I got a message the other day that the version of AVG I was using was
doing it's last update.  They wanted me to download the newer version.
  If I understand correctly the newer version won't work with Windows
98.  Has anyone else found a good free anti-virus that will update and
work on Windows 98?
Sincerely,
Harold Epps

HI, Yes, I checked all the floppies and they are all unlocked.  Just
got the xp back from the shop and will check the delete stuff when I
get caught up.

GH


--- In windows-98@yahoogroups.com, dyajenese IC <dyajenese@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Gordon:
>
> I am answering this from a not too reliable memory, but here's my
best shot:
>
> Second part of your question, first:  Yes. go to the floppy entry
in Windows Explorer (Winkey + E).  RIGHT click on file(s) or folder
(s) you want to delete from floppy. In drop down menu, click DELETE.
This will delete individual entries. 
>
> Of course, if you want to clear whole floppy, click on FORMAT.
>
> Back to first part:  First you have to assure me you have the Write
Protect slider in the OFF position.  Your problem sounds an awful lot
like the Write Protect is set.
>
> IC
>
> --- On Tue, 11/4/08, Gordon <cchoward@...> wrote:
> From: Gordon <cchoward@...>
> Subject: [Win98] Re: Computer thinks empty floppies are full.
> To: windows-98@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 4:30 PM
>

>             Hello IC
>
>
>
> Thanks for the response.  I need to make floppy copies of files in
my
>
> 98SE computer to transfer them to another computer.  The 98 says
that
>
> the floppies are full, my XP cannot find any files on them which is
>
> what I would expect are they are unused disks.
>
>
>
> Another question is: is there any way to erase floppies w/o
>
> overwriting them?
>
>
>
> GH

Hello Gordon:

I am answering this from a not too reliable memory, but here's my best shot:

Second part of your question, first:  Yes. go to the floppy entry in Windows
Explorer (Winkey + E).  RIGHT click on file(s) or folder(s) you want to delete
from floppy. In drop down menu, click DELETE. This will delete individual
entries. 

Of course, if you want to clear whole floppy, click on FORMAT.

Back to first part:  First you have to assure me you have the Write Protect
slider in the OFF position.  Your problem sounds an awful lot like the Write
Protect is set.

IC

--- On Tue, 11/4/08, Gordon <cchoward@...> wrote:
From: Gordon <cchoward@...>
Subject: [Win98] Re: Computer thinks empty floppies are full.
To: windows-98@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 4:30 PM











             Hello IC



Thanks for the response.  I need to make floppy copies of files in my

98SE computer to transfer them to another computer.  The 98 says that

the floppies are full, my XP cannot find any files on them which is

what I would expect are they are unused disks.



Another question is: is there any way to erase floppies w/o

overwriting them?



GH



--- In windows-98@yahoogro ups.com, dyajenese IC <dyajenese@. ..> wrote:

>

> Hi:  I did not get the original question so I am sort shooting in

the dark.

> But goimng back to when floppies were "in", there was one little

gotcha that would trap a few users. 

>

> Floppies used a different file system that had a limit of about 263

entries in the top directory.  So, if you had a floppy with over 263

(top) files or directories, you could not load any more

files/directories even tho there was physical space for them.  You

had to move some of the individual files into directories as

subelements so the top directory/files never saw more than the limit.

>

> Also, this is trivial, but are you sure your write protect slider

is in the OFF position?

>

> IC

>

> --- On Sat, 10/25/08, scuzz at car <scuzz@...> wrote:

> From: scuzz at car <scuzz@...>

> Subject: Re: [Win98] Computer thinks empty floppies are full.

> To: windows-98@yahoogro ups.com

> Date: Saturday, October 25, 2008, 3:02 AM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>             Hi

>

>

>

> Have you checked the formatted capacity.

>

>

>

> scuzz

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>





























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

You have not commented on my earlier suggestion:  Are you SURE the write protect
tab is in the proper position?   I have a strong suspicion this is really the
problem.

IC

--- On Tue, 11/4/08, frederick Opdycke <f_opdycke@...> wrote:
From: frederick Opdycke <f_opdycke@...>
Subject: RE: [Win98] Re: Computer thinks empty floppies are full.
To: windows-98@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 7:33 PM











             Try formatting each one



-----Original Message-----

From: windows-98@yahoogro ups.com [mailto:windows-98@yahoogro ups.com] On

Behalf Of Gordon

Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 5:31 PM

To: windows-98@yahoogro ups.com

Subject: [Win98] Re: Computer thinks empty floppies are full.



Hello IC



Thanks for the response. I need to make floppy copies of files in my

98SE computer to transfer them to another computer. The 98 says that

the floppies are full, my XP cannot find any files on them which is

what I would expect are they are unused disks.



