I hate Windows 2000, miss W98 SE.

DaffyD® wrote:
Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is so
much
more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and user
accounts
in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.

True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a single
user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user; very nice and
simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*. A very, very, lean
operating system. (I think it's somewhere around 200 MB in total, isn't
it?)

But to go back to 98SE
would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive (which
doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.

Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always consider
getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.

My old scanner no longer works like it
did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when printed
are
practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a USB
scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I dumbly bought
a
parallel port scanner back then.

But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in today's
hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the external drive will
work with whatever is released after Vista.

Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows 2000? I'm
not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps, anyways. Actually,
I think Win98SE still has more software capability there (at least in this
one arena).

But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think. Like
Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen :-).

I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of all
the
Windows groups.
--
DaffyD®

If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.

Windows 98 Second Edition is not limited. Sure, if you want a more business
type interface go with Windows 2000 Professional but if you want great
multimedia and internal safety of a maintenance operating system of MS-DOS
then go with 98 Second Edition. I do not know why so many people have
trouble seeing this fact.
The problems were mainly with 3rd party drivers that caused so many issues
in 98 Second Edition and the only issues I seem to get with 98 Second Edition
these days are the denial of service errors. Okay, I did get a freeze on my
machine last night but that was due to Internet Explorer 6 reporting tool not
sending the data correctly to Microsoft after IE 6 crashed. I do not mind
the crashing and actually like to see how stable the software is. BTW, if
you use Windows XP then I would suggest updating to Internet Explorer 8 if
you have Internet Explorer 7 or downgrade to Internet Explorer 6 if you want
to do a clean install because IE 7 has some serious issues. It would be even
better to just use Mozilla Firefox 2 or 3 where you can because the browser
supports 256 bit AES encryption which is only 128 encryption with IE except
in Windows Vista. I do not know about Windows Server and I am talking about
Desktop Windows Operating Systems.

"DaffyD®" wrote:

Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is so much
more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and user accounts
in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find. But to go back to 98SE
would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive (which
doesn't work with 98) as a bookend. My old scanner no longer works like it
did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when printed are
practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a USB
scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I dumbly bought a
parallel port scanner back then.

But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in today's
hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the external drive will
work with whatever is released after Vista.

I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of all the
Windows groups.
--
DaffyD®

If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.

Bill in Co. wrote:
| DaffyD® wrote:
| Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is
| so much
| more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and user
| accounts
| in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.
|
| True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a
| single user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user; very
| nice and simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*. A very,
| very, lean operating system. (I think it's somewhere around 200 MB
| in total, isn't it?)

My Windows folder is 286 folders, 5,307 files, 454,827,147 bytes.
And Program Files is 323 folders, 3,905 files, 540,817,212 bytes.

| But to go back to 98SE
| would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive
| (which doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.
|
| Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always consider
| getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.

I know you've done it. Would be nice if you could talk DaffyD® through
it!

| My old scanner no longer works like it
| did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when
| printed are
| practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a
| USB scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I
| dumbly bought a
| parallel port scanner back then.
|
| But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in
| today's hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the
| external drive will work with whatever is released after Vista.
|
| Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows 2000?
| I'm not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps, anyways.
| Actually, I think Win98SE still has more software capability there
| (at least in this one arena).
|
| But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think.
| Like Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen :-).

XP has crashed on you, Colorado -- well-enough for you to do several
registry restores & restore point restores & maybe even a full backup
restore or two -- you've admitted it, IIRC! I don't care whether it
gives a blue screen or an XP-irradiated sickly green one!

| I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of
| all the
| Windows groups.

Good to see you you back, DaffyD®. Maybe try for the proper drivers as
Colorado has suggested!

| --
| DaffyD®
|
| If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR

Hey Daffster, try thinking outside the box. You can create a folder
"Documents" anywhere you want, like f'rinstance C:\Documents (Microsoft
actually did that already with a clone My Documents folder although some
hide it). Or with a Google search you can adjust the target of a dedicated
Windows Explorer shortcut to drill down to where the particular folder is
you want to play with, such as Application Data or Temp. What would seem
intellectually indefensible is reflexive whining without knowing what the
options are.

