Re: What is the date cutoff for motherboards that support Win98?
Lostgallifreyan
> By the way, what would be a brand name / model for a top end video
> card from that era (2000 to 2006)? (one that will work on Win98).
>
>
I had good results with an ATI 9700. I don't use it on the ITX mainboards I
use now, but I keep it necause it was very good when I did use it. It made 3D
OpenGL run as easily as handling a few still images.
I don't know what mainboards to suggest though. I chose the Via ITX MII12000
to avoid having to think about that again, because it got me what I wanted,
but there will be plenty of other choices.
98 Guy
> Anyhow, when I shop for a motherboard, what is the date limitations
> I should look for?
I can only give you an answer for Intel-based motherboards (not AMD).
You are not looking for a cut-off date (that's hard to know for any
given motherboard) as much as you're looking for a specific CPU socket
type combined with a chipset.
Any motherboard based on a socket-478 Pentium or Celeron CPU is almost
certainly going to have a chipset where you will be able to find win-98
drivers. So use that as a rough guide. More specifically, any
motherboard with Intel-8xx chipset, the more common ones being 845 and
865, topping out at 875 (which includes a SATA Raid controller).
Another point which might be universally correct is that any chipset
that *does not* have support for the PCIe bus *should have* windows
9x/me drivers available. This includes the Intel 8xx series, as well as
K8T800, PM800, PT880 made by Via.
Additionally, some of Via's first-generation PCIe chipsets also have
win-9x/me drivers: PT880, PT880 Pro and PT880 Ultra. I don't know
about the K8T890 and K8M890.
I'm also not familiar with the Nvidia's Nforce chipset line. These are
chipsets designed (mostly) AMD Athlon and Duron CPU's. I would guess
that the Nforce 1, 2 and 3 chipset lines all have win-98 driver support,
except possibly the Nforce4-SLI. Some Nforce4 chipsets are designed for
Intel CPU's, but I have no idea as to win-98 driver availability. There
is also an Nforce 500 series chipset, but I'm guessing it won't have
win-98 drivers (but you should check on that). There is a 600, 700 and
900 series which I have got to think will definately not have win-98
driver support.
Again speaking of Intel-based boards, many of the first-generation PCIe
motherboards will also be designed with socket-775 (not socket 478). I
have recently installed win-98 on an Asrock 4coreDual-VSTA motherboard,
with full driver support for all on-board components except HD-audio.
This board has the Via PT880 Ultra chipset, and has a few "quirky"
things about it - such as having sockets for both DDR and DDR2 ram as
well as having an AGP *and* PCIe slot for the video card (both can be
used at the same time). I bought 8 of these motherboards back in 2007
when they were new (they take Intel socket 775 CPU's).
Another rule is not to rely on what the motherboard maker says are
compatible OS's for a specific board, or go by what drivers are included
on the driver CD that comes with the motherboard.
Also note that there are no HD-audio drivers for win-98. That doesn't
mean that a motherboard with HD audio is necessarily incompatible with
win-98 in other areas. When you see a dual-row of phono-plugs on the
back of a motherboard (ie - more than a single row of 3 plugs) then that
tells you the board has HD audio.
> I know that I can not use a dual or multi core processor.
To clarify: Win-98 will run just fine on a dual core CPU (or a single
core with hyper-threading) - it just won't use both cores.
> While I'm at it, I might get a high end video card to add to it,
> and maybe even be able to upgrade my Ram from 512m to more.
There have been mixed results using a PCIe video card under win-98
(naturally, almost any AGP card will work under win-98). Some aspects
of PCIe video cards known not to work under win-98 is (a) having more
than 256 mb video ram, and (b) having a hardware feature known as
"turbo-cache". Running an AGP card with more than 256 mb of video ram
(and specifically - 512 mb) are known to be a show-stopper for win-98.
Running with 1 gb of ram is also almost garanteed as long as certain
changes are made to the VCACHE setting in the system.ini file.
> What should I look for?
- For intel-based boards, socket 478-based CPU
- If you find Socket 775, focus on VIA (not intel) chipset
- Some ASROCK boards are available CHEAP on e-bay
- Any board with AGP slot will very likely have win-98 drivers
- Any board with both AGP and PCIe slots is a good bet for win-98
- In general, boards introduced no later than calendar year 2006, or
- boards offered for sale as new no later than 2007
> By the way, what would be a brand name / model for a top end
> video card from that era (2000 to 2006)? (one that will work
> on Win98).
Don't get too focused on video-card performance.
Practically all of the processing power being ploughed into video cards
are for 3-D rendering for games. If your intention is *not* to play
video games, then hands down I would stick to any Nvidia-based 6200 AGP
or PCIe video card with a minimum of 128 mb and more likely 256 mb video
ram. These cards will play video (even HD) very smoothly.
I'm partial to Nvideo video cards, perhaps someone here will chime up
about ATI eqivalent cards.
If you find a socket-775 board that you like that does not have an AGP
slot but otherwise it appears to have full win-98 driver support, then
you'll either (a) have to take a chance on getting a PCIe video card to
work, or (b) resort to using a PCI video card.
Finally, you should read this thread:
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/97588-modern-motherboards-which-are-working-with-windows-98/
98 Guy
> Thanks for the reply. The board I have now has an Intel Celeron
> (copper mine) CPU. How do I know what chipset I have?
It's strange that you know that you have a "copper mine" CPU, but you
don't know what chipset you have. I'm guessing it's Intel 440 chipset
(probably ZX, possibly BX). If not Intel, then you had a VIA chipset
(offhand I don't know which one).
If you are sure that you have a "coppermine" cpu, then what you have is
a P3 CPU, which dates to 1999 - 2000 time frame. Either Socket 370 or a
Slot-style module.
I've mounted *many* 1.2 or 1.4 Ghz Tuatilin P3's to "Slocket" card
modules for motherboards of that era back 10 years ago. What a pain in
the ass that was.
> I only want a top end video card for the Winamp visualizations,
> as well as playing youtube type videos.
Any system based on a P3 is horribly out-of-date as far as what
Windows-98 can be run on.
> I keep seeing people recommend GeForce cards. I guess they
> were top of the line back in the early 2000s (maybe still
> are).
GeForce is what Nvidia calls it's line of GPU's (graphics processing
units).
"GeForce" is to Nvidia what "Pentium" is to Intel.
The GeForce series is numbered sequentially from 2 to 9 followed by
200/300 and now 400/500.
The 2 series was introduced in the year 2000, and the 6 series was
introduced in 2004. Any Nvidia / GeForce card that has 6xxx in the
model name (ie - 6200) will have on-board video decoding / video
rendering (previous models did not do this on-board but by the CPU in
software). The GeForce7 line came out in 2005 and was the last to be
based on the AGP bus. I think that some people have gotten GeForce7
boards to run under win-98, although much of the same functionality of
the 7 line are available in the Geforce 6600 and 6800 models.
> HD audio? I never knew there was such a thing.
Intel High Definition Audio (HD Audio) replaced "AC-97" as the audio
standard for motherboards in 2004. This transition seems to have
happened along with the transition from Socket-478 to Socket-775 for the
CPU (in other words, I don't think that any Socket-478 motherboard will
have HD audio, and most if not all Socket-775 motherboards will have HD
audio).
In theory, AC-97 allows for up to 6 channels of analog audio output (ie
-> 5.1). But given that most motherboards with AC-97 audio only have 3
stereo phone jacks - this does not allow for 6 simultaneous output
channels and at the same time allow for stereo microphone or
line-inputs.
AC-97 audio specs allow for a maximum of 20-bit sample size at up to a
maximum of 96 khz (for stereo output) and 48 khz (for 4 and 6 channel
output).
Motherboards with HD audio will have 6 stereo phono jacks, allowing for
8 channels of audio output and stereo microphone and stereo
line-inputs. HD Audio allows for 32-bit, 192 khz stereo output and
32-bit, 96 khz multi-channel (5.1, 7.1) output. (Note: no hardware
maker as of yet has implimented 32-bit sample size).
There is really no benefit for the vast majority of users in going from
AC-97 to HD Audio. For example, I have used VLC to play DTS-encoded 5.1
audio music on my Intel Socket 478-based P4 2.5 ghz computer running
windows 98 (and if I had 6 speakers connected to my computer I would
have heard all 5.1 channels of audio). You would be hard pressed to
find any commercial material with more than 6 channels of audio content,
hence the lack of any real advantage of HD Audio over AC-97.
> What does HD audio do that standard audio can not do?
In short, it gets you 8 channels of audio output instead of 6, and it
can do those 8-channels of output without depriving you of microphone
and line-input connections.
It is also spec'd at a higher sample rate and larger sample size - but
you'll rarely find any audio material recorded at those higher numbers.
> I dont see where I'd need such a thing. I'm more interested
> in getting the best video output because I want to connect
> a projector to this system.
Start with getting a newer motherboard. You'd be wasting your time
getting a newer / faster video card for the old / slow motherboard you
currently have.
98 Guy
> I only want a top end video card for the Winamp visualizations
You should check out this audio player: XM Play.
It bills itself as being the most accurate mp3 player (it has it's own
codec).
The visualizations available for it are amazing:
http://support.xmplay.com/files.php?id=11&sby=date&rpp=100
And - it's all free.
philo
> One of these days I will have to replace my motherboard. It eats CMOS
> batteries about every 3 months. It started doing that a few years
> ago. I just replace them and live with it, but one of these days I'll
> have to replace the board. I presently have a P3 1ghz processor.
> It's an IBM (Lenovo) system, which was originally built to run
> Win2000.
>
> When I replace it, I'd like to get a little faster processor if
> posssible, yet (if I can) stick with a board that has a similar
> chipset, so I dont have to change too many drivers. (This install of
> Win98 has been moved thru at least 6 computers to date, I just add new
> drivers, and remove the old ones). #Dont try this with XP#.
> Anyhow, when I shop for a motherboard, what is the date limitations I
> processor. But if I can get a 1.5ghz, or a 2ghz, I'd go for it.
> While I'm at it, I might get a high end video card to add to it, and
> maybe even be able to upgrade my Ram from 512m to more.
>
> or possibly a new one thats been sitting on a shelf for years.
>
> By the way, what would be a brand name / model for a top end video
> card from that era (2000 to 2006)? (one that will work on Win98).
>
>
>
I'd start checking the resale shops for used P-III's
they should be selling for next to nothing.
Though there should be no problems finding chipset drivers for such
boards...there very well might be problems with newer boards such as P-IV
To run win98 well, you do not need a faster CPU, your 1ghz cpu should be
fine...however more RAM may not be a bad idea
just be sure to adjust vcache
Lostgallifreyan
> Thanks for the reply. The board I have now has an Intel Celeron
> (copper mine) CPU. How do I know what chipset I have? Is there a
> command for windows that will tell me, or is is in Control Panel
> (where?)
>
Likely many ways, but I'm suggesting get a tool called SIW (System
Information for Windows, by Gabrial Topala). Experiment with more than one
version, pick what works best for you because compatibility with W98 is
variable for resons beyond me to know). There have been many tools like it,
but I like that one best by far. It's free, and it does a lot, and it's
extremely easy to use. It also seems to launch ok in situations where I need
to use it in an emergency, at times when other stuff might not work.
Lostgallifreyan
>> What does HD audio do that standard audio can not do?
>
> In short, it gets you 8 channels of audio output instead of 6, and it
> can do those 8-channels of output without depriving you of microphone
> and line-input connections.
>
> It is also spec'd at a higher sample rate and larger sample size - but
> you'll rarely find any audio material recorded at those higher numbers.
>
If it is also based on analog IC's on the mainboard it's not much use, as HD
implies a high resolution, low noise system that can't be expected when the
analog IC's are on a board dominated by high speed digital logic.
I'd never look for a newer mainboard audio subsystem, it makes more sense to
get an old high-end studio interface like Echo's Layla or Layla24 if 8 or
more channels of I/O are wanted. You get all of them simultaneously, with
hardware DSP routing, good separation between digital and analog signals,
more sample rate and bit depth choices, easy sync between extra units of all
that I/O isn't enough, and MIDI as well for less money (less than £100, and
units with less I/O like 2 in, 8 out at similar spec go as cheap as £15 at
times). So I'd look for the best W98 compatible board I could find, that had
PCI slots.
Old high end studio gear is usually cheaper and better than the newest
consumer gear. (Also, some consumer stuff is sold on the basis that people
really need 32 bit floating point at 192 KHz for their stereo listening
pleasure when better audio than they will ever understand was recorded at 48
KHz at 20 or 24 bits, which was adequate even for large scale multichannel
mixdown. /heavy sarcasm...)
98 Guy
> I'd never look for a newer mainboard audio subsystem, it makes
> more sense to get an old high-end studio interface like Echo's
> Layla or Layla24 if 8 or more channels of I/O are wanted.
No.
Instead of going to that trouble, it's better and easier to just take
the spdif digital signal out the back of the computer and connect it to
any mid to high-end consumer AV receiver.
Lostgallifreyan
Sure, if you want stereo only. I'd do it that way if that's all I wanted.
S/PDIF is only two channels, so that wouldn't get multichannel surround sound
working. There are some very cheap USB-linked things with Cirrus IC's in them
that do though. But compared to a decent bit of old PCI based studio gear,
those REALLY suck. I know, I tried them.
98 Guy
> One of these days I will have to replace my motherboard.
> I presently have a P3 1ghz processor.
> When I replace it, I'd like to get a little faster processor if
> posssible, yet (if I can) stick with a board that has a similar
> chipset, so I dont have to change too many drivers.
You should really perform a re-install of win-98 at least once per
decade, and especially if you're going to change to a new motherboard.
If you don't have a win-98 CD, that's not a problem. I can post a
download link for it if you want (hopefully you have broadband and not
dialup internet connection)
And it makes no sense to move from one P3 board to another P3 board when
there are so many more choices for better (faster) P4 boards.
philo wrote:
> there very well might be problems with newer boards such as P-IV
There will be absolutely no problems finding win-98 drivers for any
socket 478 P4 motherboard.
> To run win98 well, you do not need a faster CPU
Says the luddite.
You would be running windows 98 on an abacus if it were possible.
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EEA8E8E31A...@216.196.109.145:
> S/PDIF is only two channels
Apparently not, can be 4, but the Wikipedia article seems to imply that to do
it you'd have to share a 20 bit (max 24 if equipment allows) between 2
channels, all done twice for the total 4, so it wouldn't be hi-fi.
It also worth mentioning that 'high-end' amps with digital inputs might mix
audio and digital in ways that are not exactly 'high end'. I chose to use
Mackie HR824 speakers that combine amp and speaker to get very high precision
sound output. Stuff like that has no digital input at all, but balanced
analog instead to keep the noise low. Most amps with good sound at low cost
likely don't have digital signals either, so getting a cheap dedicated
second-hand studio interface to solve those problems isn't hard work, and
it's no trouble at all compared to the effort it saves.
98 Guy
> Sure, if you want stereo only. I'd do it that way if that's all
> I wanted. S/PDIF is only two channels, so that wouldn't get
> multichannel surround sound working.
What are you smoking?
S/PDIF is capable of multichannel transmission.
98 Guy
> > S/PDIF is only two channels
>
> Apparently not, can be 4,
It can be 6.
I suggest you read this:
Lostgallifreyan
Ok, don't tell me, tell Wikipedia. Are people who trust others who are
supposed to know their stuff before pontificating to be accused of taking
funny substances? If so, we might be excused if we didn't listen to you too..
I don't mind being corrected if I'm wrong, but less of the 'smart' remarks.
Lostgallifreyan
That site makes the same claim I did for standard stereo, they even go to the
trouble of emphasing it with an exclamation mark, in a neat little coloured
HTML table.
You did noticed that this isn't PCM data they're talking about, but
compressed data, didn't you? The multichannel format also uses some unusual
bitrates to match sample rates to retain a data stream compatible with the
original PCM. Can you cite many standard domestic multichannel systems that
support that? You might want to read the text close to that little warning
box I told you about too...
I suspect by the time anyone solves THAT little noodlebaker (if ever), they'd
wish they'd gone to the 'trouble' of my method: get a decent multichannel
studio unit, as they're usually better, and likely cheaper if the buyer
doesn't insist on the latest offering out of NAMM or other music fairs.
Bill in Co
He's clearly not doing any video editing or processing. :-)
Speaking of which, how fast a motherboard can you find that will support
W98?
Anything over 2 GHz (and using dual cores, preferably) for the CPU?
Lostgallifreyan
dnRi07eWl6kjQn...@earthlink.com:
> He's clearly not doing any video editing or processing. :-)
> Speaking of which, how fast a motherboard can you find that will support
> W98?
> Anything over 2 GHz (and using dual cores, preferably) for the CPU?
>
>
W98 can't use both cores in any way, so far as I know. But I too want to know
how fast it gets for W98 with one..
Bill in Co
> "Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:hL-
> dnRi07eWl6kjQn...@earthlink.com:
>
>> He's clearly not doing any video editing or processing. :-)
>> Speaking of which, how fast a motherboard can you find that will support
>> W98?
>> Anything over 2 GHz (and using dual cores, preferably) for the CPU?
>>
>>
>
> W98 can't use both cores in any way, so far as I know.
That's somewhat unfortunate (at least for *some* apps - the ones that can -
and do - actually use the multicores).
> But I too want to know how fast it gets for W98 with one..
Same here. Although at this point it would be too much of a PIA for me to
upgrade my existing W98SE Dell system, methinks.
Lostgallifreyan
>> W98 can't use both cores in any way, so far as I know.
>
> That's somewhat unfortunate (at least for *some* apps - the ones that
> can - and do - actually use the multicores).
>
I since realised you might be dual-booting with WXP so it's maybe not wasted,
you just get a half-speed W98 that ignores one core. Though we can always
hold out for some kind of foundation converter to interleave cores to appear
as one fast one, then both OS's can be equally happy.
Bill in Co
No, I'm not dual booting. I have two computers, this one with XP, and the
other backup one, with W98SE (which I upgraded from 800 MHz to 1 GHz, the
fastest direct CPU upgrade I could do (P3, I believe).
The W98SE backup computer came in REALLY handy when the PSU died on this
one, so I could order a new PSU online. And to top it off, that happened
the night before I took a vacation (what timing), which kinda pissed me off.
Lostgallifreyan
I bet. That's one reason I took to makign a couple more machines. (Third is a
1U silent rack, no moving parts. Both 2nd and 3rd machines can also run off
12V. I never had a PSU disaster but I heard of one that took out a terabyte
when a terabyte really meant something. I think it took the owner two
weeks to repair the damage amd two months to restore most of the giant FTP he
was running, and we kept noticing flaws in data two years later. I think it
was about that time I started doing everything in twos too. :)
98 Guy
> >> Speaking of which, how fast a motherboard can you find that
> >> will support W98?
> >> Anything over 2 GHz (and using dual cores, preferably)
> >> for the CPU?
> >
> > W98 can't use both cores in any way, so far as I know.
Windows 98 (first edition) had an issue with one file (ndis.vxd I think)
that had a problem when the CPU speed exceeded 2.2 ghz:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/312108
=====================================
When you are installing Windows 95 or Windows 98 on a computer that has
a CPU that runs at 2.2 gigahertz (GHz) or faster, you may receive the
following error message:
While initializing device NDIS: Windows protection error
The timing calibration code in the Network Driver Interface
Specification (NDIS) driver causes a divide by zero if the CPU runs at
2.2 GHz or faster. This problem does not occur with CPUs that run at 2.1
GHz or slower.
=====================================
Even though Microsoft says it will not / did not issue a fix for that,
that was infact a lie. They did issue a free hot-fix when that KB was
listed as Q312108.
But that really doesn't matter, because it became well known that simply
replacing that file with the one from Windows 98SE or Windows ME would
solve that problem.
Windows 98 (second edition) has no known issue with any cpu clock speed
or anything relating to the speed of the chipset, memory,
front-side-bus, etc.
The fastest CPU that I've installed win-98 se on is the Asrock
4core-Dual VSTA motherboard with PT880 Ultra chipset. The CPU was an
Intel Celeron-D 360:
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=27132
512K Cache, 3.46 GHz, 533 MHz FSB
That's the fastest in terms of clock speed, but I have several win-98
systems running Pentium-4's at 2.5 ghz and 800 mhz FSB.
I tried to buy one (or more) Celeron-D 365 CPU's (3.6 ghz) several years
ago but was never able to find any for retail sale.
I was seeking Celeron's because (as has already been mentioned) there is
no way to enable Windows-98 to make use of dual-core processors.
Just focusing on Socket 775 CPU's, I see that TigerDirect.com has 17 of
those still available for sale, ranging from $43 to $390 (but with most
of them being under $100) and only the cheapest one is a single-core
(and many of them are dual-core Celeron's - which I didn't know was
possible).
A full Pentium dual-core, 3 ghz / 2mb cache / 800 mhz FSB processor
(E5700) is priced at $70, and is probably the best bang-for-the-buck for
a win-98 machine. A 2.6 GHZ / 1mb cache version will cost you $50
(E3400).
98 Guy
> I was seeking Celeron's because (as has already been mentioned)
> there is no way to enable Windows-98 to make use of dual-core
> processors.
I should rephrase that.
There is no way to enable Windows-98 to make use of more than the first
core of a multi-core CPU. Win-98 will run on any i86 CPU regardless of
how many cores it has.
Bill in Co
You like having a backup computer too, eh? :-) There are times I really
want to consolidate space and get rid of it, but I'm a bit wary of doing so.
:-)
> 1U silent rack, no moving parts. Both 2nd and 3rd machines can also run
> off
> 12V. I never had a PSU disaster but I heard of one that took out a
> terabyte
> when a terabyte really meant something. I think it took the owner two
> weeks to repair the damage amd two months to restore most of the giant FTP
> he was running, and we kept noticing flaws in data two years later. I
> think it
> was about that time I started doing everything in twos too. :)
I was lucky in that only the PSU failed on this one with XP (symptoms were
no power up, no BIOS, no nothing). It just died quietly (was just
discovered when I turned on the computer one morning, and nothing happened).
I was not so lucky on my W98SE computer when I tried upgrading the 800 MHz
CPU with a Powerleap higher speed CPU module, and then needed to get a
quieter fan and power supply unit (the original 800 MHz CPU on its heat sink
needed little fan cooling).
I found out the hard way about Dell having some proprietary wiring in one of
their PSU connectors for this computer series. Net result: after replacing
it with a supposedly compatible (and quieter) PSU, was that the PSU ended up
silently "taking out" the MB instantly. I think I mentioned this before,
but I was fortunately able to still be able to find an exact replacement
Dell MB from eBay, saving me much potential aggravation)
Lostgallifreyan
> I found out the hard way about Dell having some proprietary wiring in
> one of their PSU connectors for this computer series. Net result: after
> replacing it with a supposedly compatible (and quieter) PSU, was that
> the PSU ended up silently "taking out" the MB instantly. I think I
> mentioned this before, but I was fortunately able to still be able to
> find an exact replacement Dell MB from eBay, saving me much potential
> aggravation)
>
Weird. I hope they provide documentation of that, because if not it's a nasty
gotcha to tread in. I didn't think there was much leeway in the ATX power
connector config, apart from the little 4-pin extra bit sometimes used to get
power to hungry graphics cards.
Bill in Co
> "Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:cLGdncLpiIMnSUjQ...@earthlink.com:
>
>> I found out the hard way about Dell having some proprietary wiring in
>> one of their PSU connectors for this computer series. Net result: after
>> replacing it with a supposedly compatible (and quieter) PSU, was that
>> the PSU ended up silently "taking out" the MB instantly. I think I
>> mentioned this before, but I was fortunately able to still be able to
>> find an exact replacement Dell MB from eBay, saving me much potential
>> aggravation)
>>
>
> Weird. I hope they provide documentation of that, because if not it's a
> nasty
NOPE. I mean, how many customers are really going to replace their own
power supply? However, it HAS been noted on the web in various places
like some appropriate support groups, and perhaps even on the Dell customer
supported forums, but that's about it.
I mean, think about it: if you were Dell, would you want to advertise the
fact that replacing their own power supply with another brand (perish forbid
the heresy of doing so) would likely kill the MB?
But they got caught on this, and they stopped doing it in the later models,
from what I read. I don't know if that was from some public pressure or
they just decided to stop doing it. And who knows, maybe they lost some
Dell power supply sales as a consequence, lol.
> gotcha to tread in. I didn't think there was much leeway in the ATX power
> connector config, apart from the little 4-pin extra bit sometimes used to
> get
> power to hungry graphics cards.
It wasn't the 4 pin connector, it was that LONG connector with 20 or more
pins that plugs into the Dell MB. (There are several connectors coming out
of their PSU).
Lostgallifreyan
> It wasn't the 4 pin connector, it was that LONG connector with 20 or
> more pins that plugs into the Dell MB. (There are several connectors
> coming out of their PSU).
>
>
Messing with that spec is such a bad idea. There might even have been
lawsuits.. If they claim a PSU is an ATX standard and it isn't, all it takes
to make them liable for destructive consequences is a good lawyer, I imagine.
This is one reason I try to avoid proprietary machines, unless I really want
them to remain in one unmodified piece all their working life. That, and I
can't afford lawyers.
Bill in Co
> "Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:bP6dnSIvAeUiRkjQ...@earthlink.com:
>
>> It wasn't the 4 pin connector, it was that LONG connector with 20 or
>> more pins that plugs into the Dell MB. (There are several connectors
>> coming out of their PSU).
>>
>>
>
> Messing with that spec is such a bad idea. There might even have been
> lawsuits.. If they claim a PSU is an ATX standard and it isn't, all it
> takes
> to make them liable for destructive consequences is a good lawyer, I
> imagine.
They may never had made that claim, though.
The only reason I can think of that they did this was to lock it in to their
own power supplies. Maybe there was some other reason, but I can't think
of one.
But again, this evidently only occurred during a certain time frame (on
those older computers), so I don't want to leave anyone with the impression
that it's an issue now.
> This is one reason I try to avoid proprietary machines, unless I really
> want
> them to remain in one unmodified piece all their working life. That, and I
> can't afford lawyers.
LOL. Same here in regard to lawyers, who I consider to be the parasitic
scourge of the earth.
Lostgallifreyan
> It really dont matter much to me if I have 6 or 8 outputs because my
> stereo only has two and it sounds great.
>
Never wanted to route a radio or other stuff in a simple mixer with no tone
controls? Or to easily change recording sources?
If you do, something like a second Layla 20 bit rack could be the best shot,
both for power and price. Used to cost a grand, Sterling. About a twentieth
of that now. I mostly use stereo (and never use surround sound), but I'd
never be without this thing, and a backup as well.
Lostgallifreyan
> But again, this evidently only occurred during a certain time frame (on
> those older computers), so I don't want to leave anyone with the
> impression that it's an issue now.
>
If you ever find a pinout of that odd connector I'm interested in seeing it.
For PSU's I took to those small modules that plug directly onto the mainboard
connector. Some have as much as 200W, more than enough for any moderately
powered board. They take 12V in, and a lot of the 12V load is directly from
that input line, I think. If so, then that's up to 200W in converted voltages
(5V, 3.3V, -12V, -5V) so maybe the total is a lot higher if the high current
12V line is direct. Those modules are usually high quality (and extremely
efficient and small, and most now use the new solid polymer capacitors too),
and as most high power 'brick' type PSU's are also high quality, often sealed
against dust, the whole thing is more reliable over a much longer working
life. I also have a small (soon to be expanded from 60W to 380W) solar panel
array with 12 KWh of storage in batteries, so anything that runs of 12V is ok
by me. Some ELO touchscreen monitors will do it, which is awesome. Best
monitors I ever had.
