Windows ME compared to Windows 98SE

I use and like 98SE and was wondering what Windows ME gives a user that
98SE does not have. The system restore feature in ME is nice but can be
overcome through a third party solution like GoBack. Windows 98(SE) has
its own resource kit and I think that Windows ME does not have one.
Windows ME may have better generic drivers but that limitation has been
overcome by using a Windows ME driver in 98SE as in the case of the Ati
Radeon 9800 XT which uses the Windows ME driver in 98SE. I like the
fact of easy shut down to MS-DOS that is given in 98SE but not ME. Was
Microsoft's intention to do away with the 9x source code and focus on
the NT (New Technology) source code and that was why Windows ME was
rushed out the door? I would appreciate a well thought out and
constructive debate and I am not trying to diss Windows ME just because
of all the bad press.

Alias~-
Sun Sep 24 07:57:50 CDT 2006

Dan wrote:
> I use and like 98SE and was wondering what Windows ME gives a user that
> 98SE does not have. The system restore feature in ME is nice but can be
> overcome through a third party solution like GoBack. Windows 98(SE) has
> its own resource kit and I think that Windows ME does not have one.
> Windows ME may have better generic drivers but that limitation has been
> overcome by using a Windows ME driver in 98SE as in the case of the Ati
> Radeon 9800 XT which uses the Windows ME driver in 98SE. I like the
> fact of easy shut down to MS-DOS that is given in 98SE but not ME. Was
> Microsoft's intention to do away with the 9x source code and focus on
> the NT (New Technology) source code and that was why Windows ME was
> rushed out the door? I would appreciate a well thought out and
> constructive debate and I am not trying to diss Windows ME just because
> of all the bad press.

ME has Spider Solitaire and Pinball. 98SE doesn't ;-)

Alias

Dan
Sun Sep 24 08:01:38 CDT 2006

Dan wrote:
> I use and like 98SE and was wondering what Windows ME gives a user that
> 98SE does not have. The system restore feature in ME is nice but can be
> overcome through a third party solution like GoBack. Windows 98(SE) has
> its own resource kit and I think that Windows ME does not have one.
> Windows ME may have better generic drivers but that limitation has been
> overcome by using a Windows ME driver in 98SE as in the case of the Ati
> Radeon 9800 XT which uses the Windows ME driver in 98SE. I like the
> fact of easy shut down to MS-DOS that is given in 98SE but not ME. Was
> Microsoft's intention to do away with the 9x source code and focus on
> the NT (New Technology) source code and that was why Windows ME was
> rushed out the door? I would appreciate a well thought out and
> constructive debate and I am not trying to diss Windows ME just because
> of all the bad press.

Weird, I thought the original question would have appeared.

The poster was asking about using stand by mode in 98SE and how to use
it without problems.

Mike
Sun Sep 24 08:04:37 CDT 2006

> I use and like 98SE and was wondering what Windows ME gives a user

Win Me's state manager and from this System File Protection (SFP) and
System Restore (SR) are probably the major end user benefits.

> but can be overcome through a third party solution like GoBack.

Yuk! An almost foolproof method of trashing a system.

> Windows ME was rushed out the door?

Hardly rushed. The beta lasted about a year which was the norm for 9x
systems. Nevertheless Win Me was used in part as a test bed for what was
to come in XP such as SFP, SR, PCHealth, WMI and quite a bit more
including new driver models. However being built on the old 9x core it
was never going to live very long as the hardware explosion was just about
to start leading to much faster and cheaper cpus, memory and storage to
name but three.
--
Mike Maltby
MS-MVP Windows
mike.maltby@gmail.com


Dan <spamyou@user.nec> wrote:

> I use and like 98SE and was wondering what Windows ME gives a user
> that 98SE does not have. The system restore feature in ME is nice
> but can be overcome through a third party solution like GoBack. Windows
> 98(SE) has its own resource kit and I think that Windows ME
> does not have one. Windows ME may have better generic drivers but
> that limitation has been overcome by using a Windows ME driver in
> 98SE as in the case of the Ati Radeon 9800 XT which uses the Windows
> ME driver in 98SE. I like the fact of easy shut down to MS-DOS that
> is given in 98SE but not ME. Was Microsoft's intention to do away
> with the 9x source code and focus on the NT (New Technology) source
> code and that was why Windows ME was rushed out the door? I would
> appreciate a well thought out and constructive debate and I am not
> trying to diss Windows ME just because of all the bad press.

Dan
Sun Sep 24 08:12:23 CDT 2006

Dan wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>> I use and like 98SE and was wondering what Windows ME gives a user
>> that 98SE does not have. The system restore feature in ME is nice but
>> can be overcome through a third party solution like GoBack. Windows
>> 98(SE) has its own resource kit and I think that Windows ME does not
>> have one. Windows ME may have better generic drivers but that
>> limitation has been overcome by using a Windows ME driver in 98SE as
>> in the case of the Ati Radeon 9800 XT which uses the Windows ME driver
>> in 98SE. I like the fact of easy shut down to MS-DOS that is given in
>> 98SE but not ME. Was Microsoft's intention to do away with the 9x
>> source code and focus on the NT (New Technology) source code and that
>> was why Windows ME was rushed out the door? I would appreciate a well
>> thought out and constructive debate and I am not trying to diss
>> Windows ME just because of all the bad press.
>
> Weird, I thought the original question would have appeared.
>
> The poster was asking about using stand by mode in 98SE and how to use
> it without problems.

(never mind -- I got confused and the standbye question from the home
users site appeared. I guess that is the danger of posting in so many
newsgroups at once -- grin)

I use and like Goback and it has not trashed my system. I just had to
go into the internals of Goback and make a few adjustments. My 98SE
system has a customized registry and is a great and stable system. I
have not had a blue screen of death for a long time except when I tried
to install a poor program that use was to try and get my Ipod to work in
98SE. I got a Blue Screen because of that and then just rolled back
with Goback.

N
Sun Sep 24 12:08:24 CDT 2006

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 06:49:31 -0600, Dan wrote:

> I use and like 98SE and was wondering what Windows ME gives a user that
> 98SE does not have. The system restore feature in ME is nice but can be
> overcome through a third party solution like GoBack. Windows 98(SE) has
> its own resource kit and I think that Windows ME does not have one.

Doesn't need one; the Windows 98SE resource kit works well with Windows
ME.

> Windows ME may have better generic drivers but that limitation has been
> overcome by using a Windows ME driver in 98SE as in the case of the Ati
> Radeon 9800 XT which uses the Windows ME driver in 98SE. I like the
> fact of easy shut down to MS-DOS that is given in 98SE but not ME.

MS-DOS is still there. Just create a boot floppy and you can boot to
MS-DOS with Windows ME. Maybe not as convenient as the option during the
system shutdown, but effective.

> Was Microsoft's intention to do away with the 9x source code and focus on
> the NT (New Technology) source code and that was why Windows ME was
> rushed out the door?

