Is AUTOEXEC.BAT necessary?

Win98se

My PC hails from the days of DOS6.22 - when Autoexec ruled - but I wonder
how relevant it is to Win98se.

What use to Win98se are -

mode con codepage prepare=((850) C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\ega.cpi)
mode con codepage select=850

There are other entries in Autoexec which are looking for the sound card. I
have no problem with commenting them out, but that made me wonder about the
use of the remainer of Autoexec.

Regards
Stephen Ford

Stephen,

In general, both Config.sys and Autoexec.bat are not necessary for
Win95/98/98SE, and may not present at all.

They are using only if your computer language differ from the default (default
is Codepage 437, that is US codepage; while Codepage 850 is Multilingual Latin
1 Codepage, http://www.ascii.ca/ ), or if you have to use DOS-specific
drivers, like DOS-drivers for sound card in your case.

So if your DOS language is US, and you don't use the sound card in "pure" DOS
(i.e. not in DOS window, but in Command Prompt Only) -- they are not
necessary.

--
Mikhail Zhilin
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
http://www.aha.ru/~mwz
Sorry, no technical support by e-mail.
Please reply to the newsgroups only.
======

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 10:07:58 +0100, "Stephen Ford"
wrote:

Win98se

My PC hails from the days of DOS6.22 - when Autoexec ruled - but I wonder
how relevant it is to Win98se.

What use to Win98se are -

mode con codepage prepare=((850) C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\ega.cpi)
mode con codepage select=850

There are other entries in Autoexec which are looking for the sound card. I
have no problem with commenting them out, but that made me wonder about the
use of the remainer of Autoexec.

Regards
Stephen Ford

In general, both Config.sys and Autoexec.bat are not necessary ...

Interesting. Thanks. Well done for mentioning CONFIG.SYS. I'd forgotten
that!

I've had to resurrect an old 200Mhz Win98se PC for my business. Six months
ago I built a 2.6GHz beastie with XP Pro and have been dreadfully spoilt
ever since. Going back to Win98 was an eye-opener.

I remember the "bruises" from building the 98 m/c in 1998 or so, and all the
fights to make it work ... and to make it stable.

On starting the XP m/c all I did was switch it on and sit back and watch it
for about 45 minutes. It did everything itself. Amazing.

Stephen.

Glad to clarify some of the old Win9x principles.

BTW, I couldn't migrate from Win98 to Win2000 (tried it for a few months
though) -- but WinXP fascinated me.

--
Mikhail Zhilin
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
http://www.aha.ru/~mwz
Sorry, no technical support by e-mail.
Please reply to the newsgroups only.
======
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 13:10:15 +0100, "Stephen Ford"
wrote:

In general, both Config.sys and Autoexec.bat are not necessary ...

Interesting. Thanks. Well done for mentioning CONFIG.SYS. I'd forgotten
that!

I've had to resurrect an old 200Mhz Win98se PC for my business. Six months
ago I built a 2.6GHz beastie with XP Pro and have been dreadfully spoilt
ever since. Going back to Win98 was an eye-opener.

I remember the "bruises" from building the 98 m/c in 1998 or so, and all the
fights to make it work ... and to make it stable.

On starting the XP m/c all I did was switch it on and sit back and watch it
for about 45 minutes. It did everything itself. Amazing.

Stephen.

Right now I'm using an "ancient" Compaq Presario with Windows 98 and only 64
MG of RAM. It is crashing more often now, and soon I will have to break
down and get a new one. As to operating systems, is then XP much more user
friendly than 2000?

Thank you very much.

Candy

"Mikhail Zhilin" wrote in message
...


Glad to clarify some of the old Win9x principles.

BTW, I couldn't migrate from Win98 to Win2000 (tried it for a few months
though) -- but WinXP fascinated me.

--
Mikhail Zhilin
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
http://www.aha.ru/~mwz
Sorry, no technical support by e-mail.
Please reply to the newsgroups only.

Right now I'm using an "ancient" Compaq Presario with Windows 98 and only
64
MG of RAM.

My goodness, you'll not be doing much more than a bit of WP with that,
then?!

It is crashing more often now, and soon I will have to break
down

I hope "you" don't break down - the PC, yes, but please, not you ! :-)

...and get a new one.

I found that it was very important with Win98 to keep the temporary folders
clear. My WP software seemed to react badly to it's own temporary files.
Win98 seemed to dislike them too. IE behaviour was more stable when the
numbers of temporary internet files where kept down by using Tools Options
Delete temporary files. It's also wise to error check HDDs and defagment
files regularly.

