Big Swappout?
DemoDisk
K8N Neo2 Platinum motherboard (MS-7025)
AMD Athlon64 3000+ w Intel MMX Technology
Phoenix - AwardBIOS v6.00PG
WD 20GB HDD
Radeon 8500 video card
1 GB Crucial RAM
Win98SE
IE 6.00.2800.1106
OE 6.00.2800.1123
The Problem:
I'm Still using Windows 98SE. Internet Explorer has been unstable for a
loong time. Becomes unresponsive, finally results in BSOD error msgs,
then reboot.
Every OL session ends that way -- IE gets jammed up waiting for Close
Program dialog box to appear. It takes down every other open window app
with it.
Possible cure: I just got a donated DELL minitower with WinXP installed
on a 40GB hdd.
If I can't diagnose or solve the instability problem with IE under
Windows 98, could I just swap my old 20GB drive for the one with XP on
it? (and move ½ a ton of files over?)
Issues:
The XP tower boots and responds slowly, maybe bcz it has old Norton
antivirus installed. There may be other problems, but it works OK
I have the Win98SE key and installation disk, but only the product key
for WinXP (there's a sticker on the case)
I can't upgrade from 98SE to Windows7. Could I u/g from XP to 7 if I get
it running?
Is it advisable to post this in the ms.public.windows NGs?
Your helpful comments/ideas welcome.
Thanks,
Jm
richard
No problem.
Partition the 20gig in two. Move all wanted file programs to the 2nd
partition leaving only the OS. Then scrap the OS entirely. Then you can
install the 2nd drive into the dell.
OR
You can just transfer the wanted files to the dell via lan cable, or even
SD cards/flash drives, and then wipe the 20gig drive clean and use it in
the dell.
richard
Just curious, have you tried clearing the temp files cache?
wisdomkiller & pain
> The System:
>
> K8N Neo2 Platinum motherboard (MS-7025)
> AMD Athlon64 3000+ w Intel MMX Technology
> Phoenix - AwardBIOS v6.00PG
> WD 20GB HDD
> Radeon 8500 video card
> 1 GB Crucial RAM
> Win98SE
> IE 6.00.2800.1106
> OE 6.00.2800.1123
>
> The Problem:
>
> I'm Still using Windows 98SE. Internet Explorer has been unstable for a
> loong time. Becomes unresponsive, finally results in BSOD error msgs,
> then reboot.
>
> Every OL session ends that way -- IE gets jammed up waiting for Close
> Program dialog box to appear. It takes down every other open window app
> with it.
>
Win98 was nice for dos applications, when there were.
Now we use dosbox or dosemu in linux for these old games.
> Possible cure: I just got a donated DELL minitower with WinXP installed
> on a 40GB hdd.
>
> If I can't diagnose or solve the instability problem with IE under
> Windows 98, could I just swap my old 20GB drive for the one with XP on
> it? (and move � a ton of files over?)
>
Win98 may even boot in safe mode, with the dell, and detect the new
hardware (though hard to find drivers). But it will get cluttered and
messed up even more so. I certainly doubt it will run more stable.
> Issues:
>
> The XP tower boots and responds slowly, maybe bcz it has old Norton
> antivirus installed. There may be other problems, but it works OK
>
> I have the Win98SE key and installation disk, but only the product key
> for WinXP (there's a sticker on the case)
>
So install win98 on the Dell. A fresh one.
Or, try out linux.
> I can't upgrade from 98SE to Windows7. Could I u/g from XP to 7 if I get
> it running?
Why win7 on the worn-out underpowered dell? Stay with XP.
A upgrade without full reinstall would not cure anything and is not
supported from xp to '7.
There may be a recovery partition on the Dell HD but it will install the
old norton as well, most certainly.
Or try to get a recovery xp cd from Dell.
Don't try another one with the productkey on the sticker, it's a oem
locked version.
Oh, and forget to move the xp from a dell (intel?) to a amd. It won't
work.
DemoDisk
"richard" <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:1e9rzps6cmtbt.d...@40tude.net...
Every time the rig crashes, I boot into safe mode, click IE Properties
and clear the temp files and cookies. No effect, AFAICT.
Then I use Scandisk/manual error correction to see what it found.
Sometimes an error, sometimes none.
When Scandisk finds errors, they're usually about the boot area, the
cleanup.log, lost file fragments. I don't know which of them would cause
IE to lock up, but I SAVED THE ERROR MESSAGES.
Y'know...in case anyone wants to see em.
BTW, I also have Spyware Blaster, Spybot S&D, and SuperAntiSpyware and
keep them updated. No indications of viruses.
Thanks for listening.
Mike Easter
DemoDisk wrote:
> I'm Still using Windows 98SE. Internet Explorer has been unstable for a
> loong time. Becomes unresponsive, finally results in BSOD error msgs,
> then reboot.
Win98 drivers should *NOT* be using IE. -1- it is too primitive to
handle today's modern webpages and -2- it is far too insecure to be
driving around. The newest IE6 W98 can use is SP1 which is really weak
and insecure.
> Every OL session ends that way -- IE gets jammed up waiting for Close
> Program dialog box to appear. It takes down every other open window app
> with it.
Likely your system either has some undiagnosed malware or its registry
has been destabilized because of previous malware infestations followed
by sanitization. It might need to be reinstalled.
> Possible cure: I just got a donated DELL minitower with WinXP installed
> on a 40GB hdd.
If I had the hardware previously mentioned and the new hardware, I would
be running two systems with a KVM on one keyboard video mouse.
> If I can't diagnose or solve the instability problem with IE under
> Windows 98, could I just swap my old 20GB drive for the one with XP on
> it? (and move ½ a ton of files over?)
That isn't the way I would do it.
> The XP tower boots and responds slowly, maybe bcz it has old Norton
> antivirus installed. There may be other problems, but it works OK
The XP system needs to be cleaned up, possibly even reinstalled which
brings up another problem you haven't solved yet.
> I have the Win98SE key and installation disk, but only the product key
> for WinXP (there's a sticker on the case)
Is it possible that the Dell system has a recovery partition or a
recovery disk available?
> I can't upgrade from 98SE to Windows7. Could I u/g from XP to 7 if I get
> it running?
That wouldn't be my approach.
--
Mike Easter
98 Guy
> The System:
>
> K8N Neo2 Platinum motherboard (MS-7025)
> AMD Athlon64 3000+ w Intel MMX Technology
> Phoenix - AwardBIOS v6.00PG
> WD 20GB HDD
> Radeon 8500 video card
> 1 GB Crucial RAM
> Win98SE
> IE 6.00.2800.1106
> OE 6.00.2800.1123
>
> The Problem:
>
> I'm Still using Windows 98SE. Internet Explorer has been unstable
I'm curious as to why there are win-98 users that haven't made Firefox
2.0.0.20 their default browser.
Firefox should have been your default browser for the past 3 years.
It's no secret that IE6 is a terrible browser for *any* OS, including
win-2k and XP. Regardless if it's fully patched and operational.
It's just a bad browser, and it's the bane of web designers.
And why are you running a win-98 machine with 1 gb of ram? Do you know
the problems that can cause without making certain win-98 system
modifications?
§nühw0£f
> DemoDisk wrote:
>
>> The System:
>>
>> K8N Neo2 Platinum motherboard (MS-7025)
>> AMD Athlon64 3000+ w Intel MMX Technology
>> Phoenix - AwardBIOS v6.00PG
>> WD 20GB HDD
>> Radeon 8500 video card
>> 1 GB Crucial RAM
>> Win98SE
>> IE 6.00.2800.1106
>> OE 6.00.2800.1123
>>
>> The Problem:
>>
>> I'm Still using Windows 98SE. Internet Explorer has been unstable
>> for a long time.
>
> I'm curious as to why there are win-98 users that haven't made Firefox
> 2.0.0.20 their default browser.
>
> Firefox should have been your default browser for the past 3 years.
>
where java isnt necessary.
> It's no secret that IE6 is a terrible browser for *any* OS, including
> win-2k and XP. Regardless if it's fully patched and operational.
>
> It's just a bad browser, and it's the bane of web designers.
>
> And why are you running a win-98 machine with 1 gb of ram? Do you know
> the problems that can cause without making certain win-98 system
> modifications?
Heh...turn off virtual memory.
--
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\
Peter Foldes
98 Guy
Here you go again spewing out your crap. Meb and everyone else are 150% correct
about you.
--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
"98 Guy" <9...@Guy.com> wrote in message news:4BC3B78E...@Guy.com...
chuckcar
news:kvqdnVzrXYue7F7W...@yournetplus.com:
> The System:
>
> K8N Neo2 Platinum motherboard (MS-7025)
> AMD Athlon64 3000+ w Intel MMX Technology
> Phoenix - AwardBIOS v6.00PG
> WD 20GB HDD
> Radeon 8500 video card
> 1 GB Crucial RAM
> Win98SE
> IE 6.00.2800.1106
> OE 6.00.2800.1123
>
> The Problem:
>
> I'm Still using Windows 98SE. Internet Explorer has been unstable for
> a loong time. Becomes unresponsive, finally results in BSOD error
> msgs, then reboot.
>
Even after a clean install? And the BSOD text was?
> Every OL session ends that way -- IE gets jammed up waiting for Close
> Program dialog box to appear. It takes down every other open window
> app with it.
>
So run *nothing* but your firewall, AV software and what you start
yourself.
> Possible cure: I just got a donated DELL minitower with WinXP
> installed on a 40GB hdd.
>
That drive's going to die. *real* soon. You can't even buy 80 gig drives
new anymore.
> If I can't diagnose or solve the instability problem with IE under
> Windows 98, could I just swap my old 20GB drive for the one with XP on
> it? (and move ½ a ton of files over?)
>
> Issues:
>
> The XP tower boots and responds slowly, maybe bcz it has old Norton
> antivirus installed. There may be other problems, but it works OK
>
> I have the Win98SE key and installation disk, but only the product key
> for WinXP (there's a sticker on the case)
>
> I can't upgrade from 98SE to Windows7. Could I u/g from XP to 7 if I
> get it running?
> Is it advisable to post this in the ms.public.windows NGs?
>
Just shutdown startup and see if you still get these errore. If you
don't, you know it was in the startup and it's not now running.
*Nothing* needs to be running in startup for windows (any version) to
work period.
start->run "msconfig" <enter> uncheck "Load Startup Group Items" click
apply then ok and reboot.
I noticed you are posting to related alt. groups. You'd have better luck
with comp.* IMHO.
--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
chuckcar
news:37404884....@woodpecker.fdns.net:
>> If I can't diagnose or solve the instability problem with IE under
>> Windows 98, could I just swap my old 20GB drive for the one with XP
>> on it? (and move � a ton of files over?)
>>
> Win98 may even boot in safe mode, with the dell, and detect the new
> hardware (though hard to find drivers). But it will get cluttered and
> messed up even more so. I certainly doubt it will run more stable.
>
Don't take offence, but the above is *completely* wrong. Drivers are
never loaded or even *used* in safe mode, much less detected.
rf
"chuckcar" <ch...@nil.car> wrote in message
news:Xns9D58D06...@127.0.0.1...
So, how does windows operate without a disk driver, or a screen driver, or a
mouse driver, or a keyboard driver?
Boot your system in safe mode, go to device manager, admire all the drivers
that are installed for all the hardware you have installed. Better yet, look
at the bloody screen as it boots, and watch all the drivers being installed
you bloody miserable illiterate bastard!
DemoDisk
<Meat Plow> wrote in message news:3lshkk....@news.alt.net...
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 14:16:21 -0500, "DemoDisk"
>
> So you want to stick the Dell drive with XP on it in your AMD CPU MSI
> mobo based PC?
>
> If the Dell is based on an Intel mobo and Pentium CPU it will probably
> never even boot.
You're right; thanks for saving me the trouble. All I could think was "I
got a copy of XP! I got a copy of XP!"
DemoDisk
"chuckcar" <ch...@nil.car> wrote...
> > I'm Still using Windows 98SE. Internet Explorer has been unstable
for
> > a loong time. Becomes unresponsive, finally results in BSOD error
> > msgs, then reboot.
> Even after a clean install? And the BSOD text was?
Here are the 2 usual BSOD error msgs:
"Windows is either busy or is waiting for the Close Program dialog box
to
be displayed. You can either wait for Windows to resume or you can hit
Ctrl+Alt+Del again and restart your computer. All unsaved information
will be lost. (etc)
And
Warning! The system is either busy or has become unstable. You can wait
and see if it becomes available again, or you can restart your computer.
> > Every OL session ends that way -- IE gets jammed up waiting for
Close
> > Program dialog box to appear. It takes down every other open window
> > app with it.
> So run *nothing* but your firewall, AV software and what you start
> yourself.
By "app," I meant that I have several IE windows open, plus IrfanView,
plus OE. That shouldn't be too much. I've done more in the past *before*
the instability started.
> > Possible cure: I just got a donated DELL minitower with WinXP
> > installed on a 40GB hdd.
> That drive's going to die. *real* soon.
How do you know that?
>You can't even buy 80 gig drives new anymore.
Wouldn't expect to.
> > If I can't diagnose or solve the instability problem with IE under
> > Windows 98, could I just swap my old 20GB drive for the one with XP
on
> > it? (and move ½ a ton of files over?)
> >
> > Issues:
> >
> > The XP tower boots and responds slowly, maybe bcz it has old Norton
> > antivirus installed. There may be other problems, but it works OK
> >
> > I have the Win98SE key and installation disk, but only the product
key
> > for WinXP (there's a sticker on the case)
> >
> > I can't upgrade from 98SE to Windows7. Could I u/g from XP to 7 if I
> > get it running?
> > Is it advisable to post this in the ms.public.windows NGs?
> Just shutdown startup and see if you still get these errore. If you
> don't, you know it was in the startup and it's not now running.
> *Nothing* needs to be running in startup for windows (any version) to
> work period.
Startup is no problem. The BSODs occur after I have tried to close
un-responsive windows and shut down. Here's what it looks like
There will be several windows open. One (most often the original) fails
to complete a task, i.e. closing, or advancing to next page. Pretty
soon, nothing responds. Once the session has locked up, not even Ctrl -
Alt - Del will work. THEN I get the error msgs.
The critical point seems to be the routine that closes the program. My
Win98SE at some point loses track of what to do. Is that problem with
KERNEL32.DLL, the core of the program??
> start->run "msconfig" <enter> uncheck "Load Startup Group Items" click
> apply then ok and reboot.
>
> I noticed you are posting to related alt. groups. You'd have better
luck
> with comp.* IMHO.
Thanks for responding, chuckcar
DemoDisk
"Peter Foldes" <ok...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hq0nmp$52u$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> {excessive crossposting removed}
>
> 98 Guy
>
> Here you go again spewing out your crap. Meb and everyone else are
150% correct
> about you.
<sigh> That's just great -- who am I supposed to listen to? What I get
from several responses is this:
A HDD swap isn't possible because my AMD processor and motherboard are
foreign to the Dell machine's installation (Intel). I admit I should
have thought of that.
And my w98se system is unstable, with no way to repair it except
reinstalling, PLUS its browser is apparently the abomination of the
programming community.
So. I can't stay where I am (instability), and I can't go forward
(incompatibility), at least with what I've got.
Yet someone (Mike Easter?) has said this hardware *should* be able to
run Windows7. But I can't upgrade from 98 to win7.
It seems that an installed, working copy of WinXP won't do any good at
all for this rig.
Thanks to everyone who answered, so far :)
Jm
DemoDisk
"Evan Platt" <ev...@theobvious.espphotography.com> wrote in message
news:oms7s5hkgqtqlr6f1...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 03:56:43 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <ch...@nil.car>
> wrote:
>
> >Even after a clean install? And the BSOD text was?
>
> all of one second.
True, and frustrating. But I actually have copied *by hand* a variety of
error messages that didn't vanish. Some of them seem to point at memory
management problems. I say 'seems' bcz, hell, I don't know, which is why
I'm asking here and other ng's.
> >That drive's going to die. *real* soon.
>
> Yes. All drives die in 5 years. We get it.
Is that something chuckcar repeats? I lurk here a bunch and I didn't
know that.
> >You can't even buy 80 gig drives new anymore.
>
> Really?
>
> http://www.serversdirect.com/product.asp?pf_id=HD3101
>
>
http://www.macmall.com/p/Seagate-Hard-Drives/product~dpno~7182909~pdp.eadegcg
>
> Do I need to go on?
*aHem* *cough* Well..um.. Hmm,hm-hmm, hmm-hm-hm
>
> >I noticed you are posting to related alt. groups. You'd have better
luck
> >with comp.* IMHO.
>
> And you'd have better luck ignoring any advice from chucktard.
Then please send some my way, Evan. Much obliged.
freemont
> Drivers are never
> loaded or even *used* in safe mode, much less detected.
Another gem.
--
⁂ "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
⁂ Beware the 24hoursupport tards:
⁂ http://24hoursupport-tards.info
¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> ※freemont※ <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
freemont
> You can't even buy 80 gig drives
> new anymore.
Another gem.
The Old Sourdough
snip
> Don't take offence, but the above is *completely* wrong. Drivers are
> never loaded or even *used* in safe mode, much less detected.
O......M.......F......G........!!!
--
The Old Sourdough
Nothing lasts forever.
Where do I find nothing?
�n�hw��f
with news:1oSdndMDPsO6nlnW...@yournetplus.com:
Mess around with some live linux cds.
Prolly have better luck there.
joevan
<ev...@theobvious.espphotography.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:37:20 +0000, freemont
><freemont...@freemontsoffice.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 03:56:43 +0000, chuckcar writ:
>>
>>> You can't even buy 80 gig drives
>>> new anymore.
