Upgrading Windows 98

John Doe wrote:

A machine running Windows XP can easily be assumed to have
practically the same purpose as a machine running Windows 98. THE
DIFFERENCE IS THAT WINDOWS XP IS INCREDIBLY BETTER THAN WINDOWS
98. Hardware requirements matter, but even a slow computer running
Windows XP is better than the same computer running Windows 98.

I am inclined to agree with this opinion. It's possible to make XP run
on computers that supposedly can't run it. I've done it. If the
machine can run Win 98, it's worth it to try XP.

You have to tweak it to run lean, but it is possible. It helps to have
an anti-virus like AVG free that isn't a resources hog, too.

Just turn off all the start-up stuff, turn off active desktop and junk
like that. Deactivate as much of the background frippery as you can.

AND advise your cheapskate client to get the box of dollar bills out
from under the bed, and go buy themselves a new computer. Sheesh.

I have a gal-pal who used the same laptop for something like nine years.
NINE YEARS! She got her money's worth out of it! Incredibly, the
thing still works!

One day I said to her, "You know, just because your old tricycle still
works doesn't mean you should still be riding it." LOL

She finally broke the piggy bank and bought a new one last year. She
loves the new one! She sorry she waited!

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:51:41 -0500, Toolpackinmama
wrote:

Metspitzer wrote:

I installed XP and the network card.
Everything is working fine


Awesome! I am curious to know what the machine is? How about a model
name or number?

It is a HP Pavilion. 500Mhz with 192K memory and a 12G hard drive.

Just fine for a second computer to surf the net.

Metspitzer wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:51:41 -0500, Toolpackinmama
wrote:

Metspitzer wrote:

I installed XP and the network card.
Everything is working fine

Awesome! I am curious to know what the machine is? How about a model
name or number?

It is a HP Pavilion. 500Mhz with 192K memory and a 12G hard drive.

Oh... wow. And XP runs on it. That's awesome.

On 01 Jan 2010 19:04:10 GMT, John Doe wrote:

km wrote:

John Doe wrote:
Metspitzer wrote:

I have a friend. He is trying to get an Ethernet adapter to
work with his old machine. He says that he has 98 but he needs
98 second version. I assume that means SP2 for 98.

The computer works "fine" with AOL, but he wants to use
broadband. Is there a way I could download SP2 and put it on a
CD for him? I assume that it would take days to upgrade using
dial up.

Prove yourself to be a real friend, stop screwing around with
Windows 98 and upgrade his computer to Windows XP. If he protests,
tell the moron that the only difference the real upgrade will make
is positive. Windows XP can be made to look EXACTLY the same as
Windows 98 through Display Properties, including gradient title
bars (the most impressive thing about Windows 98SE/ME).

Also, if you contact this person regularly, do the installation
using incremental backups (with Macrium Reflect or whatever).
Incremental backups are the only way to install and maintain
Windows.

Good luck.

Before telling him to dump Win98 just check whether he has software
dependant upon it. Not all programmes can be run via emulation.

If you have an application that is so lame it will not run on
Windows XP even using compatibility mode, it is time to upgrade
your application. Windows XP is not state-of-the-art, but it is
light years ahead of Windows 98.

What a pointless response. You have no idea what software may be
affected. In the case I quote the software is DOS based and has not
been upgraded since issue. The main feature of the package is a DOS
database of several million names and dates which have not been made
available for public use since the discs were first released a number
of years ago.

Unhelpful sneering responses like yours ultimately lead to in-fighting
in a Newsgroup and a gradual breakdown of its worth.

km

Toolpackinmama wrote:

Metspitzer wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:51:41 -0500, Toolpackinmama
wrote:

Metspitzer wrote:

I installed XP and the network card.
Everything is working fine

Awesome! I am curious to know what the machine is? How about a model
name or number?

It is a HP Pavilion. 500Mhz with 192K memory and a 12G hard drive.

Oh... wow. And XP runs on it. That's awesome.

I have an old Compaq Armada M300 (with the same CPU) with XP Performance
Edition installed on it.
It Boots up and shutsdown and generally feels more responsive than my nieces
brand new Dual core laptop with Windows 7.
Obviously its slower (a lot) for CPU intensive tasks but for basic
webbrowsing etc its perfectly capable.
--
Graham
Website - http://www.thedeathzone.free-online.co.uk

Metspitzer wrote:

I have a friend. He is trying to get an Ethernet adapter to work with
his old machine. He says that he has 98 but he needs 98 second
version. I assume that means SP2 for 98.

98 Second Edition (98SE) is a separate product from 98, and while
there's no official SP for 98SE, somebody's put together all the
updates for it into a single download and has named it the Unofficial
Windows 98 Second Edition Service Pack 2.1a, available from. among
others:

http://exuberant.ms11.net/98sesp.html

This SP will NOT turn 98 into 98SE.

Most Ethernet adapters should have 98 drivers for them, even some that
claim to require 98SE. USB 1.1 support is OK for 98, and 1.1 is more
than fast enough for almost all broadband connections, up to about
12Mbps. USB 2.0 support for 98SE is common, but much less so for 98,
and AFAIK only VIA and NEC chips have drivers for it. NEC says they
no longer distribute the driver, but it's available from some
companies that have sold NEC-based USB cards, like IOgear (models
GIC220U -- some are not not NEC, GIC250U) and Seagate (Maxtor USB
card):

http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/m...oads/usb20.exe

VIA's USB 2.0 driver for Windows 98, 98SE, and ME can be downloaded
from:

http://www.viaarena.com/Driver/VIA_USB2_V270p1-L-M.zip

Almost all VIA-based USB 2.0 cards are listed as requiring 98SE or
later, but that's inaccurate, and they also work fine with 98. I've
used them myself with 98.

