While shopping in a faraway Costco I got intrigued by an
optical cordless mouse for $36 (Microsoft), so after making
sure it fit my hand, I repackaged it and threw it in the cart.
As I went to install it I see a warning tag on the connector
to install the software first. I rip the CD package open,
insert the CD, shutdown other apps and prepare for my new
toy. Double click on "setup.exe" and it all turns to sh*t.
The mouse only works on XP, 2000, etc.; not Windows 98!
Jeez! It's just a frickin' mouse!
I go online to see what's up and damn if EVERY Microsoft
mouse I checked on won't work with 98. Thanks a bunch,
Billy boy!
I check out Logitech optical cordless mice and sure enough,
as expected, they will work with 95 and 98, as well they
should. Don't ya just love capitalism at it's finest?? sigh.
dave
Uh, just when exactly did Bill point his .45 ACP at you to force you to buy
his mouse?
Didn't think so.
And yes, capitalism is (mostly) swell.
--
- GRL
"It's good to want things."
Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist,
Visual Basic programmer)
"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> While shopping in a faraway Costco I got intrigued by an
> optical cordless mouse for $36 (Microsoft), so after making
> sure it fit my hand, I repackaged it and threw it in the cart.
>
> As I went to install it I see a warning tag on the connector
> to install the software first. I rip the CD package open,
> insert the CD, shutdown other apps and prepare for my new
> toy. Double click on "setup.exe" and it all turns to sh*t.
> The mouse only works on XP, 2000, etc.; not Windows 98!
> Jeez! It's just a frickin' mouse!
>
> I go online to see what's up and damn if EVERY Microsoft
> mouse I checked on won't work with 98. Thanks a bunch,
> Billy boy!
>
> I check out Logitech optical cordless mice and sure enough,
> as expected, they will work with 95 and 98, as well they
> should. Don't ya just love capitalism at it's finest?? sigh.
>
> dave
>
MSFT announced quite a while ago, that 98 was officially no longer
supported.
Brian.
"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> While shopping in a faraway Costco I got intrigued by an
> optical cordless mouse for $36 (Microsoft), so after making
> sure it fit my hand, I repackaged it and threw it in the cart.
>
> As I went to install it I see a warning tag on the connector
> to install the software first. I rip the CD package open,
> insert the CD, shutdown other apps and prepare for my new
> toy. Double click on "setup.exe" and it all turns to sh*t.
> The mouse only works on XP, 2000, etc.; not Windows 98!
> Jeez! It's just a frickin' mouse!
>
> I go online to see what's up and damn if EVERY Microsoft
> mouse I checked on won't work with 98. Thanks a bunch,
> Billy boy!
>
> I check out Logitech optical cordless mice and sure enough,
> as expected, they will work with 95 and 98, as well they
> should. Don't ya just love capitalism at it's finest?? sigh.
>
> dave
>
RWM wrote:
> After working in the MS hardware group for many years, I can assure you that
> MS didn't get the mouse from Logi...
Right! The stole it from PARC
Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
"Greg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Go to the Logitec site and get the latest "mouseware". I bet it will work.
> Microsoft never had an original idea, I bet they got the mouse from
Logitec.
> My MS scroll mouse works fine on mouseware.
After working in the MS hardware group for many years, I can assure you that
MS didn't get the mouse from Logi...
I got it to work, Greg. only the left/right scroll button
feature is inop. no biggie there.
dave
Greg wrote:
> Go to the Logitec site and get the latest "mouseware". I bet it will work.
> Microsoft never had an original idea, I bet they got the mouse from Logitec.
> My MS scroll mouse works fine on mouseware.
...but they un-announced that partially and said that ME IS still supported.
So, in effect, 98 is supported.
--
- GRL
"It's good to want things."
Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist,
Visual Basic programmer)
"Brian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> MSFT announced quite a while ago, that 98 was officially no longer
> supported.
>
> Brian.
>
>
>
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > While shopping in a faraway Costco I got intrigued by an
> > optical cordless mouse for $36 (Microsoft), so after making
> > sure it fit my hand, I repackaged it and threw it in the cart.
> >
> > As I went to install it I see a warning tag on the connector
> > to install the software first. I rip the CD package open,
> > insert the CD, shutdown other apps and prepare for my new
> > toy. Double click on "setup.exe" and it all turns to sh*t.