>>
>>Another gem.
>
>Chucktard's been proven wrong, so this is the point, as usual, where
>he simply vanishes.
He must have blown a circuit from posting replies to 20 posts just
yesterday at ll:56 and 11:57 pm .
joevan
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 06:03:39 -0700, Evan Platt
><ev...@theobvious.espphotography.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:37:20 +0000, freemont
>><freemont...@freemontsoffice.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 03:56:43 +0000, chuckcar writ:
>>>
>>>> You can't even buy 80 gig drives
>>>> new anymore.
>>>
>>>Another gem.
>>
>>Chucktard's been proven wrong, so this is the point, as usual, where
>>he simply vanishes.
>He must have blown a circuit from posting replies to 20 posts just
>yesterday at ll:56 through 11:57 pm .
corrected earlier post.
chuckcar
news:3Nedna_kNdWEnlnW...@yournetplus.com:
>
> "chuckcar" <ch...@nil.car> wrote...
>
>> > I'm Still using Windows 98SE. Internet Explorer has been unstable
> for
>> > a loong time. Becomes unresponsive, finally results in BSOD error
>> > msgs, then reboot.
>
>> Even after a clean install? And the BSOD text was?
>
> Here are the 2 usual BSOD error msgs:
>
> "Windows is either busy or is waiting for the Close Program dialog box
> to
> be displayed. You can either wait for Windows to resume or you can hit
> Ctrl+Alt+Del again and restart your computer. All unsaved information
> will be lost. (etc)
>
Ok, that is *not* a BSOD. A BSOD means you get a message like "A Fatal
exception 0k has occurred at location ffff:ffff.... On a blue text
background. After which, if you hit space, you *might* see the desktop
background once before you get another similar message.
Naturally the "hex" numbers aren't going to match.
> And
>
> Warning! The system is either busy or has become unstable. You can
> wait and see if it becomes available again, or you can restart your
> computer.
>
See above. Not a BSOD. A BSOD - blue screen of death means nothing is
actually running making the system slow, just that windows itself has
corrupted it's own memory and can no longer run at *all*. You're lucky
after real ones to even see anything more than a black screen and the
mouse pointer.
>> > Every OL session ends that way -- IE gets jammed up waiting for
> Close
>> > Program dialog box to appear. It takes down every other open window
>> > app with it.
>
>> So run *nothing* but your firewall, AV software and what you start
>> yourself.
>
> By "app," I meant that I have several IE windows open, plus IrfanView,
> plus OE. That shouldn't be too much. I've done more in the past
> *before* the instability started.
>
>> > Possible cure: I just got a donated DELL minitower with WinXP
>> > installed on a 40GB hdd.
> > That drive's going to die. *real* soon.
>
> How do you know that?
>
Because They haven't been on the market. Meaning you're going to get one
that's used and that much closer to death. (There's a Pink Floyd
re-write in there somewhere).
>> Just shutdown startup and see if you still get these errore. If you
>> don't, you know it was in the startup and it's not now running.
>> *Nothing* needs to be running in startup for windows (any version) to
>> work period.
>
> Startup is no problem. The BSODs occur after I have tried to close
> un-responsive windows and shut down. Here's what it looks like
>
Wrong. You have a program that's running you haven't described and
probably have no idea what it is. That's *exactly* what startup is:
programs you have no idea what they do and are running all the time.
I've learned all the startups possible at one point and virtually *all*
of them serve no useful purpose. The most useful one by far is a little
program that allows the scroll wheel to work in programs other than IE.
I don't use a mouse with a scrollwheel, so I have no idea if it's even
useful anymore. It was in 98SE.
> There will be several windows open. One (most often the original)
> fails
> to complete a task, i.e. closing, or advancing to next page. Pretty
> soon, nothing responds. Once the session has locked up, not even Ctrl
> - Alt - Del will work. THEN I get the error msgs.
>
> The critical point seems to be the routine that closes the program. My
> Win98SE at some point loses track of what to do. Is that problem with
> KERNEL32.DLL, the core of the program??
>
Why do you mention Kernel32.dll? did you get another sort of error
message like "this program has performed an illegal..." If so, click
details and post the text in the box at the beginning. The numbers are
useless to anyone who doesn't have the windows source code or be able
to figure out ML from hex dumps - something I've long given up as a
pointless skill. This might very well be the actual cause here. There
*is* a fix that doesn't require re-installation of windows, but it
requires you to a) know where the cab files are or have the 98se cd
in a drive and b) type a dos command in command prompt only *exactly*
as given once I know what the above full directories are with path
(never mind about the cd aside from the drive letter).
chuckcar
news:qPydnZRR7ryqmlnW...@yournetplus.com:
>
> "Evan Platt" <ev...@theobvious.espphotography.com> wrote in message
> news:oms7s5hkgqtqlr6f1...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 03:56:43 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <ch...@nil.car>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Even after a clean install? And the BSOD text was?
>>
>> Have you ever seen a BSOD, chucktard? Quite a few of them display for
>> all of one second.
>
> True, and frustrating. But I actually have copied *by hand* a variety
> of error messages that didn't vanish. Some of them seem to point at
> memory management problems. I say 'seems' bcz, hell, I don't know,
> which is why I'm asking here and other ng's.
>
>
>> >That drive's going to die. *real* soon.
>>
>> Yes. All drives die in 5 years. We get it.
>
>
> Is that something chuckcar repeats? I lurk here a bunch and I didn't
> know that.
Take a look at how many posters here talk about getting bad sectors.
Evan is nothing but a useless troll here. About time someone told you
that. Aside from *one* useful wireless networking post I saw here this
week.
chuckcar
> DemoDisk wrote:
>
>> The System:
>>
>> K8N Neo2 Platinum motherboard (MS-7025)
>> AMD Athlon64 3000+ w Intel MMX Technology
>> Phoenix - AwardBIOS v6.00PG
>> WD 20GB HDD
>> Radeon 8500 video card
>> 1 GB Crucial RAM
>> Win98SE
>> IE 6.00.2800.1106
>> OE 6.00.2800.1123
>>
>> The Problem:
>>
>> I'm Still using Windows 98SE. Internet Explorer has been unstable
>> for a long time.
>
> I'm curious as to why there are win-98 users that haven't made Firefox
> 2.0.0.20 their default browser.
>
> Firefox should have been your default browser for the past 3 years.
>
> It's no secret that IE6 is a terrible browser for *any* OS, including
> win-2k and XP. Regardless if it's fully patched and operational.
>
You don't *want* IE6 sp2 for 98. It doesn't work properly. You want the
original release. They both cover the period when MS dropped support for
98. The SP's showed it. Their last one for 98 just screwed up windows.
chuckcar
> {excessive crossposting removed}
>
> 98 Guy
>
> Here you go again spewing out your crap. Meb and everyone else are
> 150% correct about you.
Yes, he replies to even useless trolls. Annoys you how he can be an
actual human being doesn't it?
Alec Lourmier
wrote:
>Even after a clean install? And the BSOD text was?
Probably something like "a fatal exception 0E has occurred at
0137:BFFA21C9".
--
Alec
I am pro skub.
chuckcar
news:se99s5pbaqjltrgfm...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 03:56:43 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <ch...@nil.car>
> wrote:
>
>>Even after a clean install? And the BSOD text was?
>
> Probably something like "a fatal exception 0E has occurred at
> 0137:BFFA21C9".
>
You missed this post?
Message-ID: <Xns9D59679...@127.0.0.1>
joevan
<ev...@theobvious.espphotography.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:42:30 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <ch...@nil.car>
>wrote:
>
>>It *will* return the video card to the desktop video mode
>
>"Desktop video mode"?
>
>>and then windows *might* (on a true BSOD,
>
>Obviously. A BSOD is a BSOD. And it won't return you to Windows,
>otherwise it isn't a BSOD.
>
>>not a slow computer message)
>
>Huh?
>
>>show the background. This is assuming that you don't immediatly get another
>>error. Which is extremely likely at that point.
>
>Which then isn't a BSOD.
I realise how important it is for some to not filter the trolls as
they impart such crap to unsuspecting newbies. Thanks for keeping the
newsgroup intact.
chuckcar
news:G7Swn.19042$pv.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>
> "chuckcar" <ch...@nil.car> wrote in message
> news:Xns9D58D06...@127.0.0.1...
>> wisdomkiller & pain <newbuntu.20...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in
>> news:37404884....@woodpecker.fdns.net:
>>
>>>> If I can't diagnose or solve the instability problem with IE under
>>>> Windows 98, could I just swap my old 20GB drive for the one with XP
>>>> on it? (and move � a ton of files over?)
>>>>
>>> Win98 may even boot in safe mode, with the dell, and detect the new
>>> hardware (though hard to find drivers). But it will get cluttered
>>> and messed up even more so. I certainly doubt it will run more
>>> stable.
>>>
>> Don't take offence, but the above is *completely* wrong. Drivers are
>> never loaded or even *used* in safe mode, much less detected.
>
> So, how does windows operate without a disk driver, or a screen
> driver, or a mouse driver, or a keyboard driver?
>
It uses default ones for windows. Try using the CDROM drive in 98 safe
mode some time. Or the sound card.
> Boot your system in safe mode, go to device manager, admire all the
> drivers that are installed for all the hardware you have installed.
> Better yet, look at the bloody screen as it boots, and watch all the
> drivers being installed you bloody miserable illiterate bastard!
>
They're displayed there (sometimes quite differently than in normal
windows) for a reason.
chuckcar
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:00:42 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar
> <ch...@nil.car>wrote:
>
>>Ok, that is *not* a BSOD. A BSOD means you get a message like "A Fatal
>>exception 0k has occurred at location ffff:ffff.... On a blue text
>>background. After which, if you hit space, you *might* see the desktop
>>background once before you get another similar message.
>
> Ummmmmmmmmm so let me see if I got this right. I get a Stop Error aka
> BSOD and if I hit 'space' I might see my desktop?
>
It *will* return the video card to the desktop video mode and then
windows *might* (on a true BSOD, not a slow computer message) show the
background. This is assuming that you don't immediatly get another
error. Which is extremely likely at that point.
> I'll have to try that the next time it happens (well actually it would
> be the first time in Win7.)
>
It's worked since 95. If you want to see something else that no one
tries, try hittin the <esc> key when windows starts loading.
DemoDisk
"chuckcar" wrote...
> You don't *want* IE6 sp2 for 98. It doesn't work properly. You want
the
> original release. They both cover the period when MS dropped support
for
> 98. The SP's showed it. Their last one for 98 just screwed up windows.
How'd it screw up Win98?
chuckcar
news:cat9s5h6e1atnfsf5...@4ax.com:
I try, but It takes a shitload of wasted time.
chuckcar
news:ObSdnXsO6LX5blnW...@yournetplus.com:
Almost as bad as your problem. You close IE and the desktop locks up.
Very wierd shit. The start menu pops up and it just stays there no
matter what you do. Desktop icons will highlight, but the second click
locks up windows. After that you can't even bring up task manager.
Windows will only shut down by the power button. If you wait, it *may*
recover and windows comes back. No error messages, but you just *don't*
close the first pane of IE you open. You shut down with it still there.
rf
"chuckcar" <ch...@nil.car> wrote in message
> "rf" <r...@z.invalid> wrote in
> news:G7Swn.19042$pv.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>
>>
>> "chuckcar" <ch...@nil.car> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9D58D06...@127.0.0.1...
>>> wisdomkiller & pain <newbuntu.20...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in
>>> news:37404884....@woodpecker.fdns.net:
>>>
>>>>> If I can't diagnose or solve the instability problem with IE under
>>>>> Windows 98, could I just swap my old 20GB drive for the one with XP
>>>>> on it? (and move � a ton of files over?)
>>>>>
>>>> Win98 may even boot in safe mode, with the dell, and detect the new
>>>> hardware (though hard to find drivers). But it will get cluttered
>>>> and messed up even more so. I certainly doubt it will run more
>>>> stable.
>>>>
>>> Don't take offence, but the above is *completely* wrong. Drivers are
>>> never loaded or even *used* in safe mode, much less detected.
>>
>> So, how does windows operate without a disk driver, or a screen
>> driver, or a mouse driver, or a keyboard driver?
>>
> It uses default ones for windows.
Ah, so now you are saying the windoes *does* use drivers in safe mode? This
seems to be in contradiction to your earlier statement that windows does not
use drivers in safe mode.
Why don't you just admit that you have no bloody idea?
> Try using the CDROM drive in 98 safe
> mode some time. Or the sound card.
Who mentioned anything about cdroms or sound cards?
>> Boot your system in safe mode, go to device manager, admire all the
>> drivers that are installed for all the hardware you have installed.
>> Better yet, look at the bloody screen as it boots, and watch all the
>> drivers being installed you bloody miserable illiterate bastard!
>>
> They're displayed there (sometimes quite differently than in normal
> windows) for a reason.
The reason being that they are loaded you bloody illiterate idiot.
Alec Lourmier
wrote:
>You missed this post?
Does it not answer your question?
chuckcar
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:42:26 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <ch...@nil.car>
> wrote:
>
>>You missed this post?
>
> Does it not answer your question?
>
No, because there's no way we can know if that was the exact message the
OP got fatal exceptions - *if* that was what the error was and there is
at least one other error - can have a number of causes. Stating a
possible error that one *could* get doesn't help thanks.
98 Guy
> >> I'm Still using Windows 98SE. Internet Explorer has been unstable
> >> for a long time.
> >
> > I'm curious as to why there are win-98 users that haven't made
> > Firefox 2.0.0.20 their default browser.
> You don't *want* IE6 sp2 for 98. It doesn't work properly.
I don't know what drugs you're on, but IE6-sp2 can't be installed on
win-98, nor win-2k for that matter.
Only XP and higher.
DemoDisk
"chuckcar" <ch...@nil.car> wrote in message
> > Does it not answer your question?
> >
> No, because there's no way we can know if that was the exact message
the
> OP got fatal exceptions - *if* that was what the error was and there
is
> at least one other error - can have a number of causes. Stating a
> possible error that one *could* get doesn't help thanks.
All right, then here's one of the error msgs Windows 98SE gave me.
"Windows
An exception 0E has occurred at 0028:C028197D in VxD NDIS(04) +
0000020D. This was called from 0028:C1C3BF74 in VxD PPPMAC(04) +
00007B14. It may be possible to continue normally.
- Press any key to attempt to continue
- Press Ctrl + Alt + Del to restart your computer"
"Windows
An exception 0E has occurred at 0028:C028197D in VxD NDIS (04) +
0000020D. This was called from 0028:C1C3BF74 in VxD PPPMAC(04) +
00007B14"
And
"Windows
A fatal exception 0E has occurred at 0028:FF02170D in VXD STREAM(01) +
00001F4D. The current application will be terminated."
Note that the first 2 msgs are the same. There's more, but I'll have to
find em first. I'm hoping someone can trace them back to a definite
cause.
Jm
DemoDisk
"chuckcar" <ch...@nil.car> wrote in message
Sounds very much like what I've experienced, i.e., only partial
functionality after one window (usually the first) locks up. Pretty
soon, no function at all. I've had the Close Program dialog box stuck on
the desktop many times after hitting Ctrl+Alt+Delete. Even the 3-finger
salute doesn't help any more.
If I get a bluescreen message (BSOD or not) it most often says "Windows
is waiting for the Close Program dialog box to appear. You can wait and
see if it appears, or you can hit Ctrl Alt, etc...
So my W98SE problem might be cause by MicroSoft themselves, eh.
Jm
DemoDisk
"98 Guy" <9...@Guy.com> wrote in message news:4BC53373...@Guy.com...
The of version number IE is 6.00.2800.1106
Some Guy
one did:
Aardvark
> wierd
WTF?????
More weird spelling from chuckie.
--
Top posting because your cursor happens to be there is like shitting in
your pants because that's where your asshole happens to be.
DemoDisk
"Andy" <nospam@> wrote in message
news:5b9g97-...@fully.qualified.domain.name...
> DemoDisk wrote:
>
> > The Problem:
> >
> > I'm Still using Windows 98SE. Internet Explorer has been unstable
for a
>
> Indeed. It still is.
>
> > Becomes unresponsive, finally results in BSOD error msgs,
> > then reboot.
> >
> > Every OL session ends that way -- IE gets jammed up waiting for
Close
> > Program dialog box to appear. It takes down every other open window
app
> > with it.
> >
> > Possible cure: I just got a donated DELL minitower with WinXP
installed
> > on a 40GB hdd.
> >
> > If I can't diagnose or solve the instability problem with IE under
> > Windows 98, could I just swap my old 20GB drive for the one with XP
on
> > it? (and move ½ a ton of files over?)
> >
> >
> > The XP tower boots and responds slowly, maybe bcz it has old Norton
> > antivirus installed. There may be other problems, but it works OK
> >
> > I have the Win98SE key and installation disk, but only the product
key
> > for WinXP (there's a sticker on the case)
> >
> > I can't upgrade from 98SE to Windows7. Could I u/g from XP to 7 if I
get
> > it running?
> > Is it advisable to post this in the ms.public.windows NGs?
> >
> >
> > Your helpful comments/ideas welcome.
> > Thanks,
> > Jm
>
> Both machines need to be thrown in the landfill. Sorry.
>
> Either that or install Linux.
Ya think that maybe it's the damn OS that needs tossing instead?
chuckcar
Having troubles with your nicks are you Aardvark?
And you're wrong anways. It says *specifically* under Overview that it's
for people who have an *earlier* version of windows than XP. As well
it actually lists below the versions of windows it's meant for.
