure, Win98 is 10 years old, but it does everything I
> need. I run internet software, I watch movies, edit my camera photos,
> run basic office software, and more...... It works just fine. If I
> had to use XP or Vista, I'd first need a new computer. Then I'd get
> it home and stick it in the closet, while continuing to use my old
> Win98 computer, or I'd just stop using computers completely. I can't
> stand XP. Everything about it ****es me off. When the day actually
> comes that I can no longer use Win98, I will either buy a Macintosh,
> or hope that by that time there's a new OS (non-microsoft), or Linux
> developed a user friendly OS. Better yet, maybe someone will come up
> with an extension for Win98 that makes it work with the new MS
> garbage, (but I wont hold my breath). I installed Win 2000, and while
> it's not as abrasive as XP.

What exactly do you find "abrasive" about WinXP? Like you, I loved
(actually still do, to some extent) Win98SE, but I've tailored WinXP to look
like Win98SE (and that CAN be done - believe it or not). But the only
thing missing is the stuff we've talked about; the complexities "under the
hood" make messin with it at a lower level (like down in DOS, etc),
difficult. You have to give up some of that control. But OTOH, you get a
lot in return. Actually, if you want an operating system that can be
almost totally under your complete control, and where you can monitor nearly
everything, to the nth degree, we'd probably have to go back to DOS. :-)
But yeah, Win3.1, Win95, and Win98SE are to some extent in that league too.

> I still disliked it. Yes, Win98 lacks
> some USB support and gets an occasional blue screen, but I'd much
> rather cope with a few minutes of hassles from time to time, than hate
> using my computer 24/7.

[Bill in Co.]

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> PCR wrote:
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>> DaffyD® wrote:
>>>>>>> Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It
>>>>>>> is so much more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the
>>>>>>> admin and user
>>>>>>> accounts in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a
>>>>>> single user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user;
>>>>>> very nice and simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*.
>>>>>> A very, very, lean operating system. (I think it's somewhere
>>>>>> around 200 MB in total, isn't it?)
>>>>>
>>>>> My Windows folder is 286 folders, 5,307 files, 454,827,147 bytes.
>>>>> And Program Files is 323 folders, 3,905 files, 540,817,212 bytes.
>>>>
>>>> Program Files doesn't count! That's by far mostly your
>>>> applications in there! We were talking about the operating system!
>>>>
>>>> And the reason your system folder is that large is due to all those
>>>> updates you added and some stuff added by some applications, no
>>>> doubt.
>>>>
>>>> Go check out your original installation size (if you still have a
>>>> copy). I still think it's around 200 MB, as I said. WITHOUT
>>>> applications and "updates" being installed/
>>>
>>> On 2nd thought, yea, you are right, this machine came with a bunch of
>>> extra packages already installed, like MS Works. The stuff I've
>>> installed afterwards is all minor, though. Yea, you're likely
>>> correct, but I can't check it on this machine.
>>
>> I think it was somewhere around 200 MB, before installing apps.
>> That's pretty lean! And IIRC, WinXP is about 10 times that (about 2
>> GB). But then again, WinXP is pretty damn robust by comparison, I
>> do have to admit. And I bet Vista is 10 times that of WinXP!! (like
>> maybe 20 GB) - ugh, forget Vista!!
>
> Alright. I never knew the figure, so your memory must be trusted. You
> are the last one apparently who even remembers that much, as looks like
> Terhune has fallen into another earthquake. But who'd have thought even
> 200 MB would turn out to be a small number!
>
>>>>>>> But to go back to 98SE
>>>>>>> would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external
>>>>>>> drive (which doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always
>>>>>> consider getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know you've done it. Would be nice if you could talk DaffyD®
>>>>> through it!
>>>>>
>>>>>>> My old scanner no longer works like it
>>>>>>> did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when
>>>>>>> printed are practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that
>>>>>>> had it been a
>>>>>>> USB scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I
>>>>>>> dumbly bought a parallel port scanner back then.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in
>>>>>>> today's hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the
>>>>>>> external drive will work with whatever is released after Vista.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows
>>>>>> 2000? I'm not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps,
>>>>>> anyways. Actually, I think Win98SE still has more software
>>>>>> capability there (at least in this one arena).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think.
>>>>>> Like Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen :-).
>>>>>
>>>>> XP has crashed on you, Colorado -- well-enough for you to do
>>>>> several registry restores & restore point restores & maybe even a
>>>>> full backup restore or two -- you've admitted it, IIRC! I don't
>>>>> care whether it gives a blue screen or an XP-irradiated sickly
>>>>> green one!
>>>>
>>>> No, not quite accurate. (I said I got blue screens in XP???
>>>> When)? But - I *have* done several registry or disk image restores
>>>> in XP, but NOT due to blue screens! Those restore operations were
>>>> done due to my desire to put my system back exactly as it was prior
>>>> to some software installations (just to play it safe), and/or if
>>>> some settings got changed that I didn't "appreciate" (and it was an
>>>> easy way to get back). That's all, unless you remember something I
>>>> don't. I'm still waiting for blue screens, unless you recall some I
>>>> mentioned (in XP, I mean).
>>>
>>> No, I don't recall you said any color. But I was fairly sure you said
>>> you had a crash of some kind in XP. And I strongly suspect Terhune
>>> thinks so too! But "Hitchhiker's Guide" just started & I must go.
>>> So, fine, I'll try to remember you never crashed yet.
>>
>> I have had a couple of occasions where the computer locked up and I
>> had to reboot, that's all (no blue or green screens, though). But
>> no restore operation was necessary - it was just due to some software
>> hiccups that occurred at the same time.
>
> Ah-- freeze-ups! That's what I was remembering, then! A freeze-up is a
> lot like a crash-- don't you think!?

No. Not exactly.

> I'm fairly sure you'd have gotten a
> sickly green XP-irradiated death screen-- if it weren't frozen!

LOL. But I'm not so sure. The thing is, I think a blue screen is
potentially more serious. Like in some cases, you have to fix some VxD
thing, or whatever. And that NEVER happened here, with those couple of
"lockups". Just rebooting was always enough. And you can't say the same
thing about (many) blue screens.

>>>>>>> I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite
>>>>>>> of all the Windows groups.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good to see you you back, DaffyD®. Maybe try for the proper drivers
>>>>> as Colorado has suggested!
>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> DaffyD®
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Thanks or Good Luck,
>>>>> There may be humor in this post, and,
>>>>> Naturally, you will not sue,
>>>>> Should things get worse after this,
>>>>> PCR
>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks or Good Luck,
>>> There may be humor in this post, and,
>>> Naturally, you will not sue,
>>> Should things get worse after this,
>>> PCR
>>>
>
> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> Should things get worse after this,
> PCR
>

[Bill in Co.]

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 00:07:51 -0600, "Bill in Co."
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:10:37 -0600, "Bill in Co."
>>>>> > wrote:
>
> ...snip
>>>>> As for the original size of Win98. I have a fresh install zipped
>>>>> up. The zip file is 80megs.
>>>>> Unzipped, it's 2357 Files 161,461KB (161megs)
>>>>
>>>> Well, I was talking about Win98SE, which may be a bit larger. But
>>>> that's pretty close, or at least in the same ballpark, anyways. :-)
>>>
>>> This IS for Win98SE.....
>>
>> Oh, ok then.
>>
>>> It's an original install, with IE5 and all of that.
>>> I just let it run as a typical install. If I have a problem and am
>>> not sure what's going on, I rename the windows folder, and unzip that
>>> file to a new folder called WINDOWS, then I run it. That way I know
>>> if my problem is software or hardware related.
>>>
>>> PS. My actual USING Windows folder with all the programs installed,
>>> plus extra fonts, wallpapers, etc. is 668megs. (IE cache and cookies
>>> were cleared).
>>
>> I forgot what mine got up to. I have it over here, but I'm too lazy
>> to power it up tonite and check (I'm almost always using my newer and
>> faster XP computer). :-)
>
> Well, I feel better about my sizes now, which were...
>
> My Windows folder is 286 folders, 5,307 files, 454,827,147 bytes.
> And Program Files is 323 folders, 3,905 files, 540,817,212 bytes.
>
> And Compaq did install some big stuff in here, like MS Works, MS
> Encarta, ArcSoft PhotoPrinter, Built-In Technician, CeQuadrat, etc!
>
> My Win98SE Options folder (holds the .cabs) is...
> 1,057 files, 40 folders, 236,287,224 bytes.

No, but the point was, that a clean install of Windows 98SE took up only
about 200 MB of disk space *in total*! You're way over that, due to the
installation of programs. We're NOT really talking about that cabs folder,
although undoubtedly there is some relation between the two things.



> And, using EXTRACT /D /A to display the file names in the various .cab's
> in there, here are the bottom lines...
>
> 6,014 Files 325,963,535 bytes base4.cab
> 413 Files 2,628,329 bytes
> 8 Files 16,960 bytes
> 31 Files 1,186,883 bytes
> 434 Files 11,517,232 bytes precopy1.cab
>
> This is what produces that (plus the file names & sizes)...
>
> EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\Base4.cab > "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt" /A
> EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\Catalog3.cab >> "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt"
> EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\CHL99.cab >> "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt"
> EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\MINI.cab >> "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt"
> EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\Precopy1.cab >>"E:\My Documents\CABS.txt" /A
>
> Better do it exactly like that! Using "/A" where it doesn't belong seems
> to get some other .cabs anyhow! Also, that is the order SFC will work on
> the .cabs. If there are duplicates, it's first found that's used. (And,
> if one exists in the root folder, THAT is taken.)
>
> ">" starts CABS.txt from scratch, which wipes any existing one.
> ">>" adds to CABS.txt, or starts it if non-existent.
> Quotes are needed around LFNs (Long File Names).
> Adjust locations of .cabs & destination as necessary.
>
> Some/all files in MINI.cab have updated versions in other Win98SE .cab
> files. So, I can't figure why I have that one. But SFC somehow knows to
> extract for instance Keyboard.drv from WIN98_44.CAB instead of from
> MINI.cab, probably because Base4.cab sorts under Mini.cab.
>
> CHL99.cab has old but unique files. SFC does get these...
> C:\>extract /d E:\Options\cabs\chl99.cab
> Cabinet chl99.cab
> 08-21-1997 10:42:14p A--- 389 chang.cdf
> 08-18-1997 10:51:48a A--- 4,710 chang.ico
> 08-14-1997 3:35:24p A--- 1,806 chang_sl.gif
> 09-03-1997 5:11:28p A--- 2,714 chang_wl.gif
> 09-10-1997 11:50:00a A--- 4,499 chl99.inf
> 08-21-1997 10:38:48p A--- 227 ieupdate.cdf
> 08-11-1997 6:53:12p A--- 1,537 ieupdate.gif
> 09-10-1997 11:27:56a A--- 1,078 ieupdate.ico
> 8 Files 16,960 bytes
>
> Those all exist in my system (all in C:\WINDOWS\WEB except chl99.inf in
> C:\Windows\Inf), but with dates of 7/30/2001.
>
> CATALOG3.cab is filled with 413 ".cat" files of 4/23/99 found in no
> other .cab. (A find on "*.cat" doesn't find that many in my system,
> mysteriously.) Precopy1.cab & Precopy2.cab also have the later dates,
> but at least Command.com is duplicated in another .cab.
>
> WARNING: DO INCLUDE "/D", which says "display only". OTHERWISE, you
> will actually extract them! They will extract into the current folder.
> (Then, maybe an MVP may save you, & I will be in some distant Afghan
> cave, if needed!)
>
>>>>
>>>>> That's with those damn AOL, MSN, and other such files/folders
>>>>> removed. I delete those things the second I get 98 installed.......
>>>>> (or, wait a minute, those are installed in Program Files, so forget
>>>>> that). It's 161megs.....
>
> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> Should things get worse after this,
> PCR
>

[philo]

"DaffyD®" > wrote in message
...
> Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is so
much
> more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and user
accounts
> in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find. But to go back to
98SE
> would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive (which
> doesn't work with 98) as a bookend. My old scanner no longer works like it
> did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when printed
are
> practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a USB
> scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I dumbly bought
a
> parallel port scanner back then.
>
> But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in today's
> hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the external drive will
> work with whatever is released after Vista.
>
> I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of all
the
> Windows groups.



