P
PM
Is there anywhere that I can get a COMPLETE download, to upgrade my Windows
98 SE to Windows 2000?
Many thanks,
PM
98 SE to Windows 2000?
Many thanks,
PM
J
jo
PM said:
This is a freeware group; you want a warez group. Freeserve used to
have a policy of preferring warez over porn; I don't know their current
position.
98SE is better than 2000, btw.
J
Joe
jo said:
I agree.
I totally disagree.
B
badgolferman
98SE is better than 2000, btw.
What is your basis for this? I would like to hear it.
W2K is the most stable Windows operating system I've ever managed. My
opinion is still developing in regards to WXP. Since it is the same kernel
it is probably just as stable.
What is your basis for this? I would like to hear it.
W2K is the most stable Windows operating system I've ever managed. My
opinion is still developing in regards to WXP. Since it is the same kernel
it is probably just as stable.
J
Johnny
PM said:
No, you have to actually spend some money to upgrade. Cheap &*$#
D
david
98SE is better than 2000, btw.
I totally disagree too. How is it better?
2000 is for me infinitely more stable than 98SE. Stability and lack of
bugs is for me by far the most important consideration for any
software.
98SE 'degrades' such that it crashes so often I restored a clean
(effectively new) version in weeks (sometime days).
2000 can go for months [-years?] before it 'degrades' to an unuseable
level.
To OP. Ebay usually has lots of people selling what you want. Or if
you insist on free, find a freind who is buying a new pc with XP
loaded and would like to donate her copy of 2000 - assuming the old
one will no longer be used. [Don't mention that my - is it many
peoples? - advice would still be to keep 2000
]
If you want to be sure it's legal check the license, they vary but
often that will be allowed.
David. 1keytools.
Software author. (please edit my email addr. to prove you're not a dumb 'bot)
Kybie GetEmAll - Make IE an offline browser http://www.1keytools.com/offline_browser.htm
Kyboma CSS tutor by example - find stylesheet examples http://www.1keytools.com/html_tutor.htm
I totally disagree too. How is it better?
2000 is for me infinitely more stable than 98SE. Stability and lack of
bugs is for me by far the most important consideration for any
software.
98SE 'degrades' such that it crashes so often I restored a clean
(effectively new) version in weeks (sometime days).
2000 can go for months [-years?] before it 'degrades' to an unuseable
level.
To OP. Ebay usually has lots of people selling what you want. Or if
you insist on free, find a freind who is buying a new pc with XP
loaded and would like to donate her copy of 2000 - assuming the old
one will no longer be used. [Don't mention that my - is it many
peoples? - advice would still be to keep 2000
]If you want to be sure it's legal check the license, they vary but
often that will be allowed.
David. 1keytools.
Software author. (please edit my email addr. to prove you're not a dumb 'bot)
Kybie GetEmAll - Make IE an offline browser http://www.1keytools.com/offline_browser.htm
Kyboma CSS tutor by example - find stylesheet examples http://www.1keytools.com/html_tutor.htm
G
Gnome de Plume
get a 6 month eval copy of SBS and Server 2003. convert it to a
desktop. that's a year worth of OS for free, legally.
they were giving away eval copies of XP with the office beta also.
if you purchase one, XP Home seems to run about $50 less than 2000.
michael
desktop. that's a year worth of OS for free, legally.
they were giving away eval copies of XP with the office beta also.
if you purchase one, XP Home seems to run about $50 less than 2000.
michael
B
Bebop & Rocksteady
Ditto...
P
PM
Many thanks for all of your help.
PM
PM
D
derek / nul
In which world?
D
derek / nul
It comes off a cd purchased from M$
C
Chrissy Cruiser
They prefer butts up.
--
If you add up the name 'George Bush' in Hebrew letters it comes out:
G = 3 (gimel)
e = 5 (heh)
o = 70 (ayin)
r = 200 (resh)
g = 3 (gimel)
e = 5 (heh)
B = 2 (beth)
u = 70 (ayin)
s = 300 (shin)
h = 8 (cheth)
total = 666 (Antichrist)
C
Chrissy Cruiser
Sorry jo; no way.
--
If you add up the name 'George Bush' in Hebrew letters it comes out:
G = 3 (gimel)
e = 5 (heh)
o = 70 (ayin)
r = 200 (resh)
g = 3 (gimel)
e = 5 (heh)
B = 2 (beth)
u = 70 (ayin)
s = 300 (shin)
h = 8 (cheth)
total = 666 (Antichrist)
H
Hello
FWIIW
w2k will run on your machine without MS permission
wxp has a hardware key and requires MS permission
F
Francesco
In data Thu, 21 Oct 2004 01:15:42 +0100, jo ha scritto:
you're OT too...as you said this ng is about freeware, not about jokes!
Bye, Francesco
you're OT too...as you said this ng is about freeware, not about jokes!
Bye, Francesco
O
omega
(e-mail address removed)-beings-can-remove-this-part.co.uk (david (1keytools)):
My w98SE install was on 2000.04.05. So, that's 4.5 years that
I have been running from the same registry, same system folder.
Extremely heavy use, and thousands of apps have come into play.
The system is very stable.
So I have to disagree with you that use of w98SE necessitates
regular reinstalls.
Now, if you want to talk about how long w98SE can hang in there
until it needs one of its regular little power naps, well, that's
another story. (My little resource bars begin to drop down into
the yellow zone after only days...)
My w98SE install was on 2000.04.05. So, that's 4.5 years that
I have been running from the same registry, same system folder.
Extremely heavy use, and thousands of apps have come into play.
The system is very stable.
So I have to disagree with you that use of w98SE necessitates
regular reinstalls.
Now, if you want to talk about how long w98SE can hang in there
until it needs one of its regular little power naps, well, that's
another story. (My little resource bars begin to drop down into
the yellow zone after only days...)
C
Calm n Collected
omega said:
Try BySoft's FreeRam, works great. One reason I got it is my DOS based
virus scanner uses a DOS Mode Extender and it puts the "Owey" on resources
while and after it's running.
D
david
I think it depends what you do with your system.
Windows crashing (for me) usually had to do with either
a. no free space on the windows drive
b. VB crashing
c. audio - video programs some years ago when versions were less
stable.
If you don't write programs with VB and are tidy enough you don't fill
your C-drive you wouldn't have these problems. Both events happen
under windows 2000 and it doesn't crash (as it shouldn't) mostly it
doesn't even require a re-boot.
I also never tried all sorts of programs to find problems - tweak
windows and make it work. Maybe that makes a differrence.
The easy solution was always 15 mins to restore the backed up windows
drive which I knew would work. I expect stuff to work as it comes out
of the box.
David.
O
omega
(e-mail address removed)-beings-can-remove-this-part.co.uk (david
(1keytools)):
Inadequate disk space can be a factor leading to crash in a number of
scenarios. One is where there is a process that needs to expand the temp
drive to a huge use (such as with when working with large compressed files
of various types). And there is the main scenario: where swap might need
to temporarily grow a great deal. Thus inadequate space on the drive where
the swap is located can be fatal.
Recently as early this year, I discovered that MSIE on my system was
having a terrible reaction to a few web pages, something to do with
iframes. During load of such pages, I watched, vis MS System Monitor,
my physical RAM level plummet at approx rate of -100mb/sec. Several
times, I waited a moment before fleeing, and that drop went into very
large numbers.
Even when I closed right away, it was already enough to send me into swap
mode. If, upon load of one of those problem pages, I'd not had adequate
disk space to write that swap file -- my computer would have definitely
crashed.
I did still have to reboot pretty shortly afterwards. This because W98se,
from what I've observed, doesn't seem able to revive its energies properly,
bring itself all the way back to the surface, after it's plummeted deep into
swap mode. But that's not so bad as crashing, as one has time to finish off
immediate things, save work first, etc.
I'm not a programmer, VB or other. But as an end-user, I sure seem to
have to spend a helluva lot of time dealing with VB libraries on my system
(working out the right versions, dealing with installer overwrites, cleaning
up after wrong registry changes, etc).
Another observation from end-user stands. I've noted that the handful of
programs where I have witnessed the worst mem and resources danger -- those
which cause serious, out-of-control draining -- they were programs written
in VB. The essential thing those worst offenders had in common, it was that
they all loaded a lot of OCX's / active-x controls.
I have the conclusion that a VB programmer who wants to incorporate a
number of active-x controls for their program, they need to be prepared
to proceed with a lot of caution and care, handling dynamite. One of the
problem programs I saw of this type wasn't even a beginner's freeware
product. It was a commercial product from Ontrack. But then, I think even
Ontrack realized they had a disaster, soon enough: they discontinued that
product pretty quick. (The fact that I picked it up from AMZN at clearance
price of $5, maybe that should have given me an advance clue.)
W2000 features the improved memory architecture, with the special protected
system region that random processes cannot write into. I haven't got the
pattern of getting whole system crashes from badly written programs writing
into the wrong memory region. Although I'm sure I do get bad side-effect,
sort of dirty memory area, and then something Windows cannot free up later.