It's actually IE 6 SP1, not SP2, but there *is* no IE 6 SP2 anyways.
chuckcar
news:1rOdnTaSdJ1Zy1jW...@yournetplus.com:
One thing I learned is to *not* use shockwave with IE at that point. It
works fine with 5 and *if* you can find it the initial release of IE 6
(not SP1, just plain 6 you understand) however.
> If I get a bluescreen message (BSOD or not) it most often says
> "Windows is waiting for the Close Program dialog box to appear. You
> can wait and see if it appears, or you can hit Ctrl Alt, etc...
>
> So my W98SE problem might be cause by MicroSoft themselves, eh.
>
Quite probably if you're running IE 6 SP1 and haven't had experience
with just plain IE 6. First thing I'd do is uninstall shockwave, then
repair IE 6 in add/remove programs (I've mentioned this several times
here). After that, uninstall it and install straight IE 6, or the
firefox mentioned or move to a different OS. IE 6 SP1 *does* lead to
windows 98 or 98SE ultimately not being able to even load. I have no
doubt of that.
chuckcar
news:TamdnSt6lIH9zljW...@yournetplus.com:
>
> "chuckcar" <ch...@nil.car> wrote in message
> news:Xns9D59E90...@127.0.0.1...
>> Alec Lourmier <al...@abortedirc.net> wrote in
>> news:vf8as55069qld9ji8...@4ax.com:
>
>> > Does it not answer your question?
>> >
>> No, because there's no way we can know if that was the exact message
> the
>> OP got fatal exceptions - *if* that was what the error was and there
> is
>> at least one other error - can have a number of causes. Stating a
>> possible error that one *could* get doesn't help thanks.
>
>
> All right, then here's one of the error msgs Windows 98SE gave me.
>
> "Windows
>
> An exception 0E has occurred at 0028:C028197D in VxD NDIS(04) +
> 0000020D. This was called from 0028:C1C3BF74 in VxD PPPMAC(04) +
> 00007B14. It may be possible to continue normally.
> - Press any key to attempt to continue
> - Press Ctrl + Alt + Del to restart your computer"
>
Ok, That's a virtual device driver. Removing enum and and letting PNP
reinstall the drivers might fix it.
> "Windows
>
> An exception 0E has occurred at 0028:C028197D in VxD NDIS (04) +
> 0000020D. This was called from 0028:C1C3BF74 in VxD PPPMAC(04) +
> 00007B14"
>
Same message as above really.
> A fatal exception 0E has occurred at 0028:FF02170D in VXD STREAM(01) +
> 00001F4D. The current application will be terminated."
>
> Note that the first 2 msgs are the same. There's more, but I'll have
> to find em first. I'm hoping someone can trace them back to a definite
> cause.
>
That is very unlikely due to the possibility of hardware and software
both leading to the same messages on a lot of occasions.
You can always plug it parts of the above messages into microsoft
technet BTW.
However almost *always* the cause is either corrupted drivers or
software programs. The cases above are *all* windows itself and it's
drivers however. I say it's corruption caused by you forcing to turn off
the computer repeatedly. Nothing more. BTW If you repair IE and extract
explorer (picture of a computer when you browse through c:\windows
choosing the file to extract) using sfc, it *does* tend to make windows
behave better after a hard shutdown I found.
DemoDisk
"Evan Platt" <ev...@theobvious.espphotography.com> wrote in message
news:e8qcs59e8bdcfcoii...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 23:28:11 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <ch...@nil.car>
> wrote:
>
> >You can always plug it parts
>
Evan, mind my asking...? Of all the people responding to my posts,
three -- chuckcar, richard, and 98 Guy -- seem to be pariahs of a sort.
But they devote more energy offering answers than almost anyone else.
You occupy yourself entirely with jumping on chuckcar. And everyone
takes a swipe at richard.
If you don't like what they've offered, give something better. PLEASE!
Jm
98 Guy
> > I need to watch more for numnuts that set followup-to: groups,
> > like this one did:
Is there a reason you keep resetting the group distribution - numb nuts?
> And you're wrong anways. It says *specifically* under Overview
> that it's for people who have an *earlier* version of windows
> than XP.
Yes. XP originally came with IE6-SP1. Then MicroShaft came out with
something it called "IE6 - Security Version 1" (or SV1) as part of
XP-SP2. But most people simply called it "IE6-SP2".
IE6-SP2 can only be installed on XP and higher (perhaps only on XP-SP1
and higher).
> It's actually IE 6 SP1, not SP2, but there *is* no IE 6 SP2
> anyways.
Wrong.
Technically, Microsoft called it SV1, but most people call it SP2.
joevan
wrote:
Evan has helped me more than once. I don't understand where you are
coming from.
joevan
>DemoDisk wrote:
>
>>
>> "Andy" <nospam@> wrote in message
>> news:5b9g97-...@fully.qualified.domain.name...
>
>>> Both machines need to be thrown in the landfill. Sorry.
>>>
>>> Either that or install Linux.
>>
>> Ya think that maybe it's the damn OS that needs tossing instead?
>
>Absolutely. Hence the suggestion to install Linux. Don't worry about
>the trolls like Even Platt and Peter Foldes BTW, there's jokers in every
>group.
I won't cross post you worthless old pot.
Aardvark
> Having troubles with your nicks are you Aardvark?
What?
kony
<pac...@nospam.com> wrote:
>The System:
>
> K8N Neo2 Platinum motherboard (MS-7025)
> AMD Athlon64 3000+ w Intel MMX Technology
> Phoenix - AwardBIOS v6.00PG
> WD 20GB HDD
> Radeon 8500 video card
> 1 GB Crucial RAM
> Win98SE
> IE 6.00.2800.1106
> OE 6.00.2800.1123
>
>The Problem:
>
>I'm Still using Windows 98SE. Internet Explorer has been unstable for a
>loong time. Becomes unresponsive, finally results in BSOD error msgs,
>then reboot.
What do you mean "then reboot"? Do you mean you choose to
reboot or the machine does it by itself?
If you mean the machine does it by itself you do not have an
IE problem, you have hardware instability and might as well
ignore IE until the hardware is stable. Two tests I would
run are Prime 95's Torture Test (large in-place FFTs
setting) for at least a couple hours, and a memtest86+ boot
disc/floppy overnight. Any errors reported would need be
resolved before focusing on the OS or apps like IE.
>Every OL session ends that way -- IE gets jammed up waiting for Close
>Program dialog box to appear. It takes down every other open window app
>with it.
Scan the system with popular malware/adware/anti-virus
scanners, in particular looking for BHOs, browser helper
objects many of which are buggy. Remove any you find, even
if it is something you wanted to have installed... until you
find the root cause of the instability but as mentioned
above if machine reboots itself it is probably not IE to
blame by itself.
You might check the motherboard and PSU for failed
capacitors, or of course the other typical things like
failed fans, dust cloggage, etc.
>
>Possible cure: I just got a donated DELL minitower with WinXP installed
>on a 40GB hdd.
>
>If I can't diagnose or solve the instability problem with IE under
>Windows 98, could I just swap my old 20GB drive for the one with XP on
>it? (and move ½ a ton of files over?)
What do you mean "Just swap"? It would help if you
clarified your intentions.
No you cannot just throw an XP installation from another
system into that one and expect it to boot. There ARE ways
to make it work but they are outside the scope of one usenet
post. Briefly if that is your intention, Google search for
(migrate existing XP installation new) and you should get a
few valid results that mention you can add some registry
entries and drivers to the existing XP installation while it
is on its original system /then/ pull the drive and boot XP
in the other system far enough to plug-n-play hardware
differences.
>
>Issues:
>
>The XP tower boots and responds slowly, maybe bcz it has old Norton
>antivirus installed. There may be other problems, but it works OK
If the old Norton AV has no new virus definitions it serves
little if any purpose. It might respond faster if you
disable some OS eyecandy and/or have more than 512MB of
memory installed.
>
>I have the Win98SE key and installation disk, but only the product key
>for WinXP (there's a sticker on the case)
That's not a problem, the license is tied to the system
through that sticker. All you need is to find an
(unmolested) XP installation disc ISO online, for the same
version of windows (for example XP Home SP1, XP Pro, etc).
You will know you have the right version if the product key
is accepted when you enter it during installation...
although you may still need to call MS to activate it if the
bios isn't close enough.
Best bet is checking the popular bittorrent 'sites for a
Dell OEM XP disc of the same version (home or pro).
>
>I can't upgrade from 98SE to Windows7. Could I u/g from XP to 7 if I get
>it running?
>Is it advisable to post this in the ms.public.windows NGs?
It is generally a bad idea to upgrade any, but especially an
old, OS installation to a newer one. However, the old XP
system is certianly underpowered to run Win7 well, even if
you upgrade it to 2GB of system memory it will be less
desirable than keeping XP on it, including if you have to
install XP from scratch.
>
>Your helpful comments/ideas welcome.
>Thanks,
>Jm
>
You have not written much of anything about the PURPOSE
behind all this work. What is the system going to be used
for, I mean the most demanding or esoteric functions? Will
any unique hardware be added that has drivers for only
certain OS? Do you have apps you need to add which aren't
forward or backwards (OS) compatible?
Generally speaking for systems of that age you are best off
with WinXP, and as another person mentioned getting away
from IE 6 in general enough though as mentioned above it is
not likely to be IE in itself that is causing your
instability, rather than other browsers have enough benefits
over IE that salvaging IE6 may not be the best long term
plan... but if you must, you /could/ always do a clean 98
install with IE6 to see if the system is still instable.
chuckcar
> chuckcar wrote:
>
>> > I need to watch more for numnuts that set followup-to: groups,
>> > like this one did:
>
> Is there a reason you keep resetting the group distribution
Don't know how to use usenet? I use *only* this group, so I naturally
set the followup to this group so I don't get replies to a shitload of
groups I never read messages in. Ditch the attitude until you know what
you're talking about.
>
>> And you're wrong anways. It says *specifically* under Overview
>> that it's for people who have an *earlier* version of windows
>> than XP.
>
> Yes. XP originally came with IE6-SP1. Then MicroShaft came out with
> something it called "IE6 - Security Version 1" (or SV1) as part of
> XP-SP2. But most people simply called it "IE6-SP2".
>
> IE6-SP2 can only be installed on XP and higher (perhaps only on XP-SP1
> and higher).
>
>> It's actually IE 6 SP1, not SP2, but there *is* no IE 6 SP2
>> anyways.
>
> Wrong.
Not the version *I* was talking about. What you're talking about doesn't
matter a shit as we're dealing with a 98SE computer here.
chuckcar
news:hq75fn$313$3...@news.eternal-september.org:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 23:16:11 +0000, chuckcar wrote:
>
>> Having troubles with your nicks are you Aardvark?
>
> What?
>
Just something *SOME* *GUY* told me.
98 Guy
> > Is there a reason you keep resetting the group distribution
>
> Don't know how to use usenet?
I've been posting to usenet since, oh, about 1988, so yes, I think I
know how to use usenet.
> I use *only* this group,
That's nice. Which group is that?
This thread was posted to 3 groups by the OP as far as I know.
Only the OP can rightfully set a follow-up group if he wants. Normally,
others that participate in a thread do not set a follow-up group in
their reply unless they fundamentally change the nature of the thread.
> so I naturally set the followup to this group so I don't get
> replies to a shitload of groups I never read messages in.
Strange way to look at it. You are NOT getting replies from all the
groups that you don't normally read. Posts made to those other groups
stay right where they are - except for posts made to *this thread*.
> Ditch the attitude until you know what you're talking about.
I know exactly what I'm talking about.
> Not the version *I* was talking about. What you're talking
> about doesn't matter a shit as we're dealing with a 98SE
> computer here.
To re-cap:
Win-98 runs the same version of IE6 as Win-2K does, which is IE6-SP1.
Microsoft has been supporting IE6-SP1 continuously, even since the end
of their official support for win-98 (July 2006). The patches that
Microsoft has been making for IE6-SP1 are compatible with and can be
installed on win-98. These can be obtained by downloading the IE6
rollup patches that Microsoft makes for win-2k.
Microsoft has also been supporting IE6-SP2, but that version can't be
installed on win-2k or win-98.
Later this year, Microsoft will end support for win-2k, and presumably
this will also mean the end of patches for IE6-SP1. If so, it will also
mean that, practically speaking, there will be no more new exploits
being discovered and used against IE6-SP1.
Aardvark
> Aardvark <aard...@youllnever.know> wrote in
> news:hq75fn$313$3...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 23:16:11 +0000, chuckcar wrote:
>>
>>> Having troubles with your nicks are you Aardvark?
>>
>> What?
>>
> Just something *SOME* *GUY* told me.
What?
chuckcar
> chuckcar wrote:
>
>> > Is there a reason you keep resetting the group distribution
>>
>> Don't know how to use usenet?
>
> I've been posting to usenet since, oh, about 1988, so yes, I think I
> know how to use usenet.
>
Nope. Not even close. And I *really* doubt your figure either.
>> I use *only* this group,
>
> That's nice. Which group is that?
>
The only group you got in my reply of course.
<big snip>
Well seeing as I see *absolutely* no effort on your part to fix the op's
problem, I see no reason to continue replying to you. Ever. Again.
bubye.
And in addition if you knew squat about the subject or this group, you'd
realize just how much of an uphill battle you have arguing with me on
this subject.
freemont
>
> problem, I see no reason to continue replying to you. Ever. Again.
> bubye.
Too much to ask that you extend the same courtesy... to EVERYONE ELSE?
> And in addition if you knew squat about the subject or this group, you'd
> realize just how much of an uphill battle you have arguing with me on
> this subject.
LOL... well, in a way, there's some truth there. Arguing with you is
certainly a pointless endeavor, if not an "uphill battle".
Keep'em coming, Chucky. :-)
--
⁂ "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
⁂ Beware the 24hoursupport tards:
⁂ http://24hoursupport-tards.info
¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> ※freemont※ <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
98 Guy
> > I've been posting to usenet since, oh, about 1988, so yes, I
> > think I know how to use usenet.
> >
>
> Nope. Not even close.
Sorry to hear that you haven't been posting to usenet as long as I
have.
Or as you put it - "not even close".
> Well seeing as I see *absolutely* no effort on your part to fix
> the op's problem, I see no reason to continue replying to you.
I replied to the OP and gave him this advice:
1) Running win-98 with 1 gb of RAM will cause problems. Bring
the system ram down to 512 mb.
2) Running IE6 is lame, and has been for the past 3 years at least.
On a win-98 box, run Firefox 2.0.0.20 instead.
The OP has shown no indication of reading or trying my proposed
solutions.
> Ever. Again.
> bubye.
Thank you for waving the white flag of surrender.
I'll still be here when you post your next reply.
Mike Easter
98 Guy wrote:
> Only the OP can rightfully set a follow-up group if he wants. Normally,
> others that participate in a thread do not set a follow-up group in
> their reply unless they fundamentally change the nature of the thread.
I don't agree with any of that par.
There are huge problems with crossposting, initial or replies.
Whatever content the OP might hold, which OP content might apply to any
large number of groups, any *replies* which follow are very likely to -
or might - apply to only one group. To one appropriate group is how the
OP should have been posted in the first place - to the one group where
the OP most accurately and appropriately belonged, not to any number of
groups where the OP might have been on topic.
Moreover, any OP original post should not be posted into any group that
the OP original poster isn't reading, isn't subscribed to. Therefore -
any /replies/ which might be made to the OP which are posted to only a
single group, should be read by the OP who is by concept subscribed and
reading - because he is supposed to be reading in and subscribed to any
of the groups to which he is (cross)posting into.
If someone is crossposting to various groups to which s/he is not
subscribed and reading, then such a message is a zany and trollish
crosspost. And it doesn't matter whether or not the OP happens to read
the non-crossposted reply, since the message is intended for those
readers of the group to which it was posted.
Since I do not believe that I should be posting or crossposting anything
including any replies into any groups which I am not reading, then if I
reply to a crossposted message, then I should be deleting or eliminating
any groups which I don't read.
--
Mike Easter
DemoDisk
"Andy" <nospam@> wrote in message
> DemoDisk wrote:
>
> >
> > "Andy" <nospam@> wrote in message
> > news:5b9g97-...@fully.qualified.domain.name...
>
> >>
> >> Either that or install Linux.
> >
> > Ya think that maybe it's the damn OS that needs tossing instead?
>
> the trolls like Even Platt and Peter Foldes BTW, there's jokers in
every
> group.
I mostly lurk here, but yeah I was getting a little bent out of shape.
Thanks
DemoDisk
"98 Guy" <9...@Guy.com> wrote in message news:4BC7B429...@Guy.com...
> chuckcar wrote:
>
> > > I've been posting to usenet since, oh, about 1988, so yes, I
> > > think I know how to use usenet.
> > >
> >
> > Nope. Not even close.
>
> Sorry to hear that you haven't been posting to usenet as long as I
> have.
>
> Or as you put it - "not even close".
>
> > Well seeing as I see *absolutely* no effort on your part to fix
> > the op's problem, I see no reason to continue replying to you.
>
> I replied to the OP and gave him this advice:
>
> 1) Running win-98 with 1 gb of RAM will cause problems. Bring
> the system ram down to 512 mb.
>
> 2) Running IE6 is lame, and has been for the past 3 years at least.
> On a win-98 box, run Firefox 2.0.0.20 instead.
IE6 came with Win98, didn't it -- why is it lame to run it? I'll have
to go reread your post.
> The OP has shown no indication of reading or trying my proposed
> solutions.
Yeah, the OP is reading everything posted in this thread. I just can't
get back to everyone right away. Sorry.