I can't answer that, but Mike Maltby seems to know what was happening
with the OS development.

> I would appreciate a well thought out and constructive debate and I am not
> trying to diss Windows ME just because of all the bad press.

Personally, having played with both Windows 98SE (on a friend's
computer), as well as Windows ME (on my landlady's, and my own
computers), they are enough alike that neither upgrading to Windows ME
from Windows 98SE, or downgrading to Windows 98SE from Windows ME seems
like a useful option.

Windows ME wasn't as quirky for my landlady as Windows 98SE has been for
my friend; OTOH, my friend got a second computer with Windows ME, and
has just as much trouble with either OS. And more than I have had with
Windows ME. But I tend to push the limits, plus I had a near hardware
meltdown of the computer. Between that, and not having re-installed the
OS (registry clog?), I expect that having fewer problems with Windows ME
than most suggests that most problems are user problem.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

thanatoid
Sun Sep 24 12:47:48 CDT 2006

Dan <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in
news:OkPzhf93GHA.4900@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:

> I use and like 98SE and was wondering what Windows ME gives
> a user that 98SE does not have. The system restore feature
> in ME is nice but can be overcome through a third party
> solution like GoBack. Windows 98(SE) has its own resource
> kit and I think that Windows ME does not have one.

Win ME was mainly released to cash in on the "Millennium" (MS
already knew very well that WHATEVER they release, the sheep
will bleat and buy) and was a poor OS, despised by most for good
reasons. Google.

The defrag and scandisk from ME are supposed to be better
(defrag is by Intel, maybe both). You can find them on a variety
of sites a small combined DL. I didn't see MUCH difference, but
they certainly do not run any worse.

GoBack is a joke, get your C drive (you ARE putting all your
DATA on other partition[s], aren't you???????) set up JUST RIGHT
and use a disk-image program like Acronis True Image (I think
you might be able to get the non-XP version for free, I got it
on a magazine CD) and use that instead. If ANYTHING goes wrong,
no matter WHAT you did, in 10 minutes you're back and running.

(You ARE putting all your DATA on other partition[s], aren't
you???????)

I don't even know what a resource kit is, unless you are calling
something basic with a name I am not used to.

Dan
Sun Sep 24 19:41:58 CDT 2006

N. Miller wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 06:49:31 -0600, Dan wrote:
>
>> I use and like 98SE and was wondering what Windows ME gives a user that
>> 98SE does not have. The system restore feature in ME is nice but can be
>> overcome through a third party solution like GoBack. Windows 98(SE) has
>> its own resource kit and I think that Windows ME does not have one.
>
> Doesn't need one; the Windows 98SE resource kit works well with Windows
> ME.
>
>> Windows ME may have better generic drivers but that limitation has been
>> overcome by using a Windows ME driver in 98SE as in the case of the Ati
>> Radeon 9800 XT which uses the Windows ME driver in 98SE. I like the
>> fact of easy shut down to MS-DOS that is given in 98SE but not ME.
>
> MS-DOS is still there. Just create a boot floppy and you can boot to
> MS-DOS with Windows ME. Maybe not as convenient as the option during the
> system shutdown, but effective.
>
>> Was Microsoft's intention to do away with the 9x source code and focus on
>> the NT (New Technology) source code and that was why Windows ME was
>> rushed out the door?
>
> I can't answer that, but Mike Maltby seems to know what was happening
> with the OS development.
>
>> I would appreciate a well thought out and constructive debate and I am not
>> trying to diss Windows ME just because of all the bad press.
>
> Personally, having played with both Windows 98SE (on a friend's
> computer), as well as Windows ME (on my landlady's, and my own
> computers), they are enough alike that neither upgrading to Windows ME
> from Windows 98SE, or downgrading to Windows 98SE from Windows ME seems
> like a useful option.
>
> Windows ME wasn't as quirky for my landlady as Windows 98SE has been for
> my friend; OTOH, my friend got a second computer with Windows ME, and
> has just as much trouble with either OS. And more than I have had with
> Windows ME. But I tend to push the limits, plus I had a near hardware
> meltdown of the computer. Between that, and not having re-installed the
> OS (registry clog?), I expect that having fewer problems with Windows ME
> than most suggests that most problems are user problem.
>

Thank you for the constructive comments. I enjoyed reading your post.

Dan
Sun Sep 24 19:44:09 CDT 2006

thanatoid wrote:
> Dan <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in
> news:OkPzhf93GHA.4900@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:
>
>> I use and like 98SE and was wondering what Windows ME gives
>> a user that 98SE does not have. The system restore feature
>> in ME is nice but can be overcome through a third party
>> solution like GoBack. Windows 98(SE) has its own resource
>> kit and I think that Windows ME does not have one.
>
> Win ME was mainly released to cash in on the "Millennium" (MS
> already knew very well that WHATEVER they release, the sheep
> will bleat and buy) and was a poor OS, despised by most for good
> reasons. Google.
>
> The defrag and scandisk from ME are supposed to be better
> (defrag is by Intel, maybe both). You can find them on a variety
> of sites a small combined DL. I didn't see MUCH difference, but
> they certainly do not run any worse.
>
> GoBack is a joke, get your C drive (you ARE putting all your
> DATA on other partition[s], aren't you???????) set up JUST RIGHT
> and use a disk-image program like Acronis True Image (I think
> you might be able to get the non-XP version for free, I got it
> on a magazine CD) and use that instead. If ANYTHING goes wrong,
> no matter WHAT you did, in 10 minutes you're back and running.
>
> (You ARE putting all your DATA on other partition[s], aren't
> you???????)
>
> I don't even know what a resource kit is, unless you are calling
> something basic with a name I am not used to.


Thanks for your comments, thanatoid. Although, Goback may just be a
joke, it has worked well on my computer in the 98SE side of my tri-boot.
It has not worked out as well for other people.

Dan
Mon Sep 25 09:20:41 CDT 2006

Mike M wrote:
>> I use and like 98SE and was wondering what Windows ME gives a user
>
> Win Me's state manager and from this System File Protection (SFP) and
> System Restore (SR) are probably the major end user benefits.
>
>> but can be overcome through a third party solution like GoBack.
>
> Yuk! An almost foolproof method of trashing a system.
>
>> Windows ME was rushed out the door?
>
> Hardly rushed. The beta lasted about a year which was the norm for 9x
> systems. Nevertheless Win Me was used in part as a test bed for what
> was to come in XP such as SFP, SR, PCHealth, WMI and quite a bit more
> including new driver models. However being built on the old 9x core it
> was never going to live very long as the hardware explosion was just
> about to start leading to much faster and cheaper cpus, memory and
> storage to name but three.

