DescentBB

Sunday night installed some software at my dad's office... just about the time I was nearing completion... had to leave in a hurry to solve an emergency for one of our customers.

In my haste, it seems that I crashed the Windows 98 registry or some important DLL on the main pc in a peer to peer network with 2 pc's.

The main pc wouldn't boot up properly on Monday... So there was no choice but to reinstall all the software on the primary custom built pc.

Spent literally hours searching for some OLD systemboard drivers. Some of the drivers were nearly unfindable.

DOH!

Next Time, the NEW pc's will probably be something (prepackaged pc's) where all the drivers can be reinstalled from say 8 CD-R's.

Oh well... Life can be too interesting at times eh?


By the way, Windows 98 isn't my choice for this network... It's my dad's office and that's what he wants to use.

Then the REAL fun begins... seemingly endless "Windows Updates" then reboot after reboot.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

SirWinner wrote:Then the REAL fun begins... seemingly endless "Windows Updates" then reboot after reboot.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

I hate that, lol.

you don't have to reboot when installing the system, if the drivers and software you install don't affect each other.

i usually don't reboot at all when installing the system, only if some package like directx forces me to without choice.
saves a lot of time.

SirWinner wrote:Spent literally hours searching for some OLD systemboard drivers. Some of the drivers were nearly unfindable.

im assuming you checked Driver Guide.com

i just had to revamp a couple of 486 DX2's for a friend and driverguide had all the drivers for that mb.




BTW: Isnt this a Tech topic?

Do what I did:

"Sorry Dad, I don't support, endorse or work on any system with Windows 98 or Windows ME installed. Want me to help you out? Then update to XP, or pay someone $100 an hour to fix it."

Needless to say, all PC's at Mum and Dad's place were running XP in under 10 days.

Remember: you CAN upgrade 98 to XP. It DOES work.

Mobius wrote:Remember: you CAN upgrade 98 to XP. It DOES work.

And it might even be a little more stable that way!

Mobius wrote:"Sorry Dad, I don't support, endorse or work on any system with Windows 98 or Windows ME installed. Want me to help you out? Then update to XP, or pay someone $100 an hour to fix it."

Translation: I really don't give a crap about you or you problems. piss off.

^ word

Windows 98 is still a very good and powerful operating system provided you have half a brain to use it.

Couldn't Win98 be argued as just one huge DOS shell?

Gettin' techy in here. Moved.

Sorry, I posted this in the wrong place in a hurry.

Spent 13 to 14 hours reformatting and getting the 2 pc's to talk to each other.

Whew... at least it is up and running properly again.

I didn't know about the link for old drivers... Will keep that in mind for next time.

.
.
.

Next thing is to backup and reformat my home pc that uses Windows XP SP2... a game installer program screwed up my video drivers and things need to be fixed. (I won't mention the game demo that did it because I'm not sure if it was the actual cause of the problem or not.)

Guess that I'll do that this weekend... Did buy an external USB 80 GB hard drive to backup things first. (50 GB hard drive currently in my pc.)

Wheeeeeee!

Jeff,

Couldn't Win98 be argued as just one huge DOS shell?

Most people don't know this but Windows is STILL a MS-DOS based system even under Windows XP, Microsoft has hidden it a little better with every version update.

SirWinner, didn't you at one point claim the GOP was using Foxnews.com to infect visitors as part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?

Here's something interesting... running Win98 on a 16MB flash card? WindowsXP installed using only 350MB?

www.litepc.com

Freaky.

SirWinner wrote:Most people don't know this but Windows is STILL a MS-DOS based system even under Windows XP, Microsoft has hidden it a little better with every version update.

NOT..... since windows 95, When the O/S is running MSDOS runs in a Shell. DOS Exists to get the O/S booted then it is dumped if requested later it runs in a VDM or NTVDM... END of story have a good day.. last O/S used as a SHELL over DOS in Win3.x (btw hello from NY)

Dcrazy,

SirWinner, didn't you at one point claim the GOP was using Foxnews.com to infect visitors as part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?

That wasn't me.



---

Bubbalou,

Yes, WINDOWS is still based heavily on MS-DOS.

Microsoft just doesn't let on that they use it. Microsoft has removed most of their MS-DOS tools.

I still have many old MS-DOS programs that work well even under Windows XP.

I'll let you believe what you want to believe in this regard.

BUBBALOU wrote: NOT..... since windows 95, When the O/S is running MSDOS runs in a Shell. DOS Exists to get the O/S booted then it is dumped if requested later it runs in a VDM or NTVDM... END of story have a good day.. last O/S used as a SHELL over DOS in Win3.x (btw hello from NY)

but arent the core commands still running in a MSDOS type state and are just displayed in a GUI Interface?

[To Bubba]

In application to Win9x, yes, the DOS CLI (command.com) is run as a shell from Windows. But it is equally run as a shell from DOS. When I refer to DOS, I refer to the operating system, not the CLI.