Running Windows98 with 512MB RAM was getting worse as the web got more
complex. Plus, I'm on dialup (s---!). Mike Easter months ago advised
adding a string ("MaxFileCache=524288") to the System.ini file which
allowed me to install 1GB RAM.
The system seemed to like it better is all I can say, but the
instability issue has grown. Where I would get lockups on occasion
before, it has worsened such that nearly every session in which multiple
windows are open ends with the system locked up and un-responsive. The
only thing possible is to hit the Reset button.
> > Ever. Again.
> > bubye.
>
> Thank you for waving the white flag of surrender.
>
> I'll still be here when you post your next reply.
A lot of people are jumping on chuckcar and richard more than they
offering answers to 24hs.hd requests.
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> "98 Guy" wrote:
>> I replied to the OP and gave him this advice:
>>
>> 1) Running win-98 with 1 gb of RAM will cause problems. Bring
>> the system ram down to 512 mb.
I never heard that one.
>> 2) Running IE6 is lame, and has been for the past 3 years at least.
>> On a win-98 box, run Firefox 2.0.0.20 instead.
>
> IE6 came with Win98, didn't it -- why is it lame to run it? I'll have
> to go reread your post.
Win98 came with IE5. So did Windows 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer
IE - any of 'em, really - are poor browsers, for a variety of reasons.
One is security; another is non-standard HTML-rendering. You could ask
in an HTML authoring group for lots of details.
> A lot of people are jumping on chuckcar and richard more than they
> offering answers to 24hs.hd requests.
But ... they deserve it!
--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
Mike Easter
> "98 Guy"
>> 1) Running win-98 with 1 gb of RAM will cause problems. Bring
>> the system ram down to 512 mb.
>>
>> 2) Running IE6 is lame, and has been for the past 3 years at least.
>> On a win-98 box, run Firefox 2.0.0.20 instead.
>
> IE6 came with Win98, didn't it -- why is it lame to run it? I'll have
> to go reread your post.
It is lame to run IE6SP1 because it is 'primitive' and unable to handle
modern webpages properly, and because it is very very insecure.
> Running Windows98 with 512MB RAM was getting worse as the web got more
> complex. Plus, I'm on dialup (s---!). Mike Easter months ago advised
> adding a string ("MaxFileCache=524288") to the System.ini file which
> allowed me to install 1GB RAM.
I probably didn't give that advice 'exactly' as stated. More likely I
pointed you to a webpage advising how to deal with the ram limitations
of W98. That .ini string may have been found on a page I pointed to.
I don't believe it is necessary to actually reduce/remove ram down to
512 for W98.
> The system seemed to like it better is all I can say, but the
> instability issue has grown. Where I would get lockups on occasion
> before, it has worsened such that nearly every session in which multiple
> windows are open ends with the system locked up and un-responsive. The
> only thing possible is to hit the Reset button.
You can have system instability with or without any hidden malware.
Your system can become unstable due to registry 'damage' caused by
developing malware infestations and by sanitizing the infestations.
Reinstalling is a good way to get the OS stabilized. Using some other
browser other than IE is a better way to render webpages and a better
way to be more secure. Choosing more secure configurations and more
secure behaviors is a good way to prevent malware infestations which
lead to instability even after they are removed.
--
Mike Easter
24hshd only
chuckcar
news:f92dnXFTRs3_JVXW...@yournetplus.com:
>
> "98 Guy" <9...@Guy.com> wrote in message
> news:4BC7B429...@Guy.com...
>> chuckcar wrote:
> IE6 came with Win98, didn't it -- why is it lame to run it? I'll have
> to go reread your post.
>
No, IE 5 came with 98SE. 6 came with Millenium I think.
>> The OP has shown no indication of reading or trying my proposed
>> solutions.
>
>
> Yeah, the OP is reading everything posted in this thread. I just can't
> get back to everyone right away. Sorry.
>
> Running Windows98 with 512MB RAM was getting worse as the web got more
> complex. Plus, I'm on dialup (s---!). Mike Easter months ago advised
> adding a string ("MaxFileCache=524288") to the System.ini file which
> allowed me to install 1GB RAM.
>
> The system seemed to like it better is all I can say, but the
> instability issue has grown. Where I would get lockups on occasion
> before, it has worsened such that nearly every session in which
> multiple windows are open ends with the system locked up and
> un-responsive. The only thing possible is to hit the Reset button.
>
When was the last time you reinstalled windows? With 98 and 98SE
installing it once a year on a wiped drive is pretty well required. If you
no longer have disks for some drivers, you can run setup within windows by
copying the win98 directory over to it's own directory. When you do it
that way, you don't need to know the product key. That's called setup from
the cabs if you want to look it up.
BTW another reason why I use followups is that my new server's admins are
somewhat touchy about people who *don't*. I've gotten obvious error
messages typed by them personally in the past for not doing it.
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> "DemoDisk" wrote:
>> IE6 came with Win98, didn't it -- why is it lame to run it? I'll have
>> to go reread your post.
>
> No, IE 5 came with 98SE. 6 came with Millenium I think.
Nope, you lose. Windows ME came with IE 5.5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Millennium
(Notice the number of n's in the word millennium.)
98 Guy
> >> 1) Running win-98 with 1 gb of RAM will cause problems. Bring
> >> the system ram down to 512 mb.
>
> I never heard that one.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/253912
Any win-98 system can handle 512 mb ram with no special settings or
changes (assuming the motherboard can handle that much ram).
Above 512 mb, and especially between 768 mb and 1024 mb there are
usually some things that must be done for stable operation (see above
link).
The changes involve settings in the system.ini file, such as:
[386Enh]
MaxPhysPage=30000
[VCache]
MinFileCache=51200
MaxFileCache=524000
Interference with the AGP video memory can also be a problem. The AGP
memory aperture setting in the BIOS will play a role here.
> > IE6 came with Win98, didn't it -- why is it lame to run it?
> > I'll have to go reread your post.
>
> Win98 came with IE5. So did Windows 2000.
I thought that Win 2K came with IE 5.5?
In any case, IE6 was released a few months before XP was launched, and
as such it was made available for win-98 and 2K at that time.
But Microsoft badly botched IE6 from the point of view of web
designers. It broke many web-coding rules, and it is hated by many web
designers because they have to impliment special code in order for their
pages to be properly rendered by IE6. Most web designers want IE6 to
die - they've wanted that for years. There are websites devoted to the
death of IE6.
Version 2.0.0.20 is the last version of Firefox that can be installed on
standard win-98 systems, and it does a much better job at rendering web
content. If you obtain KernelEx for win-98, you can run Firefox version
3 - and other programs that typically require win-2k or higher.
98 Guy
> Running Windows98 with 512MB RAM was getting worse as the web got
> more complex. Plus, I'm on dialup (s---!).
Win-98 with 512 mb ram is not your problem. That's plenty of ram.
The system I'm typing this on right now has a 2.5 ghz P4 with 512 mb ram
- and I've got a 5 mb adsl internet connection.
> Mike Easter months ago advised adding a string
> ("MaxFileCache=524288") to the System.ini file which allowed
> me to install 1GB RAM.
That was a waste of time. Surfing the net, especially on dialup, on a
win-98 system, does not require 1 gb of ram. 512 mb was plenty.
> The system seemed to like it better is all I can say, but the
> instability issue has grown.
Naturally. You need to do way more research when you're running 1gb ram
on a win-98 system. For casual web-surfing and e-mail reading, there
is absolutely ZERO need for that much ram.
98 Guy
> > When was the last time you reinstalled windows? With 98 and
> > 98SE installing it once a year on a wiped drive is pretty
> > well required.
>
> Oh crap, here we go again.
>
> So the office I worked in where we ran 98 on all our machines
> well over 3 years.. That must have been the exception to the
> rule, right?
The last time we installed win-98 on our general-purpose office systems
was in 2006. Those systems have i845 based motherboards with 512 mb
ram, 64 mb nvidia AGP cards and 80 gb hard drives. That's about a dozen
systems. A few have been changed to XP, but we have about 8 still
running based on the initial 2006 setup.
Win-98 got a bad reputation primarily because hard drives were more
error-prone and just plain poor reliability back during the time-frame
1999 - 2003. Hard drives between 1 and 10 gb capacity were the worst.
When a hard drive develops bad sectors and critical system files are
pooched, that's what forces people to re-install win-98.
That fact that people were running 98 on systems with pathetically low
amounts of system ram (and therefore the swap files were helping to kill
those flaky drives) didn't help.
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>> IE6 came with Win98, didn't it -- why is it lame to run it?
>>> I'll have to go reread your post.
>>
>> Win98 came with IE5. So did Windows 2000.
>
> I thought that Win 2K came with IE 5.5?
No, it came with 5.0 .. well, 5.01 actually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer#Internet_Explorer_5
Win2K was the last good OS from Microsoft.
98 Guy
> Win2K was the last good OS from Microsoft.
The NT family of OS's was a complete joke. It should have never been
used as the OS for home and soho use.