I don't know where to buy a legitimate copy of 98SE cheaply, but maybe
your friend can get a junked computer that had been running a
legitimate copy and then make a copy somebody's 98SE CD-ROM. Just
copying the CD without obtaining a computer containing a legitimate
copy is illegal because it increases the number of computers running
unpaid copies of 98SE.

It's possible that Windows 2000 or XP are now cheaper than 98SE.
Microsoft says XP Home needs a 300MHz CPU and 128MB of RAM, but I
found it to be sluggish with even twice as much RAM, whether the CPU
ran at 450 MHz (Celeron) or 1.5 GHz (Athlon XP 1800+). XP worked much
better with 512MB, even with a 466 MHz Celeron, but it was still too
slow for good YouTube performance. But if there's enough memory, a
1.0-1.5 GHz CPU seems to be adequate. Windows 2000 reportedly can
tolerate a smaller amount of RAM and slower CPU than XP, and Microsoft
says 64MB RAM and 133MHz CPU are good enough for it. I have doubts
about the 64MB recommendation because even Windows 98 and 98SE ran
noticeably faster with twice that amount of RAM.

"larry moe 'n curly" wrote:

It's possible that Windows 2000 or XP are now cheaper than 98SE.

XP worked much better with 512MB, even with a 466 MHz Celeron,
but it was still too slow for good YouTube performance. But if
there's enough memory, a 1.0-1.5 GHz CPU seems to be adequate.

I have seen Windows XP run better than Windows 98 on a 700 MHz CPU
with 512/768 MB of RAM.

edfair edfair.447hu2 no.email.invalid wrote:

This is kinda a replay of the 95/3.1 arguement I had with a buddy.

If you are new to USENET, you might be in for a surprise.

I pointed out that the 3.1 would boot, work for what I needed,
and shut down before the 95 was finished booting...

That argument is ****, Jack.

98 is fine for some things.

Windows 98 is a great source of frustration for anyone like the
original poster who lives in the modern PC world.

Snipped another simply ridiculous argument

Reminds me of the Eastwood line in one of his movies: "You've
got to know your limitations."

If you are so limited, you should consider a device that is much smaller and less expensive than a modern PC and does more than your Neanderthal hardware running an ancient operating system.

Windows XP has much improved memory management, that makes it
superior to Windows 98 for anyone who lives in the real PC world.
For most users, the obsolete and relatively dysfunctional
operating system like Windows 98 or 3.1 is useful only if their
hardware is very limited and cannot be upgraded.
--



















Path: news.astraweb.com!border2.newsrouter.astraweb.com! news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!postnews.google.com !news1.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nnt p.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.d ca.giganews.com!nntp.supernews.com!news.supernews. com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 03:25:35 -0600
From: edfair edfair.447hu2 no.email.invalid
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Upgrading Windows 98
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 20:36:32 -0600
Message-ID: edfair.447hu2 no.email.invalid
Organization: NNTPGW
User-Agent: vBulletin USENET gateway
X-Newsreader: vBulletin USENET gateway
X-Originating-IP: 98.88.81.75
References: t5ikj55en0nhe0klsih84f3o06qqgjdpko 4ax.com 00b679fd$0$12998$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com 7q75mpFl3sU1 mid.individual.net 00ec7df3$0$27968$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com 7q799nF8n7U1 mid.individual.net 00afd629$0$8059$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com 001d7ee6$0$2160$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com
Lines: 15
X-Trace: sv3-0LFeXLvXzQ7msobPrxu4iZRvAFmjc/hRjMOgpGv8snh/PqcBc4GrRQ+ags55s7AbqvXzyV/+QMTgQbj!vuPDoY2tZB5uhHX5DQ3tTL3/MCEEj3vzMaFQMlKooVMD89IKRMQAZhdMZMM8cWk=
X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Lines: 5

On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 20:36:32 -0600, edfair
wrote:


This is kinda a replay of the 95/3.1 arguement I had with a buddy. He
insisted that 95 was the greatest thing since sliced bread until I
pointed out that the 3.1 would boot, work for what I needed, and shut
down before the 95 was finished booting.

98 is fine for some things. If a user is comfortable with it, more
power to them. I keep one machine triple booting SE. It works for what
it is set up for, and like the 3.1 in the previous paragraph, it boots,
does what it is supposed to, and shuts down while the XP is still
stirring the pot.

Reminds me of the Eastwood line in one of his movies: "You've got to
know your limitations."

Well said.

Geo

Quote John Doe:
If you are so limited, you should consider a device that is much
smaller and less expensive than a modern PC and does more than your
Neanderthal hardware running an ancient operating system.

I have the XPs, not just the SE. But you probably will sneer at the
386 laptop with 30mb hard drive running dual boot DOS/Xenix, too,
although it is being replaced by a 486 divided the same way.

Not everybody needs a sledgehammer to drive nails, although they are
great if you need to break up concrete.