But what you've said isn't even true about the CLI. If you boot to DOS, it automatically runs command.com. Then, if you launch Windows from DOS, command.com isn't even terminated. Once Windows is up, go to run and type in "mem /c /p". You'll see that command.com is still running from when you booted to DOS. Likewise, if you open another command.com shell to type the mem command, you'll observe that two command.com's are running. Boot straight into Windows next time and there will be one less command.com in memory.

Jeff, command.com is merely the CLI, not the entire OS. Do you honestly think that all of DOS is only 64K?

now you have to explain why 9x had all programs sharing the same megabyte of memory

DCrazy wrote:Jeff, command.com is merely the CLI, not the entire OS. Do you honestly think that all of DOS is only 64K?

No, do you?

Jeff250 wrote:In application to Win9x, yes, the DOS CLI (command.com) is run as a shell from Windows. But it is equally run as a shell from DOS. When I refer to DOS, I refer to the operating system, not the CLI.

But what you've said isn't even true about the CLI...

edit: The only way I can see how this could have aroused confusion is if it wasn't clear whose post I was responded to, so I've clarified that.

repeat after me longfile names, 16/32 o/s vs enviroments, 32 bit and NTVDM, and 64 bit.

journey down the path to understanding and join us!!

{btw hello from FL}

Long Filenames, while a feature of FAT32, are not proof that Windows 9x is separate from DOS. FAT32 still stores files with 8.3 names, storing the long names separately.

What I was saying to you, Jeff, is that the nonexistence of command.com is not proof that Windows does not rely on DOS. The DOS bootloader is still run when the computer boots straight to Windows. It's just that the bootloader shipped with Windows 9x is configured to boot to the Windows shell in (correct me if I'm wrong) boot.ini. If you boot to DOS and type "win", the win.com (.com means 64K) executable loads in command.com's memory space, and Windows uses its memory extender to bypass the memory limit as usual. The instance of command.com hangs around because win.com hangs around. No matter whether you load win.com from the CLI or let Windows boot normally, the simple fact is that the Windows bootloader is just a modified version of the DOS bootloader. wowexec takes care of isolating Win16 apps in WinNT, whereas in Win9x they are run in the same memory space as both Win32 apps and the operating system and are therefore able to access DOS interrupts. This is why Win9x defrag will not work on WinNT.

DCrazy wrote:What I was saying to you, Jeff, is that the nonexistence of command.com is not proof that Windows does not rely on DOS.

DC, I was trying to show an example via memory management that Windows does rely on DOS (and also, in response to Bubba's post, that it doesn't ditch the CLI either), not that it doesn't rely on DOS. I think we're seeing eye-to-eye.

Bubbalou wrote:repeat after me longfile names, 16/32 o/s vs enviroments, 32 bit and NTVDM, and 64 bit.

journey down the path to understanding and join us!!

Bubba, NTVDM isn't a part of the Win9x operating system, nor is it needed, since Win9x can run DOS executables natively (another small hint). Nor is there a 64-bit Win9x OS that I'm aware of... You must be still referring to NT?

read my posts again

this is not 6.22 folks(true DOS) where you can seperate the 2 like in win3.x and 95.. my reply is to the NT 4/5/5.1 32 bit O/S's, and touching 98 16/32 bit hybrid enviroments with MSDOS7

DCrazy wrote:Long Filenames, while a feature of FAT32, are not proof that Windows 9x is separate from DOS. FAT32 still stores files with 8.3 names, storing the long names separately.

Long filenames on FAT aren't unique to FAT32, Windows NT 3.5 pioneered a way to store them on FAT16 as well. This technology was later inherited by Windows 95 and I also believe it to be the basis of FAT32s long filename support as well.

The DOS bootloader is still run when the computer boots straight to Windows. It's just that the bootloader shipped with Windows 9x is configured to boot to the Windows shell in (correct me if I'm wrong) boot.ini.

Win9x doesn't use boot.ini, that's solely an NT thing afaik. Instead, deciding whether the computer boots DOS or Windows in 9x (at least 95 and 98, MS probably blocked it in Me to keep up the appearance that DOS was banished when in reality it was still alive and kicking) is done through MSDOS.SYS.

no, there is a boot.ini in win98

AceCombat wrote:no, there is a boot.ini in win98

no, there isn't a boot.ini in win98

Ahh, my disclaimer came in handy.

I think we're all arguing different sides of the same coin here. The DOS that ships with Windows 9x is a real DOS operating system that forms the basis of the Windows subsystem (c.f. io.sys and msdos.sys). The versions that ship with 9x are modified to boot differently from versions prior to Win9x, but underneath it all the core DOS operating system remains intact. Win9x escapes its limitations through well known methods of memory extension.

WinNT, on the other hand, operates DOS in a complete subsystem.

Which brings up an interesting point... Win9x and NT both have an OS/2 subsystem. What the hell is it used for?

9x didn't, as it didn't really have subsystems.

the NT OSs before XP did. it was an offshoot of MS and IBM's work on OS/2, and was there to run OS/2 apps(OS/2 could also run win32 apps).

There is also a POSIX sub-system.

OS/2 could run Windows apps by actually running Windows inside OS/2's memory space, I know that much. I just don't see a use for running OS/2 apps on Windows...