Upgrading Windows 98
in [Home Built PC]
|
From: Toolpackinmama on 2 Jan 2010 00:02 John Doe wrote: > A machine running Windows XP can easily be assumed to have > practically the same purpose as a machine running Windows 98. THE > DIFFERENCE IS THAT WINDOWS XP IS INCREDIBLY BETTER THAN WINDOWS > 98. Hardware requirements matter, but even a slow computer running > Windows XP is better than the same computer running Windows 98. I am inclined to agree with this opinion. It's possible to make XP run on computers that supposedly can't run it. I've done it. If the machine can run Win 98, it's worth it to try XP. You have to tweak it to run lean, but it is possible. It helps to have an anti-virus like AVG free that isn't a resources hog, too. Just turn off all the start-up stuff, turn off active desktop and junk like that. Deactivate as much of the background frippery as you can. AND advise your cheapskate client to get the box of dollar bills out from under the bed, and go buy themselves a new computer. Sheesh. I have a gal-pal who used the same laptop for something like nine years. NINE YEARS! She got her money's worth out of it! Incredibly, the thing still works! One day I said to her, "You know, just because your old tricycle still works doesn't mean you should still be riding it." LOL She finally broke the piggy bank and bought a new one last year. She loves the new one! She sorry she waited!
From: Metspitzer on 2 Jan 2010 00:12 On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:51:41 -0500, Toolpackinmama <philnblanc(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Metspitzer wrote: > >> I installed XP and the network card. >> Everything is working fine >> > >Awesome! I am curious to know what the machine is? How about a model >name or number? It is a HP Pavilion. 500Mhz with 192K memory and a 12G hard drive. Just fine for a second computer to surf the net.
From: Toolpackinmama on 2 Jan 2010 00:21 Metspitzer wrote: > On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:51:41 -0500, Toolpackinmama > <philnblanc(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> Metspitzer wrote: >> >>> I installed XP and the network card. >>> Everything is working fine >>> >> Awesome! I am curious to know what the machine is? How about a model >> name or number? > > It is a HP Pavilion. 500Mhz with 192K memory and a 12G hard drive. Oh... wow. And XP runs on it. That's awesome. :)
From: fwibbler on 2 Jan 2010 06:28 Toolpackinmama <philnblanc(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Metspitzer wrote: > > On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:51:41 -0500, Toolpackinmama > > <philnblanc(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> Metspitzer wrote: > >> > >>> I installed XP and the network card. > >>> Everything is working fine > >>> > >> Awesome! I am curious to know what the machine is? How about a model > >> name or number? > > > > It is a HP Pavilion. 500Mhz with 192K memory and a 12G hard drive. > > Oh... wow. And XP runs on it. That's awesome. :) > I have an old Compaq Armada M300 (with the same CPU) with XP Performance Edition installed on it. It Boots up and shutsdown and generally feels more responsive than my nieces brand new Dual core laptop with Windows 7. Obviously its slower (a lot) for CPU intensive tasks but for basic webbrowsing etc its perfectly capable. -- Graham Website - http://www.thedeathzone.free-online.co.uk
From: larry moe 'n curly on 3 Jan 2010 00:38
Metspitzer wrote: > I have a friend. He is trying to get an Ethernet adapter to work with > his old machine. He says that he has 98 but he needs 98 second > version. I assume that means SP2 for 98. 98 Second Edition (98SE) is a separate product from 98, and while there's no official SP for 98SE, somebody's put together all the updates for it into a single download and has named it the Unofficial Windows 98 Second Edition Service Pack 2.1a, available from. among others: http://exuberant.ms11.net/98sesp.html This SP will NOT turn 98 into 98SE. Most Ethernet adapters should have 98 drivers for them, even some that claim to require 98SE. USB 1.1 support is OK for 98, and 1.1 is more than fast enough for almost all broadband connections, up to about 12Mbps. USB 2.0 support for 98SE is common, but much less so for 98, and AFAIK only VIA and NEC chips have drivers for it. NEC says they no longer distribute the driver, but it's available from some companies that have sold NEC-based USB cards, like IOgear (models GIC220U -- some are not not NEC, GIC250U) and Seagate (Maxtor USB card): http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/maxtor/en_us/downloads/usb20.exe VIA's USB 2.0 driver for Windows 98, 98SE, and ME can be downloaded from: http://www.viaarena.com/Driver/VIA_USB2_V270p1-L-M.zip Almost all VIA-based USB 2.0 cards are listed as requiring 98SE or later, but that's inaccurate, and they also work fine with 98. I've used them myself with 98. I don't know where to buy a legitimate copy of 98SE cheaply, but maybe your friend can get a junked computer that had been running a legitimate copy and then make a copy somebody's 98SE CD-ROM. Just copying the CD without obtaining a computer containing a legitimate copy is illegal because it increases the number of computers running unpaid copies of 98SE. It's possible that Windows 2000 or XP are now cheaper than 98SE. Microsoft says XP Home needs a 300MHz CPU and 128MB of RAM, but I found it to be sluggish with even twice as much RAM, whether the CPU ran at 450 MHz (Celeron) or 1.5 GHz (Athlon XP 1800+). XP worked much better with 512MB, even with a 466 MHz Celeron, but it was still too slow for good YouTube performance. But if there's enough memory, a 1.0-1.5 GHz CPU seems to be adequate. Windows 2000 reportedly can tolerate a smaller amount of RAM and slower CPU than XP, and Microsoft says 64MB RAM and 133MHz CPU are good enough for it. I have doubts about the 64MB recommendation because even Windows 98 and 98SE ran noticeably faster with twice that amount of RAM. |