Another question is: is there any way to erase floppies w/o

overwriting them?



GH



--- In windows-98@yahoogro <mailto:windows- 98%40yahoogroups .com> ups.com,

dyajenese IC <dyajenese@. ..> wrote:

>

> Hi:  I did not get the original question so I am sort shooting in

the dark.

> But goimng back to when floppies were "in", there was one little

gotcha that would trap a few users.

>

> Floppies used a different file system that had a limit of about 263

entries in the top directory.  So, if you had a floppy with over 263

(top) files or directories, you could not load any more

files/directories even tho there was physical space for them.  You

had to move some of the individual files into directories as

subelements so the top directory/files never saw more than the limit.

>

> Also, this is trivial, but are you sure your write protect slider

is in the OFF position?

>

> IC

>

> --- On Sat, 10/25/08, scuzz at car <scuzz@...> wrote:

> From: scuzz at car <scuzz@...>

> Subject: Re: [Win98] Computer thinks empty floppies are full.

> To: windows-98@yahoogro <mailto:windows- 98%40yahoogroups .com> ups.com

> Date: Saturday, October 25, 2008, 3:02 AM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Hi

>

>

>

> Have you checked the formatted capacity.

>

>

>

> scuzz

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Try formatting each one



-----Original Message-----
From: windows-98@yahoogroups.com [mailto:windows-98@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Gordon
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 5:31 PM
To: windows-98@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Win98] Re: Computer thinks empty floppies are full.



Hello IC

Thanks for the response. I need to make floppy copies of files in my
98SE computer to transfer them to another computer. The 98 says that
the floppies are full, my XP cannot find any files on them which is
what I would expect are they are unused disks.

Another question is: is there any way to erase floppies w/o
overwriting them?

GH

--- In windows-98@yahoogro <mailto:windows-98%40yahoogroups.com> ups.com,
dyajenese IC <dyajenese@...> wrote:
>
> Hi:  I did not get the original question so I am sort shooting in
the dark.
> But goimng back to when floppies were "in", there was one little
gotcha that would trap a few users.
>
> Floppies used a different file system that had a limit of about 263
entries in the top directory.  So, if you had a floppy with over 263
(top) files or directories, you could not load any more
files/directories even tho there was physical space for them.  You
had to move some of the individual files into directories as
subelements so the top directory/files never saw more than the limit.
>
> Also, this is trivial, but are you sure your write protect slider
is in the OFF position?
>
> IC
>
> --- On Sat, 10/25/08, scuzz at car <scuzz@...> wrote:
> From: scuzz at car <scuzz@...>
> Subject: Re: [Win98] Computer thinks empty floppies are full.
> To: windows-98@yahoogro <mailto:windows-98%40yahoogroups.com> ups.com
> Date: Saturday, October 25, 2008, 3:02 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> Have you checked the formatted capacity.
>
>
>
> scuzz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello IC

Thanks for the response.  I need to make floppy copies of files in my
98SE computer to transfer them to another computer.  The 98 says that
the floppies are full, my XP cannot find any files on them which is
what I would expect are they are unused disks.

Another question is: is there any way to erase floppies w/o
overwriting them?

GH


--- In windows-98@yahoogroups.com, dyajenese IC <dyajenese@...> wrote:
>
> Hi:  I did not get the original question so I am sort shooting in
the dark.
> But goimng back to when floppies were "in", there was one little
gotcha that would trap a few users. 
>
> Floppies used a different file system that had a limit of about 263
entries in the top directory.  So, if you had a floppy with over 263
(top) files or directories, you could not load any more
files/directories even tho there was physical space for them.  You
had to move some of the individual files into directories as
subelements so the top directory/files never saw more than the limit.
>
> Also, this is trivial, but are you sure your write protect slider
is in the OFF position?
>
> IC
>
> --- On Sat, 10/25/08, scuzz at car <scuzz@...> wrote:
> From: scuzz at car <scuzz@...>
> Subject: Re: [Win98] Computer thinks empty floppies are full.
> To: windows-98@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, October 25, 2008, 3:02 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>             Hi
>
>
>
> Have you checked the formatted capacity.
>
>
>
> scuzz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Hi:  I did not get the original question so I am sort shooting in the dark.
But goimng back to when floppies were "in", there was one little gotcha that
would trap a few users. 

Floppies used a different file system that had a limit of about 263 entries in
the top directory.  So, if you had a floppy with over 263 (top) files or
directories, you could not load any more files/directories even tho there was
physical space for them.  You had to move some of the individual files into
directories as subelements so the top directory/files never saw more than the
limit.

Also, this is trivial, but are you sure your write protect slider is in the OFF
position?

IC

--- On Sat, 10/25/08, scuzz at car <scuzz@...> wrote:
From: scuzz at car <scuzz@...>
Subject: Re: [Win98] Computer thinks empty floppies are full.
To: windows-98@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, October 25, 2008, 3:02 AM











             Hi



Have you checked the formatted capacity.



scuzz



























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Scuzz, the box says 1.44MB for IBM compatable which is all I know
about it other than my XP computer says the disks are empty and they do
work on that computer.

GH


--- In windows-98@yahoogroups.com, "scuzz at car" <scuzz@...> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Have you checked the formatted capacity.
>
> scuzz
>

Hi

Have you checked the formatted capacity.

scuzz

Anyone know how to correct this problem?  My other computer cannot find
any files or folders on these disks.  Have 98SE.

Gordon Howard

I installed an Adaptec AIC-7850 SCSI controller card and an old IBM SCSI
10 gig hard drive into an older machine with an ASUS MB. I also hooked
up a SCSI Zip drive to the card. The machine boots fine, and I can see
the Zip drive, but I can't see the hard drive. When I run Belarc
Adviser, it tells me that the drive is there, but doesn't provide any
other information. I am wondering if I need to run some other drivers or
something to "wake up" the hard drive, or maybe the drive is bad (it was
   a "take-out" that was given to me "condition: unknown").

I suppose, if all else fails, I can try installing it into another
machine running XP, but I don't see how that would make a difference.

Any thoughts?

Mike

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the windows-98
group.

   File        : /Selective Startup System Configuration Utility
   Uploaded by : rumjal <Rumjal@...>
   Description : Type MSConfig into Run box

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/windows-98/files/Selective%20Startup%20System%20Co\
nfiguration%20Utility

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.htmlfiles

Regards,

rumjal <Rumjal@...>

I found this in a rarely used file and thought that it might help
someone else using an Win98 or WinME computer.  Not sure if any of
this is still anywhere on the web, but it is good advice and Selective
Startup for Troubleshooting does save computer power.  Regards, Rumjal

QUOTE from files:
I am running Windows Me on an HP Pavillion 6830 with Firefox.
Not sure how this trick works for other operating systems, altho
WindowsME is just suppposed to be a new version of Windows98 SE.

Two years ago when I last reloaded and reformatted my computer, I was
told by HP telephone support to:

Type MSConfig into the (Start) Run box to bring up the System
Configuration Utility. Click Selective Startup.
I have checked the five boxes under Selective Startup.

Then to click the Startup Tab. Then to turn off programs that run
when the computer starts.

When my computer started to have General Faults etc, I called up this
System Configuration Utility again and began turning off programs
that run at start up.

But I that was two years ago when a technician went through the list
with me. I do not remember what programs he said that I had to run
at startup and I have downloaded a lot of new programs anyway.

Can anyone tell me what programs I MUST run at Startup?

I unchecked a bunch of boxes and now I am no longer having any
problems with the computer; no page faults etc, so I will NOT have to
reload & reformat. Under the Startup Tab, I still have the following
boxes checked:

Scan Registry
PCHealth
System Tray
Intellitype
CCApp
SchedulingAgent
StateMgr
NPFMonitor
SSDPSVR
StillImageMonitor
ccEvtMgr
ScriptBlocking

In Windows 98, Me, and XP:

Click on start and then run type "MSconfig" in the box without the ""
and click OK
Go to the tab at the top that says Startup, you will see alot of
checkboxes. Now just take out what you don't need. This will not
remove programs from your computer it just keeps them from running at
startup.
Then click Apply then Ok, then on the popup box click Yes to restart
your computer.

What Checks should I leave in?

In Windows 98 leave checks in the boxes that says:
ScanRegistry
TaskMonitor
SystemTray
LoadPowerProfile (there may be more than one)
SchedulingAgent
And any Antivirus, Firewall, or High speed internet programs.

In Windows Me leave checks in the boxes that says:

ScanRegistry
TaskMonitor
SystemTray
LoadPowerProfile (there may be more than one)
SchedulingAgent
Pchealth
*StateMgr
And any Antivirus, Firewall, or High speed internet programs.
http://www.techtips4u.com/kb/sw/SW00013.htm

After I sent this, I was wondering if drivers for a parallel port CD-ROM
drive would work. I think I might have them around.

Mike

Mike Sloane wrote:
>
>
> I was rooting around through my "inventory" the other day and came
> across a stand-alone Gateway 2000 Solo 1.4 mb floppy drive with a
> parallel port connector. I assume that it was originally used with a
> Gateway 2000 laptop (which I never owned). Doing a "google" search for
> the drivers yielded nothing, and Gateway 2K support website had nothing
> either. (I did find drivers for a USB version, but my gut tells me that
> they won't work.) Doing an "add hardware" exercise didn't work either.
>
> Does anybody know anything about this thing? I have a few old machines
> that either don't have a floppy drive or has one that is flaky. So
> having an outboard drive might be useful. I hate to just toss it into
> the landfill.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1678 - Release Date: 9/18/2008
9:01 AM

I was rooting around through my "inventory" the other day and came
across a stand-alone Gateway 2000 Solo 1.4 mb floppy drive with a
parallel port connector. I assume that it was originally used with a
Gateway 2000 laptop (which I never owned). Doing a "google" search for
the drivers yielded nothing, and Gateway 2K support website had nothing
either. (I did find drivers for a USB version, but my gut tells me that
they won't work.) Doing an "add hardware" exercise didn't work either.


Does anybody know anything about this thing? I have a few old machines
that either don't have a floppy drive or has one that is flaky. So
having an outboard drive might be useful. I hate to just toss it into
the landfill.

Thanks,

Mike

Thanks for putting up with my diatribe.

c-post

Peter wrote:
>
> Dear C-Post: Thank you so much for your advice.
> I was worried about Firefox and Netscape becoming corrupted and
> unusable as Internet Explorer did. But if you have been using
> Netscape for years, then that cannot be a problem. Many thanks!
> --- In windows-98@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:windows-98%40yahoogroups.com>, c-post <C-POST@...> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Peter ~
> >
> > As long as you don't upgrade your operating system, why be in a panic?
> > I've been using Netscape for years, even though it is no longer
> > supported. Seamonkey the same way. Upgrades invite incompatibility and
> > usually introduce more problems than they solve. After my initial break
> > in period and a certain number of software installations, the only time
> > I need to upgrade software is when I get a whole new system.
> >
> > I don't mean to bend your ear, and you can disregard my annoying
> > remarks, yet this is my personal view:
> >
> > Software upgrades were built into the culture of computers by the
> makers
> > of computers as an economic measure to keep software engineers
> employed.
> > It makes sense. To get a team of geniuses together to build
> > award-winning software is no easy task. So once the software has been
> > created and it works well, the only way the team can stay together
> > (read: survive) and keep producing income for themselves is by offering
> > upgrades with more features.
> >
> > Yet there is a point of diminishing return. For one thing, when you
> keep
> > piling code on top of code, the opportunity for error and glitches in
> > the program increase. Additionally, new software and hardware versions
> > often throw out many old, familiar, and highly useful features. When we
> > "upgrade" from one software to another, too often we LOSE more than we
> > gain...we've seen it happen time and time again!!!! That means throwing
> > knowledge and hard-earned skills in the trash can. The
> > psychopathological computer marketing, the mindless stampede to the
> > what's coming up NEXT, has got to stop!!! This has now become a
> > psychological problem, not a technical one.
> >
> > To put is harshly, software engineers feed on obsolescence in much the
> > same way that vampires feed on blood. The obsolescence is artificial,
> > involuntary, and out of control. The "obsolescence" may be driven by
> the
> > profit motive, or by the simple desire to earn a decent or even an
> > unscrupulous living, but it is a story of when great is never good
> enough.
> >
> > There is built into the entire culture of computers an
> > obsessive-compulsive surrender to the primacy of numbers. The numbers
> > are not so much technically important as they are marketing tools
> > designed to take your money.
> >
> > The most unfortunate consequence of all this is that the technical
> > aspects of staying on the software treadmill have consumed so much of
> > our time, that the content and substance of what we produce have
> taken a
> > severe hit.
> >
> > IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT!!!
> >
> > my 2 cents...
> >
> > c-post
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear C-Post: Thank you so much for your advice.
I was worried about Firefox and Netscape becoming corrupted and
unusable as Internet Explorer did.  But if you have been using
Netscape for years, then that cannot be a problem.  Many thanks!
--- In windows-98@yahoogroups.com, c-post <C-POST@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Peter ~
>
> As long as you don't upgrade your operating system, why be in a panic?
> I've been using Netscape for years, even though it is no longer
> supported. Seamonkey the same way. Upgrades invite incompatibility and
> usually introduce more problems than they solve. After my initial break
> in period and a certain number of software installations, the only time
> I need to upgrade software is when I get a whole new system.
>
> I don't mean to bend your ear, and you can disregard my annoying
> remarks, yet this is my personal view:
>
> Software upgrades were built into the culture of computers by the
makers
> of computers as an economic measure to keep software engineers
employed.
> It makes sense. To get a team of geniuses together to build
> award-winning software is no easy task. So once the software has been
> created and it works well, the only way the team can stay together
> (read: survive) and keep producing income for themselves is by offering
> upgrades with more features.
>
> Yet there is a point of diminishing return. For one thing, when you
keep
> piling code on top of code, the opportunity for error and glitches in
> the program increase. Additionally, new software and hardware versions
> often throw out many old, familiar, and highly useful features. When we
> "upgrade" from one software to another, too often we LOSE more than we
> gain...we've seen it happen time and time again!!!! That means throwing
> knowledge and hard-earned skills in the trash can. The
> psychopathological computer marketing, the mindless stampede to the
> what's coming up NEXT, has got to stop!!! This has now become a
> psychological problem, not a technical one.
>
> To put is harshly, software engineers feed on obsolescence in much the
> same way that vampires feed on blood. The obsolescence is artificial,
> involuntary, and out of control. The "obsolescence" may be driven by
the
> profit motive, or by the simple desire to earn a decent or even an
> unscrupulous living, but it is a story of when great is never good
enough.
>
> There is built into the entire culture of computers an
> obsessive-compulsive surrender to the primacy of numbers. The numbers
> are not so much technically important as they are marketing tools
> designed to take your money.
>
> The most unfortunate consequence of all this is that the technical
> aspects of staying on the software treadmill have consumed so much of
> our time, that the content and substance of what we produce have
taken a
> severe hit.
>
> IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT!!!
>
> my 2 cents...
>
> c-post