Lostgallifreyan
> LOL. Same here in regard to lawyers, who I consider to be the parasitic
> scourge of the earth.
>
>
Actually they fascinate me at times. But so would a twelve foot tapeworm.
98 Guy
> (DirectX 8.1)
Don't update your stuff very often, do ya?
> Motherboard Chipset Intel Whitney i810E
Generally not very highly regarded chipset. Integrated video. PC100
memory (not PC133). You're limited to max 512 mb ram.
That board probably does not have an AGP slot.
> Here is everything you might want to know about the chipset.
> Most of this is greek to me.
Your computer was most likely sold as new during the year 1999 or 2000.
There is much better hardware that can easily run Windows 98.
> S/PDIF Output Not Supported
This is what happens when you buy a brand-name "boutique" computer.
> System BIOS Date 03/17/05
> Video BIOS Date 01/29/20
I can't figure out if those dates are 2003 / 2001. The video bios date
makes no sense.
I would not expect the system bios date to be 2003 - unless you flashed
it with an update.
In any case, it's still a POS, and replacing it with another P-3 based
motherboard won't get you any further ahead.
And you will NOT find another P-3 motherboard with that same Intel 810
chipset, unless you find some ancient IBM computers in a garbage
dumpster somewhere - which is not worth the effort.
Do you have a problem with re-installing win-98 on a newer/better
motherboard?
98 Guy
> However it lacks a way to create my own visualizations
That's strange, because there are lots of people that seem to be making
visualizations for it (over 100 on that website).
XMPlay uses something called the Sonique visualization system.
Lostgallifreyan
>> (DirectX 8.1)
>
> Don't update your stuff very often, do ya?
>
I'm guessing he doesn't use Internet Explorer. By default, W98 won't allow
DX9 to install without it. There is a way to make it happen though...
Lostgallifreyan
>> System BIOS Date 03/17/05
>> Video BIOS Date 01/29/20
>
> I can't figure out if those dates are 2003 / 2001. The video bios date
> makes no sense.
>
US type: mm/dd/yy, but I agree, the second one is borked.
Lostgallifreyan
>> System BIOS Date 03/17/05
>> Video BIOS Date 01/29/20
>
> I can't figure out if those dates are 2003 / 2001. The video bios date
> makes no sense.
>
One way it might makes sense is a leading-zero bug, I saw one recently and
this looks similar. If the original field was zero filled (or contained the
year 2000 as 00), and the year was 2002 as 02, and a leading zero wasn't
applied to the 2, you'd get a display like that after an overwrite.
In both cases it looks like someone updated it some years later if you're
right about original dates.
98 Guy
> >> (DirectX 8.1)
> >
> > Don't update your stuff very often, do ya?
>
> I'm guessing he doesn't use Internet Explorer.
Not everyone is anal about NOT using IE (especially back 5 or 6 years
ago).
I'm suprised he doesn't have DX-9 - for someone who is focused on these
visualizations.
Lostgallifreyan
> Not everyone is anal about NOT using IE (especially back 5 or 6 years
> ago).
>
> I'm suprised he doesn't have DX-9 - for someone who is focused on these
> visualizations.
>
>
You don't get it... I'm not implying he doesn't use it for some personal
reason, merely that for whatever reason, he might not be using it. It's a
simple causality thing. If you haven't got IE in the system, DX9 won't let
you install itself. As I agree it's likely he would if he could, the simplest
explabation is that he couldn't. I just told you why that might be.
I also know how to dupe DirectX v9c to install itself in W98 SE when IE isn't
there. I say more than enough so I won't go into that unless asked.
Bill in Co
> j...@myplace.com wrote:
>
>> (DirectX 8.1)
>
> Don't update your stuff very often, do ya?
>
>> Motherboard Chipset Intel Whitney i810E
>
> Generally not very highly regarded chipset. Integrated video. PC100
> memory (not PC133). You're limited to max 512 mb ram.
Is being limited to 512 MB really an issue, though, for Win98SE? I found
that to be more than enough (for Win98SE, that is). (I'd double it for
XP)
Bill in Co
> j...@myplace.com wrote in news:ejrbt69e4926i0bb3...@4ax.com:
>
>> It really dont matter much to me if I have 6 or 8 outputs because my
>> stereo only has two and it sounds great.
Same here. 2 channels is just fine.
I don't need 5.1 (or HD videos for that matter), either. :-)
> Never wanted to route a radio or other stuff in a simple mixer with no
> tone
> controls? Or to easily change recording sources?
No. :-)
And changing recording sources isn't that hard with a basic setup, although
if I had to do it all the time, it might be a bit of a nuisance.
Lostgallifreyan
> I dont even have IE installed. It's gone, and thats the way I like
> it. I have no idea what DirectX even does.
>
>
It gives more basic support for video and audio. You need it if you're using
a media player that used DirecShow codecs to play stuff. I bet those
WinAmp visualisations are using it too. You apparently have v8.1 installed
already, it might be more than enough. But if you ever encounter things that
ought to play, and don't, this might be the first place to look. You can
install DirectX v9c on W98 even though the standard installer won't let you.
If you sometime decide you want to try, I'll post details. There's not much
to it, but I did solve this myself, it's not out there on the web unless
anyone else also solved this and documented it.
Lostgallifreyan
> In that case I wont even try to install it. IE wont be installed on
> here for any reason.
>
You did get the bit where I said you can dupe DirectX v9c to install
perfectly even WITHOUT Internet Explorer, didn't you?
Lostgallifreyan
> Maybe it was made IN THE FUTURE...... :)
>
I'd go check, but sadly the Tardis is neither fully functional nor
anatomically correct.
Lostgallifreyan
> It came with Win2000 but I bought it refurbished in probably 04 or 05.
>
Which would explain those firmware dates. Bearing in mind what I said about
US type date format and likely error in part of one of them.
Lostgallifreyan
> I just looked online and DirectX 8.1 is the LAST version that works on
> Win98se. 8.0 is the last one for Win95. Ver 9.x is ONLY for XP and
> up....
>
Why trust some web page when proof to the contrary is offered to you right
here and now? I don't care if that page came hot out of the Microsoft Press
because I personally know different. What it needs, as standard, isn't WXP,
but IE v5.5 or later.
You really won't let me tell you, will you... I'm using DirectX v9c. On W98
SE with a W95 shell. I found a way to convince it to install (many times over
on repeated W98 installs) as normal, even without IE being present, which it
did, perfectly. It's actually one of the more painless installs, too. It
works. That is all.
98 Guy
> > Not everyone is anal about NOT using IE (especially back 5 or 6
> > years ago).
> >
> > I'm suprised he doesn't have DX-9 - for someone who is focused
> > on these visualizations.
>
> You don't get it...
No, you don't get it.
> I'm not implying he doesn't use it for some personal reason,
I'm implying that he doesn't have directx 9 because he's not technically
savvy and hasn't been updating his win-98 installation in general (which
usually includes updating to DirectX-9) - not because he's trying to
stay away from IE.
Lostgallifreyan
Ok. That fits. He says he found a page stating that DX9 won't even work on
W98. I said about all I can on that short of providing the proof, but I'm
reminded of horses and water...
98 Guy
> > Don't update your stuff very often, do ya?
>
> I just looked online and DirectX 8.1 is the LAST version that
> works on Win98se.
wrong wrong wrong.
> Ver 9.x is ONLY for XP and up....
wrong.
Any Microsoft document that you come across will almost always NEVER
mention an OS that has passed into the non-support phase. Microsoft is
busy right at this moment tearing out references to Windows 2000 in it's
many pages of information and documents.
I suggest you look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX
DirectX 9.0 came out in 2002 (albeit very late 2002) and version 9.0C
came out in August 2004 but various builds were issued since then, with
the final Win-98/ME build being released in December 2006.
It can be downloaded via this link:
> It appears that 8.1 is the last one for Win2000 also, but it's
> not mentioned anywhere.... ????
See? I told you that Microsoft was erasing all references to Win-2K
since it is now at EOL (end of life).
98 Guy
> > I'm implying that he doesn't have directx 9 because he's not
> > technically savvy and hasn't been updating his win-98 installation
> > in general (which> usually includes updating to DirectX-9) - not
> > because he's trying to stay away from IE.
>
> Ok. That fits.
Well, since I've read a few more of his posts, I'm only half right.
He IS trying to stay away from IE. Which means (in contrast to the
popular belief of some) that he IS NOT technically savvy (for that
reason, if nothing else). But there is something else - he doesn't even
know what directX is, nor that he has a horribly out-of-date version.
> He says he found a page stating that DX9 won't even work on W98.
Yes, and if he looked at that same page 3 years ago it would include
Win-98 as a required or compatible OS.
Bill in Co
> resources if I load too much stuff. Normally that means having 20 or
> more windows open in Firefox or K-meleon plus other apps running.
> It dont happen often, I just got to remember to close some broweser
> windows, and I tend to forget to do that.
>
> Win2000 also seems to run ok on this ram.
>
> The additional ram is needed in xp just to load all the useless
> bloat..... Probably makes it quicker for MS to track my movement
> online too. After all, isn't XP just Win2000 with a lot of useless
> crap added to it?
Not exactly. :-)
But at least I can run *any* program of my choosing, and am not stuck with
being forced to use programs from the past century. :-) But granted,
there's still a lot of good programs out there that run fine on W98SE).
But when it comes to some audio/video software and being able to process
such tasks, or USB2 support, or resources and blue screens, it's still a bit
lacking in those arenas.
> Like I really need that stupid cartoon dog when I
> search for files, and like I really need my screen looking like a
> webpage.
There is no stupid cartoon dog on my computer. And if it ever was there, it
was "taken out" by me on the very first day I fired this up.
I also made the Start Menu look just like it does in Win98SE (that's the
Classic Start Menu option) (on the very first day).
So, my screen or desktop looks just like mine does on my Win98SE computer.
I bet you can't tell the difference, except, perhaps, for the *color* of the
Start Menu *icon* on the bottom taskbar.
98 Guy
> One of these days I will have to replace my motherboard.
Why did you ask (as indicated by the subject line) what is the most
recent vintage of motherboard that can run win-98 - when in reality you
really had no intention of obtaining one?
Bill in Co
IF you don't have DX9, you won't be able to do as much in the audio/video
(A/V) arena. And maybe games, too, for that matter. DX8 is getting a bit
long on the tooth.
I seem to recall that several A/V applications require it, and will install
it, or its runtime (or direct you to the MS site to get it downloaded).
I don't do much (if any) gaming, so I can't address that.
Lostgallifreyan
> He IS trying to stay away from IE. Which means (in contrast to the
> popular belief of some) that he IS NOT technically savvy (for that
> reason, if nothing else).
My noodle is a-baking... Makes me think of words in a Genesis song: "You've
got to get in to get out.." Fortunately I didn't have to get that deep into
IE v5 to get out of having to install it before I could have DX9.
Off-topic, it's said there are reasons to prefer other browsers, aside from
preferences. Adherence to standards for HTML and CSS. I wouldn't know though,
I saw FireFox v2 do horrible things with CSS, and that was supposed to be one
of the better adherers. Fortunately OperaUSB v10.63 appears to fix that good
and proper so no more browser wars for me.
Lostgallifreyan
news:vsGdnbIAGrlDlUrQ...@earthlink.com:
> There is no stupid cartoon dog on my computer. And if it ever was
> there, it was "taken out" by me on the very first day I fired this up.
>
I saw the paper clip on someone's computer once. Made me want a paper cwip
guhn... That looks even worse wrtten down than when I try to say it.
Lostgallifreyan
> I intended to post the URL of that website but I forgot. The info
> itself came from MS.
>
> Glad you did install it, but does it work? I dont like installing
> programs which are part of the OS, if they are not made for the OS.
> Seems thats just asking for trouble. Did you notice any difference in
> how your system works? If yes, what?
>
> Thanks
>
>
Well, basically, everything audio and video just sort of started to, you
know, work.. :) it let me install all the DirectShow codecs I needed to run
on CakeWalk, and the adapters I had to cobble together to make multichannel
record inpouts on a program that had no way to do digital processing on
inputs normally. If it enables all that, you can bet it works!
I'll post two posts in a new thread with all the details I kept from when I
figured out the IE-less install.
Lostgallifreyan
Thanks. So many versions of it. Hard to keep track of them. This really IS the latest and greatest v9c?
98 Guy
> > He IS trying to stay away from IE. Which means (in contrast to
> > the popular belief of some) that he IS NOT technically savvy
> Off-topic, it's said there are reasons to prefer other browsers
Don't get me wrong.
IE 6 was a terrible browser, but that terrible-ness really didn't rear
it's head until about 2006 or 2007 as far as competently rendering most
web content. From a security point of view, it was a killer for XP (not
really so much for win-9x/me).
So even though I switched to Firefox 2 years ago, I'm not nuts or anal
enough about IE to go to crazy lengths to strip it out of my computers
running win-98.
Lostgallifreyan
> So even though I switched to Firefox 2 years ago, I'm not nuts or anal
> enough about IE to go to crazy lengths to strip it out of my computers
> running win-98.
>
>
Nor would I, if it hadn't been ineffably more easy just to stop it getting in
there. :) All I cared about was, it was big, the browser I wanted was big,
and my nice tiny OS ain't big enough for the both of them. And I bet they'd
fight too. :) Joking, but at least this way, why worry?
Lostgallifreyan
> IE 6 was a terrible browser, but that terrible-ness really didn't rear
> it's head until about 2006 or 2007 as far as competently rendering most
> web content. From a security point of view, it was a killer for XP (not
> really so much for win-9x/me).
>
I got lucky then. I wanted it, originally! W98 wouldn't let me, but I
couldn't hate W98 for that..
98 Guy
> Thanks. So many versions of it. Hard to keep track of them.
> This really IS the latest and greatest v9c?
This is the last version (or build) of DirectX 9.0c for windows 9x/me:
directx_dec2006_redist.exe (59.2 MB)
You can take it a little further by tinkering with subsequent build
updates that were released for Win 2K/XP, but you must start with this
version because it contains core DirectX files specific to win-9x/me
that were removed by Micro$haft in later builds.
It is said that the updating that can be done by installing the later
builds are of no use or value unless you have the .NET framework
installed.
The best information you're likely to find on the net on this topic are
here:
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/119556-directx-90c-user-runtime-june-2008-update/
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/121855-full-version-of-directx-v9241400/
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/148018-latest-directx/
Those 3 links are listed in chronological order from August 2008 to
December 2010.
Lostgallifreyan
> This is the last version (or build) of DirectX 9.0c for windows 9x/me:
>
> directx_dec2006_redist.exe (59.2 MB)
>
> http://download.microsoft.com/download/8/c/9/8c968ecc-8402-49f3-aacb-dc4c
> 5d230a9a/directx_dec2006_redist.exe
>
> You can take it a little further by tinkering with subsequent build
> updates that were released for Win 2K/XP, but you must start with this
> version because it contains core DirectX files specific to win-9x/me
> that were removed by Micro$haft in later builds.
>
> It is said that the updating that can be done by installing the later
> builds are of no use or value unless you have the .NET framework
> installed.
>
Ok, cool. No dotnet for me.
Bill in Co
For me, "variety is the spice of life" (cough), and I've got several good
browsers on here: IE, FireFox, Pale Moon (a nice FF clone that was
*natively* coded for Windows), GreenBrowser, FlashPeak SlimBrowser, Orca
(somewhat related to FF, but more fundamental), and Flock (which is pretty
good if you skip all the social fluff, and just use it as a browser)
I tried OffBy1, or whatever it was, but it doesn't do diddlys squat at so
many web sites, since its without javascript support, etc. K-Meleon didn't
grab me much, either, although it is faster than FF.
I usually fall back to good ole IE. IE8 at least includes tabs.
And sometimes FF.
Lostgallifreyan
> For me, "variety is the spice of life" (cough), and I've got several
> good browsers on here: IE, FireFox, Pale Moon (a nice FF clone that
> was *natively* coded for Windows), GreenBrowser, FlashPeak SlimBrowser,
> Orca (somewhat related to FF, but more fundamental), and Flock (which is
> pretty good if you skip all the social fluff, and just use it as a
> browser)
>
A veritable museum. Not being funny, it's amazing. I never heard of half of
those. Could be ideal for website coding, to check with all of those.
> I tried OffBy1, or whatever it was, but it doesn't do diddlys squat at
> so many web sites, since its without javascript support, etc. K-Meleon
> didn't grab me much, either, although it is faster than FF.
>
I wish OffBy1 had a way to run JavsScript and CSS, even if it was just by
modules made by someone else. That way there's a possibility of one of the
finest general purpose small browsers ever built.
98 Guy
> I usually fall back to good ole IE. IE8 at least includes tabs.
You've got to understand that because this is a win-98 group, your
comment that you "fall back to good ole IE" can give the casual reader a
mixed or unclear message.
For a win-98 user, there is nothing "good ole" about IE, because for
them IE means IE6.
Your experiences and satisfaction with IE8 on XP really have no meaning
or applicability here.
Bill in Co
> Bill in Co wrote:
>
>> I usually fall back to good ole IE. IE8 at least includes tabs.
>
> You've got to understand that because this is a win-98 group, your
> comment that you "fall back to good ole IE" can give the casual reader a
> mixed or unclear message.
>
> For a win-98 user, there is nothing "good ole" about IE, because for
> them IE means IE6.
And IE6 is just fine, for that matter.
> Your experiences and satisfaction with IE8 on XP really have no meaning
> or applicability here.
Actually, if I had a choice, I'd probably still be using IE6 as I preferred
it (except for missing tabs), but IE6 won't work on some sites now, it
seems.
And since many here have both 98 and XP, I don't see the big deal. However,
I had forgotten that IE8 requires XP or higher.
I seem to recall hearing about IE9 that requires Vista or higher too.
Whatever.
Bill in Co
> "Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:XpadneMjCZf1pUrQ...@earthlink.com:
>
>> For me, "variety is the spice of life" (cough), and I've got several
>> good browsers on here: IE, FireFox, Pale Moon (a nice FF clone that
>> was *natively* coded for Windows), GreenBrowser, FlashPeak SlimBrowser,
>> Orca (somewhat related to FF, but more fundamental), and Flock (which is
>> pretty good if you skip all the social fluff, and just use it as a
>> browser)
>>
>
> A veritable museum. Not being funny, it's amazing. I never heard of half
> of
> those. Could be ideal for website coding, to check with all of those.
I guess you could call it that. :-)
>> I tried OffBy1, or whatever it was, but it doesn't do diddlys squat at
>> so many web sites, since its without javascript support, etc. K-Meleon
>> didn't grab me much, either, although it is faster than FF.
>>
>
> I wish OffBy1 had a way to run JavsScript and CSS, even if it was just by
> modules made by someone else. That way there's a possibility of one of the
> finest general purpose small browsers ever built.
I guess the design intention was to deliberately NOT have javascript
support, which I find makes it useless to me in practice, for most any site
I go to.
Lostgallifreyan
>> I wish OffBy1 had a way to run JavsScript and CSS, even if it was just
>> by modules made by someone else. That way there's a possibility of one
>> of the finest general purpose small browsers ever built.
>
> I guess the design intention was to deliberately NOT have javascript
> support, which I find makes it useless to me in practice, for most any
> site I go to.
>
It was, it was.... but even so... I mean, they offer a core to put in any
project so I'm surprised there aren't browser developments solving exactly
that need. Maybe there are... With so many based on Mozilla we really NEED
alternatives with deeply independent roots.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
>Lostgallifreyan wrote:
>
>> > He IS trying to stay away from IE. Which means (in contrast to
>> > the popular belief of some) that he IS NOT technically savvy
You _are_ trolling, I hope? There _are_ technically savvy reasons to
want to stay away from IE - or were, anyway. It's not its performance as
a browser, so much as its tendrils getting everywhere like a fungus - in
much the same way as 98 diehards (I was one) resent XP.
>
>> Off-topic, it's said there are reasons to prefer other browsers
>
>Don't get me wrong.
>
>IE 6 was a terrible browser, but that terrible-ness really didn't rear
Strangely, so was Netscape 6: I think it's what killed it. I did read
somewhere that they left the debug code in the final release, which made
it run very slowly; whatever the reason, it was I think the one that
killed Netscape. (N7 was actually pretty good, but by then the damage
had been done: enough people abandoned it to make its continued
existence not viable. N8 - or it might have been N9 - was just a clone
of AOL's browser, more or less, and the development page actually
directed people towards Firefox. IIRR.) But the 6 in both N and IE
weren't great!
>it's head until about 2006 or 2007 as far as competently rendering most
>web content. From a security point of view, it was a killer for XP (not
>really so much for win-9x/me).
>
>So even though I switched to Firefox 2 years ago, I'm not nuts or anal
>enough about IE to go to crazy lengths to strip it out of my computers
>running win-98.
Well, I didn't go to crazy lengths - 98lite made the process very
simple, as did the same people's IEradicator (a freeware utility they
released for those who didn't want IE but didn't want the full 98lite
experience, if lite-ing can be called "full").
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
... of the two little boxes in the corner of your room, the one without the
pictures is the one that opens the mind. - Stuart Maconie in Radio Times,
2008/10/11-17
98 Guy
> > For a win-98 user, there is nothing "good ole" about IE,
> > because for them IE means IE6.
>
> And IE6 is just fine, for that matter.
You can't honestly say that with a straight face.
IE6 hasn't been able to correctly render any but the simplest web-pages
since 2007.
> Actually, if I had a choice, I'd probably still be using IE6
When was the last time you used IE6?
I mean seriously used it?
Go and use it and browse to a web-page that you think it renders
correctly, and then go on your XP system with IE8 and open the same page
and look at both of them (assuming you have 2 computers - one of which
is running win-98).
Bill in Co
> Bill in Co wrote:
>
>>> For a win-98 user, there is nothing "good ole" about IE,
>>> because for them IE means IE6.
>>
>> And IE6 is just fine, for that matter.
>
> You can't honestly say that with a straight face.
IE6 is more customizable than IE8. OK, it's still IE, and I'm not going to
argue that with someone who can't stand IE. :-)
> IE6 hasn't been able to correctly render any but the simplest web-pages
> since 2007.
>
>> Actually, if I had a choice, I'd probably still be using IE6
>
> When was the last time you used IE6?
>
> I mean seriously used it?
IIRC, about 2 years ago or so.
> Go and use it and browse to a web-page that you think it renders
> correctly, and then go on your XP system with IE8 and open the same page
> and look at both of them (assuming you have 2 computers - one of which
> is running win-98).
My other computer uses IE6, and it still renders some sites ok. Some. :-)
Are you under the impression that no sites work right (or well enough) under
IE6?
I don't think that's the case. Keep in mind there still are a LOT of users
still using IE6. Granted, it's dropped off a whole lot, but OTOH, we're not
talking about just having 100 people using it, either.
98 Guy
> OK, it's still IE, and I'm not going to argue that with someone
> who can't stand IE. :-)
It's not that I can't stand IE. If I used XP then I'd have IE8 (and
probably Firefox as well) and I'd probably use them both.
It's IE6 that I can't stand, and by rights nobody should be forced to
put up with such an incompatible browser today nor for the past 5 years
at least.
I guess you don't know that IE6 has been the bane of web developers
practically since it came out, but it really became an issue several
years ago when it just became too much of a hassle to make web sites
compatible with it. There are websites devoted to hating IE6 and
wishing it a speedy death for those reasons.
It's no secret that Microsoft tried to forge it's own web-rules by
forcing IE6 to be incompatible with HTML rules as they existed at the
time. Microsoft has since realized the error of it's evil ways and has
brought IE-7+ more inline with accepted web standards.
> > When was the last time you used IE6?
> >
> > I mean seriously used it?
>
> IIRC, about 2 years ago or so.
A lot can change in 2+ years, especially on websites.
> Are you under the impression that no sites work right (or well
> enough) under IE6? I don't think that's the case.
Oh, it totally is the case.
That's why I started to use Firefox 4 or 5 years ago as my main browser
on my win-98 systems. IE6 became unusable for too many websites.
There are test sites that you can point your browser to, and it will
score your browser based on how it can render and format certain
constructs and objects. It's hillarious how badly IE6 does.
> Keep in mind there still are a LOT of users still using IE6.
Yea - the same bone-heads that are running XP-SP1 and don't know that
their PC is part of a botnet.
> Granted, it's dropped off a whole lot, but OTOH, we're not
> talking about just having 100 people using it, either.
The number of people using IE6 today is not related to how badly it
renders web content today. I bet those same people use their computers
more for e-mail or simple games than web browsing.
This web site will let you see an image of any web-page you give it as
rendered by any of several dozen different browsers:
This is a test page that will render a complex set of objects in your
browser while giving you a correct score:
On my win-98 system, firefox 2.0.0.20 scores 52/100 on the acid3 test.
IE6 scores 12/100. Opera 11.01 scores a perfect 100/100.
Here's why IE6 is a bad browser:
http://www.browserupgrade.info/ie6/
http://www.wisdump.com/web-programming/campaigns-to-kill-the-web-browser-that-just-wont-die-internet-explorer-6/
http://www.thedave.ca/geek/why-ie6-is-bad/
http://www.bringdownie6.com/
“IE6 is the new Netscape 4. The hacks needed to support IE6 are
increasingly viewed as excess freight. Like Netscape 4 in 2000, IE6 is
perceived to be holding back the web.”
There was a big push in early 2009 to make people aware that it was time
to upgrade from IE6 to IE7, and many of those "why IE6 is bad" websites
were started around that time.
Whatever the reason, the strategy of having a non-compliant browser
backfired and lead to an uproar in the web design and development
community and the implementation of so-called “IE hacks“: Because IE6
didn’t play nice with web standards, the people that build web sites
started designing based on web standards and then added a bunch of extra
code to force IE6 to comply. But although this strategy worked it was
both cumbersome and clumsy and lead to sites being horribly bloated and
slow.
Meanwhile other browser developers like Mozilla and Opera were hard at
work exploiting the hatred and frustration caused by IE6 to get a bigger
share of the market. And while Microsoft was hard at work plugging
security holes Firefox and Opera introduced a long list of new and
exciting features not available in IE6 including tabbed browsing,
extensions and true standards based HTML, CSS and JavaScript support.
Then in 2006 Microsoft released Internet Explorer 7 – a much improved
browser that not only stayed truer to web standards but also included
much needed user conveniences like the now hugely popular tabs and
integrated search.
Why do people still use IE6?
First off, because of all the thousands of security warnings and updates
people had gotten with IE6 a large group of users were under the
impression that if they now upgraded to a new browser the whole game
would start over. And with that rationale as their modus operandi
thousands upon thousands of end users declined the update to IE7 and
stuck with what they perceived as a tried and trusted.
Secondly because IE6 had such a long run and such a large market share,
a huge percentage of sites and applications on the web and in intranets
around the world were designed to run properly only in the strange world
of IE6 code interpretation. And when they upgraded their computers to
IE7, their huge and costly applications no longer worked the way they
were supposed to. So rather than upgrading and subsequently having to
redesign and redevelop applications that until then had worked just fine
these corporations bit the bullet and decided to stick with IE6 in spite
of its flaws.
Finally a small percentage of users were still on older systems that
either ran operating systems that didn’t support IE7 or didn’t have
enough computing power to run the browser properly. Or they aren't
computer-savvy enough to even know that IE7 is available, let alone be
able to figure out how to download and install it. Or the Automatic
Update is not turned on and their computer is not getting regular
patches and security fixes or informing or inviting the user to upgrade
to IE7.
Whatever the reason for not upgrading, the group of IE6 users even to
this day is slow to decline and is currently estimated to be between 25%
and 30% of the total population of internet users.
So it’s a lost cause then…
Because IE6 does not render HTML, CSS and JavaScript like the other
browsers and much of the new technologies and innovations we have seen
over the last couple of years use precisely these code languages, the
web and it’s designers and developers are being pulled in two different
directions: Do we hold back on new technologies to accommodate the old
browser or do we break free and leave it to drift and sink under it’s
own weight? To many the answer is still the former – better to tow the
piano for a few more years so as not to lose any of our potential
clients – while others are already hacking away at the chain with saws,
axes and whatever else they have handy.
And this is where
StopLivingInThePast.com and the many other IE6 campaigns come in. More
and more designers and developers are looking to move the web forward
without leaving anyone behind and to do so they are including warnings
in their sites telling those visitors still using the old and outdated
browser that now is the time to stop living in the past and upgrade to a
newer and better browser. In some ways it is self-serving – getting rid
of IE6 for good will make life easier for those of us that design web
sites and applications for a living – and in others it is an effort to
elevate the overall usability and enjoyment of the web for the masses. I
can only speak for myself here but I actuall feel bad for those users
who are still stuck with Internet Explorer 6. Because not only will
upgrading their browser make them safer from security intrusions,
viruses and other nasty stuff, but they will have a much better
experience surfing the web.
Lostgallifreyan
> I guess you don't know that IE6 has been the bane of web developers
> practically since it came out, but it really became an issue several
> years ago when it just became too much of a hassle to make web sites
> compatible with it. There are websites devoted to hating IE6 and
> wishing it a speedy death for those reasons.
>
Seconded. It is notorious for it. While users of IE don't see this, because
in its own displays it's able to make up for its own poor adherence to
standards, it's resulted in LOTS of sites looking vile in better systems
because their coders think their code is good because it looks ok in IE!
Warning against this is staple diet in many online HTML guides.
The sad truth is that IE is like farting in a crowded room, but not noticing
because the source is always with the farter. Hope that little homily doesn't
get up too many noses. >:)
Goodnight.
Bill in Co
>
> Because IE6 does not render HTML, CSS and JavaScript like the other
> browsers and much of the new technologies and innovations we have seen
> over the last couple of years use precisely these code languages, the
> web and it's designers and developers are being pulled in two different
> directions: Do we hold back on new technologies to accommodate the old
> browser or do we break free and leave it to drift and sink under it's
> piano for a few more years so as not to lose any of our potential
> axes and whatever else they have handy.
>
> And this is where
>
> StopLivingInThePast.com and the many other IE6 campaigns come in. More
> and more designers and developers are looking to move the web forward
> without leaving anyone behind and to do so they are including warnings
> in their sites telling those visitors still using the old and outdated
> browser that now is the time to stop living in the past and upgrade to a
> of IE6 for good will make life easier for those of us that design web
> elevate the overall usability and enjoyment of the web for the masses. I
> can only speak for myself here but I actuall feel bad for those users
> who are still stuck with Internet Explorer 6. Because not only will
> upgrading their browser make them safer from security intrusions,
> viruses and other nasty stuff, but they will have a much better
> experience surfing the web.
Yes, I'm aware that IE6 won't work on some sites, and even more now; and
that it does poorly on those tests; and that backwards compatability was and
is a PIA for website developers. (The reason I liked it was that it was
more customizable than IE8, in terms of its toolbars, for example, and it
worked well enough on many of the sites I was visiting at that time).
Now, as for "staying in the past", one could make a similar argument about
staying with Win98. (or Win95, for that matter). :-)
But unlike the loss of proper (if any) page rendering by sticking to IE6,
someone sticking to Win98 is foregoing any newer improvements (or any
features added) in some various programs and applications. Plus better USB2
and SATA support, etc. And by "newer", I don't mean 2010 or 2011, either; I
mean over just the past few years. It's not all bloatware. :-)
As I mentioned, there are a few programs that I use that just won't install
on W98, and there really are no equivalents available on the Win98 base,
although some are close.
That, and the improved handling of any video processing, including the use
of the latest MP4/.h264 technology without any hitch.
However, if one is content to just use the older apps for all their work,
and only those apps, then this may be a non-issue, and W98 may suffice.
:-)
Lostgallifreyan
> That, and the improved handling of any video processing, including the use
> of the latest MP4/.h264 technology without any hitch.
>
W98 is just fine. mplayer, or MPClassic with DX codec. The bottleneck
wouldn't be W98, but the hardware capability. Nothing special about the
format as seen from a player. It just crunches the numbers, so long as it
produces standard output video data the player will render it.
Re USB2, it's not up to W98 to support it, it was always something a USB
hardware provider supplied SB2 drivers for. This might be a convenience
issue, but it has nothing to do with capability. I think I'd rather trust the
maker to do it right, than trust a generic driver M$ assumed would work,
unless there really IS such a possibility it will work. If you include the
INF files and driver files with the OS install files, it is likely possible
to slipstream them as part of a standard install because the OS hardware
detect/install process will use them if it can find them.
Which reminds me: Do you or anyone else know if there's a set of updated
generic INF files for standard installs of W98? It seems likely that there
may have been, as a lot of new devices need only use different settings
applied to the save device drivers (especially true of optical disk writers,
for example..)
98 Guy
full-quoting:
> Yes, I'm aware that IE6 won't work on some sites, and even more now;
> and that it does poorly on those tests;
And it's been that way fore more than just the past 2 years (more like
4).
The point being that since 2006, for most anyone running win-98 or 2K or
XP, that Firefox was a much better web browser than IE6 for any website
that didn't depend on activeX controls for important aspects of it's
functionality.
IE 6 didn't even have tabbed browsing for christ sakes.
I don't know why you think IE6 is or was better than Firefox 2.x, or why
you think it was such a chore for the average IE6 user to install and at
least try Firefox for the past 4+ years.
> The reason I liked it was that it was more customizable than
> IE8, in terms of its toolbars, for example,
This is not a contest between IE6 and IE8.
In this win-98 newsgroup, IE8 or even IE7 is not and never has been an
option.
> Now, as for "staying in the past"
This is not about staying in the past.
There was a time before IE7/8 was available that Firefox was a more
logical choice for the average user versus IE6, regardless of what OS
they were using.
> one could make a similar argument about staying with Win98.
If you want to have a discussion about why some people are still running
windows 98, then you should start a new thread with that as the
subject. But such a discussion has very little to do with the politics
of Microsoft and why they made IE6 the way they did, or why IE6 should
have been used by anyone for the past 4 years.
98 Guy
> one could make a similar argument about staying with Win98.
I know that you're putting a smily face behind that, but...
What you're basically saying is that anyone still using Win-98 can't or
shouldn't criticize or be critical of IE6.
I don't know how serious you are about that, but it's a disengenuous
argument when you give the impression that those aren't separate
conversations.
Bill in Co
> "Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:ep6dncTFJcj9KUXQ...@earthlink.com:
>
>> That, and the improved handling of any video processing, including the
>> use
>> of the latest MP4/.h264 technology without any hitch.
>>
>
> W98 is just fine. mplayer, or MPClassic with DX codec. The bottleneck
> wouldn't be W98, but the hardware capability. Nothing special about the
> format as seen from a player. It just crunches the numbers, so long as it
> produces standard output video data the player will render it.
How many good video editing or video restoration programs have you come
across that can still run under Win98? And that can handle MP4/h264 files?
And we've already talked about some limitations in the audio editors arena.
(Granted, it's not zero, but your choices are pretty limited).
> Re USB2, it's not up to W98 to support it, it was always something a USB
> hardware provider supplied SB2 drivers for. This might be a convenience
> issue, but it has nothing to do with capability. I think I'd rather trust
> the
> maker to do it right, than trust a generic driver M$ assumed would work,
> unless there really IS such a possibility it will work. If you include the
> INF files and driver files with the OS install files, it is likely
> possible
> to slipstream them as part of a standard install because the OS hardware
> detect/install process will use them if it can find them.
The dated hardware is indeed one issue. :-)
But XP also has better USB support. I don't think that is exclusively due
to hardware. I think the same could be said about SATA. And we've already
discussed the USB printer issue.
> Which reminds me: Do you or anyone else know if there's a set of updated
> generic INF files for standard installs of W98? It seems likely that there
> may have been, as a lot of new devices need only use different settings
> applied to the save device drivers (especially true of optical disk
> writers,
> for example..)
I don't know, but maybe someone else does.
Lostgallifreyan
> How many good video editing or video restoration programs have you come
> across that can still run under Win98? And that can handle MP4/h264
> files? And we've already talked about some limitations in the audio
> editors arena. (Granted, it's not zero, but your choices are pretty
> limited).
>
NanDub, VirtualDub, VirtualDubMod, AviSynth, mencoder, Vegas... that's an
embarrassment of riches right there.
