Making Win98 work on the internet

[Alan Justice]

I have Win98, IE 6.0, 256 MB RAM, and 500 MHz Dell. All I use it for is
internet access but many sites don't support my system. I can't even access
the Win update site! Is there any hope with this system, or do I need a new
computer?


--
Alan Justice
http://home.earthlink.net/~wildlifepaparazzi/

[98 Guy]

First, Alan, I'm curious as to why you chose to post your question to
this group:

microsoft.public.win98.internet.windows_update

I ask because that newsgroup has had no traffic for many months, if not
years.

I notice that you are posting via giganews. Does giganews not carry the
much more active (and probably the defacto win-98 newsgroup) ->

microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion

???

I am cross-posting your message to that group, where it will be seen
(for better or worse) by what appears to be the last remaining rag-tag
collection of people that still pay some attention or interest to
Windows 98.

Alan Justice wrote:

> I have Win98, IE 6.0, 256 MB RAM, and 500 MHz Dell. All I use
> it for is internet access but many sites don't support my system.

Alan, I could post pages of technical and perhaps not-so-easy-to-follow
instructions informing you how to "beef up" your installation of windows
98 to make it more compatible with several different aspects of web
technology. I could start down that path, but more than likely you will
not follow it (for one reason or another).

In fact, I really don't expect to ever see you reply back here in this
thread that you've started (most one-time posters don't come back). I'm
not trying to scare you off - I hope you do come back. The odds are
that you will read this, but you won't follow through and show that
you're really interested.

So I'll just say that there is a lot you can do with a win-98 system to
make it compatible with the web, and you won't see any such nag screens
telling you that your system is not compatible.

You just have to come back here and say that you're really interested
and committed to trying.

> I can't even access the Win update site!

Microsoft made some changes about 6 months ago that made the
windows-update server incompatible with windows 98. But if you visited
that site at any time from mid-2006 up until mid 2011 then your system
will have everything it needs. Microsoft has not added anything new for
win-98 systems on that site since July 2006.

> Is there any hope with this system, or do I need a new
> computer?

It's up to you. Technically, windows 98 and your system is capable of
being enhanced to achieve what you are looking for.

[Bill in Co]

If I were in his shoes, I'd recommend he get an additional 256MB of RAM, and
install Firefox or Pale Moon to handle the websites (but maybe not the
latest versions, though). And preferably Win98SE, if he can still find it.

[Lostgallifreyan]

"Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:YsWdnUhjVvTg_sTS...@earthlink.com:

> And preferably Win98SE, if he can still find it.
>

eBay. :) I've seen a few occasionally. Beats the hell out of paying for a new
OS, maybe...

[Lostgallifreyan]

98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> wrote in news:4F596276...@Guy.com:

> Alan Justice wrote:
>
>> I have Win98, IE 6.0, 256 MB RAM, and 500 MHz Dell. All I use
>> it for is internet access but many sites don't support my system.
>

If ONLY for internet access, it might be better to go for a new tablet
machine with all the fixtures and fittings pre-installed. That's a very
different need than for a workstation machine where it pays to do our own
research and customisations.

I strongly advise against keeping personal records on some new machine
though, especially financial or secure login and account details. Never trust
some off-the-shelf new machine to be secure, they are prime targets for
attack. Treat them like a bus station doorway, and watch your step the same
way you do around busses and strangers hustling about.

(I think many more people may come to separate the net from their work and
home machines, the same way they shut the world out when they want to do
private stuff in a secure house. It's not fashionable to think this way with
do-it-all telephonic wingdings with more ringtones than a jukebox, and people
touting 'cloud computing', but not everyone will rush in like fools where
angels fear to tread. And watching lemmings is always more fun from a safe
distance away from the edge).

[Alan Justice]

"98 Guy" <9...@Guy.com> wrote in message news:4F596276...@Guy.com...

The last post to this group was 2 years, so I am amazed that I got a
response right away. You must have some way of automatically checking
groups for activity. I tried to access some other windows update groups but
they would not load. The last time I checked the Windows Update site it
gave no recommendations for me.

