A Windows 98 & ME forum. Win98banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Win98banter forum » Windows 98 » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Last version of Adobe Shockwave for 98



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 30th 13, 04:39 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,alt.windows98
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default I'm using Windows 9

98 Guy wrote:
" used improper usenet message composition style
by unnecessarily full-quoting:

As I understood it, Win2000 was supposed to be a combined version,
able to work on standalone computers (i.e. upgrade from Win98SE)
*and* networked computers (i.e. upgrade from NT versions)


Wrong on several counts.

First, you make some sort of distinction between networked and
non-networked operating systems, as if to imply that win98 was somehow
not suited for networked use (that it was somehow designed for
stand-alone use) - which couldn't be further from the truth.

Second, you imply that win-2k was a direct replacement for win-98. That
is also wrong.


No, not at all, as, in the part of my post that you snipped I typed
"but, after its release, Win2000 was found to not work well on
standalones, so the revised standalone version became WinME."

Sorry, after reading to the end of your post, I now see you didn't snip
that bit at all, sorry!!

Anyone running win-98 was doing so as a non-system
administrator (in an organizational setting) or was running it in a
home/soho setting. They would continue to run win-98 in those settings
until their next computer purchase - which could have been a computer
with windows ME or Windows XP.

So-called power users, developers or servers would have already been
running windows NT4 either in an organizational setting or soho setting,
and those are the ones that would have switched over to Windows 2k.


Again, as I typed, Win2000 was supposed to be the combine, but didn't
work in standalone situations, so implying it did work as a networked
replacement

Home users that were also "power users" or early adopters didn't switch
from win-9x/me to Win-2k for a variety of reasons, but predominantly
because early driver support was lagging on win-2k, particularly for
sound cards. Power users (in home settings) are more likely to be avid
game players.

Micro$oft's own sales documents specifically mention that win-2k was not
designed for home use (the support load that microsoft would have
experienced from home users trying to figure out how to use win-2k would
have been overwhelming). And the hardware requirements in terms of CPU,
ram and hard-drive size were higher for win-2k vs 9x/me, and in those
days that difference equated to significantly more expensive price tag.

So you might think that win-2K was somehow part of the upgrade or
migration path for win-9x/me - but for all the reasons mentioned above,
it wasn't.

Just look at your own experiences with people you know, and how many of
them went from win-98 to win-2k (in 2000 or 2001) vs win-xp (in 2002 and
beyond).


I stuck with Win98SE (on my desktop computer, which I still use,
occasionally) until I brought this laptop which came with Win7
pre-installed. I then dual-installed various Linux installations which
is where I send most of my on-line time, basically just booting Win7 to
get various updates!

At my last place of work, the Australian Taxation Office, they only
updated to Win7 from WinXP, sometime after I left in 2011. Don't know
when any previous updates had occured.

Most family members have updated Windows versions as they brought new
computers, so no real "updating" of OS's.

but, after its release, Win2000 was found to not work well on
standalones, so the revised standalone version became WinME.


Again, this distinction between OS functionality or OS performance and
the network "connected-ness" of the machine is bogus.


O.K., as I started my previous post "As I understood it,", your
understanding was different!!

Daniel

  #12  
Old March 30th 13, 04:54 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,alt.windows98
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default I'm using Windows 9

wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:12:20 +1100, "
wrote:

who where wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:52:48 -0600,
wrote:

The current version of Windows is "Windows 8". Well, I have Windows 9,
so I am ahead of the times. Actually, I have Windows 9.8.....
That's even better yet.

Considering Windows 95 and 98 and 98se have always been referred to as
"Windows 9".

Not quite. They are (collectively) Windows 4 and apart from that tag
were "always" referred to as Win9X. Big difference.

The latest versions were all numbers.

ALL Windows versions were numbers if you ever bothered to look under
the fancy packaging.

And then there was XP. Another name I never
understood where it came from.

Does it matter? They can stick whatever name on it they like to
distinguish it from any predecessor.

And even Windows ME, was millenium edition, for the year 2000. (That
was an overlap of the same year.... not too bright on their part
either).

ME was the dismal last Win4 version. Win2000 was the first
"mainstream" NT version. These were two separate OS streams, just as
NT 3.51/NT4 etc had existed for years alongside Win4.