Where it makes only for another reason, addition to resources, that W98
requires regular power naps, the needed reboots every few days.
For w98se not crashing, there is one item that is of supreme importance. It
is to have an alarm on resources. Before I took up sworn devotion to always
keeping a sentry loaded, I did used to get a lot of crashes. It is very easy
to run out of resources in w98, since the allowance is so abysmally measly.
Running out of resources results, no two ways about it, in system crash.
So I watch my general level, to have a sense of how much I can load at a
time. Then when I've dropped to the 9% level for which I've set an alarm,
I take the warning seriously. I stop opening any new windows, and also start
looking for what I can close. I treat the low resources warning message as
a fire alarm, calling for immediate action, to avoid the looming danger of
crashing.
When I have to work with Windows, any version, out of the box, I find it
distasteful in many ways. So many of the defaults are extremely annoying.
Further, I'm very picky about my paths, and it took a lot of time to move
things, esp many items from the windir, all those long folder names and so
forth, into the directory structure that I wanted.
Then there is the matter of having set up third-party programs that feel
absolutely essential. For instance, when I right-click an object in the
explorer, and do not get available commands such as "make folder" or "copy
path" or "launch renamer" -- I break into hives, and suffer.
For me to get from point A, a vanilla reinstall, to point B, a working
environment how I like it, that would take me many months....
As to your preference, to do regular reinstalls, I think that might well
be much more common. There was a pretty good survey I read on that once
I'm going to skip looking up the details, but the basics of its result
went something like this: the highest number of respondents estimated
their OS reinstall rates to be 3-4 times per year.
Perhaps regular OS reinstalls are more frequent for programmers generally,
over other users. Your note, too, about not using your time on the activity
of system-tuning and similar -
That fits into my image, when generalizing one how many programmers deal
will their systems. Last year, during a debate on the PL categories, and
in support of the argument that system tweaking tools did not belong under
the programmer's tools category, I painted you programmers like this:
: Subject: Re: [PL] 2004 Discussion: SYSTEM UTILITIES
: Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:28:28 -0800
:
: jason <[email protected]>:
: > > http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/PL2004PROGRAMMING.htm#SystemTweaker
: > >
: > My first instinct is to put system tweakers in the System Utilities section.
:
: I don't think progammers even bother tweaking their systems anyway.
:
: They just focus on pounding together code, letting all the wild runtimes
: and libraries run about furiously every which way, as they work, then deal
: with cleanup via regular OS reinstalls.
To wind up the long ramble. Since my install of w98se is 4.5 years old,
and runs well, I naturally stand by my statement that using w98SE does not
necessitate regular reinstall. Yet there is that point: I've always devoted
time to customizing it, doctoring it, maintaining it.
You programmers, on the other hand, I prefer you not waste too much time
in tweaking your systems. Instead devote your energies to pounding out code,
such that you can regular deliver new toys to the doorsteps of appreciative
end-users. I call that a good arrangement.
(1keytools)):
Inadequate disk space can be a factor leading to crash in a number of
scenarios. One is where there is a process that needs to expand the temp
drive to a huge use (such as with when working with large compressed files
of various types). And there is the main scenario: where swap might need
to temporarily grow a great deal. Thus inadequate space on the drive where
the swap is located can be fatal.
Recently as early this year, I discovered that MSIE on my system was
having a terrible reaction to a few web pages, something to do with
iframes. During load of such pages, I watched, vis MS System Monitor,
my physical RAM level plummet at approx rate of -100mb/sec. Several
times, I waited a moment before fleeing, and that drop went into very
large numbers.
Even when I closed right away, it was already enough to send me into swap
mode. If, upon load of one of those problem pages, I'd not had adequate
disk space to write that swap file -- my computer would have definitely
crashed.
I did still have to reboot pretty shortly afterwards. This because W98se,
from what I've observed, doesn't seem able to revive its energies properly,
bring itself all the way back to the surface, after it's plummeted deep into
swap mode. But that's not so bad as crashing, as one has time to finish off
immediate things, save work first, etc.
I'm not a programmer, VB or other. But as an end-user, I sure seem to
have to spend a helluva lot of time dealing with VB libraries on my system
(working out the right versions, dealing with installer overwrites, cleaning
up after wrong registry changes, etc).
Another observation from end-user stands. I've noted that the handful of
programs where I have witnessed the worst mem and resources danger -- those
which cause serious, out-of-control draining -- they were programs written
in VB. The essential thing those worst offenders had in common, it was that
they all loaded a lot of OCX's / active-x controls.