Win2K was so bad that when you installed it and then connected it to the
internet to install updates and patches, that it almost always became
infected by something before you could patch it.
DemoDisk
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.non...@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:hqaffq$hmg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In 24hoursupport.helpdesk, DemoDisk wrote:
>
> > "98 Guy" wrote:
> >> I replied to the OP and gave him this advice:
> >>
> >> 1) Running win-98 with 1 gb of RAM will cause problems. Bring
> >> the system ram down to 512 mb.
>
> I never heard that one.
>
> >> 2) Running IE6 is lame, and has been for the past 3 years at least.
> >> On a win-98 box, run Firefox 2.0.0.20 instead.
> >
> > IE6 came with Win98, didn't it -- why is it lame to run it? I'll
have
> > to go reread your post.
>
> Win98 came with IE5. So did Windows 2000.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer
I don't recall updating IE; it would have been so long ago. Sad to think
it was actually a downgrade.
> IE - any of 'em, really - are poor browsers, for a variety of reasons.
> One is security; another is non-standard HTML-rendering. You could ask
> in an HTML authoring group for lots of details.
>
> > A lot of people are jumping on chuckcar and richard more than they
> > offering answers to 24hs.hd requests.
>
> But ... they deserve it!
It gets really, really old... Better that those who can offer help focus
on that instead.
DemoDisk
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote...
> Win2K was the last good OS from Microsoft.
That include the new Windows 7?
DemoDisk
"joevan" <joeva...@vanudity.com> wrote in message
news:f98ds5h0jqf79pbuo...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 21:45:20 -0500, "DemoDisk" <pac...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Evan Platt" <ev...@theobvious.espphotography.com> wrote in message
> >news:e8qcs59e8bdcfcoii...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 23:28:11 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <ch...@nil.car>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >You can always plug it parts
> >>
> >> Huh?
> >
> >Evan, mind my asking...? Of all the people responding to my posts,
> >three -- chuckcar, richard, and 98 Guy -- seem to be pariahs of a
sort.
> >But they devote more energy offering answers than almost anyone else.
> >You occupy yourself entirely with jumping on chuckcar. And everyone
> >takes a swipe at richard.
> >
> >If you don't like what they've offered, give something better.
PLEASE!
> >
> >Jm
> >
> >
> Evan has helped me more than once. I don't understand where you are
> coming from.
Sure, he's helped me too. Or at least tried ;) But too much energy in
this NG goes to nothing but insult and rebuke. Ain't no good a'tall.
DemoDisk
"kony" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:cr0fs59erq10lrtqg...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 14:16:21 -0500, "DemoDisk"
> <pac...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >The System:
> >
> > K8N Neo2 Platinum motherboard (MS-7025)
> > AMD Athlon64 3000+ w Intel MMX Technology
> > Phoenix - AwardBIOS v6.00PG
> > WD 20GB HDD
> > Radeon 8500 video card
> > 1 GB Crucial RAM
> > Win98SE
> > IE 6.00.2800.1106
> > OE 6.00.2800.1123
> >
> >The Problem:
> >
> >I'm Still using Windows 98SE. Internet Explorer has been unstable for
a
> >loong time. Becomes unresponsive, finally results in BSOD error msgs,
> >then reboot.
>
> What do you mean "then reboot"? Do you mean you choose to
> reboot or the machine does it by itself?
I do it, hitting the Reset button, because by this time the operating
system is completely unresponsive and there's nothing else left to do.
>
> If you mean the machine does it by itself you do not have an
> IE problem, you have hardware instability and might as well
> ignore IE until the hardware is stable. Two tests I would
> run are Prime 95's Torture Test (large in-place FFTs
> setting) for at least a couple hours, and a memtest86+ boot
> disc/floppy overnight. Any errors reported would need be
> resolved before focusing on the OS or apps like IE.
>
>
> >Every OL session ends that way -- IE gets jammed up waiting for Close
> >Program dialog box to appear. It takes down every other open window
app
> >with it.
>
> Scan the system with popular malware/adware/anti-virus
> scanners, in particular looking for BHOs, browser helper
> objects many of which are buggy. Remove any you find, even
> if it is something you wanted to have installed... until you
> find the root cause of the instability but as mentioned
> above if machine reboots itself it is probably not IE to
> blame by itself.
I used to run AdAware, AVG Free, Spybot S&D, and Spyware Blaster,
updated them regularly. For Win98SE there isn't an AdAware or AVG any
more, so I added SuperAntiSpyware. I removed it from the Startup list,
but I still update it and run it occasionally. None of the scans reveal
anything wrong. AVG used to report an error with (I think) KERNEL32.DLL.
I did nothing bcz there was no ill effect.
> You might check the motherboard and PSU for failed
> capacitors, or of course the other typical things like
> failed fans, dust cloggage, etc.
I don't think there are any bad capacitors on this mobo but it's nearly
5 years old. I had run it with ½GB of ram, then Mike Easter told me how
to safely install 1GB.
> >If I can't diagnose or solve the instability problem with IE under
> >Windows 98, could I just swap my old 20GB drive for the one with XP
on
> >it? (and move ½ a ton of files over?)
>
> What do you mean "Just swap"? It would help if you
> clarified your intentions.
Just like I said; slap er in there and see if it boots. I admit I wasn't
thinking: an Intel installation won't work with an AMD processor, right?
> No you cannot just throw an XP installation from another
> system into that one and expect it to boot. There ARE ways
> to make it work but they are outside the scope of one usenet
> post. Briefly if that is your intention, Google search for
> (migrate existing XP installation new) and you should get a
> few valid results that mention you can add some registry
> entries and drivers to the existing XP installation while it
> is on its original system /then/ pull the drive and boot XP
> in the other system far enough to plug-n-play hardware
> differences.
>
>
> >
> >Issues:
> >
> >The XP tower boots and responds slowly, maybe bcz it has old Norton
> >antivirus installed. There may be other problems, but it works OK
>
> If the old Norton AV has no new virus definitions it serves
> little if any purpose. It might respond faster if you
> disable some OS eyecandy and/or have more than 512MB of
> memory installed.
I had to remove SystemWorks from this PC very soon after buying it.
Disabling a useless Norton AV was my first thought to improving the
donated Dell.
> >I have the Win98SE key and installation disk, but only the product
key
> >for WinXP (there's a sticker on the case)
>
> That's not a problem, the license is tied to the system
> through that sticker. All you need is to find an
> (unmolested) XP installation disc ISO online, for the same
> version of windows (for example XP Home SP1, XP Pro, etc).
> You will know you have the right version if the product key
> is accepted when you enter it during installation...
> although you may still need to call MS to activate it if the
> bios isn't close enough.
>
> Best bet is checking the popular bittorrent 'sites for a
> Dell OEM XP disc of the same version (home or pro).
Dialup. Recently measured a whole 44K d/l speed. Woohoo...
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to try, but an unstable IE is just one of
my computing issues : \
> >I can't upgrade from 98SE to Windows7. Could I u/g from XP to 7 if I
get
> >it running?
> >Is it advisable to post this in the ms.public.windows NGs?
>
> It is generally a bad idea to upgrade any, but especially an
> old, OS installation to a newer one.
What??? Am I understanding you correctly, that you shouldn't install
upgrades? Why? And what *shouId* you do?
Btw, I discovered that the u/g path for Windows 7 stops at XP. I can't
upgrade to 7 from 98SE.
> However, the old XP
> system is certianly underpowered to run Win7 well, even if
> you upgrade it to 2GB of system memory it will be less
> desirable than keeping XP on it, including if you have to
> install XP from scratch.
> You have not written much of anything about the PURPOSE
> behind all this work. What is the system going to be used
> for, I mean the most demanding or esoteric functions?
I'm just trying to achieve a stable system that can use more ram,
allowing me to access video and audio online -- once I get my poor self
off dialup and onto broadband of some sort. If I can do that, I'll have
a system flexible enough to experiment with other things I haven't even
imagined yet.
Right now my main issues are IE's annoying, frequent lockups, dialup
speed (my ISP's ending service April 30), and some matters of
functionality from using such an outdated OS. I could be mistaken about
the last, but not about the first 2.
> Will any unique hardware be added that has drivers for only
> certain OS?
AT&T have said that their DSL modems require XP. That's about the only
thing right now.
> Do you have apps you need to add which aren't forward or
> backwards (OS) compatible?
Well, I have an unused CorelDRAW 10 I'd like to try.
> Generally speaking for systems of that age you are best off
> with WinXP, and as another person mentioned, getting away
> from IE 6 in general enough though, as mentioned above, it is
> not likely to be IE in itself that is causing your
> instability, rather than other browsers have enough benefits
> over IE that salvaging IE6 may not be the best long term
> plan... but if you must, you /could/ always do a clean 98
> install with IE6 to see if the system is still instable.
Is that possible without losing all of my present configuration
(preferences, bookmarks, and such)?
I apologize for taking so long to respond, kony. Thanks for your effort.
Jm