On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:56:46 -0600, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 01:23:45 -0600, 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.

There are a few problems with older software / hardware, but for
Windows applications 2K is much better.

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.


Not True. ME has DOS (v8.0) just like 98 (v7.1) does. MS has just made
some attempt to hide it, but it's there. ME won't let you boot from HD
without starting the GUI, but does let you create a bootable DOS disk.

I may have to eventually dual boot to 98 and XP or something,

XP and 2K are very similar, it's just that XP adds a lot of crap and
unfeatures.

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.....

So you are saying that I could not boot to dos, and type WIN to start
ME, 2K, or XP ?
Just curious. It seems to me that when I once played with WinME I
could do it, but I never tried with XP or 2K. It was so long ago that
I played with winME that I cant remember.

I ALWAYS boot to dos. Much of the time I just load dos to access my
dos based phone address database. Anything I hate is having to wait
for Windows to load just to access a phone number. Dos will boot in
seconds. I often load my phone list, get a phone number, and shut the
computer off right after. When I want to load windows, it's easy
enough to type WIN and hit the enter key. I do not leave my computer
turned on to save electricity and wear and tear on the computer.

I'd be curious if it is possible in XP, 2K or ME to boot to dos before
loading windows?

On Nov 10, 1:38 am, wrote:
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:56:46 -0600, Mark Lloyd





wrote:
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 01:23:45 -0600, 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.

There are a few problems with older software / hardware, but for
Windows applications 2K is much better.

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.

Not True. ME has DOS (v8.0) just like 98 (v7.1) does. MS has just made
some attempt to hide it, but it's there. ME won't let you boot from HD
without starting the GUI, but does let you create a bootable DOS disk.

I may have to eventually dual boot to 98 and XP or something,

XP and 2K are very similar, it's just that XP adds a lot of crap and
unfeatures.

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.....

So you are saying that I could not boot to dos, and type WIN to start
ME, 2K, or XP ?

That is correct. DOS runs under windows from ME on. You probably
could use some boot manager to offer the choice of which OS to boot on
startup. I've seen that done for various OS choices, but never looked
to see if there is one that offers DOS as a choice.



Just curious. It seems to me that when I once played with WinME I
could do it, but I never tried with XP or 2K. It was so long ago that
I played with winME that I cant remember.

I think your recollection is wrong.



I ALWAYS boot to dos. Much of the time I just load dos to access my
dos based phone address database. Anything I hate is having to wait
for Windows to load just to access a phone number. Dos will boot in
seconds. I often load my phone list, get a phone number, and shut the
computer off right after. When I want to load windows, it's easy
enough to type WIN and hit the enter key. I do not leave my computer
turned on to save electricity and wear and tear on the computer.

It's questionable if this reduces or actually increases the wear and
tear on the computer. There are those that believe the power up/down
cycle is worse for the computer than leaving it on. The issues are
the thermal shock to the components, as well as the startup wear on
the disk drive being more than leaving it on for some reasonable
period. With present computers using LCD displays, offering various
power saving settings, (another thing lacking from Win98 and DOS),
etc, I leave mine on most of the time. I think if you're using it
occasionally during say the day, to turn if on and off each time
doesn't make much sense.




I'd be curious if it is possible in XP, 2K or ME to boot to dos before
loading windows?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


No, but maybe with one of the multiple boot managers.

On Nov 10, 1:27 am, wrote:
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 06:35:55 -0800, wrote:
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.

I am using the same installation of Win98 that goes back to 98. I
have changed computers, cloned it to other hard drives, and done other
changes. It would take me months to rebuild everything.


I've upgraded many times over the years. From Win98, to ME, to XP,
etc. It never took me months to do any one of them, nor was
"rebuilding everything" required. The install manager does it all
for you and it took maybe a couple hours, including creating a backup
for safety. The upgrades also had there on backup, that allowed you
to return if the install was not successful. Even today, you can go
from Win98 to XP using the upgrade, without rebuilding/reinstalling
everything.