Dear Peter ~

As long as you don't upgrade your operating system, why be in a panic?
I've been using Netscape for years, even though it is no longer
supported. Seamonkey the same way. Upgrades invite incompatibility and
usually introduce more problems than they solve. After my initial break
in period and a certain number of software installations, the only time
I need to upgrade software is when I get a whole new system.

I don't mean to bend your ear, and you can disregard my annoying
remarks, yet this is my personal view:

Software upgrades were built into the culture of computers by the makers
of computers as an economic measure to keep software engineers employed.
It makes sense. To get a team of geniuses together to build
award-winning software is no easy task. So once the software has been
created and it works well, the only way the team can stay together
(read: survive) and keep producing income for themselves is by offering
upgrades with more features.

Yet there is a point of diminishing return. For one thing, when you keep
piling code on top of code, the opportunity for error and glitches in
the program increase. Additionally, new software and hardware versions
often throw out many old, familiar, and highly useful features. When we
"upgrade" from one software to another, too often we LOSE more than we
gain...we've seen it happen time and time again!!!! That means throwing
knowledge and hard-earned skills in the trash can. The
psychopathological computer marketing, the mindless stampede to the
what's coming up NEXT, has got to stop!!! This has now become a
psychological problem, not a technical one.

To put is harshly, software engineers feed on obsolescence in much the
same way that vampires feed on blood. The obsolescence is artificial,
involuntary, and out of control. The "obsolescence" may be driven by the
profit motive, or by the simple desire to earn a decent or even an
unscrupulous living, but it is a story of when great is never good enough.

There is built into the entire culture of computers an
obsessive-compulsive surrender to the primacy of numbers. The numbers
are not so much technically important as they are marketing tools
designed to take your money.

The most unfortunate consequence of all this is that the technical
aspects of staying on the software treadmill have consumed so much of
our time, that the content and substance of what we produce have taken a
severe hit.

IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT!!!

my 2 cents...

c-post


Peter wrote:
>
> Without upgrades, I expect that the older version of firefox will be a
> target and will become corrupt and unusuable. It is just a matter of
> time before it no longer works.
> --- In windows-98@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:windows-98%40yahoogroups.com>, c-post <C-POST@...> wrote:
> >
> > What's wrong with your older version of Firefox? Just keep using it. I
> > don't believe in knee-jerk software obsolescence.
> >
> > c-post
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Without upgrades, I expect that the older version of firefox will be a
target and will become corrupt and unusuable.  It is just a matter of
time before it no longer works.
--- In windows-98@yahoogroups.com, c-post <C-POST@...> wrote:
>
> What's wrong with your older version of Firefox? Just keep using it. I
> don't believe in knee-jerk software obsolescence.
>
> c-post

I have never heard of Seamonkey.  How do you like it?  Where do you
get it?