I'm sure that it will not take you all that long to get used to Win2k.

The fact that your scanner is parallel port should not make it unusable...
there should be an adjustment for the quality that you use to scan...
it may simply be set too low by default.

Since your scanner is at least detected and installed,
it may be a function of the software you are using to import images.

You may want to try the free image viewer Irfanview
and use the import function and specify your scanner...
then see if you can adjust the image quality.

100 - 150 dpi should give you good results

[PCR]

Bill in Co. wrote:
| PCR wrote:
|> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>> PCR wrote:
|>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>>>> PCR wrote:
|>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>>>>>> DaffyD® wrote:
|>>>>>>> Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back.
|>>>>>>> It is so much more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate
|>>>>>>> the admin and user
|>>>>>>> accounts in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.
|>>>>>>
|>>>>>> True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a
|>>>>>> single user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user;
|>>>>>> very nice and simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*.
|>>>>>> A very, very, lean operating system. (I think it's somewhere
|>>>>>> around 200 MB in total, isn't it?)
|>>>>>
|>>>>> My Windows folder is 286 folders, 5,307 files, 454,827,147 bytes.
|>>>>> And Program Files is 323 folders, 3,905 files, 540,817,212
|>>>>> bytes.
|>>>>
|>>>> Program Files doesn't count! That's by far mostly your
|>>>> applications in there! We were talking about the operating
|>>>> system!
|>>>>
|>>>> And the reason your system folder is that large is due to all
|>>>> those updates you added and some stuff added by some
|>>>> applications, no doubt.
|>>>>
|>>>> Go check out your original installation size (if you still have a
|>>>> copy). I still think it's around 200 MB, as I said. WITHOUT
|>>>> applications and "updates" being installed/
|>>>
|>>> On 2nd thought, yea, you are right, this machine came with a bunch
|>>> of extra packages already installed, like MS Works. The stuff I've
|>>> installed afterwards is all minor, though. Yea, you're likely
|>>> correct, but I can't check it on this machine.
|>>
|>> I think it was somewhere around 200 MB, before installing apps.
|>> That's pretty lean! And IIRC, WinXP is about 10 times that (about
|>> 2 GB). But then again, WinXP is pretty damn robust by comparison,
|>> I do have to admit. And I bet Vista is 10 times that of WinXP!!
|>> (like maybe 20 GB) - ugh, forget Vista!!
|>
|> Alright. I never knew the figure, so your memory must be trusted. You
|> are the last one apparently who even remembers that much, as looks
|> like Terhune has fallen into another earthquake. But who'd have
|> thought even 200 MB would turn out to be a small number!
|>
|>>>>>>> But to go back to 98SE
|>>>>>>> would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external
|>>>>>>> drive (which doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.
|>>>>>>
|>>>>>> Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always
|>>>>>> consider getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.
|>>>>>
|>>>>> I know you've done it. Would be nice if you could talk DaffyD®
|>>>>> through it!
|>>>>>
|>>>>>>> My old scanner no longer works like it
|>>>>>>> did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when
|>>>>>>> printed are practically illegible. The frustrating thing is
|>>>>>>> that had it been a
|>>>>>>> USB scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but
|>>>>>>> I dumbly bought a parallel port scanner back then.
|>>>>>>>
|>>>>>>> But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited
|>>>>>>> in today's hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that
|>>>>>>> the external drive will work with whatever is released after
|>>>>>>> Vista.
|>>>>>>
|>>>>>> Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows
|>>>>>> 2000? I'm not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia
|>>>>>> apps, anyways. Actually, I think Win98SE still has more software
|>>>>>> capability there (at least in this one arena).
|>>>>>>
|>>>>>> But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think.
|>>>>>> Like Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen :-).
|>>>>>
|>>>>> XP has crashed on you, Colorado -- well-enough for you to do
|>>>>> several registry restores & restore point restores & maybe even a
|>>>>> full backup restore or two -- you've admitted it, IIRC! I don't
|>>>>> care whether it gives a blue screen or an XP-irradiated sickly
|>>>>> green one!
|>>>>
|>>>> No, not quite accurate. (I said I got blue screens in XP???
|>>>> When)? But - I *have* done several registry or disk image restores
|>>>> in XP, but NOT due to blue screens! Those restore operations
|>>>> were done due to my desire to put my system back exactly as it
|>>>> was prior to some software installations (just to play it safe),
|>>>> and/or if some settings got changed that I didn't "appreciate"
|>>>> (and it was an easy way to get back). That's all, unless you
|>>>> remember something I don't. I'm still waiting for blue screens,
|>>>> unless you recall some I mentioned (in XP, I mean).
|>>>
|>>> No, I don't recall you said any color. But I was fairly sure you
|>>> said you had a crash of some kind in XP. And I strongly suspect
|>>> Terhune thinks so too! But "Hitchhiker's Guide" just started & I
|>>> must go. So, fine, I'll try to remember you never crashed yet.
|>>
|>> I have had a couple of occasions where the computer locked up and I
|>> had to reboot, that's all (no blue or green screens, though). But
|>> no restore operation was necessary - it was just due to some
|>> software hiccups that occurred at the same time.
|>
|> Ah-- freeze-ups! That's what I was remembering, then! A freeze-up is
|> a lot like a crash-- don't you think!?
|
| No. Not exactly.
|
|> I'm fairly sure you'd have gotten a
|> sickly green XP-irradiated death screen-- if it weren't frozen!
|
| LOL. But I'm not so sure. The thing is, I think a blue screen is
| potentially more serious. Like in some cases, you have to fix some
| VxD thing, or whatever. And that NEVER happened here, with those
| couple of "lockups". Just rebooting was always enough. And you
| can't say the same thing about (many) blue screens.

I can't quite recall I've ever had to replace a .vxd of my own after a
BSOD. It normally is just a reboot & the auto-scanreg that fixed them--
not that I've had any in quite a while! I've certainly had more freezes
myself than BSODs. And those were due to the McAfee scan engine going
bad &/or the mouse going bad. Those have been replaced & I hardly freeze
at all now.

Oh, all right, fine -- since you've seen both OS & I haven't much-- I'll
stop arguing the issue whether XP will crash as bad as Win98SE. Good
luck with it, really.

|>>>>>>> I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my
|>>>>>>> favorite of all the Windows groups.
|>>>>>
|>>>>> Good to see you you back, DaffyD®. Maybe try for the proper
|>>>>> drivers as Colorado has suggested!
|>>>>>
|>>>>>>> --
|>>>>>>> DaffyD®
|>>>>>>>
|>>>>>>> If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.

....snip
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR

[PCR]

Bill in Co. wrote:
| PCR wrote:
|> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>> wrote:
|>>> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 00:07:51 -0600, "Bill in Co."
|>>> > wrote:
|>>>
|>>>> wrote:
|>>>>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:10:37 -0600, "Bill in Co."
|>>>>> > wrote:
|>
|> ...snip
|>>>>> As for the original size of Win98. I have a fresh install zipped
|>>>>> up. The zip file is 80megs.
|>>>>> Unzipped, it's 2357 Files 161,461KB (161megs)
|>>>>
|>>>> Well, I was talking about Win98SE, which may be a bit larger.
|>>>> But that's pretty close, or at least in the same ballpark,
|>>>> anyways. :-)
|>>>
|>>> This IS for Win98SE.....
|>>
|>> Oh, ok then.
|>>
|>>> It's an original install, with IE5 and all of that.
|>>> I just let it run as a typical install. If I have a problem and am
|>>> not sure what's going on, I rename the windows folder, and unzip
|>>> that file to a new folder called WINDOWS, then I run it. That way
|>>> I know if my problem is software or hardware related.
|>>>
|>>> PS. My actual USING Windows folder with all the programs installed,
|>>> plus extra fonts, wallpapers, etc. is 668megs. (IE cache and
|>>> cookies were cleared).
|>>
|>> I forgot what mine got up to. I have it over here, but I'm too
|>> lazy to power it up tonite and check (I'm almost always using my
|>> newer and faster XP computer). :-)
|>
|> Well, I feel better about my sizes now, which were...
|>
|> My Windows folder is 286 folders, 5,307 files, 454,827,147 bytes.
|> And Program Files is 323 folders, 3,905 files, 540,817,212 bytes.
|>
|> And Compaq did install some big stuff in here, like MS Works, MS
|> Encarta, ArcSoft PhotoPrinter, Built-In Technician, CeQuadrat, etc!
|>
|> My Win98SE Options folder (holds the .cabs) is...
|> 1,057 files, 40 folders, 236,287,224 bytes.
|
| No, but the point was, that a clean install of Windows 98SE took up
| only about 200 MB of disk space *in total*! You're way over that,
| due to the installation of programs. We're NOT really talking about
| that cabs folder, although undoubtedly there is some relation between
| the two things.

I guess it depends on the options selected during the install. The .cabs
prove Win98SE can get bigger, if more of the files are extracted.
Really, you need to count Windows Updates (never mind-- I know!),
Program Files, & indispensable apps too, like maybe MS Works. But your
point is good that XP is bloated by comparison, & Vista is worse!

|> And, using EXTRACT /D /A to display the file names in the various
|> .cab's in there, here are the bottom lines...
|>
|> 6,014 Files 325,963,535 bytes base4.cab
|> 413 Files 2,628,329 bytes
|> 8 Files 16,960 bytes
|> 31 Files 1,186,883 bytes
|> 434 Files 11,517,232 bytes precopy1.cab
|>
|> This is what produces that (plus the file names & sizes)...
|>
|> EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\Base4.cab > "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt" /A
|> EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\Catalog3.cab >> "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt"
|> EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\CHL99.cab >> "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt"
|> EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\MINI.cab >> "E:\My
|> Documents\CABS.txt" EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\Precopy1.cab >>"E:\My
|> Documents\CABS.txt" /A
|>
|> Better do it exactly like that! Using "/A" where it doesn't belong
|> seems to get some other .cabs anyhow! Also, that is the order SFC
|> will work on the .cabs. If there are duplicates, it's first found
|> that's used. (And, if one exists in the root folder, THAT is taken.)
|>
|> ">" starts CABS.txt from scratch, which wipes any existing one.
|> ">>" adds to CABS.txt, or starts it if non-existent.
|> Quotes are needed around LFNs (Long File Names).
|> Adjust locations of .cabs & destination as necessary.
|>
|> Some/all files in MINI.cab have updated versions in other Win98SE
|> .cab files. So, I can't figure why I have that one. But SFC somehow
|> knows to extract for instance Keyboard.drv from WIN98_44.CAB instead
|> of from MINI.cab, probably because Base4.cab sorts under Mini.cab.
|>
|> CHL99.cab has old but unique files. SFC does get these...
|> C:\>extract /d E:\Options\cabs\chl99.cab
|> Cabinet chl99.cab
|> 08-21-1997 10:42:14p A--- 389 chang.cdf
|> 08-18-1997 10:51:48a A--- 4,710 chang.ico
|> 08-14-1997 3:35:24p A--- 1,806 chang_sl.gif
|> 09-03-1997 5:11:28p A--- 2,714 chang_wl.gif
|> 09-10-1997 11:50:00a A--- 4,499 chl99.inf
|> 08-21-1997 10:38:48p A--- 227 ieupdate.cdf
|> 08-11-1997 6:53:12p A--- 1,537 ieupdate.gif
|> 09-10-1997 11:27:56a A--- 1,078 ieupdate.ico
|> 8 Files 16,960 bytes
|>
|> Those all exist in my system (all in C:\WINDOWS\WEB except chl99.inf
|> in C:\Windows\Inf), but with dates of 7/30/2001.
|>
|> CATALOG3.cab is filled with 413 ".cat" files of 4/23/99 found in no
|> other .cab. (A find on "*.cat" doesn't find that many in my system,
|> mysteriously.) Precopy1.cab & Precopy2.cab also have the later dates,
|> but at least Command.com is duplicated in another .cab.
|>
|> WARNING: DO INCLUDE "/D", which says "display only". OTHERWISE, you
|> will actually extract them! They will extract into the current
|> folder. (Then, maybe an MVP may save you, & I will be in some
|> distant Afghan cave, if needed!)
|>
|>>>>
|>>>>> That's with those damn AOL, MSN, and other such files/folders
|>>>>> removed. I delete those things the second I get 98
|>>>>> installed....... (or, wait a minute, those are installed in
|>>>>> Program Files, so forget that). It's 161megs.....
|>
|> --
|> Thanks or Good Luck,
|> There may be humor in this post, and,
|> Naturally, you will not sue,
|> Should things get worse after this,
|> PCR
|>

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR

[Bill in Co.]

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> PCR wrote:
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>>>> DaffyD® wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back.
>>>>>>>>> It is so much more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate
>>>>>>>>> the admin and user
>>>>>>>>> accounts in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a
>>>>>>>> single user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user;
>>>>>>>> very nice and simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*.
>>>>>>>> A very, very, lean operating system. (I think it's somewhere
>>>>>>>> around 200 MB in total, isn't it?)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My Windows folder is 286 folders, 5,307 files, 454,827,147 bytes.
>>>>>>> And Program Files is 323 folders, 3,905 files, 540,817,212
>>>>>>> bytes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Program Files doesn't count! That's by far mostly your
>>>>>> applications in there! We were talking about the operating
>>>>>> system!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the reason your system folder is that large is due to all
>>>>>> those updates you added and some stuff added by some
>>>>>> applications, no doubt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Go check out your original installation size (if you still have a
>>>>>> copy). I still think it's around 200 MB, as I said. WITHOUT
>>>>>> applications and "updates" being installed/
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2nd thought, yea, you are right, this machine came with a bunch
>>>>> of extra packages already installed, like MS Works. The stuff I've
>>>>> installed afterwards is all minor, though. Yea, you're likely
>>>>> correct, but I can't check it on this machine.
>>>>
>>>> I think it was somewhere around 200 MB, before installing apps.
>>>> That's pretty lean! And IIRC, WinXP is about 10 times that (about
>>>> 2 GB). But then again, WinXP is pretty damn robust by comparison,
>>>> I do have to admit. And I bet Vista is 10 times that of WinXP!!
>>>> (like maybe 20 GB) - ugh, forget Vista!!
>>>
>>> Alright. I never knew the figure, so your memory must be trusted. You
>>> are the last one apparently who even remembers that much, as looks
>>> like Terhune has fallen into another earthquake. But who'd have
>>> thought even 200 MB would turn out to be a small number!
>>>
>>>>>>>>> But to go back to 98SE
>>>>>>>>> would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external
>>>>>>>>> drive (which doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always
>>>>>>>> consider getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know you've done it. Would be nice if you could talk DaffyD®
>>>>>>> through it!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My old scanner no longer works like it
>>>>>>>>> did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when
>>>>>>>>> printed are practically illegible. The frustrating thing is
>>>>>>>>> that had it been a
>>>>>>>>> USB scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but
>>>>>>>>> I dumbly bought a parallel port scanner back then.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited
>>>>>>>>> in today's hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that
>>>>>>>>> the external drive will work with whatever is released after
>>>>>>>>> Vista.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows
>>>>>>>> 2000? I'm not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia
>>>>>>>> apps, anyways. Actually, I think Win98SE still has more software
>>>>>>>> capability there (at least in this one arena).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think.
>>>>>>>> Like Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen :-).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> XP has crashed on you, Colorado -- well-enough for you to do
>>>>>>> several registry restores & restore point restores & maybe even a
>>>>>>> full backup restore or two -- you've admitted it, IIRC! I don't
>>>>>>> care whether it gives a blue screen or an XP-irradiated sickly
>>>>>>> green one!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, not quite accurate. (I said I got blue screens in XP???
>>>>>> When)? But - I *have* done several registry or disk image restores
>>>>>> in XP, but NOT due to blue screens! Those restore operations
>>>>>> were done due to my desire to put my system back exactly as it
>>>>>> was prior to some software installations (just to play it safe),
>>>>>> and/or if some settings got changed that I didn't "appreciate"
>>>>>> (and it was an easy way to get back). That's all, unless you
>>>>>> remember something I don't. I'm still waiting for blue screens,
>>>>>> unless you recall some I mentioned (in XP, I mean).
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I don't recall you said any color. But I was fairly sure you
>>>>> said you had a crash of some kind in XP. And I strongly suspect
>>>>> Terhune thinks so too! But "Hitchhiker's Guide" just started & I
>>>>> must go. So, fine, I'll try to remember you never crashed yet.
>>>>
>>>> I have had a couple of occasions where the computer locked up and I
>>>> had to reboot, that's all (no blue or green screens, though). But
>>>> no restore operation was necessary - it was just due to some
>>>> software hiccups that occurred at the same time.
>>>
>>> Ah-- freeze-ups! That's what I was remembering, then! A freeze-up is
>>> a lot like a crash-- don't you think!?
>>
>> No. Not exactly.
>>
>>> I'm fairly sure you'd have gotten a
>>> sickly green XP-irradiated death screen-- if it weren't frozen!
>>
>> LOL. But I'm not so sure. The thing is, I think a blue screen is
>> potentially more serious. Like in some cases, you have to fix some
>> VxD thing, or whatever. And that NEVER happened here, with those
>> couple of "lockups". Just rebooting was always enough. And you
>> can't say the same thing about (many) blue screens.
>
> I can't quite recall I've ever had to replace a .vxd of my own after a
> BSOD. It normally is just a reboot & the auto-scanreg that fixed them--
> not that I've had any in quite a while!

Well, I can't remember what happened for all the blue screens, and I don't
recall now specifically replacing a VxD, come to think of it. But I do
seem to recall having to do a scanreg /restore operation on at least some of
those occasions, but it's been so long ago....

> I've certainly had more freezes
> myself than BSODs. And those were due to the McAfee scan engine going
> bad &/or the mouse going bad. Those have been replaced & I hardly freeze
> at all now.
>
> Oh, all right, fine -- since you've seen both OS & I haven't much-- I'll
> stop arguing the issue whether XP will crash as bad as Win98SE. Good
> luck with it, really.

I'm telling ya straight out, PCR, there is just NO comparison in that regard
(and this comes from a guy who still likes 98SE and DOS!, and actually
misses a few things there!). But you do have to give up some control (like
when looking under the hood), as I mentioned in that other post. (But it
is my second computer, and still gets some use).

>>>>>>>>> I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my
>>>>>>>>> favorite of all the Windows groups.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good to see you you back, DaffyD®. Maybe try for the proper
>>>>>>> drivers as Colorado has suggested!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> DaffyD®
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.
>
> ...snip
> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> Should things get worse after this,
> PCR
>

[Bill in Co.]

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> PCR wrote:
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 00:07:51 -0600, "Bill in Co."
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:10:37 -0600, "Bill in Co."
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> ...snip
>>>>>>> As for the original size of Win98. I have a fresh install zipped
>>>>>>> up. The zip file is 80megs.
>>>>>>> Unzipped, it's 2357 Files 161,461KB (161megs)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I was talking about Win98SE, which may be a bit larger.
>>>>>> But that's pretty close, or at least in the same ballpark,
>>>>>> anyways. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> This IS for Win98SE.....
>>>>
>>>> Oh, ok then.
>>>>
>>>>> It's an original install, with IE5 and all of that.
>>>>> I just let it run as a typical install. If I have a problem and am
>>>>> not sure what's going on, I rename the windows folder, and unzip
>>>>> that file to a new folder called WINDOWS, then I run it. That way
>>>>> I know if my problem is software or hardware related.
>>>>>
>>>>> PS. My actual USING Windows folder with all the programs installed,
>>>>> plus extra fonts, wallpapers, etc. is 668megs. (IE cache and
>>>>> cookies were cleared).
>>>>
>>>> I forgot what mine got up to. I have it over here, but I'm too
>>>> lazy to power it up tonite and check (I'm almost always using my
>>>> newer and faster XP computer). :-)
>>>
>>> Well, I feel better about my sizes now, which were...
>>>
>>> My Windows folder is 286 folders, 5,307 files, 454,827,147 bytes.
>>> And Program Files is 323 folders, 3,905 files, 540,817,212 bytes.
>>>
>>> And Compaq did install some big stuff in here, like MS Works, MS
>>> Encarta, ArcSoft PhotoPrinter, Built-In Technician, CeQuadrat, etc!
>>>
>>> My Win98SE Options folder (holds the .cabs) is...
>>> 1,057 files, 40 folders, 236,287,224 bytes.
>>
>> No, but the point was, that a clean install of Windows 98SE took up
>> only about 200 MB of disk space *in total*! You're way over that,
>> due to the installation of programs. We're NOT really talking about
>> that cabs folder, although undoubtedly there is some relation between
>> the two things.
>
> I guess it depends on the options selected during the install. The .cabs
> prove Win98SE can get bigger, if more of the files are extracted.
> Really, you need to count Windows Updates (never mind-- I know!),

FORGET THAT!!!

> Program Files, & indispensable apps too, like maybe MS Works.

But you can't count that for an objective comparison of the *operating
system*, (otherwise the comparison figures would be "all over the map").
Just the operating system and the normally installed option of *its
accessories*. (Not MS Works, etc)

> But your point is good that XP is bloated by comparison, & Vista is worse!

Vista????? What is Vista?? LOL.

>>> And, using EXTRACT /D /A to display the file names in the various
>>> .cab's in there, here are the bottom lines...
>>>
>>> 6,014 Files 325,963,535 bytes base4.cab
>>> 413 Files 2,628,329 bytes
>>> 8 Files 16,960 bytes
>>> 31 Files 1,186,883 bytes
>>> 434 Files 11,517,232 bytes precopy1.cab
>>>
>>> This is what produces that (plus the file names & sizes)...
>>>
>>> EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\Base4.cab > "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt" /A
>>> EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\Catalog3.cab >> "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt"
>>> EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\CHL99.cab >> "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt"
>>> EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\MINI.cab >> "E:\My
>>> Documents\CABS.txt" EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\Precopy1.cab >>"E:\My
>>> Documents\CABS.txt" /A
>>>
>>> Better do it exactly like that! Using "/A" where it doesn't belong
>>> seems to get some other .cabs anyhow! Also, that is the order SFC
>>> will work on the .cabs. If there are duplicates, it's first found
>>> that's used. (And, if one exists in the root folder, THAT is taken.)
>>>
>>> ">" starts CABS.txt from scratch, which wipes any existing one.
>>> ">>" adds to CABS.txt, or starts it if non-existent.
>>> Quotes are needed around LFNs (Long File Names).
>>> Adjust locations of .cabs & destination as necessary.
>>>
>>> Some/all files in MINI.cab have updated versions in other Win98SE
>>> .cab files. So, I can't figure why I have that one. But SFC somehow
>>> knows to extract for instance Keyboard.drv from WIN98_44.CAB instead
>>> of from MINI.cab, probably because Base4.cab sorts under Mini.cab.
>>>
>>> CHL99.cab has old but unique files. SFC does get these...
>>> C:\>extract /d E:\Options\cabs\chl99.cab
>>> Cabinet chl99.cab
>>> 08-21-1997 10:42:14p A--- 389 chang.cdf
>>> 08-18-1997 10:51:48a A--- 4,710 chang.ico
>>> 08-14-1997 3:35:24p A--- 1,806 chang_sl.gif
>>> 09-03-1997 5:11:28p A--- 2,714 chang_wl.gif
>>> 09-10-1997 11:50:00a A--- 4,499 chl99.inf
>>> 08-21-1997 10:38:48p A--- 227 ieupdate.cdf
>>> 08-11-1997 6:53:12p A--- 1,537 ieupdate.gif
>>> 09-10-1997 11:27:56a A--- 1,078 ieupdate.ico
>>> 8 Files 16,960 bytes
>>>
>>> Those all exist in my system (all in C:\WINDOWS\WEB except chl99.inf
>>> in C:\Windows\Inf), but with dates of 7/30/2001.
>>>
>>> CATALOG3.cab is filled with 413 ".cat" files of 4/23/99 found in no
>>> other .cab. (A find on "*.cat" doesn't find that many in my system,
>>> mysteriously.) Precopy1.cab & Precopy2.cab also have the later dates,
>>> but at least Command.com is duplicated in another .cab.
>>>
>>> WARNING: DO INCLUDE "/D", which says "display only". OTHERWISE, you
>>> will actually extract them! They will extract into the current
>>> folder. (Then, maybe an MVP may save you, & I will be in some
>>> distant Afghan cave, if needed!)
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's with those damn AOL, MSN, and other such files/folders
>>>>>>> removed. I delete those things the second I get 98
>>>>>>> installed....... (or, wait a minute, those are installed in
>>>>>>> Program Files, so forget that). It's 161megs.....
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks or Good Luck,
>>> There may be humor in this post, and,
>>> Naturally, you will not sue,
>>> Should things get worse after this,
>>> PCR
>>>
>
> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> Should things get worse after this,
> PCR
>

[PCR]

Bill in Co. wrote:
| PCR wrote:
|> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>> PCR wrote:
|>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>>>> PCR wrote:
|>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>>>>>> PCR wrote:
|>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>>>>>>>> DaffyD® wrote:
|>>>>>>>>> Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE
|>>>>>>>>> back. It is so much more user friendly and simpler in
|>>>>>>>>> design. I hate the admin and user
|>>>>>>>>> accounts in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.
|>>>>>>>>
|>>>>>>>> True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE
|>>>>>>>> (for a single user, I mean). Setup by design just for a
|>>>>>>>> single user; very nice and simple, and easy to keep track of
|>>>>>>>> *everything*.
|>>>>>>>> A very, very, lean operating system. (I think it's somewhere
|>>>>>>>> around 200 MB in total, isn't it?)
|>>>>>>>
|>>>>>>> My Windows folder is 286 folders, 5,307 files, 454,827,147
|>>>>>>> bytes. And Program Files is 323 folders, 3,905 files,
|>>>>>>> 540,817,212 bytes.
|>>>>>>
|>>>>>> Program Files doesn't count! That's by far mostly your
|>>>>>> applications in there! We were talking about the operating
|>>>>>> system!
|>>>>>>
|>>>>>> And the reason your system folder is that large is due to all
|>>>>>> those updates you added and some stuff added by some
|>>>>>> applications, no doubt.
|>>>>>>
|>>>>>> Go check out your original installation size (if you still have
|>>>>>> a copy). I still think it's around 200 MB, as I said.
|>>>>>> WITHOUT applications and "updates" being installed/
|>>>>>
|>>>>> On 2nd thought, yea, you are right, this machine came with a
|>>>>> bunch of extra packages already installed, like MS Works. The
|>>>>> stuff I've installed afterwards is all minor, though. Yea,
|>>>>> you're likely correct, but I can't check it on this machine.
|>>>>
|>>>> I think it was somewhere around 200 MB, before installing apps.
|>>>> That's pretty lean! And IIRC, WinXP is about 10 times that
|>>>> (about 2 GB). But then again, WinXP is pretty damn robust by
|>>>> comparison, I do have to admit. And I bet Vista is 10 times that
|>>>> of WinXP!! (like maybe 20 GB) - ugh, forget Vista!!
|>>>
|>>> Alright. I never knew the figure, so your memory must be trusted.
|>>> You are the last one apparently who even remembers that much, as
|>>> looks like Terhune has fallen into another earthquake. But who'd
|>>> have thought even 200 MB would turn out to be a small number!
|>>>
|>>>>>>>>> But to go back to 98SE
|>>>>>>>>> would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external
|>>>>>>>>> drive (which doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.
|>>>>>>>>
|>>>>>>>> Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always
|>>>>>>>> consider getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.
|>>>>>>>
|>>>>>>> I know you've done it. Would be nice if you could talk DaffyD®
|>>>>>>> through it!
|>>>>>>>
|>>>>>>>>> My old scanner no longer works like it
|>>>>>>>>> did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98; the images
|>>>>>>>>> when printed are practically illegible. The frustrating
|>>>>>>>>> thing is that had it been a
|>>>>>>>>> USB scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000
|>>>>>>>>> but I dumbly bought a parallel port scanner back then.
|>>>>>>>>>
|>>>>>>>>> But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too
|>>>>>>>>> limited in today's hardware/software/internet world. I just
|>>>>>>>>> hope that the external drive will work with whatever is
|>>>>>>>>> released after Vista.
|>>>>>>>>
|>>>>>>>> Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows
|>>>>>>>> 2000? I'm not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia
|>>>>>>>> apps, anyways. Actually, I think Win98SE still has more
|>>>>>>>> software capability there (at least in this one arena).
|>>>>>>>>
|>>>>>>>> But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I
|>>>>>>>> think. Like Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue
|>>>>>>>> screen :-).
|>>>>>>>
|>>>>>>> XP has crashed on you, Colorado -- well-enough for you to do
|>>>>>>> several registry restores & restore point restores & maybe
|>>>>>>> even a full backup restore or two -- you've admitted it, IIRC!
|>>>>>>> I don't care whether it gives a blue screen or an
|>>>>>>> XP-irradiated sickly green one!
|>>>>>>
|>>>>>> No, not quite accurate. (I said I got blue screens in XP???
|>>>>>> When)? But - I *have* done several registry or disk image
|>>>>>> restores in XP, but NOT due to blue screens! Those restore
|>>>>>> operations were done due to my desire to put my system back
|>>>>>> exactly as it was prior to some software installations (just to
|>>>>>> play it safe), and/or if some settings got changed that I
|>>>>>> didn't "appreciate" (and it was an easy way to get back).
|>>>>>> That's all, unless you remember something I don't. I'm still
|>>>>>> waiting for blue screens, unless you recall some I mentioned
|>>>>>> (in XP, I mean).
|>>>>>
|>>>>> No, I don't recall you said any color. But I was fairly sure you
|>>>>> said you had a crash of some kind in XP. And I strongly suspect
|>>>>> Terhune thinks so too! But "Hitchhiker's Guide" just started & I
|>>>>> must go. So, fine, I'll try to remember you never crashed yet.
|>>>>
|>>>> I have had a couple of occasions where the computer locked up and
|>>>> I had to reboot, that's all (no blue or green screens, though).
|>>>> But no restore operation was necessary - it was just due to some
|>>>> software hiccups that occurred at the same time.
|>>>
|>>> Ah-- freeze-ups! That's what I was remembering, then! A freeze-up
|>>> is a lot like a crash-- don't you think!?
|>>
|>> No. Not exactly.
|>>
|>>> I'm fairly sure you'd have gotten a
|>>> sickly green XP-irradiated death screen-- if it weren't frozen!
|>>
|>> LOL. But I'm not so sure. The thing is, I think a blue screen
|>> is potentially more serious. Like in some cases, you have to fix
|>> some VxD thing, or whatever. And that NEVER happened here, with
|>> those couple of "lockups". Just rebooting was always enough.
|>> And you can't say the same thing about (many) blue screens.
|>
|> I can't quite recall I've ever had to replace a .vxd of my own after
|> a BSOD. It normally is just a reboot & the auto-scanreg that fixed
|> them-- not that I've had any in quite a while!
|
| Well, I can't remember what happened for all the blue screens, and I
| don't recall now specifically replacing a VxD, come to think of it.
| But I do seem to recall having to do a scanreg /restore operation on
| at least some of those occasions, but it's been so long ago....

I haven't done a lot of those either, but I really don't do a great deal
with this machine. The most trouble I've had has been hardware related--
a hard drive crashed, a CD wouldn't exit the CD-ROM for two/three days,
a mouse went bad, & two monitors went dark! Software troubles included:
the McAfee scan engine went bad & a couple of big Windows Updates came
in real hard.

|> I've certainly had more freezes
|> myself than BSODs. And those were due to the McAfee scan engine going
|> bad &/or the mouse going bad. Those have been replaced & I hardly
|> freeze at all now.
|>
|> Oh, all right, fine -- since you've seen both OS & I haven't much--
|> I'll stop arguing the issue whether XP will crash as bad as Win98SE.
|> Good luck with it, really.
|
| I'm telling ya straight out, PCR, there is just NO comparison in that
| regard (and this comes from a guy who still likes 98SE and DOS!, and
| actually misses a few things there!). But you do have to give up
| some control (like when looking under the hood), as I mentioned in
| that other post. (But it is my second computer, and still gets
| some use).

