I hate Windows 2000, miss W98 SE.

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.

And I know lots of people who get absolutely no blue screens at all and
who were constantly getting them when they were using Windows 98. That
you know *one* person who gets blue screens with Windows XP is not much
of a convincing reason to not use Windows XP.


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.

Should go hand in hand with folks who run typewriter repair shops! If
the computer is fairly new you won't be doing anyone any favours by
removing a modern operating system to replace it with an antiquated
relic! Along with the removal of Windows XP the users can kiss goodbye
to things like memory support for up to 4GB of RAM, multi-core or
multi-processor support, support for 48-bit LBA and large disks, support
for files sizes over 4GB, support for much of the newer hardware
available today and a host of other things.

Windows 98 may have been good in its time but its time is now over and
for all but the most devoted aficionados maintaining and getting Windows
98 to work properly with new hardware and software is most often an
exercise in futility, or at the very least a very frustrating exercise.
Like it or not Windows 98 is not an operating system for todays
computing needs. You might have more luck clamoring for the return of
top hats and steam engines...

John

wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:58:48 -0300, "John John (MVP)"
wrote:


Windows 98 may have been good in its time but its time is now over and
for all but the most devoted aficionados maintaining and getting Windows
98 to work properly with new hardware and software is most often an
exercise in futility, or at the very least a very frustrating exercise.
Like it or not Windows 98 is not an operating system for todays
computing needs. You might have more luck clamoring for the return of
top hats and steam engines...

John


I do not agree. Sure, Win98 is 10 years old, but it does everything I
need. I run internet software, I watch movies, edit my camera photos,
run basic office software, and more...... It works just fine. If I
had to use XP or Vista, I'd first need a new computer. Then I'd get
it home and stick it in the closet, while continuing to use my old
Win98 computer, or I'd just stop using computers completely. I can't
stand XP. Everything about it ****es me off. When the day actually
comes that I can no longer use Win98, I will either buy a Macintosh,
or hope that by that time there's a new OS (non-microsoft), or Linux
developed a user friendly OS. Better yet, maybe someone will come up
with an extension for Win98 that makes it work with the new MS
garbage, (but I wont hold my breath). I installed Win 2000, and while
it's not as abrasive as XP. I still disliked it. Yes, Win98 lacks
some USB support and gets an occasional blue screen, but I'd much
rather cope with a few minutes of hassles from time to time, than hate
using my computer 24/7.

Sure it suits you, you are using it on an old computer with old software
and old peripherals, there is nothing wrong with that at all, if it does
what you need and if you like it I say stick with it. But if you intend
on running newer applications and if you intend on running some of the
new hardware out there you will quickly find out that Windows 98 just
doesn't cut it, even printers are becoming harder to find for Windows
98, it is not a suitable operating system for the modern computing
environment.

John

Bill in Co. wrote:
| 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!!

Alright. I never knew the figure, so your memory must be trusted. You
are the last one apparently who even remembers that much, as looks like
Terhune has fallen into another earthquake. But who'd have thought even
200 MB would turn out to be a small number!

| 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.

Ah-- freeze-ups! That's what I was remembering, then! A freeze-up is a
lot like a crash-- don't you think!? I'm fairly sure you'd have gotten a
sickly green XP-irradiated death screen-- if it weren't frozen!

| 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
|

--
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:
| 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:

....snip
| 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). :-)

Well, I feel better about my sizes now, which were...

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.

And Compaq did install some big stuff in here, like MS Works, MS
Encarta, ArcSoft PhotoPrinter, Built-In Technician, CeQuadrat, etc!

My Win98SE Options folder (holds the .cabs) is...
1,057 files, 40 folders, 236,287,224 bytes.

And, using EXTRACT /D /A to display the file names in the various .cab's
in there, here are the bottom lines...

6,014 Files 325,963,535 bytes base4.cab
413 Files 2,628,329 bytes
8 Files 16,960 bytes
31 Files 1,186,883 bytes
434 Files 11,517,232 bytes precopy1.cab

This is what produces that (plus the file names & sizes)...

EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\Base4.cab "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt" /A
EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\Catalog3.cab "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt"
EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\CHL99.cab "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt"
EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\MINI.cab "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt"
EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\Precopy1.cab "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt" /A

Better do it exactly like that! Using "/A" where it doesn't belong seems
to get some other .cabs anyhow! Also, that is the order SFC will work on
the .cabs. If there are duplicates, it's first found that's used. (And,
if one exists in the root folder, THAT is taken.)

"" starts CABS.txt from scratch, which wipes any existing one.
"" adds to CABS.txt, or starts it if non-existent.
Quotes are needed around LFNs (Long File Names).
Adjust locations of .cabs & destination as necessary.

