*** Recommendation needed *** Which desktop or motherboard supports fast CPU and Windows 98

Many thanks for this extensive research note.
Unfortunately my audio card is a PCI, not PCIe!

Today very few people bother with old Windows 98 hardware and software.
I seek knowledges from people who may have such experiences.

Nowaday, in Windows worlds, most people use Windows 2000, ME(!), Vista (!),
XP, 7.
In term of queries and responses, most people use Google, Yahoo or other
search engines.

I hope to find civilized techies in the news groups.

I cannot assume people who still use or have knowledge about these obsole
hardware and software access, browse just ONE particulat news group.

Sorry for cross posting. I am not trying to spam anyone, sale any product.

Please keep your insults away from this good group!

SeeNoEvil wrote:

Today very few people bother with old Windows 98 hardware and
software. I seek knowledges from people who may have such
experiences.

You should focus your post to these groups then:

microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
alt.windows98
alt.comp.os.windows-98

But primarily the first group.

I am probably your best source for win-98 information, since I run
win-98 on my office computer and home computer for the past 12 years.

Anyone else reading this might run win-98 as part of a dual-boot setup,
or run win-98 in a VM.

I hope to find civilized techies in the news groups.

When it comes to win-98, I am your best resource on usenet in terms of
knowing how to best configure a win-98 system for day-to-day use.

Sorry for cross posting.

Cross-posting is correct and proper for usenet.

But now you know that you won't find much help in alt.comp.hardware.

The single best advice I can give you regarding running windows 98 today
is to look at KernelEx:

http://kernelex.sourceforge.net/

On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 00:19:47 -0400, "SeeNoEvil" wrote:

Please tell which desktop computer models of selected brands, or ASUS
motherboards support

INTEL CPU with Windows 98 drivers.

My favorite desktop brands a Dell, HP, Lenovo.
The INTEL CPU should be 3 GHz or faster, or dual core at 2 GHz or faster.
It should supports at least 2 GB of RAM memory.
Small format factor, small footprint is definitively a big plus.

It MUST be QUIET.

Due to the need to run a special audio PCI card having only Windows 98,
laptop computers may be out of consideration!

I did use the special audio PCI with a Toshiba laptop attached to a Toshiba
PCI extension box, but the Toshiba's LCD is at the end of its life!!!!
Very tempted to buy a used Dell laptop with PCI Dock, but afraid of soon
getting the same LCD problem.
If you know a Dell laptop model having PCI dock as fast as stated above,
please let me know (in desperate case).

Your help is MUCH APPRECIATED!!!!


I still have my Abit IC7 Motherboard running a P4 3.0 GHZ with 1GB (MAX) of
Memory under Win98 SE Modified for larger hard drives and a few other tweaks up
until 2010. No SATA Drivers.

5 pci one AGP

Was my main system until 2 years ago when I built an XP Box. Not a small MoBo.

philo wrote:


Microsoft never did maintain the microsoft.public.* set of newsgroups.
They were carried by the "world-wide" usenet for years. Microsoft was a
peer among many servers that carried those groups.

Yes, but...

MS originated the microsoft.public.* groups on its own servers. This
being Usenet, other servers started carrying them and they acquired a
life of their own. After MS shut down its Usenet server, the groups
continue to exist on many (most?) Usenet hosts.

--
Tim Slattery

On 10/05/2012 07:38 AM, Tim Slattery wrote:
philo wrote:


Microsoft never did maintain the microsoft.public.* set of newsgroups.
They were carried by the "world-wide" usenet for years. Microsoft was a
peer among many servers that carried those groups.

Yes, but...

MS originated the microsoft.public.* groups on its own servers. This
being Usenet, other servers started carrying them and they acquired a
life of their own. After MS shut down its Usenet server, the groups
continue to exist on many (most?) Usenet hosts.



Now that I really think about it you are right as I recall Microsoft
maintained a news-server

--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686

Tim Slattery wrote:

Microsoft never did maintain the microsoft.public.* set of
newsgroups. They were carried by the "world-wide" usenet for
years. Microsoft was a peer among many servers that carried
those groups.

Yes, but...

MS originated the microsoft.public.* groups on its own servers.
This being Usenet, other servers started carrying them and they
acquired a life of their own.

I agree that MS did create the groups in the first place, but to what
extent (for how long) they existed ONLY on MS's servers - I don't know.

But once MS peered their servers with others (which was happening at
least as far back as 1993 I think) then the concept newsgroup
"maintenance" or administration no longer applies.

After MS shut down its Usenet server, the groups continue
to exist on many (most?) Usenet hosts.

Yes, we know that.

Because there is nothing "magical" about the string "microsoft.public."
in terms of what that string implies for the ownership, existance, or
control of usenet newsgroups that have that string in their group-name.