All right. I know you've got a full system backup for the day it may
melt down. I guess you are alright, no matter.

|>>>>>>>>> I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my
|>>>>>>>>> favorite of all the Windows groups.
|>>>>>>>
|>>>>>>> Good to see you you back, DaffyD®. Maybe try for the proper
|>>>>>>> drivers as Colorado has suggested!
|>>>>>>>
|>>>>>>>>> --
|>>>>>>>>> DaffyD®
|>>>>>>>>>
|>>>>>>>>> If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.
|>
|> ...snip
|> --
|> Thanks or Good Luck,
|> There may be humor in this post, and,
|> Naturally, you will not sue,
|> Should things get worse after this,
|> PCR
|>

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR

[PCR]

Bill in Co. wrote:
| PCR wrote:
|> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>> PCR wrote:
|>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>>>> wrote:
|>>>>> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 00:07:51 -0600, "Bill in Co."
|>>>>> > wrote:
|>>>>>
|>>>>>> wrote:
|>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:10:37 -0600, "Bill in Co."
|>>>>>>> > wrote:
|>>>
|>>> ...snip
|>>>>>>> As for the original size of Win98. I have a fresh install
|>>>>>>> zipped up. The zip file is 80megs.
|>>>>>>> Unzipped, it's 2357 Files 161,461KB (161megs)
|>>>>>>
|>>>>>> Well, I was talking about Win98SE, which may be a bit larger.
|>>>>>> But that's pretty close, or at least in the same ballpark,
|>>>>>> anyways. :-)
|>>>>>
|>>>>> This IS for Win98SE.....
|>>>>
|>>>> Oh, ok then.
|>>>>
|>>>>> It's an original install, with IE5 and all of that.
|>>>>> I just let it run as a typical install. If I have a problem and
|>>>>> am not sure what's going on, I rename the windows folder, and
|>>>>> unzip that file to a new folder called WINDOWS, then I run it.
|>>>>> That way I know if my problem is software or hardware related.
|>>>>>
|>>>>> PS. My actual USING Windows folder with all the programs
|>>>>> installed, plus extra fonts, wallpapers, etc. is 668megs. (IE
|>>>>> cache and cookies were cleared).
|>>>>
|>>>> I forgot what mine got up to. I have it over here, but I'm too
|>>>> lazy to power it up tonite and check (I'm almost always using my
|>>>> newer and faster XP computer). :-)
|>>>
|>>> Well, I feel better about my sizes now, which were...
|>>>
|>>> My Windows folder is 286 folders, 5,307 files, 454,827,147 bytes.
|>>> And Program Files is 323 folders, 3,905 files, 540,817,212 bytes.
|>>>
|>>> And Compaq did install some big stuff in here, like MS Works, MS
|>>> Encarta, ArcSoft PhotoPrinter, Built-In Technician, CeQuadrat, etc!
|>>>
|>>> My Win98SE Options folder (holds the .cabs) is...
|>>> 1,057 files, 40 folders, 236,287,224 bytes.
|>>
|>> No, but the point was, that a clean install of Windows 98SE took up
|>> only about 200 MB of disk space *in total*! You're way over that,
|>> due to the installation of programs. We're NOT really talking
|>> about that cabs folder, although undoubtedly there is some relation
|>> between the two things.
|>
|> I guess it depends on the options selected during the install. The
|> .cabs prove Win98SE can get bigger, if more of the files are
|> extracted.
|> Really, you need to count Windows Updates (never mind-- I know!),
|
| FORGET THAT!!!

I know, I know!

|> Program Files, & indispensable apps too, like maybe MS Works.
|
| But you can't count that for an objective comparison of the *operating
| system*, (otherwise the comparison figures would be "all over the
| map"). Just the operating system and the normally installed option of
| *its accessories*. (Not MS Works, etc)

It could be XP comes with a few extras installed. Then, just to be fair,
you'd have to include equivalents in Win98 too.

|> But your point is good that XP is bloated by comparison, & Vista is
|> worse!
|
| Vista????? What is Vista?? LOL.

Uhuh. But you brought it up first!

|>>> And, using EXTRACT /D /A to display the file names in the various
|>>> .cab's in there, here are the bottom lines...
|>>>
|>>> 6,014 Files 325,963,535 bytes base4.cab
|>>> 413 Files 2,628,329 bytes
|>>> 8 Files 16,960 bytes
|>>> 31 Files 1,186,883 bytes
|>>> 434 Files 11,517,232 bytes precopy1.cab
|>>>
|>>> This is what produces that (plus the file names & sizes)...
|>>>
|>>> EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\Base4.cab > "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt"
|>>> /A EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\Catalog3.cab >> "E:\My
|>>> Documents\CABS.txt" EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\CHL99.cab >>
|>>> "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt" EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\MINI.cab
|>>> >> "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt" EXTRACT /D
|>>> E:\Options\Cabs\Precopy1.cab >>"E:\My Documents\CABS.txt" /A
|>>>
|>>> Better do it exactly like that! Using "/A" where it doesn't belong
|>>> seems to get some other .cabs anyhow! Also, that is the order SFC
|>>> will work on the .cabs. If there are duplicates, it's first found
|>>> that's used. (And, if one exists in the root folder, THAT is
|>>> taken.)
|>>>
|>>> ">" starts CABS.txt from scratch, which wipes any existing one.
|>>> ">>" adds to CABS.txt, or starts it if non-existent.
|>>> Quotes are needed around LFNs (Long File Names).
|>>> Adjust locations of .cabs & destination as necessary.
|>>>
|>>> Some/all files in MINI.cab have updated versions in other Win98SE
|>>> .cab files. So, I can't figure why I have that one. But SFC
|>>> somehow knows to extract for instance Keyboard.drv from
|>>> WIN98_44.CAB instead of from MINI.cab, probably because Base4.cab
|>>> sorts under Mini.cab.
|>>>
|>>> CHL99.cab has old but unique files. SFC does get these...
|>>> C:\>extract /d E:\Options\cabs\chl99.cab
|>>> Cabinet chl99.cab
|>>> 08-21-1997 10:42:14p A--- 389 chang.cdf
|>>> 08-18-1997 10:51:48a A--- 4,710 chang.ico
|>>> 08-14-1997 3:35:24p A--- 1,806 chang_sl.gif
|>>> 09-03-1997 5:11:28p A--- 2,714 chang_wl.gif
|>>> 09-10-1997 11:50:00a A--- 4,499 chl99.inf
|>>> 08-21-1997 10:38:48p A--- 227 ieupdate.cdf
|>>> 08-11-1997 6:53:12p A--- 1,537 ieupdate.gif
|>>> 09-10-1997 11:27:56a A--- 1,078 ieupdate.ico
|>>> 8 Files 16,960 bytes
|>>>
|>>> Those all exist in my system (all in C:\WINDOWS\WEB except
|>>> chl99.inf in C:\Windows\Inf), but with dates of 7/30/2001.
|>>>
|>>> CATALOG3.cab is filled with 413 ".cat" files of 4/23/99 found in no
|>>> other .cab. (A find on "*.cat" doesn't find that many in my system,
|>>> mysteriously.) Precopy1.cab & Precopy2.cab also have the later
|>>> dates, but at least Command.com is duplicated in another .cab.
|>>>
|>>> WARNING: DO INCLUDE "/D", which says "display only". OTHERWISE,
|>>> you will actually extract them! They will extract into the current
|>>> folder. (Then, maybe an MVP may save you, & I will be in some
|>>> distant Afghan cave, if needed!)
|>>>
|>>>>>>
|>>>>>>> That's with those damn AOL, MSN, and other such files/folders
|>>>>>>> removed. I delete those things the second I get 98
|>>>>>>> installed....... (or, wait a minute, those are installed in
|>>>>>>> Program Files, so forget that). It's 161megs.....
|>>>
|>>> --
|>>> Thanks or Good Luck,
|>>> There may be humor in this post, and,
|>>> Naturally, you will not sue,
|>>> Should things get worse after this,
|>>> PCR
|>>>
|>
|> --
|> Thanks or Good Luck,
|> There may be humor in this post, and,
|> Naturally, you will not sue,
|> Should things get worse after this,
|> PCR
|>

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR

[Bill in Co.]

DaffyD® wrote:
> "Bill in Co." > wrote in message
> ...
>> DaffyD® wrote:
>>> Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is so
>>> much more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and user
>>> accounts in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.
>>
>> True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a single
>> user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user; very nice and
>> simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*. A very, very, lean
>> operating system. (I think it's somewhere around 200 MB in total, isn't
>> it?)
>>
>>> But to go back to 98SE
>>> would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive
>>> (which
>>> doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.
>>
>> Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always consider
>> getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.
>>
> This one cost me $100 and it's past the time I could take it back to Best
> Buy.

But you could consider just biting the bullet and swallowing that loss, if
you really wanted it. I mean, how much is it worth to you, to get the op
system you really want?? I'd spend an extra $100, if I really preferred
the other operating system.

>
>>> My old scanner no longer works like it
>>> did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when printed
>>> are practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a
>>> USB
>>> scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I dumbly
>>> bought
>>> a parallel port scanner back then.
>>>
>>> But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in
>>> today's
>>> hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the external drive
>>> will
>>> work with whatever is released after Vista.
>>
>> Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows 2000?
>> I'm
>> not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps, anyways.
>> Actually,
>> I think Win98SE still has more software capability there (at least in
>> this
>> one arena).
>>
>> But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think. Like
>> Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen :-).
>>
>>> I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of all
>>> the Windows groups.
>>> --
>>> DaffyD®
>>>
>>> If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.

[Bill in Co.]

DaffyD® wrote:
> "John John (MVP)" > wrote in message
> ...
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:58:48 -0300, "John John (MVP)"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Windows 98 may have been good in its time but its time is now over and
>>>> for all but the most devoted aficionados maintaining and getting
>>>> Windows
>>>> 98 to work properly with new hardware and software is most often an
>>>> exercise in futility, or at the very least a very frustrating exercise.
>>>> Like it or not Windows 98 is not an operating system for todays
>>>> computing needs. You might have more luck clamoring for the return of
>>>> top hats and steam engines...
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>> I do not agree. Sure, Win98 is 10 years old, but it does everything I
>>> need. I run internet software, I watch movies, edit my camera photos,
>>> run basic office software, and more...... It works just fine. If I
>>> had to use XP or Vista, I'd first need a new computer. Then I'd get
>>> it home and stick it in the closet, while continuing to use my old
>>> Win98 computer, or I'd just stop using computers completely. I can't
>>> stand XP. Everything about it ****es me off. When the day actually
>>> comes that I can no longer use Win98, I will either buy a Macintosh,
>>> or hope that by that time there's a new OS (non-microsoft), or Linux
>>> developed a user friendly OS. Better yet, maybe someone will come up
>>> with an extension for Win98 that makes it work with the new MS
>>> garbage, (but I wont hold my breath). I installed Win 2000, and while
>>> it's not as abrasive as XP. I still disliked it. Yes, Win98 lacks
>>> some USB support and gets an occasional blue screen, but I'd much
>>> rather cope with a few minutes of hassles from time to time, than hate
>>> using my computer 24/7.
>>
>> Sure it suits you, you are using it on an old computer with old software
>> and old peripherals, there is nothing wrong with that at all, if it does
>> what you need and if you like it I say stick with it. But if you intend
>> on running newer applications and if you intend on running some of the
>> new hardware out there you will quickly find out that Windows 98 just
>> doesn't cut it, even printers are becoming harder to find for Windows
>> 98, it is not a suitable operating system for the modern computing
>> environment.
>>
>> John
>
> Sigh, I agree with you, John. If it wasn't for the incompalibility
> between
> 98SE and most newer hardware (like my new external drive--which I'll be
> talking about in my next post) and programs, I would gladly have stayed
> with
> it.