It's not that I'm married to Win98. What's the latest OS I can update to on
this machine? And how much will it help?

I only have dial-up. DSL has just been introduced to my area, but I can't
get it through Earthlink, only the phone company (Frontier, which bought
Verizon). I need to keep Earthlink because of my business web site.

I do have a more recent computer (XP, 2.8 GHz, 2 GB SD RAM) that I use for
image processing, but since I finally got a digital camera, I may want to
update that and replace my internet computer with it.

[Alan Justice]

"Lostgallifreyan" <no-...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA011169EE8...@216.196.109.145...

I think that with dial-up, I'm not much of a target, right?

[Lostgallifreyan]

"Alan Justice" <sp...@spamspamspam.spam> wrote in news:jbqdndcUra-
TMcTSnZ2dn...@earthlink.com:

> I think that with dial-up, I'm not much of a target, right?
>

I always thought hunters liked slow targets. :) No, you're not that much, but
it's better to keep a separate machine for the net, if you're already
considering one that IS used only for that, as you mentioned. The main point
wasn't security so much, but convenience. You might as well get the best net-
based machine you can afford, some kind of tablet maybe. A netbook..
Something that runs well enough to use modern web-based code that you might
need. It's not your line that makes you a target, so much as your choice of
machine and software. The better your machine is at net-based work, the
more attractive it is to online predators. So you might as well take
advantage of your desire for a net-specific device, then keep it separate
from your main machine except when shuttling downloaded data from the net
machine to the other.

All the other ways to be safe take a lot more work that that.

[Lostgallifreyan]

"Alan Justice" <sp...@spamspamspam.spam> wrote in news:tr-
dnfC8ifHgNsTSn...@earthlink.com:

> I do have a more recent computer (XP, 2.8 GHz, 2 GB SD RAM) that I use for
> image processing, but since I finally got a digital camera, I may want to
> update that and replace my internet computer with it.
>

That machine is your best bet. A 500 MHz machine will look weak if you try to
run WXP on it, unless you know more than most people do about streamlining
it. Stay with W98 SE on that, you'll just about make it cope with XviD
playback if you're lucky, it won't do much more. If you want more from that
camera than shuttling CF cards between it and a reader/adapter, you'll need
some modern USB support and other drivers that USB will do ok as supplied.

Dump that I.E v6 if at all possible. Even Microsoft kind of wish that hadn't
happened...

[98 Guy]

Alan Justice wrote:

> I think that with dial-up, I'm not much of a target, right?

It's not so much that you're not a target because of your dial-up
connection.

Your win-98 system is not a target for malware, viruses, trojans or
worms because windows 98 is/was much less vulnerable to web-based
exploitation than NT-based versions (windows 2k, XP, etc).

There were many holes and vulnerabilities for the combination of
IE6/Windows-XP/Java/Adobe-PDF during the years 2002 through 2006 that
resulted in those systems being constantly comprimized and infected with
malware. Windows 98 (because of it's relative "simplicity") was not
impacted or simply not vulnerable to the vast majority of those exploits
during those years (a fact that Microsoft and the technical press and
media either did not recognize or did not want to mention).

Alan - based on what you wrote it sounds like you probably won't make
the effort to enhance your win-98 system given that you have other
options and priorities.

And because of the software you'll need to download to enhance and
update your win-98 system, you probably won't do it because it's only
practical to do it through a broad-band (not dial-up) connection.

I think your first priority is not what to do with your win-98 system.
You should first look into replacing your dialup connection with a
highspeed, broad-band connection.

[pi...@nohoo.com]

On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 05:28:00 -0600, Lostgallifreyan <no-...@nowhere.net>
wrote:

I agree about dumping IE. Get Firefox and/or K-Meleon.

Your 500mhz machine will run Windows 2000.

I suggest making a dual booting system withg 98 and 2000. Thats what I
have. I mostly just use 2000 for easy access to USB stuff. Win98 is
still the best OS, but it's lousy with USB support.