Thanks Mike. According to this article, Windows 98(SE) is used more
than ME.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Owns-96-97-of-Global-OS-Market-33363.shtml

Mike
Mon Sep 25 09:44:20 CDT 2006

I'm sorry but the relevance of "used more" totally escapes me nor has it
any bearing whatsoever on what I wrote Personally I don't use something
because others do, instead I choose to make my own decisions and not
follow others. I appreciate that you are attempting to do the same but
quoting such an article is meaningless and goes no way towards helping you
in your decision.
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby@gmail.com


Dan <spamyou@user.nec> wrote:

> Thanks Mike. According to this article, Windows 98(SE) is used more
> than ME.
>
> http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Owns-96-97-of-Global-OS-Market-33363.shtml

N
Mon Sep 25 12:38:34 CDT 2006

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 08:20:41 -0600, Dan wrote:

> Thanks Mike. According to this article, Windows 98(SE) is used more
> than ME.

I don't need an article to tell me that MS Internet Explorer is use by
more people than Mozilla Firefox.

I also don't need to follow the crowd. Most people stick with MSIE due
to inertia; it is a part of the Windows environment. I still prefer
Firefox.

Popularity is not always an indicator of what is best.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

cquirke
Mon Sep 25 14:46:29 CDT 2006

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 06:49:31 -0600, Dan <spamyou@user.nec> wrote:

>I use and like 98SE and was wondering what Windows ME gives a user that
>98SE does not have.

Native support for USB storage devices, e.g. card readers and flash
drives. That's the big plus, in 2006. For an older but more in-depth
assessment, see http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/WinME.htm

>The system restore feature in ME is nice but can be overcome through
>a third party solution like GoBack.

SR's a mixed bag, and the WinME implimentation SUCKS compared to the
completely different way it's done in XP.

See http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/sr-sfp.htm

>Windows 98(SE) has its own resource kit and I think that Windows
>ME does not have one.

True - this is one reason why so much sware was so poorly adapted to
WinME, e.g. antivirus from Norton and McAfee, etc.

>Windows ME may have better generic drivers but that limitation has been
>overcome by using a Windows ME driver in 98SE as in the case of the Ati
>Radeon 9800 XT which uses the Windows ME driver in 98SE. I like the
>fact of easy shut down to MS-DOS that is given in 98SE but not ME.

See http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/ME-DOS.htm

>Was Microsoft's intention to do away with the 9x source code
>and focus on the NT (New Technology) source code

Yes; it had been since the Win98 days, but the consumer market didn't
consider NT 4 or Windows 2000 to be adequate replacements, let alone
worth the extra cost. Only when XP Home offered the same cost and
better cutting-edge media and DirectX support, did we swallow NT.

>and that was why Windows ME was rushed out the door?

WinME was two things:
- the last chance to get Win9x right
- a test-bed for new technologies in preparation for XP
- a way of emulating NT's weaknesses in preparation for XP

So it's a strange mix of polished, mature code and brand-new
semi-assed new features still dripping amniotic fluid.

With a bit of work, it can be better than Win98SE, but without curbing
some of the illbegotten features and artificial limitations, many
users preferred Win98SE. In fact, our trade suppliers carried stock
of Win98SE beyond the newer WinME, right into early XP days.

>I am not trying to diss Windows ME just because of all the bad press.

WinME can be made very nice with a bit of work, and will stay nice if
you avoid certain apps that are known not to work well with it. Many
WinME-era systems may be able to run XP if they have enough RAM, so
some folks made that switch, but if price and availability of old RAM
keeps you to under 128M, you'd do better to stay on WinME.



>------------ ----- --- -- - - - -
Drugs are usually safe. Inject? (Y/n)
>------------ ----- --- -- - - - -

thanatoid
Mon Sep 25 18:30:40 CDT 2006

"N. Miller" <anonymous@msnews.aosake.net> wrote in
news:1iudc60wf3u9w$.dlg@msnews.aosake.net:

> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 08:20:41 -0600, Dan wrote:
>
>> Thanks Mike. According to this article, Windows 98(SE) is
>> used more than ME.
>
> I don't need an article to tell me that MS Internet
> Explorer is use by more people than Mozilla Firefox.
>
> I also don't need to follow the crowd. Most people stick
> with MSIE due to inertia; it is a part of the Windows
> environment. I still prefer Firefox.
>
> Popularity is not always an indicator of what is best.
>

That's a MAJOR understatement. Popularity is usually an
indicator of the lowest common denominator, which RARELY equals
quality.

Dan
Mon Sep 25 19:41:48 CDT 2006

N. Miller wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 08:20:41 -0600, Dan wrote:
>
>> Thanks Mike. According to this article, Windows 98(SE) is used more
>> than ME.
>
> I don't need an article to tell me that MS Internet Explorer is use by
> more people than Mozilla Firefox.
>
> I also don't need to follow the crowd. Most people stick with MSIE due
> to inertia; it is a part of the Windows environment. I still prefer
> Firefox.
>
> Popularity is not always an indicator of what is best.
>

Huh, I use and like Mozilla Firefox more than IE due to 256 bit+
encryption vs. only 128 bit encryption with Internet Explorer and
plugins such as the Geotrust plugin that shows which sites are safe when
you search using Mozilla Firefox at the Google website. also and we
were discussing 98SE and ME.

Dan
Mon Sep 25 19:43:38 CDT 2006

Mike M wrote:
> I'm sorry but the relevance of "used more" totally escapes me nor has it
> any bearing whatsoever on what I wrote Personally I don't use something
> because others do, instead I choose to make my own decisions and not
> follow others. I appreciate that you are attempting to do the same but
> quoting such an article is meaningless and goes no way towards helping
> you in your decision.

True, Mike it is not a popularity contest but I was just wondering which
was more likely to stay around for a longer time. BTW, I hope Microsoft
does the Classic series and if they do it right it has the potential for
making lots of money for them. However, I will continue the Classics
series idea with Microsoft and if you shoot for the moon you might just
hit the woodpile. <grin>

Dan
Mon Sep 25 19:50:54 CDT 2006

<snip>

Chris, what about the compatibility options of 98SE compared to ME in
the area of supporting older titles such as Space which is a Windows 3.1
program that will run on 98SE but not on XP even with compatibility
mode. The option of a boot disk in ME is a consideration and sometimes
a user even needs to use a boot disk for older MS-DOS games in 98SE.
What do you think?

Dan
Mon Sep 25 20:31:22 CDT 2006

thanatoid wrote:
> "N. Miller" <anonymous@msnews.aosake.net> wrote in
> news:1iudc60wf3u9w$.dlg@msnews.aosake.net:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 08:20:41 -0600, Dan wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Mike. According to this article, Windows 98(SE) is
>>> used more than ME.
>> I don't need an article to tell me that MS Internet
>> Explorer is use by more people than Mozilla Firefox.
>>
>> I also don't need to follow the crowd. Most people stick
>> with MSIE due to inertia; it is a part of the Windows
>> environment. I still prefer Firefox.
>>
>> Popularity is not always an indicator of what is best.
>>
>
> That's a MAJOR understatement. Popularity is usually an
> indicator of the lowest common denominator, which RARELY equals
> quality.