As I understood it, Win2000 was supposed to be a combined version, able
to work on standalone computers (i.e. upgrade from Win98SE) *and*
networked computers (i.e. upgrade from NT versions) but, after its
release, Win2000 was found to not work well on standalones, so the
revised standalone version became WinME.

Daniel


Actually you got that wrong. WinME was the upgrade from Win98se, but it
never caught on because it had too many problems. Windows 2000 was the
beginning of XP.


I typed that the Win98-Win2000 upgrade didn't work so MS brought out
Win2000, so where was I wrong??

Actually it was dan near the same, except it didn't
come with all the bloat that XP has. I run both 98 and 2000 (dual boot).
Once and awhile I cant run an app on 98, so I boot to 2000. The thing I
never understood is why a lot of software written for XP wont run on
2000, when 2000 has the same core. Windows 2000 is the last version of
MS Windows that I'll ever run. Once they got into that verification
****, I stopped using their ****.

I have XP on my laptop, but only because it came with it. I got rid
ofmost of the bloat crap, but I still dislike it. I'd like to install a
larger harddrive in that laptop, but I cant, because although the XP is
licensed and legal, it did not come with an install CD. I refuse to buy
XP, and still have to perform their verification ****. And being a
laptop, I cant install a second harddrive like I can in my desktop. My
only option is to dump all my music and videos onto a USB drive and
carry that around with the computer, because that 40gig harddrive fills
up fast.


To clone your current 40Gb HD to a bigger one, do an Internet search for
a program called something like dd.exe. Somebody mention this program,
here-abouts, as a way to clone an installed HD to a HD that is connected
via USB. This will copy your 40GB HD to a 40GB portion on your new,
bigger, HD and then it should allow you to increase the amount of the HD
which Windows would be allowed to "see".

Note I've never actually used this dd.exe program, just relating what
someone else typed. When I want to fiddle with the size of the divisions
on this HD, I use the equivalent Linux function, also called dd.

Daniel

  #13  
Old March 31st 13, 03:06 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
who where[_2_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 92
Default I'm using Windows 9

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:12:20 +1100, "
wrote:

who where wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:52:48 -0600, wrote:

The current version of Windows is "Windows 8". Well, I have Windows 9,
so I am ahead of the times. Actually, I have Windows 9.8.....
That's even better yet.

Considering Windows 95 and 98 and 98se have always been referred to as
"Windows 9".


Not quite. They are (collectively) Windows 4 and apart from that tag
were "always" referred to as Win9X. Big difference.

The latest versions were all numbers.


ALL Windows versions were numbers if you ever bothered to look under
the fancy packaging.

And then there was XP. Another name I never
understood where it came from.


Does it matter? They can stick whatever name on it they like to
distinguish it from any predecessor.

And even Windows ME, was millenium edition, for the year 2000. (That
was an overlap of the same year.... not too bright on their part
either).


ME was the dismal last Win4 version. Win2000 was the first
"mainstream" NT version. These were two separate OS streams, just as
NT 3.51/NT4 etc had existed for years alongside Win4.


As I understood it, Win2000 was supposed to be a combined version, able
to work on standalone computers (i.e. upgrade from Win98SE) *and*
networked computers (i.e. upgrade from NT versions) but, after its
release, Win2000 was found to not work well on standalones, so the
revised standalone version became WinME.


Noooo. There was no "supposed to" about it. In terms of *purpose*
Win2000 was an attempt to introduce the NT paranoid-security flavour
of O/S to the masses and wean them off the (in MS' thinking) less
secure Win4 stream. Epic fail.

WinME was an attempt to tart up Win98 to get people to move on.
Another epic fail - if you did a count of destops running 98SE vs ME
right now the ratio would embarrass Mickeysoft.

The networking aspect you mention is a complete red herring.
Networking has been quite functional through Win3 (as in 3.11/WfWg)
and all of Win4.
  #14  
Old March 31st 13, 02:13 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
98 Guy
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,951
Default I'm using Windows 9

who where was a boob because he full-quoted:

As I understood it, Win2000 was supposed to be a combined version,
able to work on standalone computers (i.e. upgrade from Win98SE)
*and* networked computers (i.e. upgrade from NT versions)


Noooo. There was no "supposed to" about it. In terms of *purpose*
Win2000 was an attempt to introduce the NT paranoid-security flavour
of O/S to the masses and wean them off the (in MS' thinking) less
secure Win4 stream. Epic fail.


No, you are an epic fail.

Windoze 2k was never intended to be used as the next OS by win-9x/me
users.

In other words, win-2k was not "introduced to the masses" to wean them
off 9x/me. The "masses" never got their hands on 2k. Only developers,
system admins and other institutional / corporate power-users got their
hands on 2k (and 2k-server versions).

Windoze 2K was a progression between NT4 and XP, but it wasn't ready to
be used by the average boob, either on home computers or SOHO
computers. NT4 needed desperately to be updated and win-2k was the
update, but for institutional / corporate use as part of a managed
network.

WinME was an attempt to tart up Win98 to get people to move on.


WinME was Micro$haft's way to cash in on the craze to update computers
that was happening because of Y2K (the global fear that computer
infrastructure would crash on newyears day, 2000).

Another epic fail - if you did a count of destops running 98SE vs
ME right now the ratio would embarrass Mickeysoft.


There was a very short time-frame between ME and XP, and that is the
real reason why you didn't see many ME systems.

The networking aspect you mention is a complete red herring.
Networking has been quite functional through Win3 (as in 3.11
/WfWg) and all of Win4.


At least you got that correct. Dan-47 is completely wrong in saying
that Win-9x/me works better as a standalone computer vs when it's
connected to a network (or connected to the internet) and he's
completely wrong in saying that win-2K somehow suffers (in what way?)
when it's NOT connected to a network.

Any computer can *do more* when it's part of a network or when it has
access to the internet, regardless if it's running 9x/me or 2k or XP.
  #15  
Old March 31st 13, 05:46 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,alt.windows98
J. P. Gilliver (John)
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,554
Default I'm using Windows 9

In message ,
" writes:
wrote:

[]
I have XP on my laptop, but only because it came with it. I got rid
ofmost of the bloat crap, but I still dislike it. I'd like to install a
larger harddrive in that laptop, but I cant, because although the XP is
licensed and legal, it did not come with an install CD. I refuse to buy

[]
To clone your current 40Gb HD to a bigger one, do an Internet search
for a program called something like dd.exe. Somebody mention this
program, here-abouts, as a way to clone an installed HD to a HD that is
connected via USB. This will copy your 40GB HD to a 40GB portion on
your new, bigger, HD and then it should allow you to increase the
amount of the HD which Windows would be allowed to "see".


(I had a quick google, and it seems it's very command-line based.)

Does it clone such that the cloned drive is still authorised/registered
or whatever the term is - i. e. so that it will work without requiring
any communication with Microsoft? I thought the serial number, model
number, of the HD changing was moderately likely to trigger a
re-reg/auth being required.

Note I've never actually used this dd.exe program, just relating what


[Is "someone else" here (-:?]

someone else typed. When I want to fiddle with the size of the
divisions on this HD, I use the equivalent Linux function, also called
dd.

Daniel

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Don't play "stupid" with me... I'm better at it.
  #16  
Old April 1st 13, 02:22 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
who where[_2_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 92
Default I'm using Windows 9

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 09:13:36 -0400, 98 Guy wrote:

who where was a boob because he full-quoted:

As I understood it, Win2000 was supposed to be a combined version,
able to work on standalone computers (i.e. upgrade from Win98SE)
*and* networked computers (i.e. upgrade from NT versions)


Noooo. There was no "supposed to" about it. In terms of *purpose*
Win2000 was an attempt to introduce the NT paranoid-security flavour
of O/S to the masses and wean them off the (in MS' thinking) less
secure Win4 stream. Epic fail.


No, you are an epic fail.

Windoze 2k was never intended to be used as the next OS by win-9x/me
users.


Ya reckon? I guess you are entitled to think that.

In other words, win-2k was not "introduced to the masses" to wean them
off 9x/me. The "masses" never got their hands on 2k. Only developers,
system admins and other institutional / corporate power-users got their
hands on 2k (and 2k-server versions).


See above.

Windoze 2K was a progression between NT4 and XP, but it wasn't ready to
be used by the average boob, either on home computers or SOHO
computers.


I see that the other way around - those users weren't ready for 2K.

NT4 needed desperately to be updated and win-2k was the
update, but for institutional / corporate use as part of a managed
network.


Agree NT4 needed updating.

WinME was an attempt to tart up Win98 to get people to move on.


WinME was Micro$haft's way to cash in on the craze to update computers
that was happening because of Y2K (the global fear that computer
infrastructure would crash on newyears day, 2000).