[Lostgallifreyan]

pi...@nohoo.com wrote in news:eockl7l9udddcuubq...@4ax.com:

> I suggest making a dual booting system withg 98 and 2000. Thats what I
> have. I mostly just use 2000 for easy access to USB stuff. Win98 is
> still the best OS, but it's lousy with USB support.
>
>

Check out NUSB. It replaces some core sysfiles, so maybe best to do at
install. If using a via chipset, use the Via USB2 hub driver file, rather
than the one supplied with NUSB (extracted from W2K). NUSB is very effective
USB support for W98, including a proper 'eject' taskbar icon that allows
manual cache flushing and safe disconnect. It disgusted me when I first tried
it, seeign conflicts with stuff I'd done to a well established system, but I
later tried it on a clean reduced install, and it amazed me.

I'm building a very tiny W98, a project I call X98, that uses NUSB files as
part of it. I left off the project to learn C and API coding because I was
sorely driven to it after years of resistance, but I still intend to finish
X98 enough to publish details of how to build it. Apart from lacking a
network module, X98 is workable, it has a very tiny core module (with
probably the smallest starting registry ever found in a Windows system) that
runs basic API-based programs in protected mode with GUI, and an 'inst'
module that allows general hardware install with no reboots in most cases,
all done in a Windows session. Anyway, NUSB is a big part of why that project
is something I'll finish, it gives a huge boost to W98, no more awkwardness
with mass storage drivers, etc.

(Just letting people know I haven't forgotten, or given up...)

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <tr-dnfC8ifHgNsTS...@earthlink.com>, Alan
Justice <sp...@spamspamspam.spam> writes:
[]

>It's not that I'm married to Win98. What's the latest OS I can update to on
>this machine? And how much will it help?

With 256M of RAM, I'd not try XP. Can you not up the RAM?

>
>I only have dial-up. DSL has just been introduced to my area, but I can't
>get it through Earthlink, only the phone company (Frontier, which bought
>Verizon). I need to keep Earthlink because of my business web site.

I take it from those names that you're in the USA, so I don't know if
wireless internet (i. e. via the mobile 'phone network) is available
where you are. (It's available, though somewhat expensive, in most of
the UK.)

>
>I do have a more recent computer (XP, 2.8 GHz, 2 GB SD RAM) that I use for
>image processing, but since I finally got a digital camera, I may want to
>update that and replace my internet computer with it.
>

Hmm, I suppose your digital camera has oodles of megapixels, and you're
intending to use it at maximum resolution all the time )-:.

As to whether your old 500MHz machine or the one you describe above will
be better, I think it all depends on whether you can get better than
dialup. Obviously the 2.8 GHz machine will be better, even with the
overhead of XP, but in practice, it is going to be the dialup that
limits your use: I would say that, to a first approximation, the web
part of the internet is more or less unusable via dialup these days - a
sufficient proportion of web designers design assuming everyone has
broadband.

If you do have to stick with dialup, I'd say the 500MHz machine is
capable of supporting most of the internet that it's possible for you to
access. I'd get the last Firefox (I think it's 2.0.0.20) that runs on
'98 without Kernelex. Do you have a USB stick that works with your 98
machine? If not, get the universal USB driver - either NUSB or the
Italian solution (which seems better to me). With a good browser
(Firefox or one of the others - anything but IE), and USB that works,
_I_ think your 500MHz/W98 machine will be capable of doing all you need
while you're limited to dialup. Once you get a faster link, then the XP
machine will be more than sufficient (I'm typing this on a 1.6GHz XP
netbook) and the '98 machine won't, but if you buy something new, it'll
be able to - and quite possibly better at - doing all the internet you
could want _as well as_ the image manipulation you'd be buying it for.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you believe in telekinesis, raise my right hand

[Lostgallifreyan]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:GfFhKWaz...@soft255.demon.co.uk:

> either NUSB or the
> Italian solution (which seems better to me).

What is it? I want to check it out.