LOL, nice reply thanatoid.

budgie
Mon Sep 25 21:29:32 CDT 2006

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:50:54 -0600, Dan <spamyou@user.nec> wrote:

><snip>
>
>Chris, what about the compatibility options of 98SE compared to ME in
>the area of supporting older titles such as Space which is a Windows 3.1
>program that will run on 98SE but not on XP even with compatibility
>mode. The option of a boot disk in ME is a consideration and sometimes
>a user even needs to use a boot disk for older MS-DOS games in 98SE.
>What do you think?

Dan, which "Space" are you referring to? I have Broderbund's "Discover Space"
(often called just "Space") from my Wfwg days, and cannot get it stable under
98SE. It always seems to lock up in certain functions, which is a pity.

N
Mon Sep 25 23:46:05 CDT 2006

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:41:48 -0600, Dan wrote:

> N. Miller wrote:

>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 08:20:41 -0600, Dan wrote:

>>> Thanks Mike. According to this article, Windows 98(SE) is used more
>>> than ME.

>> I don't need an article to tell me that MS Internet Explorer is use by
>> more people than Mozilla Firefox.
>>
>> I also don't need to follow the crowd. Most people stick with MSIE due
>> to inertia; it is a part of the Windows environment. I still prefer
>> Firefox.
>>
>> Popularity is not always an indicator of what is best.

> Huh, I use and like Mozilla Firefox more than IE due to 256 bit+
> encryption vs. only 128 bit encryption with Internet Explorer and
> plugins such as the Geotrust plugin that shows which sites are safe when
> you search using Mozilla Firefox at the Google website. also and we
> were discussing 98SE and ME.

Same issue applies; which is more popular, and why. I could have
expressed it as a comparison between any MS OS and Linux, or Unix, or
Mac OSX, or..., or...

Whatever two items are under comparison, popularity usually has more to
do with promotion than quality. Promote a lesser quality (VHS v.
BetaMax), and the lower quality usually wins out (VHS).

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Dan
Tue Sep 26 00:18:47 CDT 2006

budgie wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:50:54 -0600, Dan <spamyou@user.nec> wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Chris, what about the compatibility options of 98SE compared to ME in
>> the area of supporting older titles such as Space which is a Windows 3.1
>> program that will run on 98SE but not on XP even with compatibility
>> mode. The option of a boot disk in ME is a consideration and sometimes
>> a user even needs to use a boot disk for older MS-DOS games in 98SE.
>> What do you think?
>
> Dan, which "Space" are you referring to? I have Broderbund's "Discover Space"
> (often called just "Space") from my Wfwg days, and cannot get it stable under
> 98SE. It always seems to lock up in certain functions, which is a pity.

The cd is at the school where I work and I will post back later to let
you know. It actually belongs to another teacher who had me install it
on 98SE and she said it did not work on XP and her husband who
apparently knows computers had tried it at home on XP.

cquirke
Tue Sep 26 17:49:35 CDT 2006

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:50:54 -0600, Dan <spamyou@user.nec> wrote:

>Chris, what about the compatibility options of 98SE compared to ME in
>the area of supporting older titles such as Space which is a Windows 3.1
>program that will run on 98SE but not on XP even with compatibility
>mode. The option of a boot disk in ME is a consideration and sometimes
>a user even needs to use a boot disk for older MS-DOS games in 98SE.

>What do you think?

I think Win98SE and WinME will be fairly similar in terms of how well
they will run most software of that era, and older - in that both have
similar access to hardware, etc. in keeping with the Win9x design
brief. OTOH, NT (from which XP is derived) was never designed to
support DOS and Win3.x apps as effectively as required in Win9x.

Having said that, certain DOS and perhaps Win3.x apps may need drivers
and TSRs set up under the OS, and that isn't possible in WinME. Also,
it's easier to optimize a HD-based DOS mode for "difficult" DOS apps
in Win98SE (the facility is built in) than WinME. In fact, unless you
do a bit of custom work, WinME lacks HD-based DOS mode altogether.

Some DOS functionality was eroded even in the transition from Win95 to
Win98, e.g. old commands like Tree were dropped in Win98.

IMO, the best MS-DOS would be the DOS mode from either Win98 varient,
or from Win95 SR2. Win98 has the advantage that the EBD it builds
includes generic CD-ROM support, which the Win95s lack.


So it comes down to a trade-off; is better DOS support more important
to you than native support for USB storage devices?



>------------ ----- --- -- - - - -
Drugs are usually safe. Inject? (Y/n)
>------------ ----- --- -- - - - -

cquirke
Tue Sep 26 18:04:27 CDT 2006

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:29:32 +0800, budgie <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:50:54 -0600, Dan <spamyou@user.nec> wrote:

>>Chris, what about the compatibility options of 98SE compared to ME in
>>the area of supporting older titles such as Space which is a Windows 3.1
>>program that will run on 98SE but not on XP even with compatibility
>>mode. The option of a boot disk in ME is a consideration and sometimes
>>a user even needs to use a boot disk for older MS-DOS games in 98SE.

You should rarely, if ever, need a boot diskette to run any games -
the only ones I can think of that are exceptions are some that are
bound to particular DOS versions (e.g. one that won't run on anything
beyond MS-DOS 3.2) or those that are locked into "protected" boot
diskettes, such as the old text Hitchiker's Guide adventure.

However, you would need to properly optimize the HD-based DOS mode.

In Win95/98, this is easy...

1) Shutdown to MS-DOS mode in order to spawn "Exit to DOS.pif"

2) Set the Properties of this to "Specify a new..."

3) Shutdown to MS-DOS mode; now PC should reboot to get there

4) While in this MS-DOS mode, save these as active files...

C:\CONFIG.SYS

<paste1>------ --- -- - - - -
DOS=SINGLE

[Menu]
MenuItem=Def,Exclusive DOS mode; default startup
MenuItem=EMS,Exclusive DOS mode; with EMS support
MenuItem=Max,Exclusive DOS mode; maximum DPMS memory
MenuItem=Lean,Exclusive DOS mode; lean, no SmartDrv or Emm386
MenuItem=Debug,Exclusive DOS mode; debug, no file loads or writes
MenuDefault=Def,10

[NoEMS]
Device=C:\Windows\HiMem.sys
DeviceHigh=C:\Windows\Emm386.exe NoEMS
DOS=High,UMB

[YesEMS]
Device=C:\Windows\HiMem.sys
DeviceHigh=C:\Windows\Emm386.exe RAM
DOS=High,UMB

[HiMem]
Device=C:\Windows\HiMem.sys
DOS=High

[CD]
DeviceHigh=C:\Windows\Command\EBD\OakCDROM.sys /D:CD1

[Def]
Include NoEMS
Include CD

[EMS]
Include YesEMS
Include CD

[Max]
Include NoEMS
Include CD

[Lean]
Include HiMem
Include CD

[Debug]
DOS=NoAuto

</paste1>------ --- -- - - - -


<paste2>------ --- -- - - - -
@ECHO OFF

Set winbootdir=C:\Windows
Set Path=C:\Some\Fake\Path
Set Path=%winbootdir%;%winbootdir%\Command;C:\Tools