> > The mouse only works on XP, 2000, etc.; not Windows 98!
> > Jeez! It's just a frickin' mouse!
> >
> > I go online to see what's up and damn if EVERY Microsoft
> > mouse I checked on won't work with 98. Thanks a bunch,
> > Billy boy!
> >
> > I check out Logitech optical cordless mice and sure enough,
> > as expected, they will work with 95 and 98, as well they
> > should. Don't ya just love capitalism at it's finest?? sigh.
> >
> > dave
> >
>
>
WIndows 98? Thats like 6+ years ago!
--
Chris
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > While shopping in a faraway Costco I got intrigued by an
> > optical cordless mouse for $36 (Microsoft), so after making
> > sure it fit my hand, I repackaged it and threw it in the cart.
> >
> > As I went to install it I see a warning tag on the connector
> > to install the software first. I rip the CD package open,
> > insert the CD, shutdown other apps and prepare for my new
> > toy. Double click on "setup.exe" and it all turns to sh*t.
> > The mouse only works on XP, 2000, etc.; not Windows 98!
> > Jeez! It's just a frickin' mouse!
> >
> > I go online to see what's up and damn if EVERY Microsoft
> > mouse I checked on won't work with 98. Thanks a bunch,
> > Billy boy!
> >
> > I check out Logitech optical cordless mice and sure enough,
> > as expected, they will work with 95 and 98, as well they
> > should. Don't ya just love capitalism at it's finest?? sigh.
> >
> > dave
>
> I understand that the mouse is working to some degree (I'd expect basic
> functions to work with no software installed at all). But I'll clue you
in
> on something. There's lots of programs and drivers from companies other
> than Microsoft that don't have explicit support for Win98. So, Microsoft
> isn't forging new territory here. And since Logitech stuff works with
> Win9x, it looks like capitalism is working just fine, thank you. I'll
stop
> here since I gave up calling people morons for Lent.
>
> todd
>
>
Morris, the front of the box says PC and MAC. I wouldn't
expect a mouse to require XP, for craps sakes. you can lay
this off on me if you choose, but the fault as I see it is
corporate greed. New Logitech mice still work on Win95.
dave
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Bay Area Dave wrote:
>
>> Don't ya just love capitalism at it's finest?? sigh.
>
>
> Capitalism at its finest provides you with the widest possible range of
> choices in what to buy, from whom you buy, and how much you pay for what
> you buy. I'm not sure that it's capitalism that's at the heart of your
> problem.
>
> Why did you choose not to inform yourself until /after/ purchasing a
> product that doesn't satisfy your requirements?
>
> Have you learned anything that would help you avoid similar mistakes in
> the future?
>
> Yes, I do love capitalism at its finest - in part because it provides me
> with alternatives to sources like Microsoft.
>
Dave? Read? When you're the center of the universe, you don't have to
read anything. Just ask a teenager ... or Dave.
"RWM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > While shopping in a faraway Costco I got intrigued by an
> > optical cordless mouse for $36 (Microsoft), so after making
> > sure it fit my hand, I repackaged it and threw it in the cart.
> >
> >
> What did it say for System Requirements on the mouse packaging?
>
> Bob
>
>
It is amazing to me how people will drop $3000 into "updating" their
computers every year ($5000 just a few years ago) and will
hesitate and complain in buying a decent solid wood table that is the same
price, and will last their lifetimes.
"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> While shopping in a faraway Costco I got intrigued by an
> optical cordless mouse for $36 (Microsoft), so after making
> sure it fit my hand, I repackaged it and threw it in the cart.
>
> As I went to install it I see a warning tag on the connector
> to install the software first. I rip the CD package open,
> insert the CD, shutdown other apps and prepare for my new
> toy. Double click on "setup.exe" and it all turns to sh*t.
> The mouse only works on XP, 2000, etc.; not Windows 98!
> Jeez! It's just a frickin' mouse!
>
> I go online to see what's up and damn if EVERY Microsoft
> mouse I checked on won't work with 98. Thanks a bunch,
> Billy boy!
>
> I check out Logitech optical cordless mice and sure enough,
> as expected, they will work with 95 and 98, as well they
> should. Don't ya just love capitalism at it's finest?? sigh.