I spent two years in a *very* large organisation working on
pre-emptive Y2K testing/modification. You and most others would not
believe the number of failures that were prevented by that program.
The very success of that is what leads many to describe Y2K as a
non-event.

Another epic fail - if you did a count of destops running 98SE vs
ME right now the ratio would embarrass Mickeysoft.


There was a very short time-frame between ME and XP, and that is the
real reason why you didn't see many ME systems.


From what I have seen, a *lot* of ME users reverted to 98SE within a
short timespan. Whether that was due to the (now customary) MS lack
of driver support/availability in the short term I don't know.

The networking aspect you mention is a complete red herring.
Networking has been quite functional through Win3 (as in 3.11
/WfWg) and all of Win4.


At least you got that correct. Dan-47 is completely wrong in saying
that Win-9x/me works better as a standalone computer vs when it's
connected to a network (or connected to the internet) and he's
completely wrong in saying that win-2K somehow suffers (in what way?)
when it's NOT connected to a network.

Any computer can *do more* when it's part of a network or when it has
access to the internet, regardless if it's running 9x/me or 2k or XP.


or even W3.11/WfWg ....
  #17  
Old April 1st 13, 03:00 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
98 Guy
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,951
Default I'm using Windows 9

who where wrote:

Windoze 2k was never intended to be used as the next OS by
win-9x/me users.


Ya reckon? I guess you are entitled to think that.


No version of Windoze that came in a "server" flavor was ever intended
by Micro$haft to be used for home or soho users.

Win-NT4 had at least TWO server versions - hence you never saw NT4 on
home or soho computers.

Win-2K had THREE server versions - hence you never saw 2K on home or
soho computers.

Win-2003, 2008 and 2012 are server versions only.

There never was a server version of XP or Vista - that means yes, XP and
Vista came on home and soho computers.

There is no "server" version of Windows 7 - so that means that yes,
Windoze 7 came on home and soho computers.

The same is true for Windoze 8.

There was a LOT of hardware back in 2000 through 2001 that did not have
NT drivers that needed to be used with win-2k, particularly sound cards.

The wikipedia article on Windows 2000 doesn't say much about where
Microsoft positioned Win-2k relative to the consumer market or relative
to win-9x/me, except for this:

=================
Windows 2000 was first planned to replace both Windows 98 and Windows NT
4.0. However, that changed later. Instead, an updated version of Windows
98 called Windows 98 Second Edition was released in 1999 and Windows ME
was released in late 2000.
=================

And this:

=================
Windows 2000 Professional was designed as the desktop operating system
for businesses and power users
=================

Again, the hardware requirements for 2K were way beyond what the
consumer market was buying or could afford at the time, and also
remember that there were four versions of win-2k, three of which were
server versions, and the fourth version was "Windows 2000
PROFESSIONAL". I stress the word PROFESSIONAL here.

Windoze 2K was a progression between NT4 and XP, but it wasn't ready
to be used by the average boob, either on home computers or SOHO
computers.


I see that the other way around - those users weren't ready for 2K.


Those users DIDN'T NEED 2K.

The NT line was designed first and foremost to meet the IT needs of big
corps, institutions and gov't use. Home and soho users didn't need all
the extra baggage that came turned-on by default with 2K and XP - those
various services that turned computers into trojan-hosting botnet
zombies in the hands of home and soho users.

Windows 2K wasn't ready to be placed in the hands of home and soho users
because 2K needs to be administered by a central IT department and
protected up the wazoo behind dedicated firewalls and other network
appliances. Even XP-SP0 and SP1 wasn't ready to be put in the hands of
home and soho users. In their hands, XP helped hackers explode the
internet with spam and botnets.
  #18  
Old April 1st 13, 03:21 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,alt.windows98
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default I'm using Windows 9

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message ,
" writes:
wrote:

[]
I have XP on my laptop, but only because it came with it. I got rid
ofmost of the bloat crap, but I still dislike it. I'd like to install a
larger harddrive in that laptop, but I cant, because although the XP is
licensed and legal, it did not come with an install CD. I refuse to buy

[]
To clone your current 40Gb HD to a bigger one, do an Internet search
for a program called something like dd.exe. Somebody mention this
program, here-abouts, as a way to clone an installed HD to a HD that
is connected via USB. This will copy your 40GB HD to a 40GB portion on
your new, bigger, HD and then it should allow you to increase the
amount of the HD which Windows would be allowed to "see".