Some/all files in MINI.cab have updated versions in other Win98SE .cab
files. So, I can't figure why I have that one. But SFC somehow knows to
extract for instance Keyboard.drv from WIN98_44.CAB instead of from
MINI.cab, probably because Base4.cab sorts under Mini.cab.

CHL99.cab has old but unique files. SFC does get these...
C:\extract /d E:\Options\cabs\chl99.cab
Cabinet chl99.cab
08-21-1997 10:42:14p A--- 389 chang.cdf
08-18-1997 10:51:48a A--- 4,710 chang.ico
08-14-1997 3:35:24p A--- 1,806 chang_sl.gif
09-03-1997 5:11:28p A--- 2,714 chang_wl.gif
09-10-1997 11:50:00a A--- 4,499 chl99.inf
08-21-1997 10:38:48p A--- 227 ieupdate.cdf
08-11-1997 6:53:12p A--- 1,537 ieupdate.gif
09-10-1997 11:27:56a A--- 1,078 ieupdate.ico
8 Files 16,960 bytes

Those all exist in my system (all in C:\WINDOWS\WEB except chl99.inf in
C:\Windows\Inf), but with dates of 7/30/2001.

CATALOG3.cab is filled with 413 ".cat" files of 4/23/99 found in no
other .cab. (A find on "*.cat" doesn't find that many in my system,
mysteriously.) Precopy1.cab & Precopy2.cab also have the later dates,
but at least Command.com is duplicated in another .cab.

WARNING: DO INCLUDE "/D", which says "display only". OTHERWISE, you
will actually extract them! They will extract into the current folder.
(Then, maybe an MVP may save you, & I will be in some distant Afghan
cave, if needed!)

|
| 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.....

--
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 Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:58:48 -0300, "John John (MVP)"
wrote:

Windows 98 may have been good in its time but its time is now over and
for all but the most devoted aficionados maintaining and getting Windows
98 to work properly with new hardware and software is most often an
exercise in futility, or at the very least a very frustrating exercise.
Like it or not Windows 98 is not an operating system for todays
computing needs. You might have more luck clamoring for the return of
top hats and steam engines...

John

I do not agree. Sure, Win98 is 10 years old, but it does everything I
need. I run internet software, I watch movies, edit my camera photos,
run basic office software, and more...... It works just fine. If I
had to use XP or Vista, I'd first need a new computer. Then I'd get
it home and stick it in the closet, while continuing to use my old
Win98 computer, or I'd just stop using computers completely. I can't
stand XP. Everything about it ****es me off. When the day actually
comes that I can no longer use Win98, I will either buy a Macintosh,
or hope that by that time there's a new OS (non-microsoft), or Linux
developed a user friendly OS. Better yet, maybe someone will come up
with an extension for Win98 that makes it work with the new MS
garbage, (but I wont hold my breath). I installed Win 2000, and while
it's not as abrasive as XP.

What exactly do you find "abrasive" about WinXP? Like you, I loved
(actually still do, to some extent) Win98SE, but I've tailored WinXP to look
like Win98SE (and that CAN be done - believe it or not). But the only
thing missing is the stuff we've talked about; the complexities "under the
hood" make messin with it at a lower level (like down in DOS, etc),
difficult. You have to give up some of that control. But OTOH, you get a
lot in return. Actually, if you want an operating system that can be
almost totally under your complete control, and where you can monitor nearly
everything, to the nth degree, we'd probably have to go back to DOS. :-)
But yeah, Win3.1, Win95, and Win98SE are to some extent in that league too.

I still disliked it. Yes, Win98 lacks
some USB support and gets an occasional blue screen, but I'd much
rather cope with a few minutes of hassles from time to time, than hate
using my computer 24/7.

PCR wrote:
Bill in Co. wrote:
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!!

Alright. I never knew the figure, so your memory must be trusted. You
are the last one apparently who even remembers that much, as looks like
Terhune has fallen into another earthquake. But who'd have thought even
200 MB would turn out to be a small number!

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.

Ah-- freeze-ups! That's what I was remembering, then! A freeze-up is a
lot like a crash-- don't you think!?

No. Not exactly.

I'm fairly sure you'd have gotten a
sickly green XP-irradiated death screen-- if it weren't frozen!

LOL. But I'm not so sure. The thing is, I think a blue screen is
potentially more serious. Like in some cases, you have to fix some VxD
thing, or whatever. And that NEVER happened here, with those couple of
"lockups". Just rebooting was always enough. And you can't say the same
thing about (many) blue screens.

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


--
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:
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:

...snip
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). :-)

Well, I feel better about my sizes now, which were...