Set Blaster=A220 I5 D1
Set Tmp=%winbootdir%\Temp
Set Temp=%Tmp%
Set Prompt=[%Config%] $p$g

GoTo %Config%

:Def
Set Prompt=$p$g
LH MSCDEx /D:CD1
LH SmartDrv /X
LH Mouse
LH DOSKey /Insert
GoTo End

:EMS
LH MSCDEx /D:CD1
LH SmartDrv /X
LH Mouse
LH DOSKey /Insert
GoTo End

:Max
LH MSCDEx /D:CD1
LH SmartDrv /X 128
LH Mouse
GoTo End

:Lean
LH MSCDEx /D:CD1
LH Mouse
GoTo End

:Debug
Echo.
Echo Debug mode; no file loads or writes
GoTo End

:End
Echo.
Echo This is exclusive DOS mode, via "Exit to DOS.pif"
Echo The PC will stay in this mod, even after power off or reset.
Echo To return to Windows, use the EXIT command (do not use "win")
Echo.
REM
REM The following lines have been created by Windows. Do not modify
them.
REM
C:
CD C:\WINDOWS
CALL C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND.COM
C:\WINDOWS\WIN.COM /WX

</paste2>------ --- -- - - - -

(You'd have to edit the above if your paths differ, e.g. if Windows is
not installed in C:\Windows, and the OakCDROM.SYS is 98-specific)

5) ...then reset the PC to put them into effect

6) Repeat the edits, saves and resets until happy

7) When happy, enter the EXIT command to build into "Exit to DOS.pif"

Once this is done, you'd have a menu that should cater for the needs
of most DOS apps - i.e. those that need max RAM, or that crash on
Emm386, or that require a totally clean DOS boot.

>Dan, which "Space" are you referring to? I have Broderbund's "Discover Space"
>(often called just "Space") from my Wfwg days, and cannot get it stable under
>98SE. It always seems to lock up in certain functions, which is a pity.

There's more to running old apps than the OS alone - some of these old
apps can't cope with today's high speeds, HD and RAM capacities, FAT32
file system, or the skewed relative speed of various CPU instructions
that have developed as CPU design has evolved.



>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Hello DOS mode my old friend
I've come to hack with you again
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

Bill
Tue Sep 26 18:23:40 CDT 2006

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:50:54 -0600, Dan <spamyou@user.nec> wrote:
>
>> Chris, what about the compatibility options of 98SE compared to ME in
>> the area of supporting older titles such as Space which is a Windows 3.1
>> program that will run on 98SE but not on XP even with compatibility
>> mode. The option of a boot disk in ME is a consideration and sometimes
>> a user even needs to use a boot disk for older MS-DOS games in 98SE.
>
>> What do you think?
>
> I think Win98SE and WinME will be fairly similar in terms of how well
> they will run most software of that era, and older - in that both have
> similar access to hardware, etc. in keeping with the Win9x design
> brief. OTOH, NT (from which XP is derived) was never designed to
> support DOS and Win3.x apps as effectively as required in Win9x.
>
> Having said that, certain DOS and perhaps Win3.x apps may need drivers
> and TSRs set up under the OS, and that isn't possible in WinME. Also,
> it's easier to optimize a HD-based DOS mode for "difficult" DOS apps
> in Win98SE (the facility is built in) than WinME. In fact, unless you
> do a bit of custom work, WinME lacks HD-based DOS mode altogether.
>
> Some DOS functionality was eroded even in the transition from Win95 to
> Win98, e.g. old commands like Tree were dropped in Win98.
>
> IMO, the best MS-DOS would be the DOS mode from either Win98 varient,
> or from Win95 SR2. Win98 has the advantage that the EBD it builds
> includes generic CD-ROM support, which the Win95s lack.
>
> So it comes down to a trade-off; is better DOS support more important
> to you than native support for USB storage devices?

Probably so, for me (and not for games, but as a readily available,
fallback, underlying, operating system, for example.

Just FYI - I tend to play around with some new program installations, and
just to cover all bets, often end up restoring a previous registry backup
JUST TO BE SURE everything (well ok, most everything - most of the time) is
back to normal (having also run SFC and checking out any file changes).
Better to be safe than sorry with some of these programs! And, on a
handful of occasions, I've have found it necessary to fall back to true DOS
to do a clean windows reinstallation.

As far as the USB issue is concerned, we can often (usually?) get the
necessary drivers for Win98SE from the peripheral manufacturer, AFAIK.

Dan
Wed Sep 27 03:20:29 CDT 2006

Bill in Co. wrote:
> cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:50:54 -0600, Dan <spamyou@user.nec> wrote:
>>
>>> Chris, what about the compatibility options of 98SE compared to ME in
>>> the area of supporting older titles such as Space which is a Windows 3.1
>>> program that will run on 98SE but not on XP even with compatibility
>>> mode. The option of a boot disk in ME is a consideration and sometimes
>>> a user even needs to use a boot disk for older MS-DOS games in 98SE.
>>> What do you think?
>> I think Win98SE and WinME will be fairly similar in terms of how well
>> they will run most software of that era, and older - in that both have
>> similar access to hardware, etc. in keeping with the Win9x design
>> brief. OTOH, NT (from which XP is derived) was never designed to
>> support DOS and Win3.x apps as effectively as required in Win9x.
>>
>> Having said that, certain DOS and perhaps Win3.x apps may need drivers
>> and TSRs set up under the OS, and that isn't possible in WinME. Also,
>> it's easier to optimize a HD-based DOS mode for "difficult" DOS apps
>> in Win98SE (the facility is built in) than WinME. In fact, unless you
>> do a bit of custom work, WinME lacks HD-based DOS mode altogether.
>>
>> Some DOS functionality was eroded even in the transition from Win95 to
>> Win98, e.g. old commands like Tree were dropped in Win98.
>>
>> IMO, the best MS-DOS would be the DOS mode from either Win98 varient,
>> or from Win95 SR2. Win98 has the advantage that the EBD it builds
>> includes generic CD-ROM support, which the Win95s lack.
>>
>> So it comes down to a trade-off; is better DOS support more important
>> to you than native support for USB storage devices?
>
> Probably so, for me (and not for games, but as a readily available,
> fallback, underlying, operating system, for example.
>
> Just FYI - I tend to play around with some new program installations, and
> just to cover all bets, often end up restoring a previous registry backup
> JUST TO BE SURE everything (well ok, most everything - most of the time) is
> back to normal (having also run SFC and checking out any file changes).
> Better to be safe than sorry with some of these programs! And, on a
> handful of occasions, I've have found it necessary to fall back to true DOS
> to do a clean windows reinstallation.
>
> As far as the USB issue is concerned, we can often (usually?) get the
> necessary drivers for Win98SE from the peripheral manufacturer, AFAIK.
>
>

Yes, USB 2.0 drivers usually are available for the different devices
from company websites for 98SE.