Everyone I know that uses XP seems to have to reinstall it every year
or two. It gets flakey after awhile.

I've had it running on this machine for 6 years without reinstalling
it. I did have to reinstall it recently, but that was due to a
virus. Which brings up another problem with Win98. It's not
supported now by Norton, McAfee, etc., they only support XP and up.
There is probably someone still offering Anti-Virus support, but maybe
not for much longer.

Also, you can not transfer a
hard drive with XP from one computer to another. I tried it, it
failed miserably.

You certainly can move drives from one system to another. If you mean
you can't move the boot drive from one computer to another, that's
true, because XP is tied to the system it is installed on to prevent
copying. But for 99.9% of users, that isn't an issue. I don't
know anyone that moves their boot drive around.



I know 98 like the back of my hand, and I keep the installation clean
of unwanted and old software that is removed, both the files and the
registry entries.

Yes, and Al Bundy's old 60's Dodge was easier to maintain than a new
BMW, but it doesn't make the Dodge a better car.




I actually could run XP on this computer. I have it installed on
another hard drive. All I have to do is swap drives. I gave it a
shot, and everytime I actually tried to make use of it, I hated it.
It was slow on this 1000mhz PIII too, but it did run.

XP is running just fine and with comfortable speed here on the 1Ghz
system I'm typing on right now. How much memory did you have on the
system you tried XP on? That is a big factor in performance.


Thats where I
learned that it cant be transferred to another computer because I also
have a 700mhz PIII and since I did not plan ot use it often, I moved
the hard drive to that computer and it failed. Yeah, I could have
reinstalled, but why bother when I dont like it.

I do agree that 98 can crash at times, and take down the whole thing.
But it rarely happens to me. I use many more than one app at a time.
Right now I have Agent, Firefox, IE, Eudora, and Paint shop pro
loaded. I'd rather deal with an occasional crash than to have to
rebuild my whole setup every year or two.

Rebuilding every year or two being attibuted to the OS is a myth. If
you looked into what causes a system to need to be rebuilt, I would
say the top factors a

1- Viruses or similar malware, most often due to not have anit-virus
installed
2 - Installing lots of new software, add on tools, etc.

If you take any system like yours, get it running stable, and then
never add anything to it, either intentionally or not, of course its
going to be far more reliable than a system where you have the kids
downloading and running God knows what from the internet, adding more
and more apps, games, tools, etc. But most people are using
computers more in the second mode, than in the first relatively closed
system mode that you are in. So, if you hear reports of having to
reinstall everything, you're not making a valid comparison.

And reinstalling has gotten easier. PCs for a few years now have had
a backup image of the whole factory install on a seperate hard drive
partition. To get it back to as shipped is a one step deal. Of
course you still have to add back other apps, but it is a big help.



I have not tried Vista, and really dont care to.

I would not recommend putting it on a 1Ghz system either.




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.

Yep, I am aware of that. Right now they are selling them on ebay for
$100 and more. If they do drop to $30 and the coupons are $40 I guess
they would be free, but I have a feeling they will stay around $80 or
more, which means we will have to dish out $40 or more. I think the
govt. should give them for free. After all, they are the ones that
created this mess.

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?

Thats a whole different matter. It's an antique and costs just like
restoring an old car. But I dont have to do it all at once. Actually
I think most tubes will be fine. They dont degrade from sitting.
I'll likely have to replace some of the paper caps., clean the
potentiometers and tuner, and I know the last time I tried it, there
was a high voltage leak. I hope I only need some corona dope, and of
course dust removal from the whole thing. Some tubes are actually
being remanufactured, and there are several sellers online that sell
the old ones. I still have a tube tester which I bought second hand
around 40 years ago. I used to work a lot on the old tube stuff when
I was young. It's actually much easier to work on than the modern
stuff, just a little more dangerous if you screw up and touch the
wrong thing. Of course I learned the hard way when I was younger what
NOT to touch.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -