What service pack for Win98se?

First Gabriel Knight top-poasted this:

Thanks for all the info I'll go with installing Win98 as reccomended

Then Gabriel Knight wrote this 4 hours later:

Hi I need to download the latest service pack for Win 98se, I have
service pack 3 for Win XP - are they both the same?

Gabriel, is there a reason you did not cross-post the above 2 messages
to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion?

Did you not notice that most or all of the comments you received from
your original post came because I cross-posted your original post to
that group?

I am again cross-posting your messages to
microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion for your benefit. Please pay
attention next time and consider more carefully which groups you post
to.

To answer your question:

I need to download the latest service pack for Win 98se, I have
service pack 3 for Win XP - are they both the same?

It's quite strange that you think that Win 98se is in some way "the
same" as Win XP.

They are VERY different.

If you have a Windows XP cd, then I suggest that you use it to install
Windows on your PC.

I suggest that because if you don't know the difference between Win-98
and Win-XP, then you're not ready to deal with the various issues that
will face you in using Windows 98 in the year 2012, and therefore
Windows XP will be a more ergonomic or practical operating system for
you to have.

98 Guy wrote in :

I need to download the latest service pack for Win 98se, I have
service pack 3 for Win XP - are they both the same?

It's quite strange that you think that Win 98se is in some way "the
same" as Win XP.

They are VERY different.

If you have a Windows XP cd, then I suggest that you use it to install
Windows on your PC.

I suggest that because if you don't know the difference between Win-98
and Win-XP, then you're not ready to deal with the various issues that
will face you in using Windows 98 in the year 2012, and therefore
Windows XP will be a more ergonomic or practical operating system for
you to have.



I think so too. W98 isn't an easy first base, it;s mainkly used by people who
still needed it and can make up for its flaws. WXP has flaws too, but they
are at least handled by current cupport from Microsoft.

Whichever OS chosen, figure out how to get control, and KEEP contol, then it
doesn't really matter which we choose. That way we can stop being forced to
change before we even get used to our first choice.

I think a person unfamiliar with this did well to ask on Usenet. This is NOT
advice they're likely to see on the web. Basically my adice is: Take time,
look deep, choose the OS you will end up LIVING with, and try not to catch
'upgrade fever'. It's very contagious.

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
98 Guy wrote in :

I need to download the latest service pack for Win 98se, I have
service pack 3 for Win XP - are they both the same?

It's quite strange that you think that Win 98se is in some way "the
same" as Win XP.

They are VERY different.

If you have a Windows XP cd, then I suggest that you use it to install
Windows on your PC.

I suggest that because if you don't know the difference between Win-98
and Win-XP, then you're not ready to deal with the various issues that
will face you in using Windows 98 in the year 2012, and therefore
Windows XP will be a more ergonomic or practical operating system for
you to have.



I think so too. W98 isn't an easy first base, it;s mainkly used by people
who
still needed it and can make up for its flaws. WXP has flaws too, but they
are at least handled by current cupport from Microsoft.

Whichever OS chosen, figure out how to get control, and KEEP contol, then
it
doesn't really matter which we choose. That way we can stop being forced
to
change before we even get used to our first choice.

Agreed. Keeping control of your system is THE key. Going from 98 to XP
(and above), you do have to lose a little of that, however - but that's the
price you pay. You just can't "micromanage" XP and above the same way you
did with 98 and below. It's not the days of DOS much anymore. :-)

I think a person unfamiliar with this did well to ask on Usenet. This is
NOT
advice they're likely to see on the web. Basically my adice is: Take time,
look deep, choose the OS you will end up LIVING with, and try not to catch
'upgrade fever'. It's very contagious.

I think I have downgrade fever, at least on a lot (most?) of the newer apps.
The old apps generally work better for me, as they keep adding more junk
(i.e. unneeded and unwanted features, and bells and whistles, and eye candy)

"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Whichever OS chosen, figure out how to get control, and KEEP contol,
then it
doesn't really matter which we choose. That way we can stop being
forced to
change before we even get used to our first choice.

Agreed. Keeping control of your system is THE key. Going from 98 to
XP (and above), you do have to lose a little of that, however - but
that's the price you pay. You just can't "micromanage" XP and above the
same way you did with 98 and below. It's not the days of DOS much
anymore. :-)

I think a person unfamiliar with this did well to ask on Usenet. This
is NOT
advice they're likely to see on the web. Basically my adice is: Take
time, look deep, choose the OS you will end up LIVING with, and try not
to catch 'upgrade fever'. It's very contagious.

I think I have downgrade fever, at least on a lot (most?) of the newer
apps. The old apps generally work better for me, as they keep adding
more junk (i.e. unneeded and unwanted features, and bells and whistles,
and eye candy)


Interesting connection between both points above: The Win32 API. I've
recently taken to C enough to actually DO things that have some use, like the
monitor shut-off program I posted a few days ago. (Not unique, there are
versions all over the place I think), and something to come, a way to shut
down a specific disk in W98, at will, to save power. That took some help with
an undocumented API call (from Rudolph Loew) and some learning of my own.

The two main points that leads to are these:
1. The Win32 API lets us micromange damn near everything in ANY Windows.
But it's not for everyone, it is more than a tad arcane.
2. Bloat and annoyances appear to be proportional to the distance coders put
between themselves and direct handling of that API.

If downgrade fever means staying with that API I'll do it and enjoy it even
if it's only like that nice heady feeling we get before coming down with big
flu. When it is harder to do ANYTHING, the tendency is to do that which is
most useful. Besides, the higher level stuff might not even let us do the
really cool and useful things. Which might be why some coders go the other
way.

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Whichever OS chosen, figure out how to get control, and KEEP contol,
then it
doesn't really matter which we choose. That way we can stop being
forced to change before we even get used to our first choice.

Agreed. Keeping control of your system is THE key. Going from 98 to
XP (and above), you do have to lose a little of that, however - but
that's the price you pay. You just can't "micromanage" XP and above the
same way you did with 98 and below. It's not the days of DOS much
anymore. :-)

I think a person unfamiliar with this did well to ask on Usenet. This
is NOT
advice they're likely to see on the web. Basically my adice is: Take
time, look deep, choose the OS you will end up LIVING with, and try not
to catch 'upgrade fever'. It's very contagious.

I think I have downgrade fever, at least on a lot (most?) of the newer
apps. The old apps generally work better for me, as they keep adding
more junk (i.e. unneeded and unwanted features, and bells and whistles,
and eye candy)


Interesting connection between both points above: The Win32 API. I've
recently taken to C enough to actually DO things that have some use, like
the
monitor shut-off program I posted a few days ago. (Not unique, there are
versions all over the place I think), and something to come, a way to shut
down a specific disk in W98, at will, to save power. That took some help
with
an undocumented API call (from Rudolph Loew) and some learning of my own.

The two main points that leads to are these:
1. The Win32 API lets us micromange damn near everything in ANY Windows.

But it's not for everyone, it is more than a tad arcane.

snip

Indeed.
But heck, I wasn't even thinking at that level - the Win API level. Even
just managing application files and some app customizations is more
cumbersome, due to the use of multiple user accounts in XP (even if you are
the only user!), and the use of Application Data directories for some of the
application's information, this in addition to the use of the Program Files
directory.

Application and windows-related files were a lot easier to find and maintain
in Win9x, since there was only ONE account!, and the Program Files directory
to store the app-related stuff in. Well, and the windows and system
directories, which stored a bunch of INI files, of course. But I think the
use of INI files got considerably downgraded since XP and its successors,
for better or for worse (I say that because I often found the use of them -
instead of the registry - convenient for customizing some program
application settings).

"Bill in Co" wrote in
:

Application and windows-related files were a lot easier to find and
maintain in Win9x, since there was only ONE account!, and the Program
Files directory to store the app-related stuff in. Well, and the
windows and system directories, which stored a bunch of INI files, of
course. But I think the use of INI files got considerably downgraded
since XP and its successors, for better or for worse (I say that because
I often found the use of them - instead of the registry - convenient for
customizing some program application settings).



This relates to the Unix file system too, and the disagreements I have with
it.

The whole thing is set up for accounts, separating people from each other on
one machine. My starting questrion is: Is it a mainframe, or isn't it?
Mainframes never vanished. They just got shoved into desktop machines! I
never wanted to run a machine like that, so DOS based systems worked best for
me.

W9X does actually have accounts too, but more of a way to let people keep
their own preferences rather than to secure a user's data against
interference or errors caused by others. In the registry, I always go for
HKEY_USERS. So long as the system is default-installed and no new accounts
made prior to customisation, the CurrentUser branch just mirrors the main
Users one.

INI files are ok, but in Unix file systems they seem to go for them a LOT,
..conf all over the place, although usually in one main branch and away from
the binary files. I'm sure there are meaningful reasons to do that but they
make no sense to me. If I wanted configs in ONE branch I'd use a registry,
it's faster, they're all loaded to RAM after all... On the other hand, when I
want INI files it's because I want portability, self-containment, all of a
program's support files in its base directory so that transplanting and
backing up is totally easy. The Unix file system seems to prefer STRONGLY
that we do not do this. We can do it, but I see no reason to choose a file
system that I will be fighting against rather than working with.