Dan
Wed Sep 27 03:37:45 CDT 2006

N. Miller wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:41:48 -0600, Dan wrote:
>
>> N. Miller wrote:
>
>>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 08:20:41 -0600, Dan wrote:
>
>>>> Thanks Mike. According to this article, Windows 98(SE) is used more
>>>> than ME.
>
>>> I don't need an article to tell me that MS Internet Explorer is use by
>>> more people than Mozilla Firefox.
>>>
>>> I also don't need to follow the crowd. Most people stick with MSIE due
>>> to inertia; it is a part of the Windows environment. I still prefer
>>> Firefox.
>>>
>>> Popularity is not always an indicator of what is best.
>
>> Huh, I use and like Mozilla Firefox more than IE due to 256 bit+
>> encryption vs. only 128 bit encryption with Internet Explorer and
>> plugins such as the Geotrust plugin that shows which sites are safe when
>> you search using Mozilla Firefox at the Google website. also and we
>> were discussing 98SE and ME.
>
> Same issue applies; which is more popular, and why. I could have
> expressed it as a comparison between any MS OS and Linux, or Unix, or
> Mac OSX, or..., or...
>
> Whatever two items are under comparison, popularity usually has more to
> do with promotion than quality. Promote a lesser quality (VHS v.
> BetaMax), and the lower quality usually wins out (VHS).
>

Interesting points that you bring up and thanks for the comparison.

Dan
Wed Sep 27 08:26:03 CDT 2006

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:29:32 +0800, budgie <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:50:54 -0600, Dan <spamyou@user.nec> wrote:
>
>>> Chris, what about the compatibility options of 98SE compared to ME in
>>> the area of supporting older titles such as Space which is a Windows 3.1
>>> program that will run on 98SE but not on XP even with compatibility
>>> mode. The option of a boot disk in ME is a consideration and sometimes
>>> a user even needs to use a boot disk for older MS-DOS games in 98SE.
>
> You should rarely, if ever, need a boot diskette to run any games -
> the only ones I can think of that are exceptions are some that are
> bound to particular DOS versions (e.g. one that won't run on anything
> beyond MS-DOS 3.2) or those that are locked into "protected" boot
> diskettes, such as the old text Hitchiker's Guide adventure.
>
> However, you would need to properly optimize the HD-based DOS mode.
>
> In Win95/98, this is easy...
>
> 1) Shutdown to MS-DOS mode in order to spawn "Exit to DOS.pif"
>
> 2) Set the Properties of this to "Specify a new..."
>
> 3) Shutdown to MS-DOS mode; now PC should reboot to get there
>
> 4) While in this MS-DOS mode, save these as active files...
>
> C:\CONFIG.SYS
>
> <paste1>------ --- -- - - - -
> DOS=SINGLE
>
> [Menu]
> MenuItem=Def,Exclusive DOS mode; default startup
> MenuItem=EMS,Exclusive DOS mode; with EMS support
> MenuItem=Max,Exclusive DOS mode; maximum DPMS memory
> MenuItem=Lean,Exclusive DOS mode; lean, no SmartDrv or Emm386
> MenuItem=Debug,Exclusive DOS mode; debug, no file loads or writes
> MenuDefault=Def,10
>
> [NoEMS]
> Device=C:\Windows\HiMem.sys
> DeviceHigh=C:\Windows\Emm386.exe NoEMS
> DOS=High,UMB
>
> [YesEMS]
> Device=C:\Windows\HiMem.sys
> DeviceHigh=C:\Windows\Emm386.exe RAM
> DOS=High,UMB
>
> [HiMem]
> Device=C:\Windows\HiMem.sys
> DOS=High
>
> [CD]
> DeviceHigh=C:\Windows\Command\EBD\OakCDROM.sys /D:CD1
>
> [Def]
> Include NoEMS
> Include CD
>
> [EMS]
> Include YesEMS
> Include CD
>
> [Max]
> Include NoEMS
> Include CD
>
> [Lean]
> Include HiMem
> Include CD
>
> [Debug]
> DOS=NoAuto
>
> </paste1>------ --- -- - - - -
>
>
> <paste2>------ --- -- - - - -
> @ECHO OFF
>
> Set winbootdir=C:\Windows
> Set Path=C:\Some\Fake\Path
> Set Path=%winbootdir%;%winbootdir%\Command;C:\Tools
>
> Set Blaster=A220 I5 D1
> Set Tmp=%winbootdir%\Temp
> Set Temp=%Tmp%
> Set Prompt=[%Config%] $p$g
>
> GoTo %Config%
>
> :Def
> Set Prompt=$p$g
> LH MSCDEx /D:CD1
> LH SmartDrv /X
> LH Mouse
> LH DOSKey /Insert
> GoTo End
>
> :EMS
> LH MSCDEx /D:CD1
> LH SmartDrv /X
> LH Mouse
> LH DOSKey /Insert
> GoTo End
>
> :Max
> LH MSCDEx /D:CD1
> LH SmartDrv /X 128
> LH Mouse
> GoTo End
>
> :Lean
> LH MSCDEx /D:CD1
> LH Mouse
> GoTo End
>
> :Debug
> Echo.
> Echo Debug mode; no file loads or writes
> GoTo End
>
> :End
> Echo.
> Echo This is exclusive DOS mode, via "Exit to DOS.pif"
> Echo The PC will stay in this mod, even after power off or reset.
> Echo To return to Windows, use the EXIT command (do not use "win")
> Echo.
> REM
> REM The following lines have been created by Windows. Do not modify
> them.
> REM
> C:
> CD C:\WINDOWS
> CALL C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND.COM
> C:\WINDOWS\WIN.COM /WX
>
> </paste2>------ --- -- - - - -
>
> (You'd have to edit the above if your paths differ, e.g. if Windows is
> not installed in C:\Windows, and the OakCDROM.SYS is 98-specific)
>
> 5) ...then reset the PC to put them into effect
>
> 6) Repeat the edits, saves and resets until happy
>
> 7) When happy, enter the EXIT command to build into "Exit to DOS.pif"
>
> Once this is done, you'd have a menu that should cater for the needs
> of most DOS apps - i.e. those that need max RAM, or that crash on
> Emm386, or that require a totally clean DOS boot.
>
>> Dan, which "Space" are you referring to? I have Broderbund's "Discover Space"
>> (often called just "Space") from my Wfwg days, and cannot get it stable under
>> 98SE. It always seems to lock up in certain functions, which is a pity.
>
> There's more to running old apps than the OS alone - some of these old
> apps can't cope with today's high speeds, HD and RAM capacities, FAT32
> file system, or the skewed relative speed of various CPU instructions
> that have developed as CPU design has evolved.
>
>
>
>> --------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
> Hello DOS mode my old friend
> I've come to hack with you again
>> --------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

Reply, thank you so much for your detailed post, Chris. I will have to
study and work on the suggested solution when I have a good bloc of time
free to implement this solution.

cquirke
Thu Sep 28 11:47:51 CDT 2006

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:23:40 -0600, "Bill in Co."