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.

And Compaq did install some big stuff in here, like MS Works, MS
Encarta, ArcSoft PhotoPrinter, Built-In Technician, CeQuadrat, etc!

My Win98SE Options folder (holds the .cabs) is...
1,057 files, 40 folders, 236,287,224 bytes.

No, but the point was, that a clean install of Windows 98SE took up only
about 200 MB of disk space *in total*! You're way over that, due to the
installation of programs. We're NOT really talking about that cabs folder,
although undoubtedly there is some relation between the two things.



And, using EXTRACT /D /A to display the file names in the various .cab's
in there, here are the bottom lines...

6,014 Files 325,963,535 bytes base4.cab
413 Files 2,628,329 bytes
8 Files 16,960 bytes
31 Files 1,186,883 bytes
434 Files 11,517,232 bytes precopy1.cab

This is what produces that (plus the file names & sizes)...

EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\Base4.cab "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt" /A
EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\Catalog3.cab "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt"
EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\CHL99.cab "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt"
EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\MINI.cab "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt"
EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\Precopy1.cab "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt" /A

Better do it exactly like that! Using "/A" where it doesn't belong seems
to get some other .cabs anyhow! Also, that is the order SFC will work on
the .cabs. If there are duplicates, it's first found that's used. (And,
if one exists in the root folder, THAT is taken.)

"" starts CABS.txt from scratch, which wipes any existing one.
"" adds to CABS.txt, or starts it if non-existent.
Quotes are needed around LFNs (Long File Names).
Adjust locations of .cabs & destination as necessary.

Some/all files in MINI.cab have updated versions in other Win98SE .cab
files. So, I can't figure why I have that one. But SFC somehow knows to
extract for instance Keyboard.drv from WIN98_44.CAB instead of from
MINI.cab, probably because Base4.cab sorts under Mini.cab.

CHL99.cab has old but unique files. SFC does get these...
C:\extract /d E:\Options\cabs\chl99.cab
Cabinet chl99.cab
08-21-1997 10:42:14p A--- 389 chang.cdf
08-18-1997 10:51:48a A--- 4,710 chang.ico
08-14-1997 3:35:24p A--- 1,806 chang_sl.gif
09-03-1997 5:11:28p A--- 2,714 chang_wl.gif
09-10-1997 11:50:00a A--- 4,499 chl99.inf
08-21-1997 10:38:48p A--- 227 ieupdate.cdf
08-11-1997 6:53:12p A--- 1,537 ieupdate.gif
09-10-1997 11:27:56a A--- 1,078 ieupdate.ico
8 Files 16,960 bytes

Those all exist in my system (all in C:\WINDOWS\WEB except chl99.inf in
C:\Windows\Inf), but with dates of 7/30/2001.

CATALOG3.cab is filled with 413 ".cat" files of 4/23/99 found in no
other .cab. (A find on "*.cat" doesn't find that many in my system,
mysteriously.) Precopy1.cab & Precopy2.cab also have the later dates,
but at least Command.com is duplicated in another .cab.

WARNING: DO INCLUDE "/D", which says "display only". OTHERWISE, you
will actually extract them! They will extract into the current folder.
(Then, maybe an MVP may save you, & I will be in some distant Afghan
cave, if needed!)


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.....

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

"DaffyD®" wrote in message
...
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.



I'm sure that it will not take you all that long to get used to Win2k.

The fact that your scanner is parallel port should not make it unusable...
there should be an adjustment for the quality that you use to scan...
it may simply be set too low by default.

Since your scanner is at least detected and installed,
it may be a function of the software you are using to import images.

You may want to try the free image viewer Irfanview
and use the import function and specify your scanner...
then see if you can adjust the image quality.

100 - 150 dpi should give you good results

Bill in Co. wrote:
| PCR wrote:
| Bill in Co. wrote:
| 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!!
|
| Alright. I never knew the figure, so your memory must be trusted. You
| are the last one apparently who even remembers that much, as looks
| like Terhune has fallen into another earthquake. But who'd have
| thought even 200 MB would turn out to be a small number!
|
| 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.
|
| Ah-- freeze-ups! That's what I was remembering, then! A freeze-up is
| a lot like a crash-- don't you think!?
|
| No. Not exactly.
|
| I'm fairly sure you'd have gotten a
| sickly green XP-irradiated death screen-- if it weren't frozen!
|
| LOL. But I'm not so sure. The thing is, I think a blue screen is
| potentially more serious. Like in some cases, you have to fix some
| VxD thing, or whatever. And that NEVER happened here, with those
| couple of "lockups". Just rebooting was always enough. And you
| can't say the same thing about (many) blue screens.

I can't quite recall I've ever had to replace a .vxd of my own after a
BSOD. It normally is just a reboot & the auto-scanreg that fixed them--
not that I've had any in quite a while! I've certainly had more freezes
myself than BSODs. And those were due to the McAfee scan engine going
bad &/or the mouse going bad. Those have been replaced & I hardly freeze
at all now.

Oh, all right, fine -- since you've seen both OS & I haven't much-- I'll
stop arguing the issue whether XP will crash as bad as Win98SE. Good
luck with it, really.

| 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.

....snip
--
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:
| 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:
|
| ...snip
| 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). :-)
|
| Well, I feel better about my sizes now, which were...
|
| 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.
|
| And Compaq did install some big stuff in here, like MS Works, MS
| Encarta, ArcSoft PhotoPrinter, Built-In Technician, CeQuadrat, etc!
|
| My Win98SE Options folder (holds the .cabs) is...
| 1,057 files, 40 folders, 236,287,224 bytes.
|
| No, but the point was, that a clean install of Windows 98SE took up
| only about 200 MB of disk space *in total*! You're way over that,
| due to the installation of programs. We're NOT really talking about
| that cabs folder, although undoubtedly there is some relation between
| the two things.

I guess it depends on the options selected during the install. The .cabs
prove Win98SE can get bigger, if more of the files are extracted.
Really, you need to count Windows Updates (never mind-- I know!),
Program Files, & indispensable apps too, like maybe MS Works. But your
point is good that XP is bloated by comparison, & Vista is worse!

| And, using EXTRACT /D /A to display the file names in the various
| .cab's in there, here are the bottom lines...
|
| 6,014 Files 325,963,535 bytes base4.cab
| 413 Files 2,628,329 bytes
| 8 Files 16,960 bytes
| 31 Files 1,186,883 bytes
| 434 Files 11,517,232 bytes precopy1.cab
|
| This is what produces that (plus the file names & sizes)...
|
| EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\Base4.cab "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt" /A
| EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\Catalog3.cab "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt"
| EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\CHL99.cab "E:\My Documents\CABS.txt"
| EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\MINI.cab "E:\My
| Documents\CABS.txt" EXTRACT /D E:\Options\Cabs\Precopy1.cab "E:\My
| Documents\CABS.txt" /A
|
| Better do it exactly like that! Using "/A" where it doesn't belong
| seems to get some other .cabs anyhow! Also, that is the order SFC
| will work on the .cabs. If there are duplicates, it's first found
| that's used. (And, if one exists in the root folder, THAT is taken.)
|
| "" starts CABS.txt from scratch, which wipes any existing one.
| "" adds to CABS.txt, or starts it if non-existent.
| Quotes are needed around LFNs (Long File Names).
| Adjust locations of .cabs & destination as necessary.
|
| Some/all files in MINI.cab have updated versions in other Win98SE
| .cab files. So, I can't figure why I have that one. But SFC somehow
| knows to extract for instance Keyboard.drv from WIN98_44.CAB instead
| of from MINI.cab, probably because Base4.cab sorts under Mini.cab.
|
| CHL99.cab has old but unique files. SFC does get these...
| C:\extract /d E:\Options\cabs\chl99.cab
| Cabinet chl99.cab
| 08-21-1997 10:42:14p A--- 389 chang.cdf
| 08-18-1997 10:51:48a A--- 4,710 chang.ico
| 08-14-1997 3:35:24p A--- 1,806 chang_sl.gif
| 09-03-1997 5:11:28p A--- 2,714 chang_wl.gif
| 09-10-1997 11:50:00a A--- 4,499 chl99.inf
| 08-21-1997 10:38:48p A--- 227 ieupdate.cdf
| 08-11-1997 6:53:12p A--- 1,537 ieupdate.gif
| 09-10-1997 11:27:56a A--- 1,078 ieupdate.ico
| 8 Files 16,960 bytes
|
| Those all exist in my system (all in C:\WINDOWS\WEB except chl99.inf
| in C:\Windows\Inf), but with dates of 7/30/2001.
|
| CATALOG3.cab is filled with 413 ".cat" files of 4/23/99 found in no
| other .cab. (A find on "*.cat" doesn't find that many in my system,
| mysteriously.) Precopy1.cab & Precopy2.cab also have the later dates,
| but at least Command.com is duplicated in another .cab.
|
| WARNING: DO INCLUDE "/D", which says "display only". OTHERWISE, you
| will actually extract them! They will extract into the current
| folder. (Then, maybe an MVP may save you, & I will be in some
| distant Afghan cave, if needed!)
|
|
| 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.....
|
| --
| 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