[Lostgallifreyan]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:GfFhKWaz...@soft255.demon.co.uk:

> With a good browser
> (Firefox or one of the others - anything but IE), and USB that works,
> _I_ think your 500MHz/W98 machine will be capable of doing all you need
> while you're limited to dialup. Once you get a faster link, then the XP
> machine will be more than sufficient

It is logical to think that, but I'd go with the faster machine for internet,
even on dialup, which can cause delays, timeouts, and older net software
might more likely seize up in that condition, and hose the OS session too. I
used to see this a lot when I had dial-up, and broadband made the 550 MHz AMD
machine I used then, seem faster and better, mainly because it didn't have
umpteen timers waiting for connections to complete every time I used a
browser. Optimising this stuff baked noodles to the point where many web
sites set up to handle the details for people. Lots of registry tweaks...
It's much easier to use WXP on a fast machine to get that kind of performance
without the tweaking. Even W98 will work better there, for same reason, speed
of both line, and machine, but WXP will give more choices with less effort,
for an internet-only machine.

(It's not just net access that suffers from slight restrictions on pipeline
speed, XviD playback does too. If the flow were smooth and perfectly
regulated, it would be find on a slow machine but it isn't smooth, if it
peaks, clpis, it broadens the spike of peak demand, slows more, causes
backlog, and eventually seizes. A good analogy is throwing a ball down a
pipe. If the pipe is big enough, it sails effortlessly out the other end, but
if it hits the side ONCE, it bounces ever more rapidly, repeatedly, quickly
losing speed and stalling. On a slow line, a fast machine is about as much
use as throwing that ball harder down a narrow pipe. It just stalls more
dramatically. :)

[Lostgallifreyan]

Lostgallifreyan <no-...@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:XnsA012CD5E61...@216.196.109.145:

> On a slow line, a fast machine is about as much
> use as throwing that ball harder down a narrow pipe. It just stalls more
> dramatically. :)
>

Which might contradict what I said about choosing the faster machine! But I
said that because it will run WXP and other newer net software, and more
likely have better flow regulation and connection handling in general.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <XnsA012A979D9...@216.196.109.145>,

Three ways to get USB (sticks, anyway - not sure about other devices)
working on '98.

1. The driver that comes with the stick (hardly ever now!), or from the
website of the manufacturer. Even assuming you can get hold of it, IME
it's pot luck as to whether it will actually work. I presume that, if it
does work, it's going to be quite good.

2. The universal USB driver, often called NUSB. There are several
iterations - probably go for the latest for a first try, but some people
have found earlier ones work better for them. The instructions for it
say to remove any other USB drivers you may have before installing it; I
don't know if it is always the case, but certainly when I tried it
_without_ uninstalling other drivers (I was reluctant to remove
something that was working!), it screwed things up right royally, and I
had to work quite hard to get it back to a working condition (IIRR - it
was some while ago - even ERU/ERD didn't restore things). On the other
hand, I've built a system from new using it (actually as part of the
"Windows 98 tenth anniversary edition"), and that worked like a dream:
it recognised any stick plugged into it, much as XP does.

Both of the above methods advise installing the software before
connecting the device. Method 3 does not: to quote what someone else
said ("glee" in the post I've found and am copying from): "It is not
installed beforehand like some other generic drivers; rather you point
to it when Windows first detects the inserted thumb drive, as you can
see from the pictures on the web pages, even if you cannot read
Italian."

3. "The Italian method" (or job if you like!), for obvious reason. You
get the file, and unzip it to anywhere, obviously I'd recommend an empty
folder, and then point the system to that folder _when you insert a
previously-unknown drive and it asks for a driver for it_. The site is
http://www.wintricks.it/faq/usbpen98.html - it's a series of linked
pages leading you through the process (though it's fairly obvious to
anyone with Windows driver loading experience), with each page having a
link near the bottom to the next one: the actual downlaod is at the end
of the sixth and last page (and is
http://www.wintricks.it/download/wtgenusb.zip, though I'd at least
glance through the pages if I were you).