DaffyD® wrote:
Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is
so much more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin
and user accounts in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to
find. But to go back to 98SE would mean reformatting the hard drive
and using my external drive (which doesn't work with 98) as a
bookend. My old scanner no longer works like it did since it was
designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when printed are
practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a
USB scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I
dumbly bought a parallel port scanner back then.

But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in
today's hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the
external drive will work with whatever is released after Vista.

I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of
all the Windows groups.

PCR wrote:
Bill in Co. wrote:
DaffyD® wrote:
Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is
so much more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and
user
accounts in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.

True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a
single user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user; very
nice and simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*. A very,
very, lean operating system. (I think it's somewhere around 200 MB
in total, isn't it?)

My Windows folder is 286 folders, 5,307 files, 454,827,147 bytes.
And Program Files is 323 folders, 3,905 files, 540,817,212 bytes.

Program Files doesn't count! That's by far mostly your applications in
there! We were talking about the operating system!

And the reason your system folder is that large is due to all those updates
you added and some stuff added by some applications, no doubt.

Go check out your original installation size (if you still have a copy). I
still think it's around 200 MB, as I said. WITHOUT applications and
"updates" being installed/

But to go back to 98SE
would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive
(which doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.

Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always consider
getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.

I know you've done it. Would be nice if you could talk DaffyD® through
it!

My old scanner no longer works like it
did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when
printed are practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it
been a
USB scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I
dumbly bought a parallel port scanner back then.

But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in
today's hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the
external drive will work with whatever is released after Vista.

Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows 2000?
I'm not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps, anyways.
Actually, I think Win98SE still has more software capability there
(at least in this one arena).

But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think.
Like Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen :-).

XP has crashed on you, Colorado -- well-enough for you to do several
registry restores & restore point restores & maybe even a full backup
restore or two -- you've admitted it, IIRC! I don't care whether it
gives a blue screen or an XP-irradiated sickly green one!

No, not quite accurate. (I said I got blue screens in XP??? When)?
But - I *have* done several registry or disk image restores in XP, but NOT
due to blue screens! Those restore operations were done due to my desire
to put my system back exactly as it was prior to some software installations
(just to play it safe), and/or if some settings got changed that I didn't
"appreciate" (and it was an easy way to get back). That's all, unless you
remember something I don't. I'm still waiting for blue screens, unless you
recall some I mentioned (in XP, I mean).

I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of
all the Windows groups.

Good to see you you back, DaffyD®. Maybe try for the proper drivers as
Colorado has suggested!

--
DaffyD®

If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR

Bill in Co. wrote:
| PCR wrote:
| Bill in Co. wrote:
| DaffyD® wrote:
| Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It
| is so much more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the
| admin and user
| accounts in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.
|
| True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a
| single user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user; very
| nice and simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*. A very,
| very, lean operating system. (I think it's somewhere around 200 MB
| in total, isn't it?)
|
| My Windows folder is 286 folders, 5,307 files, 454,827,147 bytes.
| And Program Files is 323 folders, 3,905 files, 540,817,212 bytes.
|
| Program Files doesn't count! That's by far mostly your
| applications in there! We were talking about the operating system!
|
| And the reason your system folder is that large is due to all those
| updates you added and some stuff added by some applications, no doubt.
|
| Go check out your original installation size (if you still have a
| copy). I still think it's around 200 MB, as I said. WITHOUT
| applications and "updates" being installed/

On 2nd thought, yea, you are right, this machine came with a bunch of
extra packages already installed, like MS Works. The stuff I've
installed afterwards is all minor, though. Yea, you're likely correct,
but I can't check it on this machine.