>
> dave
>
Angelo Castellano posting wrote:
> What irritates me the most is that micosoft "ends" support for 98, and no
> consumer backlash at all.
It depends on what you call "support". The business community did
stage a backlash and M$ decided to continue the security updates
for Win98. That's all I need for them to do. I've got software
and I can check new hardware for compatibility.
Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
Don't remind your wife of this.
"Phisherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I know I spent a lot for my Powermatic 66
> ten years ago, almost $2000. If my PM66 was a computer it would be
> worth about $20 today, if that. New vehicles depreciate very quickly
> too. I think my furniture has actually increased in value, perhaps
> more so after I'm dead.
In article <[email protected]>,
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> Bay Area Dave wrote:
>> >
>> > I go online to see what's up and damn if EVERY Microsoft
>> > mouse I checked on won't work with 98. Thanks a bunch,
>> > Billy boy!
>> >
>>
>>
>> I don't know what's stopping you from upgrading operating systems, unless your
>> machine is so far out of date as to not be upgradable. Win XP is 1000
>times the
>> operating system that 98 was, and I used 98 for a long time.
>>
>> Go ahead; bite the bullet and make the upgrade. You're fighting a
>losing battle
>> trying to keep 98 alive.
>>
>
> .. but it's not just the OS. Depending on the SW he's running, he
>will also be on the hook for upgrading *that* to XP compatible as well
>(and no, not all 98 software will run under XP).
*Practically* all will, _if_ you select 'Win98 compatibility mode', in the
properties section.
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 15:15:54 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:xa2ec.35608$%[email protected]...
>> too many programs would have to be upgraded on my dime. The
>> pc is from 97, IIRC. it works fine for the 'net, Excel and
>> photoshop. It has Firewire so I can edit videos. USB is
>> 1.1 and all my peripherals work on that. 2 scanners and a
>> card reader, Visor cradle, etc. I'm not gonna ditch a pc
>> that does what i need just to get the "latest and greatest".
>> I've spent enough dough on bleeding edge technology. :)
>
>
>I was using Win98 on a 1997 Dell and up graded in December to XP and a new
>Dell. I did not have to upgrade any of my software. It all worked. As far
>as your peripherals working on USB 1.1, they will work on 2.0 also as that
>is backwards compatible. The only thing that did not work well was my older
>Epson scanner. Not compatible with XP.
>
but you can change the propertiese for that and make it run in win 95
or win 98 mode. i have some things that were not able to run on xp but
they do work once changed to win 98 compatibility
skeez
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 01:46:29 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Bay Area Dave wrote:
>>
>> I go online to see what's up and damn if EVERY Microsoft
>> mouse I checked on won't work with 98. Thanks a bunch,
>> Billy boy!
>>
>
>
>I don't know what's stopping you from upgrading operating systems, unless your
>machine is so far out of date as to not be upgradable. Win XP is 1000 times the
>operating system that 98 was, and I used 98 for a long time.
>
>Go ahead; bite the bullet and make the upgrade. You're fighting a losing battle
>trying to keep 98 alive.
"Bite the bullet" aka making microsloth even richer? Why? I still run
95 and it does all I want. I'm not fighting any battle that I'm aware
off, nor am I losing anything. I would be losing $$$$$ by "upgrading"
Barry Lennox
In article <3d2ec.35610$%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Morris, the front of the box says PC and MAC. I wouldn't
> expect a mouse to require XP, for craps sakes. you can lay
> this off on me if you choose, but the fault as I see it is
> corporate greed. New Logitech mice still work on Win95.
The mouse doesn't require XP, as you've proven. The software requires
it.
Logitech's main business is input devices - they'd be SOL if they only
supported W2K and higher. Microsoft's is software.
Corporate greed? That's rich coming from you Davey boy. I can just see
Bill in his smoking jacket, sipping some Grand Marnier while enjoying an
Opus XX, thinking of ways to pad the MS profit margin by limiting
optical mice to only those operating systems they continue to support.
And all the while, in the back of his mind, he thinks of you at
Costco... fondling the mouse and taking it home, and adding another $10
to the corporate coffers.
--
Regards,
Rick
(Remove the HIGH SPOTS for e-mail)
"Brian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> MSFT announced quite a while ago, that 98 was officially no longer
> supported.
>
> Brian.