I must say I haven't actually used it; I just liked the idea of only
installing a driver, when needed, rather than running an installer
beforehand, in the hope that it'll work, and not do lots of other
things. The files in the .zip are only .inf and so on, the sort of thing
that needs to be there as a driver - no .exe files.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If it's not on fire, it's a software problem.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <XnsA012CD5E61...@216.196.109.145>,
Lostgallifreyan <no-...@nowhere.net> writes:
[]

>(It's not just net access that suffers from slight restrictions on pipeline
>speed, XviD playback does too. If the flow were smooth and perfectly
>regulated, it would be find on a slow machine but it isn't smooth, if it
>peaks, clpis, it broadens the spike of peak demand, slows more, causes
>backlog, and eventually seizes. A good analogy is throwing a ball down a
>pipe. If the pipe is big enough, it sails effortlessly out the other end, but
>if it hits the side ONCE, it bounces ever more rapidly, repeatedly, quickly
>losing speed and stalling. On a slow line, a fast machine is about as much
>use as throwing that ball harder down a narrow pipe. It just stalls more
>dramatically. :)

Good analogy!

When I said "net access" I was being sloppy - I meant anything that
involves getting something over the internet, not just browser use. If
you're playing an XviD file from a remote source, even if via ftp,
streaming, or similar, I'd agree. (Ideally you'd need a way of telling
the player to buffer a large proportion of the file before it starts
playing, but many players don't have that option, or it isn't obvious
anyway. Or just download the whole file before starting, but that may
conceivably not always be possible.)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The main and the most glorious achievement of television is that it is killing
the art of conversation. If we think of the type of conversation television is
helping to kill, our gratitude must be undying. (George Mikes, "How to be
Inimitable" [1960].)

[98 Guy]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:

> Three ways to get USB working on '98.

If you have a motherboard based on the Intel 845 chipset (and possibly
other 8xx chips) then look here:

http://www.tacktech.com/news.cfm?subtype=tech&nid=280&meta=orangeware-intelreg-usb-2.0-enhanced-host-controller-driver

10.07.2002 - OrangeWare/Intel® USB 2.0 Enhanced Host Controller driver

Under the Driver File Details for the Intel USB 2.0 Enhanced Host
Controller on my win-98 system, I have 3 files listed:

- iusbehci.sys (USB 2.0 enhanced host controller driver, Orangeware)
- iusb2hub.sys (USB 2.0 hub driver, Orangeware Corp, version 1.1.0.2)

I generally find that I can plug in a new USB thumb drive without the
system complaining too much. It seems to always find what it's looking
for. I have a few Kingston Data Traveller drives, as well as some
"Super Talent" 8 and 16 gb thumb drives that just work when I plug
them in.

Here's a direct download link:

http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Detail_Desc.aspx?lang=eng&DwnldID=5498

[Bill in Co]

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> In message <XnsA012A979D9...@216.196.109.145>,
> Lostgallifreyan <no-...@nowhere.net> writes:
>> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:GfFhKWaz...@soft255.demon.co.uk:
>>
>>> either NUSB or the
>>> Italian solution (which seems better to me).
>>
>> What is it? I want to check it out.
>
> Three ways to get USB (sticks, anyway - not sure about other devices)
> working on '98.
>
> 1. The driver that comes with the stick (hardly ever now!), or from the
> website of the manufacturer. Even assuming you can get hold of it, IME
> it's pot luck as to whether it will actually work. I presume that, if it
> does work, it's going to be quite good.
>
> 2. The universal USB driver, often called NUSB. There are several
> iterations - probably go for the latest for a first try, but some people
> have found earlier ones work better for them. The instructions for it
> say to remove any other USB drivers you may have before installing it;

(at least for the newer, 3.x versions, although it may have been
"recommended" for the older versions too - see my comments below):

> I don't know if it is always the case, but certainly when I tried it
> _without_ uninstalling other drivers (I was reluctant to remove
> something that was working!), it screwed things up right royally, and I
> had to work quite hard to get it back to a working condition (IIRR - it
> was some while ago - even ERU/ERD didn't restore things). On the other
> hand, I've built a system from new using it (actually as part of the
> "Windows 98 tenth anniversary edition"), and that worked like a dream:
> it recognised any stick plugged into it, much as XP does.