Which programs are you talking about? Actually, I think there are also
some programs that will run on Win98SE, that won't run on W2K, right?
(Like in the multimedia area). (But I imagine W2K is considerably more
robust, like XP, so I don't know if I'd switch, either).

> But I know that when I buy a new computer it will either be loaded with
> Vista or the next MS OS.

[FromTheRafters]

> By the way, I have a Win3.1 program that will not run on Win98.
> ****es me off because I really loved that program. One of these days
> I have to take an old pc and put Win3.1 on it. I really hate to use
> that OS, but there seems to be no choice.

I had an issue with solitaire and freecell when I made the
move to Win9x. Turns out they both use the library file
"cards.dll" - but version soup problems arise.

I put freecell in its own folder and included the dll it uses
and it worked fine after that. Maybe you have a similar
issue with your program?

I also liked some of what "pbrush" could do that "mspaint"
wouldn't so had both on my machine - this time I found that
98 used a stub or alias so that invoking "pbrush" caused an
instance of "mspaint" to load - a directory of its own and a
shortcut with a fully qualified path helped.

The "pbrush" name works for mspaint in Vista too.

[remo]

> But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in today's
> hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the external drive will
> work with whatever is released after Vista.
> DaffyD®
>
> If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.


sometimes, daffy, going forward in technology, is actually a huge step backward in things that
really matter.

try outlining your 'need' for a computer; what is it that you want it to do? do you want it to
entertain you? do you want it to make you money? do you want it to assist in getting to your
maker? do you want it to 'simplify' your life? (if simplifying your life is your choice of the
above, then you have a major problem.)

anyhow duck-man,, think about it ;; befoooooore you go rushing out to buy products that you
believe will assist you in becoming a man of the future,, because, in actual fact, the only ones
you assist, are the moguls of big-business who have their fingers in the pie of computers and
computer parts.......... = $$$$$$R$$'s

if you can answer these, then you would have answered the question of 'knowing where you are...
capiche/?" (heres a clue,, 'you are where your heart believes you are')
as for defining 'heart', now theres a good place for you to go with your win98 computer,, you can
surf the net, download info, go to n/g's where ppl ask the same questions,,,,, and
through that process, you will finally arrive at 'purpose & reason',,

perhaps even meb will endorse my assessment.... especially as all things that have been foretold,
are now being experienced. and meb loves a good mystery or chase,, (is okay meb,
me too.)

[DaffyD®]

"Bill in Co." > wrote in message
...
> DaffyD® wrote:
> > Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is so
> > much
> > more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and user
> > accounts
> > in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.
>
> True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a single
> user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user; very nice and
> simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*. A very, very, lean
> operating system. (I think it's somewhere around 200 MB in total, isn't
> it?)
>
> > But to go back to 98SE
> > would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive
(which
> > doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.
>
> Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always consider
> getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.
>
This one cost me $100 and it's past the time I could take it back to Best
Buy.


> > My old scanner no longer works like it
> > did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when printed
> > are
> > practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a USB
> > scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I dumbly
bought
> > a
> > parallel port scanner back then.
> >
> > But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in
today's
> > hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the external drive
will
> > work with whatever is released after Vista.
>
> Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows 2000? I'm
> not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps, anyways.
Actually,
> I think Win98SE still has more software capability there (at least in this
> one arena).
>
> But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think. Like
> Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen :-).
>
> > I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of all
> > the
> > Windows groups.
> > --
> > DaffyD®
> >
> > If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.
>
>

[John John (MVP)]

wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:10:38 -0600, "Bill in Co."
> > wrote:
>
>
>>DaffyD® wrote:
>>
>>>"John John (MVP)" > wrote in message
...
>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:58:48 -0300, "John John (MVP)"
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Windows 98 may have been good in its time but its time is now over and
>>>>>>for all but the most devoted aficionados maintaining and getting
>>>>>>Windows
>>>>>>98 to work properly with new hardware and software is most often an
>>>>>>exercise in futility, or at the very least a very frustrating exercise.
>>>>>>Like it or not Windows 98 is not an operating system for todays
>>>>>>computing needs. You might have more luck clamoring for the return of
>>>>>>top hats and steam engines...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>John
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I do not agree. Sure, Win98 is 10 years old, but it does everything I
>>>>>need. I run internet software, I watch movies, edit my camera photos,
>>>>>run basic office software, and more...... It works just fine. If I
>>>>>had to use XP or Vista, I'd first need a new computer. Then I'd get
>>>>>it home and stick it in the closet, while continuing to use my old
>>>>>Win98 computer, or I'd just stop using computers completely. I can't
>>>>>stand XP. Everything about it ****es me off. When the day actually
>>>>>comes that I can no longer use Win98, I will either buy a Macintosh,
>>>>>or hope that by that time there's a new OS (non-microsoft), or Linux
>>>>>developed a user friendly OS. Better yet, maybe someone will come up
>>>>>with an extension for Win98 that makes it work with the new MS
>>>>>garbage, (but I wont hold my breath). I installed Win 2000, and while
>>>>>it's not as abrasive as XP. I still disliked it. Yes, Win98 lacks
>>>>>some USB support and gets an occasional blue screen, but I'd much
>>>>>rather cope with a few minutes of hassles from time to time, than hate
>>>>>using my computer 24/7.
>>>>
>>>>Sure it suits you, you are using it on an old computer with old software
>>>>and old peripherals, there is nothing wrong with that at all, if it does
>>>>what you need and if you like it I say stick with it. But if you intend
>>>>on running newer applications and if you intend on running some of the
>>>>new hardware out there you will quickly find out that Windows 98 just
>>>>doesn't cut it, even printers are becoming harder to find for Windows
>>>>98, it is not a suitable operating system for the modern computing
>>>>environment.
>>>>
>>>>John
>>>
>>>Sigh, I agree with you, John. If it wasn't for the incompalibility
>>>between
>>>98SE and most newer hardware (like my new external drive--which I'll be
>>>talking about in my next post) and programs, I would gladly have stayed
>>>with
>>>it.
>>
>>Which programs are you talking about? Actually, I think there are also
>>some programs that will run on Win98SE, that won't run on W2K, right?
>>(Like in the multimedia area). (But I imagine W2K is considerably more
>>robust, like XP, so I don't know if I'd switch, either).
>
>
> I dont know of any programs that are for Win95/98 that wont work in
> Win2k. But there might be some.

Any program that requires direct access to the hardware will not work on
any of the NT versions, NT absolutely does not allow this at all, that
is one of the things that makes NT more robust than W9x. Some of the
DOS applications that like to fiddle directly with the hardware settings
will not work on Windows 2000.

John

[DaffyD®]

"John John (MVP)" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:58:48 -0300, "John John (MVP)"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Windows 98 may have been good in its time but its time is now over and
> >>for all but the most devoted aficionados maintaining and getting Windows
> >>98 to work properly with new hardware and software is most often an
> >>exercise in futility, or at the very least a very frustrating exercise.
> >> Like it or not Windows 98 is not an operating system for todays
> >>computing needs. You might have more luck clamoring for the return of
> >>top hats and steam engines...
> >>
> >>John
> >
> >
> > I do not agree. Sure, Win98 is 10 years old, but it does everything I
> > need. I run internet software, I watch movies, edit my camera photos,
> > run basic office software, and more...... It works just fine. If I
> > had to use XP or Vista, I'd first need a new computer. Then I'd get
> > it home and stick it in the closet, while continuing to use my old
> > Win98 computer, or I'd just stop using computers completely. I can't
> > stand XP. Everything about it ****es me off. When the day actually
> > comes that I can no longer use Win98, I will either buy a Macintosh,
> > or hope that by that time there's a new OS (non-microsoft), or Linux
> > developed a user friendly OS. Better yet, maybe someone will come up
> > with an extension for Win98 that makes it work with the new MS
> > garbage, (but I wont hold my breath). I installed Win 2000, and while
> > it's not as abrasive as XP. I still disliked it. Yes, Win98 lacks
> > some USB support and gets an occasional blue screen, but I'd much
> > rather cope with a few minutes of hassles from time to time, than hate
> > using my computer 24/7.
>
> Sure it suits you, you are using it on an old computer with old software
> and old peripherals, there is nothing wrong with that at all, if it does
> what you need and if you like it I say stick with it. But if you intend
> on running newer applications and if you intend on running some of the
> new hardware out there you will quickly find out that Windows 98 just
> doesn't cut it, even printers are becoming harder to find for Windows
> 98, it is not a suitable operating system for the modern computing
> environment.
>
> John

Sigh, I agree with you, John. If it wasn't for the incompalibility between
98SE and most newer hardware (like my new external drive--which I'll be
talking about in my next post) and programs, I would gladly have stayed with
it. But I know that when I buy a new computer it will either be loaded with
Vista or the next MS OS.

[DaffyD®]

Roger I was with you until the sentence: "What would seem
intellectually indefensible is reflexive whining without knowing what the
options are." ?

I've created shortcuts for folders that I wanted to find quickly-and I've
created my own folders.
It's just the basic architecture of NT and newer that seems overly and
unduly complex.

"Roger Fink" > wrote in message
...
> Hey Daffster, try thinking outside the box. You can create a folder
> "Documents" anywhere you want, like f'rinstance C:\Documents (Microsoft
> actually did that already with a clone My Documents folder although some
> hide it). Or with a Google search you can adjust the target of a dedicated
> Windows Explorer shortcut to drill down to where the particular folder is
> you want to play with, such as Application Data or Temp. What would seem
> intellectually indefensible is reflexive whining without knowing what the
> options are.
>
> DaffyD® wrote:
> > Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is
> > so much more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin
> > and user accounts in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to
> > find. But to go back to 98SE would mean reformatting the hard drive
> > and using my external drive (which doesn't work with 98) as a
> > bookend. My old scanner no longer works like it did since it was
> > designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when printed are
> > practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a
> > USB scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I
> > dumbly bought a parallel port scanner back then.
> >
> > But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in
> > today's hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the
> > external drive will work with whatever is released after Vista.
> >
> > I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of
> > all the Windows groups.
>
>

[DaffyD®]

Roger,

Do you use Google software on your computer? How well does it work for you?
You wrote about using a Google search. I've thought about downloading the
Toolbar but at this point it just seems to be more stuff to deal with.