There were some Micro$oft haters (such as Julien Élie back in Dec 2009)
that wanted to remove the microsoft hierarchy from some "official" list
of newsgroups (or he wanted to issue group-cancel messages for those
groups). In the end, he did issue group-cancels for a few hundred MS
groups (based on little or no traffic or usage) - and some (or most)
usenet admins honored those cancels.

The motivation for this was MS's disconnection from usenet and their
internal corporate abandonment of usenet as a means of information
exchange and discussion. With MS pulling the plug on their usenet
server, there was no technical reason why the rest of the "world-wide"
usenet needed to do anything about the microsoft hierarchy other than
continue to carry them as-is. Those that wanted to do something (like
delete the groups, such as Elie) did so based on philosophical or
"house-keeping" reasons - even though many of those MS groups were very
active and had no equivalent in the alt or comp hierarchies.

Tim Slattery wrote:
philo wrote:


Microsoft never did maintain the microsoft.public.* set of newsgroups.
They were carried by the "world-wide" usenet for years. Microsoft was a
peer among many servers that carried those groups.

Yes, but...

MS originated the microsoft.public.* groups on its own servers. This
being Usenet, other servers started carrying them and they acquired a
life of their own. After MS shut down its Usenet server, the groups
continue to exist on many (most?) Usenet hosts.


There is a reason the microsoft.* groups did not disappear from
the rest of USENET.

Microsoft never generated the appropriate control messages for
the groups.

The administrator of my server, was perfectly willing to pull
the plug on microsoft.* and on the day after Microsoft did it.
*If* they generated signed control messages.

Microsoft never did that.

There was an individual (Julien Elie???), who used to
create control information, to help administrators manage
microsoft.*. For example, before Microsoft bailed on those
groups, there was a "cleanup" maybe a year or two before,
where some number of groups disappeared. Julien created the
appropriate control message content for that cleanup, and
administrators wishing to remove the unused/obsolete groups,
could do them in one shot.

Now, when it came time to blow away the remaining microsoft.*
the unofficial nature of the "fake" control messages was
considered as a factor. If Microsoft had properly run their
stuff, issued signed control messages, I expect the two servers I use
would have honored real, official looking control messages,
and again, in one command invocation, the thousand or fifteen
hundred of them or whatever, would have been removed. In just
the same way that many admins would have done for the
previous "cleanup" cycle.

The administrators were willing to trim the groups previously,
because in the "cleanup" cycle, no one was using the groups
in question. But for the final step, where Microsoft blows
away groups that still have a trickle of content, the
administrators tend to support groups carrying conversations,
and then it was more or less decided that the criteria would
be real live signed control messages. Which of course,
were never issued, because Microsoft never bothered with
that in the first place.

Paul

Paul wrote:

There is a reason the microsoft.* groups did not disappear from
the rest of USENET.

Microsoft never generated the appropriate control messages for
the groups.

Why would it have been "a good idea" (tm) to remove the microsoft
hierarchy from the world-wide usenet?

Given that many people were using those groups to communicate
information and have discussions about various MS-related topics, I
question the logic behind the idea that those groups "should have" been
removed from the public usenet just because their long-ago corporate
creator was abandoning them.

Can you (Paul) explain that logic?

The administrator of my server, was perfectly willing to pull
the plug on microsoft.* and on the day after Microsoft did it.
*If* they generated signed control messages.

Again, I ask why?

Why would active and useful venues for public discussion be so easily
waved out of existance - for such a trivial reason. ?

Now, when it came time to blow away the remaining microsoft.*
the unofficial nature of the "fake" control messages was
considered as a factor.

No.

Elie did generate some control messages that were honored and those
groups were blown away, so I don't see why any other control messages
for the remaining groups would have been seen as fake.

The real reason was that there was some opposition to the out-right
removal of otherwise useful and productive newsgroups, and that having
"microsoft" in the name of a newsgroup should not itself be a death
sentence for a group.

Which of course, were never issued, because Microsoft never
bothered with that in the first place.

Microsoft stopped playing any role in those groups long ago, and this
was well known, so I don't know why anyone would have expected them to
all-of-a-sudden get involved with those groups beyond what they do on
their own servers.

Perhaps Microsoft did not intend (or were ambivalent) that those groups
be removed from the wider, global usenet, and hence did not issue
control messages for that reason.

In the end, I think there was tension between the Microsoft-haters and
the more rational people that value what usenet represents and hence the
microsoft hierarchy still exists on usenet.

The topic seems to have been hijacked

Is it not a valid suggestion to query why the OP can not use a newer Audio
Card thereby avoiding the WIN 98 issues- admittidly the choice is less
extensive but surely those currently available must be able to carry out
whatever specialised functions he is relying upon.



"Moansalot