I have the conclusion that a VB programmer who wants to incorporate a
number of active-x controls for their program, they need to be prepared
to proceed with a lot of caution and care, handling dynamite. One of the
problem programs I saw of this type wasn't even a beginner's freeware
product. It was a commercial product from Ontrack. But then, I think even
Ontrack realized they had a disaster, soon enough: they discontinued that
product pretty quick. (The fact that I picked it up from AMZN at clearance
price of $5, maybe that should have given me an advance clue.)
W2000 features the improved memory architecture, with the special protected
system region that random processes cannot write into. I haven't got the
pattern of getting whole system crashes from badly written programs writing
into the wrong memory region. Although I'm sure I do get bad side-effect,
sort of dirty memory area, and then something Windows cannot free up later.
Where it makes only for another reason, addition to resources, that W98
requires regular power naps, the needed reboots every few days.
For w98se not crashing, there is one item that is of supreme importance. It
is to have an alarm on resources. Before I took up sworn devotion to always
keeping a sentry loaded, I did used to get a lot of crashes. It is very easy
to run out of resources in w98, since the allowance is so abysmally measly.
Running out of resources results, no two ways about it, in system crash.
So I watch my general level, to have a sense of how much I can load at a
time. Then when I've dropped to the 9% level for which I've set an alarm,
I take the warning seriously. I stop opening any new windows, and also start
looking for what I can close. I treat the low resources warning message as
a fire alarm, calling for immediate action, to avoid the looming danger of
crashing.
When I have to work with Windows, any version, out of the box, I find it
distasteful in many ways. So many of the defaults are extremely annoying.
Further, I'm very picky about my paths, and it took a lot of time to move
things, esp many items from the windir, all those long folder names and so
forth, into the directory structure that I wanted.
Then there is the matter of having set up third-party programs that feel
absolutely essential. For instance, when I right-click an object in the
explorer, and do not get available commands such as "make folder" or "copy
path" or "launch renamer" -- I break into hives, and suffer.
For me to get from point A, a vanilla reinstall, to point B, a working
environment how I like it, that would take me many months....
As to your preference, to do regular reinstalls, I think that might well
be much more common. There was a pretty good survey I read on that once
I'm going to skip looking up the details, but the basics of its result
went something like this: the highest number of respondents estimated
their OS reinstall rates to be 3-4 times per year.
Perhaps regular OS reinstalls are more frequent for programmers generally,
over other users. Your note, too, about not using your time on the activity
of system-tuning and similar -
That fits into my image, when generalizing one how many programmers deal
will their systems. Last year, during a debate on the PL categories, and
in support of the argument that system tweaking tools did not belong under
the programmer's tools category, I painted you programmers like this:
: Subject: Re: [PL] 2004 Discussion: SYSTEM UTILITIES
: Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:28:28 -0800
:
: jason <[email protected]>:
: > > http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/PL2004PROGRAMMING.htm#SystemTweaker
: > >
: > My first instinct is to put system tweakers in the System Utilities section.
:
: I don't think progammers even bother tweaking their systems anyway.
:
: They just focus on pounding together code, letting all the wild runtimes
: and libraries run about furiously every which way, as they work, then deal
: with cleanup via regular OS reinstalls.
To wind up the long ramble. Since my install of w98se is 4.5 years old,
and runs well, I naturally stand by my statement that using w98SE does not
necessitate regular reinstall. Yet there is that point: I've always devoted
time to customizing it, doctoring it, maintaining it.
You programmers, on the other hand, I prefer you not waste too much time
in tweaking your systems. Instead devote your energies to pounding out code,
such that you can regular deliver new toys to the doorsteps of appreciative
end-users. I call that a good arrangement.
R
Roger Johansson
omega said:
This is a very good explanation of the reasons to use partition saving.
After setting up a new windows installation, and installing the most
essential stuff you feel you need, take an image of the C: drive.
Later when a virus, or a technical glitch, makes the system bad, you just
restore the clean and optimized image and you are back in your favorite
settings in a clean windows installation.
It can also be very useful if you install a lot of programs to try out,
and is too lazy to use TUN and other means to keep the computer clean.
Just restore an earlier image, and you get rid of all the crap you have
installed but actually do not need.
After a while you might have a very good system with more programs
installed, take a new image, so you can choose if you want to return to a
very clean, but small system, or return to a big system with lots of good
programs.
There are many partition saving programs.
Learn how to use such a program, so you save only the used sectors, and
use mild compression.
With a correct usage such a program needs only a few minutes to restore
1-2 gigabyte.