I downloaded Netscape just in case my Firefox became corrupted
suddenly due to lack of upgrades, the way MS IE suddenly did within a
week of MS announcing that they would no longer maintain it.  Not even
virus scans and spyware scans can clear IE.  But Opera sounds better.
--- In windows-98@yahoogroups.com, c-post <C-POST@...> wrote:
>
> I'm using Seamonkey and Netscape, but Sloane is right, I've heard good
> things about Opera.
>
> -c-post

Thank you, Mike.  Opera will work in my WinME.  I used to have opera
but gave if up for Firefox.  As long as Opera is not upgrading and
putting their browser out of reach, like first MS IE and now Firefox
(damn their developers to hell!), then Opera is the browswer that I
want, I guess.
--- In windows-98@yahoogroups.com, Mike Sloane <mikesloane@...> wrote:
>
> I was given a couple of old towers and ended up rebuilding them from
> scratch with Win98SE (they had Ubuntu Linux, which is an OK system but
> not what I needed at the moment). I ended up installing Opera
> <www.opera.com> on them, and it seems to be working very nicely. I long
> ago gave up on MS IE and only used it long enough to bring down Opera
> and get it running (I installed IE 6.0 using a freebie CD for an ISP
> that came in the mail many years ago). I cannot promise that Opera will
> work on Milleneum, but it works very nicely on Win98.
>
> Mike

What's wrong with your older version of Firefox? Just keep using it. I
don't believe in knee-jerk software obsolescence.

c-post

c-post wrote:
>
> I'm using Seamonkey and Netscape, but Sloane is right, I've heard good
> things about Opera.
>
> -c-post
>
> Peter wrote:
> >
> > Request for Browser Advice
> >
> > I am running Windows Millenium on an old HP Pavilion (which I
> > understand is close to Win98).
> >
> > My Internet Explorer ceased to work about when Microsoft stopped
> > maintaining it. Hence, I have been using Firefox ever since.
> >
> > But I have learned that I cannot now upgrade to Firefox 3. Hence, I
> > am concerned that my Firefox may soon become unusable.
> >
> > What browsers are you using?
> > What browsers do you like?
> > Are you able to get Internet Explorer to work? Many thanks!
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'm using Seamonkey and Netscape, but Sloane is right, I've heard good
things about Opera.

-c-post

Peter wrote:
>
> Request for Browser Advice
>
> I am running Windows Millenium on an old HP Pavilion (which I
> understand is close to Win98).
>
> My Internet Explorer ceased to work about when Microsoft stopped
> maintaining it. Hence, I have been using Firefox ever since.
>
> But I have learned that I cannot now upgrade to Firefox 3. Hence, I
> am concerned that my Firefox may soon become unusable.
>
> What browsers are you using?
> What browsers do you like?
> Are you able to get Internet Explorer to work? Many thanks!
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I was given a couple of old towers and ended up rebuilding them from
scratch with Win98SE (they had Ubuntu Linux, which is an OK system but
not what I needed at the moment). I ended up installing Opera
<www.opera.com> on them, and it seems to be working very nicely. I long
ago gave up on MS IE and only used it long enough to bring down Opera
and get it running (I installed IE 6.0 using a freebie CD for an ISP
that came in the mail many years ago). I cannot promise that Opera will
work on Milleneum, but it works very nicely on Win98.

Mike

Peter wrote:
>
>
> Request for Browser Advice
>
> I am running Windows Millenium on an old HP Pavilion (which I
> understand is close to Win98).
>
> My Internet Explorer ceased to work about when Microsoft stopped
> maintaining it. Hence, I have been using Firefox ever since.
>
> But I have learned that I cannot now upgrade to Firefox 3. Hence, I
> am concerned that my Firefox may soon become unusable.
>
> What browsers are you using?
> What browsers do you like?
> Are you able to get Internet Explorer to work? Many thanks!
>

Request for Browser Advice

I am running Windows Millenium on an old HP Pavilion (which I
understand is close to Win98).

My Internet Explorer ceased to work about when Microsoft stopped
maintaining it.  Hence, I have been using Firefox ever since.

But I have learned that I cannot now upgrade to Firefox 3.  Hence, I
am concerned that my Firefox may soon become unusable.

What browsers are you using?
What browsers do you like?
Are you able to get Internet Explorer to work?  Many thanks!

Greetings, The below message from Mark is spam, which I have seen
posted in many Yahoo egroups.

I hope that the Group Owner here will appoint more Moderators to
delete spam such as this.  Most other Yahoo egroups about Windows95,
Windows98 and WindowsME have been taken over by spammers, so I
definately want this group to stick around.  Thank you.

Well, John, as Mark Twain observed, "The problem isn't what we don't know; it's
what we do know that just ain't so".

The bottom line is that from my Windows 98 emergency start-up diskette, I used
the command, SYS C:, from the A-prompt and, viola, my computer was restored to
it's normal working condition.  Actually, I was (pleasantly) surprised. But I
give the credit to you for jump-starting my thinking about the situation.