(I had a quick google, and it seems it's very command-line based.)

Does it clone such that the cloned drive is still authorised/registered
or whatever the term is - i. e. so that it will work without requiring
any communication with Microsoft? I thought the serial number, model
number, of the HD changing was moderately likely to trigger a
re-reg/auth being required.

Note I've never actually used this dd.exe program, just relating what


[Is "someone else" here (-:?]

someone else typed. When I want to fiddle with the size of the
divisions on this HD, I use the equivalent Linux function, also called
dd.

Daniel


Sorry, John, I did a bit of a search on my Usenet groups but could not
find a reference to "dd.exe", so couldn't find who it was that
recommended the program.

Doing a Google search gave me a program related to FujiFilm, but,
interestingly, the first comment on that page was about the program I
had heard about.

http://www.file.net/process/dd.exe.html

User Comments
There is a "dd.exe" which is part of package Unxutils". It is tool used
to copy, convert and format files based on various options.
Pierre Lafreniere (further information)

One of the other google finds was
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question...4103623AA6lUFC

"How do I use the "dd.exe" command correctly for copying an image? (I am
using FAU for Windows).?

I just installed Forensics Acquisition Utilities for windows"

Might help those in need!!

Daniel


  #19  
Old April 1st 13, 11:28 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,alt.windows98
J. P. Gilliver (John)
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,554
Default I'm using Windows 9

In message , "
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message ,
" writes:
wrote:

[]
I have XP on my laptop, but only because it came with it. I got rid
ofmost of the bloat crap, but I still dislike it. I'd like to install a
larger harddrive in that laptop, but I cant, because although the XP is
licensed and legal, it did not come with an install CD. I refuse to buy

[]
To clone your current 40Gb HD to a bigger one, do an Internet search
for a program called something like dd.exe. Somebody mention this
program, here-abouts, as a way to clone an installed HD to a HD that
is connected via USB. This will copy your 40GB HD to a 40GB portion on
your new, bigger, HD and then it should allow you to increase the
amount of the HD which Windows would be allowed to "see".


(I had a quick google, and it seems it's very command-line based.)

Does it clone such that the cloned drive is still authorised/registered
or whatever the term is - i. e. so that it will work without requiring
any communication with Microsoft? I thought the serial number, model
number, of the HD changing was moderately likely to trigger a
re-reg/auth being required.

Note I've never actually used this dd.exe program, just relating what


[Is "someone else" here (-:?]

someone else typed. When I want to fiddle with the size of the
divisions on this HD, I use the equivalent Linux function, also called
dd.

Daniel


Sorry, John, I did a bit of a search on my Usenet groups but could not
find a reference to "dd.exe", so couldn't find who it was that
recommended the program.

Doing a Google search gave me a program related to FujiFilm, but,
interestingly, the first comment on that page was about the program I
had heard about.

http://www.file.net/process/dd.exe.html

User Comments
There is a "dd.exe" which is part of package Unxutils". It is tool used
to copy, convert and format files based on various options.
Pierre Lafreniere (further information)

One of the other google finds was
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question...4103623AA6lUFC

"How do I use the "dd.exe" command correctly for copying an image? (I
am using FAU for Windows).?

I just installed Forensics Acquisition Utilities for windows"

Might help those in need!!


Thanks.

Daniel



--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Address the chair!" "There isn't a chair, there's only a rock!" "Well, call it
a chair!" "Why not call it a rock?" (First series, fit the sixth.)
  #20  
Old April 4th 13, 10:44 AM
Dude111 Dude111 is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by Win98Banter: Feb 2013
Posts: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Auric__
Flash used to be called Shockwave Flash, back in the Macromedia days. Flash was considered sort of a weaker, less-powerful Shockwave.
Flash and Shockwave ARE 2 SEPERATE WORKING programs!

Shockwave has stuff that WONT RUN WITH FLASH and vise-versa...
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Highest Version of Adobe Reader for Windows 98se [email protected] General 0 May 8th 10 12:34 PM
New Adobe Shockwave Player vulnerability MEB[_17_] General 1 June 25th 09 04:46 PM
New Adobe Shockwave Player vulnerability MEB[_17_] General 0 June 24th 09 11:04 PM
adobe shockwave boone General 1 October 19th 08 08:55 PM
Adobe Reader Version baumgrenze General 1 January 6th 07 06:29 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 Win98banter.
The comments are property of their posters.