I will concede that the Unix file system makes sense in its storage of log
files in a separate branch though, that can make sense on ANY machine.

-------------------

*speculation*
W9X might be made as secure as any other OS for user data, if each user had
their own programs partition, separate and encrypted. Several small
partitions, perhaps with a tool to hide all but the current one for the
logged in user. Rudolph Loew does a drive encryption patch so this might be
entirely feasible for a few bucks spent. The registry branches would not be
secured by default, but that could still be done by deleting the single-
user's own branch after saving it to file on the encrypted partition before
logging off, and reversing the act on logging on.
/speculation.

"Bill in Co" wrote in
:

the use of Application Data directories for some of the
application's information, this in addition to the use of the Program
Files directory.


I see more of this occuring in W98 now, but I suspect it's caused by programs
that expect the structures, and generate them when they don't find them! I
usually try to reign that in when testing stuff, but missed a few. Sometimes
I cut those directories off at the root but they always grow back.

Lostgallifreyan wrote in
:

In the registry, I always go for
HKEY_USERS. So long as the system is default-installed and no new accounts
made prior to customisation, the CurrentUser branch just mirrors the main
Users one.


I should say, HKEY_USERS/.DEFAULT which I always use as my base for configs.

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
:

Application and windows-related files were a lot easier to find and
maintain in Win9x, since there was only ONE account!, and the Program
Files directory to store the app-related stuff in. Well, and the
windows and system directories, which stored a bunch of INI files, of
course. But I think the use of INI files got considerably downgraded
since XP and its successors, for better or for worse (I say that because
I often found the use of them - instead of the registry - convenient for
customizing some program application settings).



This relates to the Unix file system too, and the disagreements I have
with
it.

The whole thing is set up for accounts, separating people from each other
on
one machine. My starting questrion is: Is it a mainframe, or isn't it?
Mainframes never vanished. They just got shoved into desktop machines! I
never wanted to run a machine like that, so DOS based systems worked best
for
me.

W9X does actually have accounts too, but more of a way to let people keep
their own preferences rather than to secure a user's data against
interference or errors caused by others. In the registry, I always go for
HKEY_USERS. So long as the system is default-installed and no new accounts
made prior to customisation, the CurrentUser branch just mirrors the main
Users one.

OK. I was just referring to trying to keep track of app-related settings
and customizations that are (in XP and higher) made to one OR more of the
following account directories under the Documents and Settings master
directory, depending on the "mood" of the app:

Administrator
All Users
Bill (me)
Default User
Local Service

It's a bit tedious to keep track of. :-)
And don't forget, there are Application Data subdirectories in each one of
them!
Ditto on the location of program shortcuts when a program is installed, etc.

INI files are ok, but in Unix file systems they seem to go for them a LOT,
.conf all over the place, although usually in one main branch and away
from
the binary files. I'm sure there are meaningful reasons to do that but
they
make no sense to me. If I wanted configs in ONE branch I'd use a registry,
it's faster, they're all loaded to RAM after all... On the other hand,
when I
want INI files it's because I want portability, self-containment, all of a
program's support files in its base directory so that transplanting and
backing up is totally easy. The Unix file system seems to prefer STRONGLY
that we do not do this. We can do it, but I see no reason to choose a file
system that I will be fighting against rather than working with.

It's a tradeoff, but, in retrospect, maybe it is best that the INI thing is
being phased out, all things considered. I can sure see the advantage of
having everything stored in "one location" (registry), and always in memory.
(Plus the normal limitation of 64K max for INI files, although I think some
programs found ways around that).

snip

"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

OK. I was just referring to trying to keep track of app-related
settings and customizations that are (in XP and higher) made to one OR
more of the following account directories under the Documents and
Settings master directory, depending on the "mood" of the app:

Administrator
All Users
Bill (me)
Default User
Local Service

It's a bit tedious to keep track of. :-)
And don't forget, there are Application Data subdirectories in each one
of them!
Ditto on the location of program shortcuts when a program is installed,
etc.


I've never had to do it but I know how I'd start trying, assuming I was admin
and had full access.. Save the entire branch to text, locate the user branch
sourcing a config to be migrated, find the subsection to migrate, copy,
locate destination, replace it from clipboard, repeat as desired... Merge the
saved result back to the registry when done. Log off. Next logged user gets
their new configs.

Tools like TextPad have macros that will automate this in cases where
periodic maintenance was needed.

I'm glad I don't have to do it though.