Returning to Win98 or maybe 95 on old machine/ mobile broadband andW98

thanatoid wrote:
poachedeggs wrote in

oups.com:

I have a 1999 Fujitsu with 512 mb upper limit for RAM and a
1.3 ghz CPU. I have spent time and money stretching it
with a bigger hard drive, more USB ports, a graphics card
and doubling the RAM from 256 mb, and also by trying many
Linux distros (including XFCE versions), along with XP, W2K
and even Vista Home Basic.

Until about 15 months ago I did everything on a 1997 166MHz P1
with 64MB (later upgraded to 96MB) RAM. I could do everything
except watch movies and convert music at reasonable speeds (it
took 3-4 hours for a 5 minute wav file to become another
format).

It ran 95B and had a 33.6 modem.



Heck a p-166 with 64 megs of RAM should have been a speed demon.

When I first started with win95 I was using a p1 75 mhz with just 8 megs
of ram and it worked fine..but when I started doing photography and
image processing I needed to bump the RAM up to 40 megs


In my study of minimalism
I have a 386-40 (AMD)
with 16 megs of RAM and it actually runs win95 pretty well.

I minimalized the installation then xcopied it to a 4O meg drive.

the only other thing I could have done in the name of minimalism
would have been to run it on 4 megs of RAM...
but the mobo accepted 16 megs so why not?

thanatoid wrote:
poachedeggs wrote in

oups.com:

I have a 1999 Fujitsu with 512 mb upper limit for RAM and a
1.3 ghz CPU. I have spent time and money stretching it
with a bigger hard drive, more USB ports, a graphics card
and doubling the RAM from 256 mb, and also by trying many
Linux distros (including XFCE versions), along with XP, W2K
and even Vista Home Basic.

Until about 15 months ago I did everything on a 1997 166MHz P1
with 64MB (later upgraded to 96MB) RAM. I could do everything
except watch movies and convert music at reasonable speeds (it
took 3-4 hours for a 5 minute wav file to become another
format).

It ran 95B and had a 33.6 modem.



Heck a p-166 with 64 megs of RAM should have been a speed demon.

When I first started with win95 I was using a p1 75 mhz with just 8 megs
of ram and it worked fine..but when I started doing photography and
image processing I needed to bump the RAM up to 40 megs


In my study of minimalism
I have a 386-40 (AMD)
with 16 megs of RAM and it actually runs win95 pretty well.

I minimalized the installation then xcopied it to a 4O meg drive.

the only other thing I could have done in the name of minimalism
would have been to run it on 4 megs of RAM...
but the mobo accepted 16 megs so why not?

"poachedeggs" wrote in message
...

I have a 1999 Fujitsu with 512 mb upper limit for RAM and a 1.3 ghz
CPU. . . . it does of course draw windows and work with the
internet not so fluidly as my Vista-cum-Windows 7 laptop and my
netbook. I'm thinking of reverting the purpose of the machine back to
why I bought it secondhand, just to write a novel on, and I use the
Wordpad derivative Jarte after a year of trying OpenOffice. . . .

Would I _notice_ a performance improvement if running an OS from the
era the machine was built, or would it still be glitchy in the same way?

This is really two questions, not one:
1. Win98SE can be configured glitch-free (for practical purposes:
WinXP is more self-correcting, but Win98 is usually faster, and
both these are faster than any variant of Vista.)
2. Win98 users' main practical consideration nowadays depends
how they use the Internet, since Win98 does not support the latest
improvements in Mozilla, Open Office and Java. (E.g. when
I reordered blank cheques recently I had to do so from the WinXP
machine because Win98 could not display (before timing out) the
elaborate pictorial web pages nowadays used by the bank.) But
if the user wants only to write and calculate at home, and still has
a suitable printer in working order, Win98 will probably support all
his needs.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

"poachedeggs" wrote in message
...

I have a 1999 Fujitsu with 512 mb upper limit for RAM and a 1.3 ghz
CPU. . . . it does of course draw windows and work with the
internet not so fluidly as my Vista-cum-Windows 7 laptop and my
netbook. I'm thinking of reverting the purpose of the machine back to
why I bought it secondhand, just to write a novel on, and I use the
Wordpad derivative Jarte after a year of trying OpenOffice. . . .