Actually Microsoft renounced that comment and will support 98 for at least
2 more years IIRC
Bay Area Dave wrote:
> Don't ya just love capitalism at it's finest?? sigh.
Capitalism at its finest provides you with the widest possible
range of choices in what to buy, from whom you buy, and how much
you pay for what you buy. I'm not sure that it's capitalism
that's at the heart of your problem.
Why did you choose not to inform yourself until /after/
purchasing a product that doesn't satisfy your requirements?
Have you learned anything that would help you avoid similar
mistakes in the future?
Yes, I do love capitalism at its finest - in part because it
provides me with alternatives to sources like Microsoft.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA
as I already mentioned, on the front of the package it said
"PC and Mac". On the side panel in print smaller than I can
possibly read without reading glasses, and even then I can
barely read it in bright light, it listed several versions
of Windoz. I wouldn't expect a mouse to require the latest
versions of Windoz.
dave
RWM wrote:
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>While shopping in a faraway Costco I got intrigued by an
>>optical cordless mouse for $36 (Microsoft), so after making
>>sure it fit my hand, I repackaged it and threw it in the cart.
>>
>>
>
> What did it say for System Requirements on the mouse packaging?
>
> Bob
>
>
"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> While shopping in a faraway Costco I got intrigued by an
> optical cordless mouse for $36 (Microsoft), so after making
> sure it fit my hand, I repackaged it and threw it in the cart.
>
>
What did it say for System Requirements on the mouse packaging?
Bob
Bay Area Dave wrote:
>
> I go online to see what's up and damn if EVERY Microsoft
> mouse I checked on won't work with 98. Thanks a bunch,
> Billy boy!
>
I don't know what's stopping you from upgrading operating systems, unless your
machine is so far out of date as to not be upgradable. Win XP is 1000 times the
operating system that 98 was, and I used 98 for a long time.
Go ahead; bite the bullet and make the upgrade. You're fighting a losing battle
trying to keep 98 alive.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
[email protected]
http://www.mortimerschnerd.com
>Go ahead; bite the bullet and make the upgrade. You're fighting a losing
>battle
>trying to keep 98 alive.
>
It all depends on what you do. I still have 4 machines running DOS, it is all
they need to do their job. (MP3 players)
If you just play a few simple games, surf the net and maybe run all the
bookkeeping for a fairly large company, W9x will be all you need. Gates, et al
have been very successful in convincing people bigger is always better.
It really just depends on the quality of the cartoons you need in your GUI.
[email protected] (Greg) wrote in news:[email protected]:
> If you just play a few simple games, surf the net and maybe run all the
> bookkeeping for a fairly large company, W9x will be all you need. Gates, et al
> have been very successful in convincing people bigger is always better.
> It really just depends on the quality of the cartoons you need in your GUI.
>
>
The statement that XP is only "bigger" and better "quality of the cartoons" compared to Win9X is way off mark. XP is so far more powerful and stable, I couldn't possibly
run a Win9X box ever again. As a PC/Network Support Specialist for a large community college, the greatest thing we have done was upgrading from Win98 boxes to Xp on
everybodys desk. The amount of headaches has sharply declined.
>As a PC/Network Support Specialist for a large community college, the
>greatest thing we have done was upgrading from Win98 boxes to Xp on
>everybodys desk. The amount of headaches has sharply declined.
>
I doubt most of us are running a large network with a 1000 would be hackers
operating our machined doing god knows what.
If your application is stable, your platform can be too.
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 19:16:08 +0200, Phil Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>
>> I'm currently running 1.6.1.
>Sorry typo, should be 1.6.5.
Thanks, I didn't realize there was a newer version.
You may not be administering a large network, but if you are on the
Internet, you are part of one. With, I might add, many thousands of hackers.
I have a cable modem and when I look at my BlackICE logs (firewall and
anti-intrusion software), I have about 50+ hits/day from would-be intruders.
Most are harmless, but about 25% of those hits are of the type which
indicate intent to cause harm.
I get at least 5-6 hits per week on my anti-virus software from spam email
and simple web page viewing.
And at least 5-6 hits per week on my spyware detection software from spam.
I can't say enough about the benefits of BlackICE software. When CodeRed and
Nimda hit, I had just reinstalled Windows 2000 and put BlackICE on it. I
hadn't gotten around to installing any service packs or security updates or
anti-virus software. By the time I got home from work, there were reports of
servers going down everywhere, Internet traffic slowing to a crawl, and
other reports of mass IT chaos.