Old computers and operating systems can go on indefinitely "if" we don't ask
them to do more than for which they where originally configured. But that's
not usually how life is. Once you start processing more database records, or
load new software or introduce graphics, or use high speed web
communications, the old PCs show their limitations.

As to operating systems, is then XP much more user
friendly than 2000?

I don't know Win2000, but I built a new PC, inserted the XP Pro CD and that
was it ... I just sat back and let it configure itself. Amazing! And if
software crashes, XP keeps going. And it's full of tools. If Win98 needs to
sneeze, you have to buy it a tissue, Xp seems to have just about everything.

HTH
Stephen

BTW, I couldn't migrate from Win98 to Win2000 (tried it for a few months
though) -- but WinXP fascinated me.

Yes, it's nearly as good as UNIX now ..... :-}

S.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:52:16 -0500, "Candy" wrote:

Right now I'm using an "ancient" Compaq Presario with Windows 98 and only 64
MG of RAM. It is crashing more often now, and soon I will have to break
down and get a new one. As to operating systems, is then XP much more user
friendly than 2000?

Thank you very much.

Candy

As for me -- yes, I feel me more free with WinXP than with Win2000. Win2000 is
more "industrial" system, while WinXP is more user-oriented. Besides that --
in general, WinXP is based on Win2000 and includes all its benefits.

And don't forget that the main support of Win2000 retired on 6/30/2005:
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=3071

From the practice, 1GHz CPU and 256 MB of RAM is the minimum for the
_comforatable_ work with WinXP, while 512MB of RAM is preferable.

--
Mikhail Zhilin
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
http://www.aha.ru/~mwz
Sorry, no technical support by e-mail.
Please reply to the newsgroups only.
======
"Mikhail Zhilin" wrote in message
.. .


Glad to clarify some of the old Win9x principles.

BTW, I couldn't migrate from Win98 to Win2000 (tried it for a few months
though) -- but WinXP fascinated me.

..

Thanks for your informative answer. I do alot of WP, Excel files, email,
and newsgroups. And I also do alot of regular cleaning, defragging, and
disk and file checking. I've learned how to do quite a bit. Generally
keeps my 64 MG's running. I'll probably get XP when I finally do upgrade.
Thanks.

Candy

"Stephen Ford" wrote in message
...
Right now I'm using an "ancient" Compaq Presario with Windows 98 and
only
64
MG of RAM.

My goodness, you'll not be doing much more than a bit of WP with that,
then?!

It is crashing more often now, and soon I will have to break
down

I hope "you" don't break down - the PC, yes, but please, not you ! :-)

...and get a new one.

I found that it was very important with Win98 to keep the temporary
folders
clear. My WP software seemed to react badly to it's own temporary files.
Win98 seemed to dislike them too. IE behaviour was more stable when the
numbers of temporary internet files where kept down by using Tools
Options
Delete temporary files. It's also wise to error check HDDs and
defagment
files regularly.

Old computers and operating systems can go on indefinitely "if" we don't
ask
them to do more than for which they where originally configured. But
that's
not usually how life is. Once you start processing more database records,
or
load new software or introduce graphics, or use high speed web
communications, the old PCs show their limitations.

As to operating systems, is then XP much more user
friendly than 2000?

I don't know Win2000, but I built a new PC, inserted the XP Pro CD and
that
was it ... I just sat back and let it configure itself. Amazing! And if
software crashes, XP keeps going. And it's full of tools. If Win98 needs
to
sneeze, you have to buy it a tissue, Xp seems to have just about
everything.

HTH
Stephen

Yes! Give me "user-friendly" any day! That "support retirement" is
important, too. Also, there are no downloads, templates, etc. for the older
operating systems. Thank you for your response.

Candy

"Mikhail Zhilin" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:52:16 -0500, "Candy" wrote:

Right now I'm using an "ancient" Compaq Presario with Windows 98 and only
64
MG of RAM. It is crashing more often now, and soon I will have to break
down and get a new one. As to operating systems, is then XP much more
user
friendly than 2000?

Thank you very much.

Candy

As for me -- yes, I feel me more free with WinXP than with Win2000.
Win2000 is
more "industrial" system, while WinXP is more user-oriented. Besides
that --
in general, WinXP is based on Win2000 and includes all its benefits.

And don't forget that the main support of Win2000 retired on 6/30/2005:
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=3071

From the practice, 1GHz CPU and 256 MB of RAM is the minimum for the
_comforatable_ work with WinXP, while 512MB of RAM is preferable.

--
Mikhail Zhilin
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
http://www.aha.ru/~mwz
Sorry, no technical support by e-mail.
Please reply to the newsgroups only.