>As far as the USB issue is concerned, we can often (usually?) get the
>necessary drivers for Win98SE from the peripheral manufacturer, AFAIK.

The difference is that with Win98xx, each flash drive has to have its
own driver. Not all drives do have Win98SE or Win98 drivers,
including web site, and often it's hard to find which site, which
model, and even which serial number range.

One way to beat that is to use a card reader and SD cards instead of
USB flash drives. The card reader has one set of drivers, and can
then read as many SD cards as you like, of any brand.

There are other advantages, too...
- Bart CDR boot will see SD hot-swap card changes OK
- SD cards are faster and less prone to delayed-write corruption
- SD cards have a hardware write-protect switch
- you can use the same cards in cameras that use SD cards
- not much price or max-capacity differences between SD and flash




>------------ ----- --- -- - - - -
Drugs are usually safe. Inject? (Y/n)
>------------ ----- --- -- - - - -

Cymbal
Thu Sep 28 12:50:04 CDT 2006

Oh, I have a half dozen BSOD's a day, and a dozen reboots or more, and showing
the desktop causes the computer to hang for a MINUTE or more and sometimes needs
a reboot because 60 icons won't refresh (Explorer not responding)

This is every day!

Win 98SE has been a very, very tough school of hard knocks for me right off the
bat, and going on 6 years straight.

Win Me just had resource issues after adding Norton System Works 2005 (with AV)
to the mix. Couldn't print from Word with a web page open because I'd run out of
resources!

Win XP has been far easier on me. However, I/O issues with USB 2.0 had me
stumped for 8 months until I got a different PCI card. I don't own a computer
that has XP on it.
When the new mobos for AM2 chips come out en force, I'll give shopping another
shot. Hopefully very soon. By Christmas.
I hear the ATI SB 450's and the NForce 4 mobos have very, very bad defects in
relation to I/O issues.
The new ATI SB 600's and NForce 5's are supposed to clear up these issues.

Bill
Thu Sep 28 14:47:09 CDT 2006

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:23:40 -0600, "Bill in Co."
>
>> As far as the USB issue is concerned, we can often (usually?) get the
>> necessary drivers for Win98SE from the peripheral manufacturer, AFAIK.
>
> The difference is that with Win98xx, each flash drive has to have its
> own driver.

I seem to have noticed that. I mean, it's really weird, I have a couple
of *identical* flash based mp3 players, and it seemingly had to install
drivers separately for each, even though they're the same units! It's
almost like each peripheral has a particular serial number and has to have
its very own unique driver, yet I can't understand that since it's the same
chips inside each of my identical peripherals. Maybe the codes being sent
back to the computer (by each identical peripheral during installation) are
different?

> Not all drives do have Win98SE or Win98 drivers,
> including web site, and often it's hard to find which site, which
> model, and even which serial number range.
>
> One way to beat that is to use a card reader and SD cards instead of
> USB flash drives. The card reader has one set of drivers, and can
> then read as many SD cards as you like, of any brand.

I'm not sure what a "card reader" is. I guess I could look it up.
Sounds like it's a special USB port card with its own drivers, and not just
a simple, standard, internal USB2 card, as I have now (since I added that
some time back)

> There are other advantages, too...
> - Bart CDR boot will see SD hot-swap card changes OK
> - SD cards are faster and less prone to delayed-write corruption
> - SD cards have a hardware write-protect switch
> - you can use the same cards in cameras that use SD cards
> - not much price or max-capacity differences between SD and flash
>
>
>
>
>> ------------ ----- --- -- - - - -
> Drugs are usually safe. Inject? (Y/n)
>> ------------ ----- --- -- - - - -

webster72n
Thu Sep 28 20:07:20 CDT 2006


You must have missed the 'wake-up' call for WinME vs. 'Norton everything'
over and over along the way, Cymbal Man. They simply 'don't like each other'
and must be kept apart at all costs. Just get rid of it 'thoroughly', Norton
I mean, not WinME.

Harry.


"Cymbal Man Freq." <Don't Bother@ForgedPostsAnonymous.unorg> wrote in
message news:gXTSg.320$0L1.212@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Oh, I have a half dozen BSOD's a day, and a dozen reboots or more, and
showing
> the desktop causes the computer to hang for a MINUTE or more and sometimes
needs
> a reboot because 60 icons won't refresh (Explorer not responding)
>
> This is every day!
>
> Win 98SE has been a very, very tough school of hard knocks for me right
off the
> bat, and going on 6 years straight.
>
> Win Me just had resource issues after adding Norton System Works 2005
(with AV)
> to the mix. Couldn't print from Word with a web page open because I'd run
out of
> resources!
>
> Win XP has been far easier on me. However, I/O issues with USB 2.0 had me
> stumped for 8 months until I got a different PCI card. I don't own a
computer
> that has XP on it.
> When the new mobos for AM2 chips come out en force, I'll give shopping
another
> shot. Hopefully very soon. By Christmas.
> I hear the ATI SB 450's and the NForce 4 mobos have very, very bad defects
in
> relation to I/O issues.
> The new ATI SB 600's and NForce 5's are supposed to clear up these issues.
>
>

Mart
Thu Sep 28 20:31:01 CDT 2006

Although I am sure that you will have tried every conceivable thing that you
could think of to overcome these issues - and not trying to start a Win98 vs
WinMe war - I therefore doubt that we could have helped any further from
afar, but I suspect that WinMe itself was not the REAL cause of your
problems.

As I have said on a number of occasions, other than (several) self-inflicted
'cock-ups', I have always found WinMe very stable - on quite a number of
completely different hardware/software installations (and boy, I've tried a
few) - ever since the release date in 2000.

Half a dozen BSOD's per day!! etc., should be 'fixable'

USB 2.0 - PCI cards are NOT a WinMe issue - they are a
hardware/software/driver issue, attributable to the manufacturer. However,
they can be VERY frustrating when they don't work <g>

Mart


"Cymbal Man Freq." <Don't Bother@ForgedPostsAnonymous.unorg> wrote in
message news:gXTSg.320$0L1.212@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Oh, I have a half dozen BSOD's a day, and a dozen reboots or more, and
> showing
> the desktop causes the computer to hang for a MINUTE or more and sometimes
> needs
> a reboot because 60 icons won't refresh (Explorer not responding)
>
> This is every day!
>
> Win 98SE has been a very, very tough school of hard knocks for me right
> off the
> bat, and going on 6 years straight.
>
> Win Me just had resource issues after adding Norton System Works 2005
> (with AV)
> to the mix. Couldn't print from Word with a web page open because I'd run
> out of
> resources!
>
> Win XP has been far easier on me. However, I/O issues with USB 2.0 had me
> stumped for 8 months until I got a different PCI card. I don't own a
> computer
> that has XP on it.
> When the new mobos for AM2 chips come out en force, I'll give shopping
> another
> shot. Hopefully very soon. By Christmas.
> I hear the ATI SB 450's and the NForce 4 mobos have very, very bad defects
> in
> relation to I/O issues.
> The new ATI SB 600's and NForce 5's are supposed to clear up these issues.
>
>

cquirke
Fri Sep 29 05:25:17 CDT 2006

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:47:09 -0600, "Bill in Co."
>cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:23:40 -0600, "Bill in Co."

