On Nov 9, 2:23 am, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:07:51 -0600, Mark Lloyd

wrote:
Strange, considering that I found w2k more reliable than any other
version.

Maybe it is. I quit using it mainly because I still like to access
DOS. Not only do I still use some dos apps., but I like to be able to
tinker with windows from the C: prompt when it gets screwed up. I
rarely have problems with 98, except for IE locking up fairly often,
which means I just use Firefox more now. The only other drawback with
98 is the need to install drivers for USB devices. I have considered
switching to WinME because of that, but I understand ME lacks dos too.

I may have to eventually dual boot to 98 and XP or something, but that
seems like a big hassle to me. All I really do with the computer is
internet, word processing and some photoshop stuff. None of this
really needs anything above 98 or more power. I cant play most of the
videos that are so popular these days on the net, but being on dialup
they are too slow anyhow, and who really needs them.....


When you make the claim that you are still using Win98 because it's
less trouble than any newer OS, it makes me wonder how out of touch
with reality you really are. You could practically crash Win98 just
by looking at it. There was no use of memory protection to isolate
one task from another, so when one app blew up, the whole system
crashed. XP and Vista are an order of magnitude more reliable,
easier to install new hardware/software, user friendly, and support
apps that Win98 never could. If you only use one app and it still
runs fine on your Win98, that's OK, but it doesn't make Win98 the
superior OS. I can't imagine using Win98 on a PC today that's
connected to the internet and being used for even a part of what most
home PCs are used for today.

Regarding your restoration project, the govt will be giving out two
$40 coupons for converters to any household that receives ONLY via
antenna, ie they do not have cable, sat, etc. That should drop the
net cost to less that $30 bucks or so for a converter. Yeah, it
ain't free, but it seems it's not such a bad compromise either.

BTW, you said you'd only spend $100 for a TV. How much do you think
it's going to cost to restore that 50's TV? I'm no expert in this
area, but I would think that components beyond the simple stuff like
capacitors, could cost quite a bit. Like what do people do for tubes
these days?