Yes, I couldn't get into Windows but apparently my boot drive is set up as a
slave without a master.  I'm not sure how one or more of my SYS files became
corrupted but other mysterious things happened in my house during the same time
period, i.e., my multi-system TV normally capable of receiving German Digital
and American AFN satellite programs was reduced to the American satellite
stations and only in black and white.  Also, this Computer lost all the emails
saved in my inbox received since Feb 2008.   The Win98 computer was not turned
on during this period but it was plugged in through a surge protector which was
not blown.  There were electrical storms during the period and at least one
power outage.  All this doesn't quite add up for me.

Thanks again for your help.

Frank
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: c-post
   To: windows-98@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 6:50 PM
   Subject: Re: [Win98] Anybody there


   If the BIOS doesn't see the drive -- i.e. in the boot up sequence -- you
   should not be able to access the drive. Access the drive how? I thought
   you couldn't get into windows.

   John

   Frank Leitnaker wrote:
   >
   >
   > Thanks, John,
   >
   > I'll give that a try. What seems strange to me is why I can access the
   > drive even though the BIOS doesn't see it. I suspect I already have
   > that HDD set up as the slave with no master. Is that possible? And all
   > I really need to do is restore the system files.
   >
   > Frank
   >
   > --- In windows-98@yahoogroups.com
   > <mailto:windows-98%40yahoogroups.com>, c-post <C-POST@...> wrote:
   > >
   > > That is a bit of a pickle, Frank. What I would do is get another
   > > harddrive and install it in the master position by setting the jumper.
   > > And change the setting of your old drive to be the slave. Boot up with
   > > your start up diskette and install WIndows 98 in the new drive. And
   > > after you have installed windows 98, then see if you can access your
   > old
   > > boot drive. If not, I think your old drive is toast, which would be a
   > > shame, since you might have data on it that you need.
   > >
   > > What I have done to guard against this type of failure is I make a
   > clone
   > > of my boot drive before it goes down using disk cloning software. It
   > > takes me so long to install all my programs and get all the drivers to
   > > make the system run (and I have got a cherry, 2 screen win 98 system
   > > that I have maintained for years) that disk cloning is essential. PLUS
   > I
   > > also have a very valuable little program called desktop resetter which
   > > remembers the desktop positions of all my icons.
   > >
   > > I usually have to do a maintenance reinstall of Win98 about every 4-5
   > > months, because sometimes it gets a little funky, usually associated
   > > with printer drivers or other drivers.
   > >
   > > good luck
   > >
   > > John
   > >
   > > Frank Leitnaker wrote:
   > > >
   > > > Is there anybody still monitoring this group that might give me some
   > help?
   > > >
   > > > I am still using Windows 98 (SE) in an old computer because it has
   > some
   > > > capability I don't have with this computer running on Windows XP HE.
   > > >
   > > > Now the old computer will not boot. Set-up does not detect the
   > master HDD
   > > > which is partitioned into C and D. Using Win 98 (SE) start-up
   > diskette, I
   > > > was able to access the C:\ drive and run Scandisk which found no
   > errors.
   > > >
   > > > I don't understand what is going on nor what else to do about it.
   > > >
   > > > Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
   > > >
   > > > Frank Leitnaker
   > > >
   > > >
   > >
   > >
   > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   > >
   >
   >

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

If the BIOS doesn't see the drive -- i.e. in the boot up sequence -- you
should not be able to access the drive. Access the drive how? I thought
you couldn't get into windows.

John

Frank Leitnaker wrote:
>
>
> Thanks, John,
>
> I'll give that a try. What seems strange to me is why I can access the
> drive even though the BIOS doesn't see it. I suspect I already have
> that HDD set up as the slave with no master. Is that possible? And all
> I really need to do is restore the system files.
>
> Frank
>
> --- In windows-98@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:windows-98%40yahoogroups.com>, c-post <C-POST@...> wrote:
> >
> > That is a bit of a pickle, Frank. What I would do is get another
> > harddrive and install it in the master position by setting the jumper.
> > And change the setting of your old drive to be the slave. Boot up with
> > your start up diskette and install WIndows 98 in the new drive. And
> > after you have installed windows 98, then see if you can access your
> old
> > boot drive. If not, I think your old drive is toast, which would be a
> > shame, since you might have data on it that you need.
> >
> > What I have done to guard against this type of failure is I make a
> clone
> > of my boot drive before it goes down using disk cloning software. It
> > takes me so long to install all my programs and get all the drivers to
> > make the system run (and I have got a cherry, 2 screen win 98 system
> > that I have maintained for years) that disk cloning is essential. PLUS
> I
> > also have a very valuable little program called desktop resetter which
> > remembers the desktop positions of all my icons.
> >
> > I usually have to do a maintenance reinstall of Win98 about every 4-5
> > months, because sometimes it gets a little funky, usually associated
> > with printer drivers or other drivers.
> >
> > good luck
> >
> > John
> >
> > Frank Leitnaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Is there anybody still monitoring this group that might give me some
> help?
> > >
> > > I am still using Windows 98 (SE) in an old computer because it has
> some
> > > capability I don't have with this computer running on Windows XP HE.
> > >
> > > Now the old computer will not boot. Set-up does not detect the
> master HDD
> > > which is partitioned into C and D. Using Win 98 (SE) start-up
> diskette, I
> > > was able to access the C:\ drive and run Scandisk which found no
> errors.
> > >
> > > I don't understand what is going on nor what else to do about it.
> > >
> > > Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
> > >
> > > Frank Leitnaker
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks, John,

I'll give that a try.  What seems strange to me is why I can access the
drive even though the BIOS doesn't see it.  I suspect I already have
that HDD set up as the slave with no master.  Is that possible?  And all
I really need to do is restore the system files.

Frank


--- In windows-98@yahoogroups.com, c-post <C-POST@...> wrote:
>
> That is a bit of a pickle, Frank. What I would do is get another
> harddrive and install it in the master position by setting the jumper.
> And change the setting of your old drive to be the slave. Boot up with
> your start up diskette and install WIndows 98 in the new drive. And
> after you have installed windows 98, then see if you can access your
old
> boot drive. If not, I think your old drive is toast, which would be a
> shame, since you might have data on it that you need.
>
> What I have done to guard against this type of failure is I make a
clone
> of my boot drive before it goes down using disk cloning software. It
> takes me so long to install all my programs and get all the drivers to
> make the system run (and I have got a cherry, 2 screen win 98 system
> that I have maintained for years) that disk cloning is essential. PLUS
I
> also have a very valuable little program called desktop resetter which
> remembers the desktop positions of all my icons.
>
> I usually have to do a maintenance reinstall of Win98 about every 4-5
> months, because sometimes it gets a little funky, usually associated
> with printer drivers or other drivers.
>
> good luck
>
> John
>
> Frank Leitnaker wrote:
> >
> > Is there anybody still monitoring this group that might give me some
help?
> >
> > I am still using Windows 98 (SE) in an old computer because it has
some
> > capability I don't have with this computer running on Windows XP HE.
> >
> > Now the old computer will not boot. Set-up does not detect the
master HDD
> > which is partitioned into C and D. Using Win 98 (SE) start-up
diskette, I
> > was able to access the C:\ drive and run Scandisk which found no
errors.
> >
> > I don't understand what is going on nor what else to do about it.
> >
> > Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Frank Leitnaker
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Thanks, John,

I'll give that a try.  What seems strange to me is why I can access the
drive even though the BIOS doesn't see it.  I suspect I already have
that HDD set up as the slave with no master.  Is that possible?  And all
I really need to do is restore the system files.

Frank


--- In windows-98@yahoogroups.com, c-post <C-POST@...> wrote:
>
> That is a bit of a pickle, Frank. What I would do is get another
> harddrive and install it in the master position by setting the jumper.
> And change the setting of your old drive to be the slave. Boot up with
> your start up diskette and install WIndows 98 in the new drive. And
> after you have installed windows 98, then see if you can access your
old
> boot drive. If not, I think your old drive is toast, which would be a
> shame, since you might have data on it that you need.
>
> What I have done to guard against this type of failure is I make a
clone
> of my boot drive before it goes down using disk cloning software. It
> takes me so long to install all my programs and get all the drivers to
> make the system run (and I have got a cherry, 2 screen win 98 system
> that I have maintained for years) that disk cloning is essential. PLUS
I
> also have a very valuable little program called desktop resetter which
> remembers the desktop positions of all my icons.
>
> I usually have to do a maintenance reinstall of Win98 about every 4-5
> months, because sometimes it gets a little funky, usually associated
> with printer drivers or other drivers.
>
> good luck
>
> John
>
> Frank Leitnaker wrote:
> >
> > Is there anybody still monitoring this group that might give me some
help?
> >
> > I am still using Windows 98 (SE) in an old computer because it has
some
> > capability I don't have with this computer running on Windows XP HE.
> >
> > Now the old computer will not boot. Set-up does not detect the
master HDD
> > which is partitioned into C and D. Using Win 98 (SE) start-up
diskette, I
> > was able to access the C:\ drive and run Scandisk which found no
errors.
> >
> > I don't understand what is going on nor what else to do about it.
> >
> > Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Frank Leitnaker
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>