98 Guy
> How many good video editing or video restoration programs have you
> come across that can still run under Win98?
For hobby, or professional use?
Not to say there aren't any, but come on. Who does video restoration?
If that's what turns your crank, then you probably have a Mac, or you've
bought a PC within the last 5 years and it came with XP, so it really
isin't about win-98 anymore.
> But XP also has better USB support.
Says someone who hasn't touched a win-98 PC for what - 2 years?
Go and dust off your win-98 PC and do some serious patching with
third-party USB solutions and then come back and tell us how bad the
Win-98 USB situation is.
> I think the same could be said about SATA.
Not even close. Have you not read anything I've said about what I've
done with SATA under win-98?
> And we've already discussed the USB printer issue.
The last printer we bought for our office was a multifunction network
printer made by Brother back in 2006 or 2007, and it came with full
win-98 support. I can scan a document to any win-98 machine by
selecting the machine from the printer's front panel controls.
98 Guy
> Do you or anyone else know if there's a set of updated generic
> INF files for standard installs of W98?
I've created a custom win-98 install image for use on the Asrock
4core-dual VSTA motherboard. This meant that I used infinst.exe to add
win-98 drivers from VIA and Silicon Image for the chipset, SATA
controller and NIC. These all go into custom.inf in the \win98
directory of the installation image. Nvidia drivers for the GeForce
6200 video card. Also added a few more hacks in the msbatch.inf so that
the produce key gets installed without asking me anything during the
install.
Basically once I launch the install from the dos prompt, I sit back and
let everything happen without a single keystroke needed. About 20
minutes later I have my win-98 desktop on my screen, in the resolution I
want, with all the hardware drivers installed right off the bad on the
first boot-up.
The next thing I have to do is add the drivers for my Audigy2 sound
card, plus a few other sound cards (Sound Blaster Live and PCI 128) for
when I install win-98 on a few other Asrock motherboards using those
sound cards.
Lostgallifreyan
>> Do you or anyone else know if there's a set of updated generic
>> INF files for standard installs of W98?
>
> I've created a custom win-98 install image for use on the Asrock
> 4core-dual VSTA motherboard. This meant that I used infinst.exe to add
> win-98 drivers from VIA and Silicon Image for the chipset, SATA
> controller and NIC. These all go into custom.inf in the \win98
> directory of the installation image.
Nice. I snagged a copy of InfInstall when last prompted about that, and I'll
certainly look into that for my own installs, I'm all for full automation,
it's very reliable once it works at all.
Not being lazy here though, there's a specific reason I'm after a nice set of
recent, extended generic INF's if they exist, I'm building a core modular W98
install from scratch. The more generic that is, the more people it might work
for. I can't expect to cover everything but there may already be some past
consensus on what newer devices were popular enough to warrant this work
already existing somewhere.
Lostgallifreyan
> Basically once I launch the install from the dos prompt, I sit back and
> let everything happen without a single keystroke needed. About 20
> minutes later I have my win-98 desktop on my screen, in the resolution I
> want, with all the hardware drivers installed right off the bad on the
> first boot-up.
>
Mine's a tad short of that, party because I still need to isolate a few class
installer files, no doubt, and my starting registry is downright
parsimonious! It works though, almost all of it flies by as I sit and watch,
there's just soem silliness about W98 forgetting the location for its install
files at each boot (fixable, I know, just not prioritised that isse yet, but
seen that it works ok on a full system). Apart from that and the third party
drivers, it's near enough auto now. What's more, it all happens in Windows
itself, standard install hides that as best it can. I think it's helpful to
see stuff named as it goes by, it helps with understanding what's actually in
there...
And if anyone things W98 might be too verbose this way, they ought to see
OpenBSD BOOT, never mind install... Whole new meaning to 'verbose'. >:)
98 Guy
> Not being lazy here though, there's a specific reason I'm after a
> nice set of recent, extended generic INF's if they exist, I'm
> building a core modular W98 install from scratch. The more generic
> that is, the more people it might work for.
You should basically start by obtaining chipset and video-card drivers
from as many vendors as possible (there aren't that many).
Get various versions of the Intel chipset installation utility, also
from Via.
Video drivers from ATI and Nvidia.
Audio drivers from realtek. Network drivers from broadcom.
Unpack all the files you get, and do a search for any .inf files that
contain "chicago". That's a pretty reliable way to determine if you've
got a win-98 driver or not.
I would focus on the last Intel chipset driver for the entire 800
series, plus the Nvidia 77.72 win-98 driver (version 4.14.10.7772,
06/15/2005).
Bill in Co
Not really. Those freeware ones are a bit problematic and limited in some
respects (yes, I've tried them, and you left out AviDemux!), and a bit
limited in their restore capabilities (depending on which plug-ins you can
find that actually work well).
AviSynth is admitedly more powerful once (if) you get the scripts set up
right and if you can find the right plug-ins.
I wasn't really impressed with Sony Vegas, due to its somewhat awkward
design. You can tell that whoever coded this application had more background
in audio, LOL). I'm not saying Vegas isn't capable!, but what an awkward
interface!
Unlike SF, I think Sony is somewhat behind the curve on its video editor
design in terms of usability. Maybe if you've mastered, it's no big deal.
Besides which, are you sure Sony Vegas will run on W98? I'm betting NOT
(unless you're talking about version 0.001, LOL)
Bill in Co
> Bill in Co wrote:
>
>> How many good video editing or video restoration programs have you
>> come across that can still run under Win98?
>
> For hobby, or professional use?
Hobby for me. Cleaning up noisy downloaded YouTube videos, some of which
are priceless to me (some of these date back to the WWII era or earlier).
It's just that whoever uploaded them did a crappy job of making them into a
YouTube flv video.
> Not to say there aren't any, but come on. Who does video restoration?
I do a limited amountof it. Just for me. :-)
It's kinda fun restoring this stuff (audio and video found on the net, but
often messed up by some amateurs, but, at least it's out there).
> If that's what turns your crank, then you probably have a Mac, or you've
> bought a PC within the last 5 years and it came with XP, so it really
> isin't about win-98 anymore.
>
>> But XP also has better USB support.
>
> Says someone who hasn't touched a win-98 PC for what - 2 years?
Yesterday, actually. :-)
> Go and dust off your win-98 PC and do some serious patching with
> third-party USB solutions and then come back and tell us how bad the
> Win-98 USB situation is.
It's hobbling along ok since I added that nusb23 USB mass storage driver,
*and* finally found a USB HP LaserJet (B&W) printer that had a W98 driver, a
couple of years ago. (lots of luck finding any now).
>> I think the same could be said about SATA.
>
> Not even close. Have you not read anything I've said about what I've
> done with SATA under win-98?
What *you've* done, with all your hardware motherboard replacements, et al.
Not everybody is replacing their motherboards. Some people who want to
keep ahead of the curve just bite the bullet and get a more capable OS,
along with the new hardware. :-) (an OS that doesn't have any current
software installation issues)
Lostgallifreyan
> Not really. Those freeware ones are a bit problematic and limited in
> some respects (yes, I've tried them, and you left out AviDemux!), and a
> bit limited in their restore capabilities (depending on which plug-ins
> you can find that actually work well).
>
> AviSynth is admitedly more powerful once (if) you get the scripts set up
> right and if you can find the right plug-ins.
>
AviSynth is so powerful that all we need are front nds to it, and modules to
add to do what we need. The other may be limited in various ways for all I
know, but I'd rather that the most important things worked ok, and that I
have at least two alternatives. A standard Gordian Knot install, or mencoder,
will give most of what I need. mencoder excels at automated batch processing,
GK and AviSynth and the various *dubs are good when I want to handle the
content experimentally.
Seriously, this is GOOD stuff. It's not exactly limited, it offers enough
processes to impress a broadcast professional, and it all runs on W98 with no
trouble. (It's one of the justifications of running a SMALL W98 on a big,
fast box). I'm not the sort of person who needs 5 pairs of pliers and ten
screwdrivers in the toolbox. Give me a few truly powerful and versatile
tools, plus a few small dedicated tools for small tasks that need frequent
fast attendence, and I more than get by. I don't do it for a living, but if I
did I think I'd be using dedicated hardware with its own specialised OS.
Depends on who is paying for it, no doubt...
> I wasn't really impressed with Sony Vegas, due to its somewhat awkward
> design. You can tell that whoever coded this application had more
> background in audio, LOL). I'm not saying Vegas isn't capable!, but
> what an awkward interface!
>
In a way it is, but you like Sound Forge, right? It's not so different. Vegas
wasn't originally for editing video at all, it was aimed at multitrack
soundtrack work, hence it's much closer to Sound Forge, as an audio editor.
(And even Sound Forge 4.5g can handle video for stereo sountrack editing
tasks). I didn't stay with Vegas though, no need for it.
> Unlike SF, I think Sony is somewhat behind the curve on its video editor
> design in terms of usability. Maybe if you've mastered, it's no big
> deal.
>
Sonic Foundry made Vegas. I wouldn't touch ANY of those tools in versions
made post-Sony.
> Besides which, are you sure Sony Vegas will run on W98? I'm betting
> NOT (unless you're talking about version 0.001, LOL)
>
I can certify that Vegas 4 (An SF original) will run. As will Sonar 1 (sadly
no later, so far as I tried it).