| But to go back to 98SE
| would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive
| (which doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.
|
| Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always
| consider getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.
|
| I know you've done it. Would be nice if you could talk DaffyD®
| through it!
|
| My old scanner no longer works like it
| did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when
| printed are practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that
| had it been a
| USB scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I
| dumbly bought a parallel port scanner back then.
|
| But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in
| today's hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the
| external drive will work with whatever is released after Vista.
|
| Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows 2000?
| I'm not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps, anyways.
| Actually, I think Win98SE still has more software capability there
| (at least in this one arena).
|
| But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think.
| Like Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen :-).
|
| XP has crashed on you, Colorado -- well-enough for you to do several
| registry restores & restore point restores & maybe even a full backup
| restore or two -- you've admitted it, IIRC! I don't care whether it
| gives a blue screen or an XP-irradiated sickly green one!
|
| No, not quite accurate. (I said I got blue screens in XP???
| When)? But - I *have* done several registry or disk image restores in
| XP, but NOT due to blue screens! Those restore operations were done
| due to my desire to put my system back exactly as it was prior to
| some software installations (just to play it safe), and/or if some
| settings got changed that I didn't "appreciate" (and it was an easy
| way to get back). That's all, unless you remember something I don't.
| I'm still waiting for blue screens, unless you recall some I
| mentioned (in XP, I mean).

No, I don't recall you said any color. But I was fairly sure you said
you had a crash of some kind in XP. And I strongly suspect Terhune
thinks so too! But "Hitchhiker's Guide" just started & I must go. So,
fine, I'll try to remember you never crashed yet.

| I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite
| of all the Windows groups.
|
| Good to see you you back, DaffyD®. Maybe try for the proper drivers
| as Colorado has suggested!
|
| --
| DaffyD®
|
| If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.
|
| --
| Thanks or Good Luck,
| There may be humor in this post, and,
| Naturally, you will not sue,
| Should things get worse after this,
| PCR
|

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR

PCR wrote:
Bill in Co. wrote:
PCR wrote:
Bill in Co. wrote:
DaffyD® wrote:
Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It
is so much more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the
admin and user
accounts in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.

True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a
single user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user; very
nice and simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*. A very,
very, lean operating system. (I think it's somewhere around 200 MB
in total, isn't it?)

My Windows folder is 286 folders, 5,307 files, 454,827,147 bytes.
And Program Files is 323 folders, 3,905 files, 540,817,212 bytes.

Program Files doesn't count! That's by far mostly your
applications in there! We were talking about the operating system!

And the reason your system folder is that large is due to all those
updates you added and some stuff added by some applications, no doubt.

Go check out your original installation size (if you still have a
copy). I still think it's around 200 MB, as I said. WITHOUT
applications and "updates" being installed/

On 2nd thought, yea, you are right, this machine came with a bunch of
extra packages already installed, like MS Works. The stuff I've
installed afterwards is all minor, though. Yea, you're likely correct,
but I can't check it on this machine.

I think it was somewhere around 200 MB, before installing apps. That's
pretty lean! And IIRC, WinXP is about 10 times that (about 2 GB). But
then again, WinXP is pretty damn robust by comparison, I do have to admit.
And I bet Vista is 10 times that of WinXP!! (like maybe 20 GB) - ugh, forget
Vista!!

But to go back to 98SE
would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive
(which doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.

Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always
consider getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.

I know you've done it. Would be nice if you could talk DaffyD®
through it!

My old scanner no longer works like it
did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when
printed are practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had
it been a
USB scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I
dumbly bought a parallel port scanner back then.

But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in
today's hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the
external drive will work with whatever is released after Vista.

Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows 2000?
I'm not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps, anyways.
Actually, I think Win98SE still has more software capability there
(at least in this one arena).

But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think.
Like Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen :-).

XP has crashed on you, Colorado -- well-enough for you to do several
registry restores & restore point restores & maybe even a full backup
restore or two -- you've admitted it, IIRC! I don't care whether it
gives a blue screen or an XP-irradiated sickly green one!

No, not quite accurate. (I said I got blue screens in XP???
When)? But - I *have* done several registry or disk image restores in
XP, but NOT due to blue screens! Those restore operations were done
due to my desire to put my system back exactly as it was prior to
some software installations (just to play it safe), and/or if some
settings got changed that I didn't "appreciate" (and it was an easy
way to get back). That's all, unless you remember something I don't.
I'm still waiting for blue screens, unless you recall some I
mentioned (in XP, I mean).

No, I don't recall you said any color. But I was fairly sure you said
you had a crash of some kind in XP. And I strongly suspect Terhune
thinks so too! But "Hitchhiker's Guide" just started & I must go. So,
fine, I'll try to remember you never crashed yet.

I have had a couple of occasions where the computer locked up and I had to
reboot, that's all (no blue or green screens, though). But no restore
operation was necessary - it was just due to some software hiccups that
occurred at the same time.

I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite
of all the Windows groups.

Good to see you you back, DaffyD®. Maybe try for the proper drivers
as Colorado has suggested!

--
DaffyD®

If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR

wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:10:37 -0600, "Bill in Co."
wrote:

DaffyD® wrote:
Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is so
much more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and user
accounts in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.

True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a single
user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user; very nice and
simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*. A very, very, lean
operating system. (I think it's somewhere around 200 MB in total, isn't
it?)

But to go back to 98SE
would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive
(which
doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.

Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always consider
getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.

My old scanner no longer works like it
did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when printed
are practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a
USB
scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I dumbly
bought
a parallel port scanner back then.

But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in
today's
hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the external drive
will
work with whatever is released after Vista.

Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows 2000?
I'm
not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps, anyways.
Actually,
I think Win98SE still has more software capability there (at least in
this
one arena).

But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think. Like
Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen :-).

I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of all
the Windows groups.
--
DaffyD®

If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.


I know someone who gets nothing but a blue screen in XP. The computer
boots up, gets a blue screen, and that is all it does.

Amazing. But I think that's pretty atypical :-) Wonder what s/he did
to it.

They asked me
to fix it for them. I told them I would except when they got it back,
it would have Win98 installed. I refuse to work on XP computers.

In some ways it can be harder, I admit. Like I miss the ability of having
DOS as the "fallback operating system", when doing some low-level stuff
(which is a LOT simpler in DOS/Win98SE). So in that regard, things are
indeed simpler with Win98SE/DOS. And, you don't have deal with multiuser
profiles, and all that stuff and overhead, and the somewhat weird locations
some things are stored in. :-).

But the tradeoff in "robustness" (meaning few, if any, blue screens!), and
in the capability of running more current apps, is a significant drawback.
(all this assuming your computer is of relatively recent vintage, and is
really up to it - the older ones won't cut it too well)

As for the OP, why not install BOTH Win98 and Win2K. Just dual boot it.

As for the original size of Win98. I have a fresh install zipped up.
The zip file is 80megs.
Unzipped, it's 2357 Files 161,461KB (161megs)

Well, I was talking about Win98SE, which may be a bit larger. But that's
pretty close, or at least in the same ballpark, anyways. :-)

That's with those damn AOL, MSN, and other such files/folders removed.
I delete those things the second I get 98 installed.......
(or, wait a minute, those are installed in Program Files, so forget
that). It's 161megs.....

Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is so much
more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and user accounts
in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find. But to go back to 98SE
would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive (which
doesn't work with 98) as a bookend. My old scanner no longer works like it
did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when printed are
practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a USB
scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I dumbly bought a
parallel port scanner back then.

But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in today's
hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the external drive will
work with whatever is released after Vista.

I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of all the
Windows groups.
--
DaffyD®

If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.

wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 00:07:51 -0600, "Bill in Co."
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:10:37 -0600, "Bill in Co."
wrote:

DaffyD® wrote:
Well, here I am running W2K and boy do I wish I had 98SE back. It is
so
much more user friendly and simpler in design. I hate the admin and
user
accounts in 2000--it makes everything so much harder to find.

True enough! That's one of the "advantages" of Win98SE (for a single
user, I mean). Setup by design just for a single user; very nice and
simple, and easy to keep track of *everything*. A very, very, lean
operating system. (I think it's somewhere around 200 MB in total,
isn't
it?)

But to go back to 98SE
would mean reformatting the hard drive and using my external drive
(which doesn't work with 98) as a bookend.

Maybe it can, with the right drivers. Or - you could always consider
getting one that can, they aren't that expensive.

My old scanner no longer works like it
did since it was designed to work with 95 & 98; the images when
printed
are practically illegible. The frustrating thing is that had it been a
USB
scanner, I could download a compatible driver for 2000 but I dumbly
bought a parallel port scanner back then.