Would I _notice_ a performance improvement if running an OS from the
era the machine was built, or would it still be glitchy in the same way?

This is really two questions, not one:
1. Win98SE can be configured glitch-free (for practical purposes:
WinXP is more self-correcting, but Win98 is usually faster, and
both these are faster than any variant of Vista.)
2. Win98 users' main practical consideration nowadays depends
how they use the Internet, since Win98 does not support the latest
improvements in Mozilla, Open Office and Java. (E.g. when
I reordered blank cheques recently I had to do so from the WinXP
machine because Win98 could not display (before timing out) the
elaborate pictorial web pages nowadays used by the bank.) But
if the user wants only to write and calculate at home, and still has
a suitable printer in working order, Win98 will probably support all
his needs.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

On 12/04/2009 09:02 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
MEB wrote:

What is your evidence or what do you base your claim on that SE
has a different (more demanding) performance curve compared to
FE?

If you were actually interested, which we all know your not,,,
you could check on the gamers sites or for some of their old
performance diagnostics, if you can still find them...

If you were actually a source of real information, and if you had
confidence in the accuracy of your information, then you would support
your claims by posting that information, instead of simply making the
vaccuous claim that such information once existed in some vauge places.

(and I don't play games with my PC, unlike you apparently do, so I
wouldn't know any particular game sites. I actually have a $dayjob -
perhaps you don't.)

Well, gosh golly, who the heck would employ someone as stupid as you; I
guess there are areas were a body and a programmed mind work well..
somewhere where mental capacity and intellect is a deterrent, as it gets
in the way of productivity and/or corporate needs... yes, I suppose the
mindless can find work, perhaps even with government subsidy, for those
affected such as you apparently are.

I know your just a *poser* pretending to be many things and not
actually any of those, and so are most of those at guy.com if that's
where you really hang... think of it like this [which I wouldn't need to
point out if you actually had a clue about what you purport to know]: 9X
had some of the most extensive benchmarking and testing programs created
during its existence, provided *FREE* to the public [PCMAG, MAD ONION,
etc.].
These tested ALL aspects of the OSs, from GAMING to OFFICE styled
activities to INTERNAL functioning to HARDWARE burn-in/burn-out, to...
and the parties using them posted the findings ON-LINE for public
comparisons. The point being there was little left unknown. Others, such
as myself, additionally tore the files and system activities apart
looking for and at other and additional aspects in these systems.
*WE* don't need to impress parties such as yourself, who know nothing
and really don't make an effort to do so about ANYTHING you purport to
make public in your postings; *YOU* are obviously part of the
stupefaction of the world and show it constantly.



Then again, you COULD do your own tests, but you won't of
course...

Then again, since you made the claim that 98-SE runs slower than FE, you
could post the results of your own tests that supports such a claim.

I did. Look for them at the sites where this type of information exists.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

On 12/04/2009 09:02 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
MEB wrote:

What is your evidence or what do you base your claim on that SE
has a different (more demanding) performance curve compared to
FE?

If you were actually interested, which we all know your not,,,
you could check on the gamers sites or for some of their old
performance diagnostics, if you can still find them...

If you were actually a source of real information, and if you had
confidence in the accuracy of your information, then you would support
your claims by posting that information, instead of simply making the
vaccuous claim that such information once existed in some vauge places.

(and I don't play games with my PC, unlike you apparently do, so I
wouldn't know any particular game sites. I actually have a $dayjob -
perhaps you don't.)

Well, gosh golly, who the heck would employ someone as stupid as you; I
guess there are areas were a body and a programmed mind work well..
somewhere where mental capacity and intellect is a deterrent, as it gets
in the way of productivity and/or corporate needs... yes, I suppose the
mindless can find work, perhaps even with government subsidy, for those
affected such as you apparently are.

I know your just a *poser* pretending to be many things and not
actually any of those, and so are most of those at guy.com if that's
where you really hang... think of it like this [which I wouldn't need to
point out if you actually had a clue about what you purport to know]: 9X
had some of the most extensive benchmarking and testing programs created
during its existence, provided *FREE* to the public [PCMAG, MAD ONION,
etc.].
These tested ALL aspects of the OSs, from GAMING to OFFICE styled
activities to INTERNAL functioning to HARDWARE burn-in/burn-out, to...
and the parties using them posted the findings ON-LINE for public
comparisons. The point being there was little left unknown. Others, such
as myself, additionally tore the files and system activities apart
looking for and at other and additional aspects in these systems.
*WE* don't need to impress parties such as yourself, who know nothing
and really don't make an effort to do so about ANYTHING you purport to
make public in your postings; *YOU* are obviously part of the
stupefaction of the world and show it constantly.



Then again, you COULD do your own tests, but you won't of
course...

Then again, since you made the claim that 98-SE runs slower than FE, you
could post the results of your own tests that supports such a claim.

I did. Look for them at the sites where this type of information exists.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

"98 Guy" wrote in message ...

Any IDE driver larger than 128 gb will have to be fdisk'ed such that
only the first 128 gb are allocated to a usable fat-32 partition. The
rest will have to remain as un-allocated space.

USB (external) drives are immune from this limit (and nowadays
are mostly sold preformatted for FAT32, at least up to 250 Gb.)

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

"98 Guy" wrote in message ...

Any IDE driver larger than 128 gb will have to be fdisk'ed such that
only the first 128 gb are allocated to a usable fat-32 partition. The
rest will have to remain as un-allocated space.

USB (external) drives are immune from this limit (and nowadays
are mostly sold preformatted for FAT32, at least up to 250 Gb.)

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

On Dec 4, 3:44*pm, philo wrote:
thanatoid wrote:
poachedeggs wrote in

oups.com:

I have a 1999 Fujitsu with 512 mb upper limit for RAM and a
1.3 ghz CPU. *I have spent time and money stretching it
with a bigger hard drive, more USB ports, a graphics card
and doubling the RAM from 256 mb, and also by trying many
Linux distros (including XFCE versions), along with XP, W2K
and even Vista Home Basic.

Until about 15 months ago I did everything on a 1997 166MHz P1
with 64MB (later upgraded to 96MB) RAM. I could do everything
except watch movies and convert music at reasonable speeds (it
took 3-4 hours for a 5 minute wav file to become another
format).

It ran 95B and had a 33.6 modem.

Heck a p-166 with 64 megs of RAM should have been a speed demon.

When I first started with win95 I was using a p1 75 mhz with just 8 megs
of ram and it worked fine..but when I started doing photography and
image processing I needed to bump the RAM up to 40 megs

In my study of minimalism
I have a 386-40 * (AMD)
with 16 megs of RAM and it actually runs win95 pretty well.

I minimalized the installation then xcopied it to a 4O meg drive.

the only other thing I could have done in the name of minimalism
would have been to run it on 4 megs of RAM...
but the mobo accepted 16 megs so why not?

Thanks, plenty for me to work through there, excellent, especially
thanatoid's contribution as he/she is obviously up to thsome of the
same stuff. (Jeanette Winterson told us she uses an electric
typewriter when she visited the university I attended, but stuff that
labour, eh.)

The Fujitsu is a Scenic T with D1371 mainboard, a slightly later one
at a guess as the CPU is .1 of a ghz higher than listed when I googled
about it several months back.

It has had both W2K and XP on it but it felt laggy to me, hence the
enquiries about 95/98 - I was hoping it could have an older OS on it
that made it feel relative to the smoothness of my laptop and
netbook. I suppose I could get shot of the Avast software now that
it's retired from being online.

The hard drive is IDE - I had got some kind of advice about master/
slave connection of the 20gb and the 240gb but it went over my head
really. The mobile broadband dongle is a ZTE (T-Mobile) MF626, which
Ubuntu has recently got the hang of, driver-wise (shame the OS is a
complete mess otherwise this time), so regardless of what T-mobile
caters for I was hoping some little project genius might have made a
driver for older Windows.

My graphics card is a replica of the nVidia FX5200 though, and I'm
guessing W2K is as far back as it'll accomodate, so maybe that'll be
going in a drawer for now.

I suppose this is, er, kinky of me, but I do love old computer stuff,
with limitations that stop some of us us fiddling, I kind of wish
technology had hit a wall after Windows 98, the Levi jeans of OS'es...

I will look for Ami Pro too, though I'm keen to keep something
with .doc files compatibility to evade later publishing hassle, and
imagine it might not have that compatibility because of its age?
Maybe not.

I'll get back to you if I have any bother, and will look in tomorrow
to see if anything's been added.

Can I ask, when these product keys are made available by torrent sites
(and I know it doesn't apply to 98 because of the generic keys
available), does that impact on any user they may be taken from, i.e
mightn't some poor fella whose key it was first get in a pickle with
Microsoft during Updates?

Thanks all.

On Dec 4, 3:44*pm, philo wrote:
thanatoid wrote:
poachedeggs wrote in

oups.com:

I have a 1999 Fujitsu with 512 mb upper limit for RAM and a
1.3 ghz CPU. *I have spent time and money stretching it
with a bigger hard drive, more USB ports, a graphics card
and doubling the RAM from 256 mb, and also by trying many
Linux distros (including XFCE versions), along with XP, W2K
and even Vista Home Basic.

Until about 15 months ago I did everything on a 1997 166MHz P1
with 64MB (later upgraded to 96MB) RAM. I could do everything
except watch movies and convert music at reasonable speeds (it
took 3-4 hours for a 5 minute wav file to become another
format).

It ran 95B and had a 33.6 modem.

Heck a p-166 with 64 megs of RAM should have been a speed demon.

When I first started with win95 I was using a p1 75 mhz with just 8 megs
of ram and it worked fine..but when I started doing photography and
image processing I needed to bump the RAM up to 40 megs

In my study of minimalism
I have a 386-40 * (AMD)
with 16 megs of RAM and it actually runs win95 pretty well.

I minimalized the installation then xcopied it to a 4O meg drive.

the only other thing I could have done in the name of minimalism
would have been to run it on 4 megs of RAM...
but the mobo accepted 16 megs so why not?

Thanks, plenty for me to work through there, excellent, especially
thanatoid's contribution as he/she is obviously up to thsome of the
same stuff. (Jeanette Winterson told us she uses an electric
typewriter when she visited the university I attended, but stuff that
labour, eh.)

The Fujitsu is a Scenic T with D1371 mainboard, a slightly later one
at a guess as the CPU is .1 of a ghz higher than listed when I googled
about it several months back.

It has had both W2K and XP on it but it felt laggy to me, hence the
enquiries about 95/98 - I was hoping it could have an older OS on it
that made it feel relative to the smoothness of my laptop and
netbook. I suppose I could get shot of the Avast software now that
it's retired from being online.

The hard drive is IDE - I had got some kind of advice about master/
slave connection of the 20gb and the 240gb but it went over my head
really. The mobile broadband dongle is a ZTE (T-Mobile) MF626, which
Ubuntu has recently got the hang of, driver-wise (shame the OS is a
complete mess otherwise this time), so regardless of what T-mobile
caters for I was hoping some little project genius might have made a
driver for older Windows.

My graphics card is a replica of the nVidia FX5200 though, and I'm
guessing W2K is as far back as it'll accomodate, so maybe that'll be
going in a drawer for now.

I suppose this is, er, kinky of me, but I do love old computer stuff,
with limitations that stop some of us us fiddling, I kind of wish
technology had hit a wall after Windows 98, the Levi jeans of OS'es...

I will look for Ami Pro too, though I'm keen to keep something
with .doc files compatibility to evade later publishing hassle, and
imagine it might not have that compatibility because of its age?
Maybe not.

I'll get back to you if I have any bother, and will look in tomorrow
to see if anything's been added.

Can I ask, when these product keys are made available by torrent sites
(and I know it doesn't apply to 98 because of the generic keys
available), does that impact on any user they may be taken from, i.e
mightn't some poor fella whose key it was first get in a pickle with
Microsoft during Updates?

Thanks all.