>>> As far as the USB issue is concerned, we can often (usually?) get the
>>> necessary drivers for Win98SE from the peripheral manufacturer, AFAIK.

>> The difference is that with Win98xx, each flash drive has to have its
>> own driver.

>I seem to have noticed that. I mean, it's really weird, I have a couple
>of *identical* flash based mp3 players, and it seemingly had to install
>drivers separately for each, even though they're the same units! It's
>almost like each peripheral has a particular serial number and has to have
>its very own unique driver

Yep, that's exactly what it is. The beauty of WinME/2000/XP's native
support is that it's a system-level subsystem that handles all types
of USB storage in a generic manner.

So while you can add specific drivers to Win98xx, you cannot retrofit
that entire subsystem. That leaves all sorts of details, such as
management of delayed writes vs. eject, formatting, etc. up to the
<ahem> quality of the vendor's drivers.

>> One way to beat that is to use a card reader and SD cards instead of
>> USB flash drives. The card reader has one set of drivers, and can
>> then read as many SD cards as you like, of any brand.

>I'm not sure what a "card reader" is.

The "card" in card reader doesn't refer to a card inside the PC, but
to the memory storage cards it supports. By now, most cameras and
similar devices use one of a narrowing few card standards, such as the
old and large San cards, the current SD card standard and related MM
card offshoots, or the next generation of smaller form-factor cards.

Then of course there's Sony, who chain you to some proprietary
Sony-only card system. Well, if you still haven't figured out Sony's
greed and uselessness by now, then I suggest you do a few searches,
such as Google( Sony rootkit ), Google( Sony Connect Player ) etc.

A modern card reader can read or write to most of these, except for
Sony's proprietary hell, of course. Older ones would sometimes read,
but not write, certain types of storage.

The reader itself is usually (and IMO most usefully) a loose external
thing that plugs in via USB. You can also find such readers built
into PCs, laptops and larney printers... it's like USB hubs, the cost
of the thing amounts to a fat bump in the power cord, so it's a great
way to add product tangible value at a low manufacturing cost.

>Sounds like it's a special USB port card with its own drivers, and not just
>a simple, standard, internal USB2 card, as I have now

It does need drivers in Win98xx (again, it's natively supported in
WinME/2000/XP) but once driven, it can read any card of the types it
supports, from any vendor, with no extra drivers at all.

>> There are other advantages, too...
>> - Bart CDR boot will see SD hot-swap card changes OK
>> - SD cards are faster and less prone to delayed-write corruption
>> - SD cards have a hardware write-protect switch
>> - you can use the same cards in cameras that use SD cards
>> - not much price or max-capacity differences between SD and flash



>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Tech Support: The guys who follow the
'Parade of New Products' with a shovel.
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

Dan
Fri Sep 29 06:41:30 CDT 2006

<snipped>

Thanks Chris for that interesting discussion. I used to think that I
would go with the Sony Playstation 3 for my next video console and
thought that would be a sweet console but I am now thinking less and
less of it because Sony is really stupid to do what they are doing with
rootkits in the music cd and such. Fortunately, I was not a victim of
their underhandedness and I think the time has come to crown a new
victor in the next generation of video consoles. I now hope either
Microsoft or Nintendo is the most successful with their console.
Nintendo's Revolution (I refuse to use the stupid new name) looks
promising and XBOX 360 looks really cool as well. It is fun playing
Halo 2 tournaments with friends although I only get a few kills in even
when we play to 50 kills because I am really poor at it because I am not
interested enough to practice getting better at it. <smile>

Dan
Fri Sep 29 06:43:18 CDT 2006

Thanks again Chris and I copied and pasted this to a text document for
future reference.

J
Fri Sep 29 07:48:27 CDT 2006

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in
message news:fesph2lr8kfmjsvsn0b2km6095drlv9p4i@4ax.com...
[]
> The "card" in card reader doesn't refer to a card inside the PC, but
> to the memory storage cards it supports. By now, most cameras and
> similar devices use one of a narrowing few card standards, such as the
> old and large San cards, the current SD card standard and related MM
> card offshoots, or the next generation of smaller form-factor cards.
>
> Then of course there's Sony, who chain you to some proprietary
> Sony-only card system. Well, if you still haven't figured out Sony's
> greed and uselessness by now, then I suggest you do a few searches,
> such as Google( Sony rootkit ), Google( Sony Connect Player ) etc.
[]
Not wanting to support Sony particularly, and certainly last time I looked
(granted, that may be years ago!) the Sony memory sticks cost vastly more
than the other formats, but: most card readers I've seen do claim to support
(and have a slot for) the memory stick families; is there likely to be any
problem reading (and writing?) Sony cards/sticks with them? (I've recently
bought such a reader for a friend with a Sony 'phone/cam that uses them and
for which the support software isn't '98; I'm having problems getting the
reader to work at all, but that's not Sony-specific - see thread.)

BJ
Fri Sep 29 12:42:13 CDT 2006

On Fri 29 Sep 2006 08:48:27a, "J. P. Gilliver"
<john.gilliver@baesystems.com> took the time to tell us all in
news:451d1337$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:

> "cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote
> in message news:fesph2lr8kfmjsvsn0b2km6095drlv9p4i@4ax.com...
> []
>> The "card" in card reader doesn't refer to a card inside the PC, but
>> to the memory storage cards it supports. By now, most cameras and
>> similar devices use one of a narrowing few card standards, such as
>> the old and large San cards, the current SD card standard and related
>> MM card offshoots, or the next generation of smaller form-factor
>> cards.
>>
>> Then of course there's Sony, who chain you to some proprietary
>> Sony-only card system. Well, if you still haven't figured out Sony's
>> greed and uselessness by now, then I suggest you do a few searches,
>> such as Google( Sony rootkit ), Google( Sony Connect Player ) etc.
> []
> Not wanting to support Sony particularly, and certainly last time I
> looked (granted, that may be years ago!) the Sony memory sticks cost
> vastly more than the other formats, but: most card readers I've seen
> do claim to support (and have a slot for) the memory stick families;
> is there likely to be any problem reading (and writing?) Sony
> cards/sticks with them? (I've recently bought such a reader for a
> friend with a Sony 'phone/cam that uses them and for which the support
> software isn't '98; I'm having problems getting the reader to work at
> all, but that's not Sony-specific - see thread.)
>
>
>

There's something in the back of mind from ancient history...Oh, yeah:
Betamax. ;)