But I don't see myself going back to 98; it's just too limited in
today's
hardware/software/internet world. I just hope that the external drive
will work with whatever is released after Vista.

Is Win98SE really "more limited" in ALL software than Windows 2000?
I'm not so sure that is true, at least for multimedia apps, anyways.
Actually,
I think Win98SE still has more software capability there (at least in
this one arena).

But still, the advantage of Win2000 is its robustness, I think. Like
Windows XP (I'm still waiting to get a blue screen :-).

I'm still going to be monitoring this newsgroup--it's my favorite of
all
the Windows groups.
--
DaffyD®

If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.


I know someone who gets nothing but a blue screen in XP. The computer
boots up, gets a blue screen, and that is all it does.

Amazing. But I think that's pretty atypical :-) Wonder what s/he
did
to it.

I was wondering the same thing......
Maybe a virus, or bad hardware, or some critical files removed ?????

I don't know, but it sure sounds suspicious. Sounds like he needs a repair
reinstall, or maybe a completely fresh install. I think there is an option
in the Windows XP boot CD to Repair XP, assuming he can boot to the CD.
(If he can't even do that, then I'm not sure what he can do).

They asked me
to fix it for them. I told them I would except when they got it back,
it would have Win98 installed. I refuse to work on XP computers.

In some ways it can be harder, I admit. Like I miss the ability of
having
DOS as the "fallback operating system", when doing some low-level stuff
(which is a LOT simpler in DOS/Win98SE). So in that regard, things are
indeed simpler with Win98SE/DOS. And, you don't have deal with
multiuser
profiles, and all that stuff and overhead, and the somewhat weird
locations
some things are stored in. :-).

That's the thing. When 98 gets screwed up, I can resort to dos. I
tried to do that to an XP computer once and only made more of a mess.

Yup, it ain't easy for XP, at that level. It is a bit more convoluted.
There is the XP Repair Console, but I haven't played around with it too
much. And there are things out there like Bart's PE (CD), to access it
without windows running.

If it was at least a FAT32 format I may have been able to do something....
I just dont like XP, and dont want to touch it.

But also do keep in mind Windows XP can be made to look like Win98SE with
some customizations (I hate the original look). But that is not to refute
all we've said about getting down to using DOS as a backup operating system,
and all that stuff.

If I work on hardware only, I'll use my own harddrive, and install XP
from scratch. That's no big problem, but if the problem is XP itself,
I refuse to touch it.

But the tradeoff in "robustness" (meaning few, if any, blue screens!),
and
in the capability of running more current apps, is a significant
drawback.
(all this assuming your computer is of relatively recent vintage, and is
really up to it - the older ones won't cut it too well)


I just dont like XP, period.....
I will use Win2K though, just as long as the drive is FAT32 formatted.
I use 2K on my laptop, but my desktop (which I use 95% of the time),
is still Win98SE.

As for the OP, why not install BOTH Win98 and Win2K. Just dual boot it.

As for the original size of Win98. I have a fresh install zipped up.
The zip file is 80megs.
Unzipped, it's 2357 Files 161,461KB (161megs)

Well, I was talking about Win98SE, which may be a bit larger. But
that's
pretty close, or at least in the same ballpark, anyways. :-)

This IS for Win98SE.....

Oh, ok then.

It's an original install, with IE5 and all of that.
I just let it run as a typical install. If I have a problem and am
not sure what's going on, I rename the windows folder, and unzip that
file to a new folder called WINDOWS, then I run it. That way I know
if my problem is software or hardware related.

PS. My actual USING Windows folder with all the programs installed,
plus extra fonts, wallpapers, etc. is 668megs. (IE cache and cookies
were cleared).

I forgot what mine got up to. I have it over here, but I'm too lazy to
power it up tonite and check (I'm almost always using my newer and faster XP
computer). :-)


That's with those damn AOL, MSN, and other such files/folders removed.
I delete those things the second I get 98 installed.......
(or, wait a minute, those are installed in Program Files, so forget
that). It's 161megs.....