In just checking over my notes, I seem to recall that if you stuck with the
older 2.x nusb versions (like nusb23e.exe), instead of the newer 3.x
versions, you just may be able to get away with NOT having to uninstall all
the USB drivers first. And that's what I did on my old Win98SE system - I
used the older nusb23e driver, and did NOT uninstall all the USB drivers
first (as is now strongly recommended, or perhaps even required, in the
later versions). And it worked fine for me! So, I'd recommend he first
make a backup image or clone of his system, and then try it with the older
version, and he just might save a lot of hassle, like I did. If it doesn't
work out in his case, he can always roll back the image.

> Both of the above methods advise installing the software before
> connecting the device. Method 3 does not: to quote what someone else
> said ("glee" in the post I've found and am copying from): "It is not
> installed beforehand like some other generic drivers; rather you point
> to it when Windows first detects the inserted thumb drive, as you can
> see from the pictures on the web pages, even if you cannot read
> Italian."

<snip>

[Lostgallifreyan]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in

news:1C89dMUX...@soft255.demon.co.uk:

> 3. "The Italian method" (or job if you like!)

I did but I could have done without that wretched song. >:)
I think NUSB wins there though. That's because it's not a 'driver' as such,
in the sense of one applied at specific need. It really is the core
subsystem, coherent and complete. It's got files from W2K and WME, usually
works natively but for Via machines needs USBHUB2.SYS from the Via driver
set. Apart from that it basically is true machine-independent support.
Installing beforehand for that isn't a disadvantage because it's logically
the same as expecting to install the OS before running programs. At first I
thought of this as a weakness, when it broke an existing OS, till I realised
that this was only because I'd already customised my OS before safe
recognition. But in any base install, NUSB ought to go in. Other methods
might be better for times when fast access is needed for some specific device
where other trused, specific drivers, aren't getting at it.

[Lostgallifreyan]

98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> wrote in news:4F5B9B60...@Guy.com:

> If you have a motherboard based on the Intel 845 chipset (and possibly
> other 8xx chips) then look here:
>
> http://www.tacktech.com/news.cfm?subtype=tech&nid=280&meta=orangeware-int
> elreg-usb-2.0-enhanced-host-controller-driver
>
> 10.07.2002 - OrangeWare/Intel® USB 2.0 Enhanced Host Controller driver
>
> Under the Driver File Details for the Intel USB 2.0 Enhanced Host
> Controller on my win-98 system, I have 3 files listed:
>
> - iusbehci.sys (USB 2.0 enhanced host controller driver, Orangeware)
> - iusb2hub.sys (USB 2.0 hub driver, Orangeware Corp, version 1.1.0.2)
>

That last one might alwo work renamed as USBHUB20.sys in NUSB, for wider
local support, when using that chipset. I don't know whether the other file
is needed in that transplant, but if so, the name stays unchanged apart from
omitting the 'i'. (NUSB might support that chipset natively for all I know,
but that's something to can try if it doesn't).

[Lostgallifreyan]

"Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in

news:D96dnR4m7NGmfsbS...@earthlink.com:

>> 2. The universal USB driver, often called NUSB. There are several
>> iterations - probably go for the latest for a first try, but some people
>> have found earlier ones work better for them. The instructions for it
>> say to remove any other USB drivers you may have before installing it;
>
> (at least for the newer, 3.x versions, although it may have been
> "recommended" for the older versions too - see my comments below):
>

I think it should always go in a clean install. Conflicts with other drivers
should always yield to core sysfiles (except where they are specifically
known not to work), which is basically what NUSB is. It's a hybrid of W2K and
WME core USB support, transplanted to W9X. Most of anything it could conflict
with is very specific proprietary support. The common exception is the
USBHUB20.SYS file, which may need replacing with mainboard-specific support
from a file (often with some variant name) supplied by the mainboard maker.
Whatever that file is, it should be named USBHUB20.SYS for NUSB to use.

[Lostgallifreyan]

My post just now applies to v3.3, so likely to most if not all other
versions.