"Roger Fink" > wrote in message
...
> Hey Daffster, try thinking outside the box. You can create a folder
> "Documents" anywhere you want, like f'rinstance C:\Documents (Microsoft
> actually did that already with a clone My Documents folder although some
> hide it). Or with a Google search you can adjust the target of a dedicated
> Windows Explorer shortcut to drill down to where the particular folder is
> you want to play with, such as Application Data or Temp. What would seem
> intellectually indefensible is reflexive whining without knowing what the
> options are.
>
> DaffyD® wrote:
> > Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is
> > so much more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin
> > and user accounts in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to
> > find. But to go back to 98SE would mean reformatting the hard drive
> > and using my external drive (which doesn't work with 98) as a
> > bookend. My old scanner no longer works like it did since it was
> > designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when printed are
> > practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a
> > USB scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I
> > dumbly bought a parallel port scanner back then.
> >
> > But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in
> > today's hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the
> > external drive will work with whatever is released after Vista.
> >
> > I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of
> > all the Windows groups.
>
>

[DaffyD®]

"philo" > wrote in message
...
>
> "DaffyD®" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is so
> much
> > more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and user
> accounts
> > in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find. But to go back to
> 98SE
> > would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive
(which
> > doesn't work with 98) as a bookend. My old scanner no longer works like
it
> > did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when printed
> are
> > practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a USB
> > scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I dumbly
bought
> a
> > parallel port scanner back then.
> >
> > But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in
today's
> > hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the external drive
will
> > work with whatever is released after Vista.
> >
> > I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of all
> the
> > Windows groups.
>
>
>
> I'm sure that it will not take you all that long to get used to Win2k.
>
> The fact that your scanner is parallel port should not make it unusable...
> there should be an adjustment for the quality that you use to scan...
> it may simply be set too low by default.
>
> Since your scanner is at least detected and installed,
> it may be a function of the software you are using to import images.
>
> You may want to try the free image viewer Irfanview
> and use the import function and specify your scanner...
> then see if you can adjust the image quality.
>
> 100 - 150 dpi should give you good results
>
> Philo, the problem is between the scanner and the printer. In fact, when
I open up the scanner software I get a message "This program might not run
as expected on this version of Windows."
I need a parallel port Windows 2000 driver and Visioneer doesn't offer one,
just for the USB model. I had the opposite problem with the external hard
drive I bought. That particular model didn't have a compatible 98SE driver,
but an older model did.

[Dan]

No, problem, Daffy. You can buy a Belkin USB Parallel Printer Adapter --
From the back "The Belkin Parallel Printer Adapter makes it easy to connect
your parallel printer through USB." ---- System Requirements PC with a free
USB port and Windows 98, 98 Second Edition, 2000, Me, and XP so you should be
all set if you buy this product --- runs about $20 so not too expensive.
(Also, if you know your stuff, Windows 98 Second Edition can sometimes run
Windows 2000 drivers and/or Windows Me drivers if you can manipulate the
operating system properly)

"DaffyD®" wrote:

>
> "philo" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "DaffyD®" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is so
> > much
> > > more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and user
> > accounts
> > > in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find. But to go back to
> > 98SE
> > > would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive
> (which
> > > doesn't work with 98) as a bookend. My old scanner no longer works like
> it
> > > did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when printed
> > are
> > > practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a USB
> > > scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I dumbly
> bought
> > a
> > > parallel port scanner back then.
> > >
> > > But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in
> today's
> > > hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the external drive
> will
> > > work with whatever is released after Vista.
> > >
> > > I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of all
> > the
> > > Windows groups.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm sure that it will not take you all that long to get used to Win2k.
> >
> > The fact that your scanner is parallel port should not make it unusable...
> > there should be an adjustment for the quality that you use to scan...
> > it may simply be set too low by default.
> >
> > Since your scanner is at least detected and installed,
> > it may be a function of the software you are using to import images.
> >
> > You may want to try the free image viewer Irfanview
> > and use the import function and specify your scanner...
> > then see if you can adjust the image quality.
> >
> > 100 - 150 dpi should give you good results
> >
> > Philo, the problem is between the scanner and the printer. In fact, when
> I open up the scanner software I get a message "This program might not run
> as expected on this version of Windows."
> I need a parallel port Windows 2000 driver and Visioneer doesn't offer one,
> just for the USB model. I had the opposite problem with the external hard
> drive I bought. That particular model didn't have a compatible 98SE driver,
> but an older model did.
>
>
>

[Bill in Co.]

John John (MVP) wrote:
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:10:38 -0600, "Bill in Co."
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> DaffyD® wrote:
>>>
>>>> "John John (MVP)" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:58:48 -0300, "John John (MVP)"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Windows 98 may have been good in its time but its time is now over
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> for all but the most devoted aficionados maintaining and getting
>>>>>>> Windows
>>>>>>> 98 to work properly with new hardware and software is most often an
>>>>>>> exercise in futility, or at the very least a very frustrating
>>>>>>> exercise.
>>>>>>> Like it or not Windows 98 is not an operating system for todays
>>>>>>> computing needs. You might have more luck clamoring for the return
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> top hats and steam engines...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not agree. Sure, Win98 is 10 years old, but it does everything
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> need. I run internet software, I watch movies, edit my camera
>>>>>> photos,
>>>>>> run basic office software, and more...... It works just fine. If I
>>>>>> had to use XP or Vista, I'd first need a new computer. Then I'd get
>>>>>> it home and stick it in the closet, while continuing to use my old
>>>>>> Win98 computer, or I'd just stop using computers completely. I can't
>>>>>> stand XP. Everything about it ****es me off. When the day actually
>>>>>> comes that I can no longer use Win98, I will either buy a Macintosh,
>>>>>> or hope that by that time there's a new OS (non-microsoft), or Linux
>>>>>> developed a user friendly OS. Better yet, maybe someone will come up
>>>>>> with an extension for Win98 that makes it work with the new MS
>>>>>> garbage, (but I wont hold my breath). I installed Win 2000, and
>>>>>> while
>>>>>> it's not as abrasive as XP. I still disliked it. Yes, Win98 lacks
>>>>>> some USB support and gets an occasional blue screen, but I'd much
>>>>>> rather cope with a few minutes of hassles from time to time, than
>>>>>> hate
>>>>>> using my computer 24/7.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure it suits you, you are using it on an old computer with old
>>>>> software
>>>>> and old peripherals, there is nothing wrong with that at all, if it
>>>>> does
>>>>> what you need and if you like it I say stick with it. But if you
>>>>> intend
>>>>> on running newer applications and if you intend on running some of the
>>>>> new hardware out there you will quickly find out that Windows 98 just
>>>>> doesn't cut it, even printers are becoming harder to find for Windows
>>>>> 98, it is not a suitable operating system for the modern computing
>>>>> environment.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> Sigh, I agree with you, John. If it wasn't for the incompalibility
>>>> between
>>>> 98SE and most newer hardware (like my new external drive--which I'll be
>>>> talking about in my next post) and programs, I would gladly have stayed
>>>> with
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> Which programs are you talking about? Actually, I think there are also
>>> some programs that will run on Win98SE, that won't run on W2K, right?
>>> (Like in the multimedia area). (But I imagine W2K is considerably more
>>> robust, like XP, so I don't know if I'd switch, either).
>>
>>
>> I dont know of any programs that are for Win95/98 that wont work in
>> Win2k. But there might be some.
>
> Any program that requires direct access to the hardware will not work on
> any of the NT versions, NT absolutely does not allow this at all, that
> is one of the things that makes NT more robust than W9x. Some of the
> DOS applications that like to fiddle directly with the hardware settings
> will not work on Windows 2000.
>
> John

I was also under the impression that Win98 inherently had more multimedia
capability built in (this due to its intended audience). So that some
"multimedia type" programs that were written to work in Win9x, would not
work (or could even be installed) on Win2K - but not JUST due to the direct
hardware access thing. (but instead due to some extra multimedia support
DLLs, or whatever, built into Win98.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >,
writes
[]
>progs wont work on 98. Actually I have Win2k on my laptop. Only
>because my WIFI card wont work with 98. I dont care all that much for
>Win2k, but I only use my laptop on occasion and mostly just when I
>want wifi access when I travel. Most of the time I use my Win98

Do you mean you actually put 2k on just to get a wifi card working, or
was it (2k) there already? If the former, I'd have said give up and get
a wifi card that _does_ work with '98; they're very cheap, or were last
time I looked.
[]
>saying it's more stable is not a comparison. I've been thinking about
>installing a dual boot with 98 and 2k on BOTH computers. That way I
>can use what I like most.

Would you use an NTFS partition for the 2k (in which case '98 won't be
able to see it - which may or may not be a good thing), or run it under
FAT (assuming it can)?
>
>By the way, I have a Win3.1 program that will not run on Win98.
>****es me off because I really loved that program. One of these days
>I have to take an old pc and put Win3.1 on it. I really hate to use
>that OS, but there seems to be no choice.
>
What is the software/
>>
>>> But I know that when I buy a new computer it will either be loaded with
>>> Vista or the next MS OS.
>>
>
>Dont buy a new computer. Buy an older but new motherboard and build
>your own system. It's not that hard to do.

Actually, the new breed of "netbooks" are giving XP a new lease of life;
when they came out, and Linux finally started to go mainstream, M$
changed their plans for the ditching of XP - i. e. you can still buy a
new computer with XP on it, provided it's a limited performance one.
(That's limited compared to today's other laptops and desktops; these
netbooks are, by the standards of what most '9x users are used to, no
slouches - usually 1G RAM, 1.6G processor, 80G HD.) XP is now in the
sort of position '9x were a few years ago: M$ wants to end it, but lots
of users want to keep on using it. The netbooks have made the situation
not identical, but it is similar.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

Archduke Ferdinand found alive - First World War a mistake!

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >, DaffyD®
> writes
>
>"philo" > wrote in message
...
[]
>> You may want to try the free image viewer Irfanview
>> and use the import function and specify your scanner...
>> then see if you can adjust the image quality.
>>
>> 100 - 150 dpi should give you good results
>>
>> Philo, the problem is between the scanner and the printer. In fact, when
>I open up the scanner software I get a message "This program might not run
>as expected on this version of Windows."
>I need a parallel port Windows 2000 driver and Visioneer doesn't offer one,
>just for the USB model. I had the opposite problem with the external hard
>drive I bought. That particular model didn't have a compatible 98SE driver,
>but an older model did.
>
>
Do you mean that the problems are because the scanner is connected
between the PC and the printer, in the "parallel port" lead?

Can you print OK, images that are from sources other than the scanner?

Can you scan images such that they look OK on screen (e. g. by using
IrfanView as Philo suggests, or some other software) - I suppose we need
to know if the scanner interface (software) is TWAIN-type (assuming
Windows 2000 uses TWAIN, I don't know).

If either of these is no (either you can't print _any_ image OK, or you
can't scan OK _to screen_), do either of them change to yes if you have
only the scanner or only the printer connected? If so, then either
Philo's suggestion of a USB-to-parallel port, or (my preference) a
second parallel port (they're pretty cheap - probably cheaper than the
USB-to-parallel adapter), might solve the problem - those
scanner-in-series-with-the-printer arrangements, while they could be got
working trouble-free, often _are_ the cause of problems. (And with two
parallel ports, [a] it might be faster and [b] you should be able to
print even when the scanner isn't powered, which wasn't always the case
otherwise.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

Archduke Ferdinand found alive - First World War a mistake!