[Lostgallifreyan]

"Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:D96dnR4m7NGmfsbS...@earthlink.com:

> In just checking over my notes, I seem to recall that if you stuck with
> the older 2.x nusb versions (like nusb23e.exe), instead of the newer 3.x
> versions, you just may be able to get away with NOT having to uninstall
> all the USB drivers first. And that's what I did on my old Win98SE
> system - I used the older nusb23e driver, and did NOT uninstall all the
> USB drivers first (as is now strongly recommended, or perhaps even
> required, in the later versions). And it worked fine for me!

It may be that NUSB later included a lot more INF file details for specific
devices. Core support alone should not bork so long as the new core is as
consistent as it should be, with the OS and what remains of the old. I think
the reason that newer NUSB changes so much, is to make sure that there is no
'old' to be inconsistent with. In which case, logically, any conflicts seem
to arise from specific INF details added by proprietary drivers added to the
OS later. So in either case, it is best to uninstall those first just to
reduce risk and annoyance. It's easier than auditing the OS's INF stash, and
that of NUSB also.

[Lostgallifreyan]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in

news:yiI8VxUF...@soft255.demon.co.uk:

> Good analogy!
>

Better than my last. :) I used to describe it as a car crashing no buffer
rails at the side of a road tunnel. It was clumsier..

> When I said "net access" I was being sloppy - I meant anything that
> involves getting something over the internet, not just browser use. If
> you're playing an XviD file from a remote source, even if via ftp,
> streaming, or similar, I'd agree. (Ideally you'd need a way of telling
> the player to buffer a large proportion of the file before it starts
> playing, but many players don't have that option, or it isn't obvious
> anyway. Or just download the whole file before starting, but that may
> conceivably not always be possible.)
>

I think this is what browser flash players do, loading, buffering before
playback. They're just lousy at it, especially on erratic lines. Some sites
specifically advise pausing to allow more download, then resuming playback.

(It may not help that in an effort to make a file small enough to stream
cheaply and efficiently, the CPU overhead needed to PLAY it on arrival is so
great that nothing is gained, for the end user anyway. Turing machines (all
computers we can afford) all do one instruction at a time, and every response
to incoming data arriving after a wait is time not spent on hungry playback
demands, and vice versa. So in practise streaming is nonsense. They might as
well provide direct downloads and standalone players! The 'experience' would
be better that way.

[Bill in Co]

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
> "Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:D96dnR4m7NGmfsbS...@earthlink.com:
>
>> In just checking over my notes, I seem to recall that if you stuck with
>> the older 2.x nusb versions (like nusb23e.exe), instead of the newer 3.x
>> versions, you just may be able to get away with NOT having to uninstall
>> all the USB drivers first. And that's what I did on my old Win98SE
>> system - I used the older nusb23e driver, and did NOT uninstall all the
>> USB drivers first (as is now strongly recommended, or perhaps even
>> required, in the later versions). And it worked fine for me!
>
> It may be that NUSB later included a lot more INF file details for
> specific
> devices.

But how would that allow for the older version to be stable w/o uninstalling
all the old usb drivers, but not the newer versions (3.x)?

BTW, I may be misremembering this, but I think when just the old 2.x nusb
version came out, that strong cautionary note wasn't there, but when 3.x
came out, it was there, or at least for the 3.x versions. Which is what
prompted me to install the old 2.x version at the time, and it worked great
(w/o going thru the hassle of uninstalling all existing USB stuff first, and
then trying to get it all reinstalled again, assuming I even knew where the
drivers were anymore)

> Core support alone should not bork so long as the new core is as
> consistent as it should be, with the OS and what remains of the old.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you comparing the core support in the 2.x to
the 3.x versions, and what is already installed, or what?.

[Lostgallifreyan]

"Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in

news:srSdndUzHaPZlcHS...@earthlink.com:

>> It may be that NUSB later included a lot more INF file details for
>> specific devices.
>
> But how would that allow for the older version to be stable w/o
> uninstalling all the old usb drivers, but not the newer versions (3.x)?
>

Lack of conflict. Can't conflict with what isn't there in one of the
instances.

[Lostgallifreyan]

"Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in

news:srSdndUzHaPZlcHS...@earthlink.com:

>> Core support alone should not bork so long as the new core is as
>> consistent as it should be, with the OS and what remains of the old.
>
> I'm not sure I follow. Are you comparing the core support in the 2.x to
> the 3.x versions, and what is already installed, or what?.
>

Both. USB is a subsystem. (My X98 work shows me that W98 is far more modular
than M$ wanted us to beleive). My main concern when first trying NUSB was
that it replaced so many files. It seemed unwise, over-dominating, until I
understood that it was an entire subsystem replacement. The roots of any
conflict is has aren't so likely the files, but the INF data contained for
lots of devices. There are two ways to handle that: either stay small and
specific, which is what singular device manufacurers try to do, or go big and
general, as NUSB had to do. Once NUSB had got to the point where it had to do
this, it became important to have as clean a starting base as possible.

[Bill in Co]

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
> "Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:srSdndUzHaPZlcHS...@earthlink.com:
>
>>> Core support alone should not bork so long as the new core is as
>>> consistent as it should be, with the OS and what remains of the old.
>>
>> I'm not sure I follow. Are you comparing the core support in the 2.x to
>> the 3.x versions, and what is already installed, or what?.
>>
>
> Both. USB is a subsystem. (My X98 work shows me that W98 is far more
> modular
> than M$ wanted us to beleive). My main concern when first trying NUSB was
> that it replaced so many files.

I wonder if the newer versions of nusb replace MORE files than the older
versions, and that's part of the problem here (unless you do a clean
install). More below.

> It seemed unwise, over-dominating, until I
> understood that it was an entire subsystem replacement. The roots of any
> conflict is has aren't so likely the files, but the INF data contained for
> lots of devices. There are two ways to handle that: either stay small and
> specific, which is what singular device manufacurers try to do, or go big
> and
> general, as NUSB had to do. Once NUSB had got to the point where it had to
> do this, it became important to have as clean a starting base as possible.

I guess that may be implying that the old versions of nusb won't or can't
handle as many devices as the new ones can, too. OR that the old versions
were so limited in what they added that there were no potential conflicts.
But I'm still not sure I'm getting it.

[Lostgallifreyan]

"Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in

news:5rWdnYufvaQ_j8HS...@earthlink.com:

> I wonder if the newer versions of nusb replace MORE files than the older
> versions, and that's part of the problem here (unless you do a clean
> install).

But that's exactly what I said it did. While I don't know enough exact file-
countage to prove it, it's clear that NUSB is aimed at reliable replacement
of the whole subsystem. It's safe to assume (human logic being what it is)
that originally it set out to do no more than it had to, then found it had to
do more.

Once they got to that point it would be easier to go for broke, all in, try
to do everything a USB subsystem should be doing. Ergo, more files, more
data.

[Lostgallifreyan]

"Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in

news:5rWdnYufvaQ_j8HS...@earthlink.com:

> I guess that may be implying that the old versions of nusb won't or can't
> handle as many devices as the new ones can, too. OR that the old versions
> were so limited in what they added that there were no potential conflicts.
> But I'm still not sure I'm getting it.
>

I think you are, now. The earlier more limited forms may well not have been
full enough to satisfy many needs. (Safe assumption, or why else develop
further?)

When any maker has to write an INF file, they have to do as little as
possible, and assume that the context they're going into is complete and
correct enough to support what they add. For NUSB that meant a conflict of
interest, because it is a small generic driver support, in which case the
usual maker's logic applies, or is it a whole new subsystem? In earlier
versions they likely tried to stay with guidance a maker normally uses, but
eventually they got to the point where if your OS is well-established and
customised, it may be better to rip out all the INF files before adding NUSB.
:) That would cause bother in non-USB stuff, especially stuff in Machine.inf
and other core data sets. So they started advising th only thing they COULD
advise: uninstall all USB hardware, and any pre-existing NUSB too.

Like slipstreaming OS service packs to customised installs, NUSB is a thing
best added cleanly at install time.

[Lostgallifreyan]

Lostgallifreyan <no-...@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:XnsA0131E769D7...@216.196.109.145:

> conflict of
> interest, because it is a small generic driver support

Vital corrction... 'it is' should be 'is it', as in rhetorical question...