[Dan]

I think Daffy may have left this thread, J.P. Anyway, in my multi-boot
system I use 98 Second Edition on one hard drive in Fat32 File System and on
another physical hard drive I use XP Professional in NTFS. When, I was
connected to the APS Network back in September 2007 via VPN, XP Professional
Service Pack 2 fully updated did not have a chance against the hackers
compared to 98 Second Edition which just did a Denial of Service error which
ended VPN connection to the elementary school. The funny thing is that Steve
Riley of Microsoft likes to say how much better XP Professional is then 98
Second Edition and it is true to a point but the larger surface area because
of more services makes it easier to hack as well as the fact of having remote
access which is another attack vector. In addition, because Windows 98
Second Edition has Disk Operating System as an underlying maintenance
operating system it is very safe internally according correctly to Chris
Quirke, Most Valuable Professional who lives in Africa. Anyway, Windows XP
and Vista follow the NT business source code and 98 Second Edition was really
the last good operating system for 9x because Windows ME broke easy access to
MS-DOS as well as some of the compatibility that 98 Second Edition had with
games. Windows ME was like a test operating system for Windows Vista because
it had System Restore which XP uses and Windows 2000 was really business
geared but many businesses did apparently use and like Windows 98 Second
Edition back in the day. I find the future will be most exciting for Windows
and computing and electronics in general and hopefully we will all learn from
the lessons of the past to help us with the future. Finally, Windows 7 will
be NT based but hopefully the new source code Microsoft is working on will be
awesome and maybe it can really bring business, home and government under one
true awesome source code but that may only end up being a pipe dream. I will
wait and see if Microsoft can really deliver when its brand new operating
system with the source code it is currently working on makes it to the
shelves and it certainly is an exciting time for all of us involved with
computers.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:

> In message >,
> writes
> []
> >progs wont work on 98. Actually I have Win2k on my laptop. Only
> >because my WIFI card wont work with 98. I dont care all that much for
> >Win2k, but I only use my laptop on occasion and mostly just when I
> >want wifi access when I travel. Most of the time I use my Win98
>
> Do you mean you actually put 2k on just to get a wifi card working, or
> was it (2k) there already? If the former, I'd have said give up and get
> a wifi card that _does_ work with '98; they're very cheap, or were last
> time I looked.
> []
> >saying it's more stable is not a comparison. I've been thinking about
> >installing a dual boot with 98 and 2k on BOTH computers. That way I
> >can use what I like most.
>
> Would you use an NTFS partition for the 2k (in which case '98 won't be
> able to see it - which may or may not be a good thing), or run it under
> FAT (assuming it can)?
> >
> >By the way, I have a Win3.1 program that will not run on Win98.
> >****es me off because I really loved that program. One of these days
> >I have to take an old pc and put Win3.1 on it. I really hate to use
> >that OS, but there seems to be no choice.
> >
> What is the software/
> >>
> >>> But I know that when I buy a new computer it will either be loaded with
> >>> Vista or the next MS OS.
> >>
> >
> >Dont buy a new computer. Buy an older but new motherboard and build
> >your own system. It's not that hard to do.
>
> Actually, the new breed of "netbooks" are giving XP a new lease of life;
> when they came out, and Linux finally started to go mainstream, M$
> changed their plans for the ditching of XP - i. e. you can still buy a
> new computer with XP on it, provided it's a limited performance one.
> (That's limited compared to today's other laptops and desktops; these
> netbooks are, by the standards of what most '9x users are used to, no
> slouches - usually 1G RAM, 1.6G processor, 80G HD.) XP is now in the
> sort of position '9x were a few years ago: M$ wants to end it, but lots
> of users want to keep on using it. The netbooks have made the situation
> not identical, but it is similar.
> --
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
> ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **
>
> Archduke Ferdinand found alive - First World War a mistake!
>

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >, Dan
> writes
[]
>ended VPN connection to the elementary school. The funny thing is that Steve
>Riley of Microsoft likes to say how much better XP Professional is then 98
>Second Edition and it is true to a point but the larger surface area because
>of more services makes it easier to hack as well as the fact of having remote
>access which is another attack vector. In addition, because Windows 98

That is my feeling too (XP is in theory safer but a much bigger target).
Also, since XP is much commoner, it's the target of choice in most
cases.

>Second Edition has Disk Operating System as an underlying maintenance
>operating system it is very safe internally according correctly to Chris

Do you mean safe from attack, or safe from (unintentional owner)
corruption of important files?
[]
>Edition back in the day. I find the future will be most exciting for Windows
>and computing and electronics in general and hopefully we will all learn from
>the lessons of the past to help us with the future. Finally, Windows 7 will
>be NT based but hopefully the new source code Microsoft is working on will be
>awesome and maybe it can really bring business, home and government under one
>true awesome source code but that may only end up being a pipe dream. I will
>wait and see if Microsoft can really deliver when its brand new operating
>system with the source code it is currently working on makes it to the
>shelves and it certainly is an exciting time for all of us involved with
>computers.

Yes.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

If you are afraid of being lonely, don't try to be right. - Jules Renard,
writer (1864-1910)

[DaffyD®]

The scanned image looks fine on the monitor. It was distorted on the
printer. I still think the problem was that the scanner driver was designed
for Windows 98, not Windows 2000. A message box would pop up when starting
the scanner software that the program may not run as expected with this
version of Windows. My solution was to buy a USB scanner off Ebay that works
with 2000 and my hope is that the new scanner driver will still interface
with the printer driver. The rest of my answer is below.


"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, DaffyD®
> > writes
> >
> >"philo" > wrote in message
> ...
> []
> >> You may want to try the free image viewer Irfanview
> >> and use the import function and specify your scanner...
> >> then see if you can adjust the image quality.
> >>
> >> 100 - 150 dpi should give you good results
> >>
> >> Philo, the problem is between the scanner and the printer. In fact,
when
> >I open up the scanner software I get a message "This program might not
run
> >as expected on this version of Windows."
> >I need a parallel port Windows 2000 driver and Visioneer doesn't offer
one,
> >just for the USB model. I had the opposite problem with the external hard
> >drive I bought. That particular model didn't have a compatible 98SE
driver,
> >but an older model did.
> >
> >
> Do you mean that the problems are because the scanner is connected
> between the PC and the printer, in the "parallel port" lead?

The scanned image looks fine on the monitor. It was distorted on the
printer. I still think the problem was that the scanner driver was designed
for Windows 98, not Windows 2000. A message box would pop up when starting
the scanner software that the program may not run as expected with this
version of Windows.
>
> Can you print OK, images that are from sources other than the scanner?

Yes.
>
> Can you scan images such that they look OK on screen (e. g. by using
> IrfanView as Philo suggests, or some other software) - I suppose we need
> to know if the scanner interface (software) is TWAIN-type (assuming
> Windows 2000 uses TWAIN, I don't know).

Yes, it is a TWAIN interface. Windows 2000 does use it.
>
> If either of these is no (either you can't print _any_ image OK, or you
> can't scan OK _to screen_), do either of them change to yes if you have
> only the scanner or only the printer connected? If so, then either
> Philo's suggestion of a USB-to-parallel port, or (my preference) a
> second parallel port (they're pretty cheap - probably cheaper than the
> USB-to-parallel adapter), might solve the problem - those
> scanner-in-series-with-the-printer arrangements, while they could be got
> working trouble-free, often _are_ the cause of problems. (And with two
> parallel ports, [a] it might be faster and [b] you should be able to
> print even when the scanner isn't powered, which wasn't always the case
> otherwise.)

Using an adapter wouldn't have solved the scanner 98 driver/Windows 2000
incompatiblity. My solution was to buy a USB scanner off Ebay that works
with 2000 and my hope is that the new scanner driver will work with the
printer driver. There was never a problem with my old 98 machine using the
parallel port between the scanner and the printer so that's why, to me, the
problem is with the OS. In fact, Visioneer has made 2000-compatible drivers
for just about all of their scanners except for the parallel port scanner I
own.

> --
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985
MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
> ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on
PCs. **
>
> Archduke Ferdinand found alive - First World War a mistake!

[Dan]

It is safe from remote attacking. If someone has physical access to the
Windows 98 Second Edition you are sunk unless you have external software
programs to keep it safe. A user can very easily mess up Windows 98 Second
Edition and it does not have all the user restrictions so it is not practical
in a business setting except as part of the safety and security network
monitoring the incoming flow of information to the businesses and
governments. In other words, it works well as a Gateway to the Network. In
addition, I would trust only a few individuals with the Windows 98 Second
Edition operating system as part of a business and as part of a defense
network for a government. If the businesses and governments can use
customized closed source Windows 98 Second Edition operating systems as well
as open source operating systems like Ubuntu Linux as part of their defense
networks it would go a long way towards preventing DNS Pollution of servers
because of the limitations of 98 Second Edition and because it has been so
hardened by Microsoft who has patched the operating system from 1998-2006.
Also, as long as the users use tools such as SpywareBlaster, Mozilla Firefox
with its 256 bit AES encryption and are careful then it can solve a lot of
problems that we currently have with technology. Furthermore, one must
remember the external components of Windows 98 Second Edition are now mostly
useless if you are connected to the Internet because they present the
appropriate and easily attackable vectors that a hacker can access to cause
the denial of service and/or freeze of the network(s). Programs such as
Internet Explorer are replaced by Mozilla Firefox, Windows Media Player by
the proper program, Outlook Express by another good newsgroup, and so forth.
Finally, realize that Windows 98 Second Edition can sometimes use Windows ME
drivers fine as well as Windows 2000 Professional drivers and do not install
Windows Scripting Host because it automates scripts and can present the
appropriate attack vector for hackers. I hope these tips help you John as
well as others.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:

> In message >, Dan
> > writes
> []
> >ended VPN connection to the elementary school. The funny thing is that Steve
> >Riley of Microsoft likes to say how much better XP Professional is then 98
> >Second Edition and it is true to a point but the larger surface area because
> >of more services makes it easier to hack as well as the fact of having remote
> >access which is another attack vector. In addition, because Windows 98
>
> That is my feeling too (XP is in theory safer but a much bigger target).
> Also, since XP is much commoner, it's the target of choice in most
> cases.
>
> >Second Edition has Disk Operating System as an underlying maintenance
> >operating system it is very safe internally according correctly to Chris
>
> Do you mean safe from attack, or safe from (unintentional owner)
> corruption of important files?
> []
> >Edition back in the day. I find the future will be most exciting for Windows
> >and computing and electronics in general and hopefully we will all learn from
> >the lessons of the past to help us with the future. Finally, Windows 7 will
> >be NT based but hopefully the new source code Microsoft is working on will be
> >awesome and maybe it can really bring business, home and government under one
> >true awesome source code but that may only end up being a pipe dream. I will
> >wait and see if Microsoft can really deliver when its brand new operating
> >system with the source code it is currently working on makes it to the
> >shelves and it certainly is an exciting time for all of us involved with
> >computers.
>
> Yes.
> []
> --
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
> ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **
>
> If you are afraid of being lonely, don't try to be right. - Jules Renard,
> writer (1864-1910)
>

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >, DaffyD®
> writes
>
>The scanned image looks fine on the monitor. It was distorted on the
>printer. I still think the problem was that the scanner driver was designed
>for Windows 98, not Windows 2000. A message box would pop up when starting
[]
>> Can you print OK, images that are from sources other than the scanner?
>
>Yes.
[]
>Using an adapter wouldn't have solved the scanner 98 driver/Windows 2000
[]
So. You can use the scanner OK on its own (images from the scanner look
OK on screen - right?), and you can use the printer OK on its own
(images from some other source print OK); it's only when you use the two
at once that you get problems - presumably when printing at the same
time as scanning?

If you save the scanned image to disc, then do something else (maybe
including a restart), then print them back out - still OK, or still
distorted? If still distorted, try saving them in a different format
(gif/jpg/png/bmp/whatever), reloading them, and _then_ printing. If this
_still_ gives distorted results, then very puzzling!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

"********," said Pooh, being more forthright than usual.