I checked my box, prepared to wipe it and start over. I looked at the
BlackICE logs. My jaw hit the floor. Not a single event penetrated my box.
There were hundreds for hits but all were blocked. I installed my eTrust
anti-virus, updated the signatures list and scanned the box. Nothing.
It saved my ass again when the SQL Slammer hit. Fricken cool.
codepath
"Greg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >As a PC/Network Support Specialist for a large community college, the
> >greatest thing we have done was upgrading from Win98 boxes to Xp on
> >everybodys desk. The amount of headaches has sharply declined.
> >
>
> I doubt most of us are running a large network with a 1000 would be
hackers
> operating our machined doing god knows what.
> If your application is stable, your platform can be too.
On 20 Apr 2004 02:44:24 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>In a slight defense of Microsoft, expecting 10 year old software to
>work on a modern machine isn't all that realistic.
it's funny how often it does work. a lot of that old software is
pretty simple and doesn't need much from the OS. I keep around and use
a copy of cardfile.exe mined from windows 3.1 for use as a small
standalone database. it has almost no features and has worked fine
without complaining on every system I've had.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 12:53:29 -0700,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >On 20 Apr 2004 02:44:24 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>In a slight defense of Microsoft, expecting 10 year old software to
> >>work on a modern machine isn't all that realistic.
> >
> >
> >it's funny how often it does work. a lot of that old software is
> >pretty simple and doesn't need much from the OS. I keep around and use
> >a copy of cardfile.exe mined from windows 3.1 for use as a small
> >standalone database. it has almost no features and has worked fine
> >without complaining on every system I've had.
>
> Hmmm. That's one I should dredge up. I've tried for years to find a
> decent cardfile program for windows. I started using that in 3.1 and
> when it disappeared in 95 I switched to the cardfile in Sidekick, but
> that drags along all the rest of the Sidekick stuff. Cardfile was darn
> near perfect for keeping lists - books loaned and borrowed, insurance
> policy numbers and contact information, serial numbers of tools and
> date acquired - thousands of things that otherwise just get spread out
> over a huge number of places, making it impossible to retrieve what
> you need when you need it. I've always wondered why no one seems to
> make a really compact cardfile program with a simple interface and
> basic search capability. Once you start using something like that it
> becomes addictive.
>
I know this is not exactly the same thing, but you might check out
KeyNote <http://keynote.prv.pl> You could set it up to do nearly what
you describe, the only place it would be lacking would be search
capability. I have started using it to keep track of magazine articles
that I think I might want to use in the future as well as being a
general organizational tool for all of my other files and notes.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> How 'bout the converse - expecting new sw to work on old hw? The
> gurus at work are installing Win2k on P166s w/64M of RAM.
That is just silly. It's like expecting today's computer chips to
function properly in a 10 year old Chevy. Ain't gonna happen.
--
Regards,
Rick
(Remove the HIGH SPOTS for e-mail)
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> I know this is not exactly the same thing, but you might check out
> KeyNote <http://keynote.prv.pl> You could set it up to do nearly what
Thanks.
Looks good. Takes a bit of getting used to, bit quirky with adding nodes
etc.
--
Phillip Hansen
Skil-Phil Solutions
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> I know this is not exactly the same thing, but you might check out
> KeyNote <http://keynote.prv.pl> You could set it up to do nearly what
> you describe, the only place it would be lacking would be search
> capability. I have started using it to keep track of magazine articles
> that I think I might want to use in the future as well as being a
> general organizational tool for all of my other files and notes.
>
As a follow up:
The new version 1.5.6 has extensive search facilities. Upgrade now <G>
You can searh across all nodes and notes. Getting used to the program
now and like it a lot
--
Phillip Hansen
Skil-Phil Solutions
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> I'm currently running 1.6.1.
Sorry typo, should be 1.6.5.
--
Phillip Hansen
Skil-Phil Solutions
"codepath" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> You may not be administering a large network, but if you are on the
> Internet, you are part of one. With, I might add, many thousands of
> hackers.
I wasn't replying to the security aspects of XP, was replying to the notion
that XP is just a bloated version of Win9X with prettier graphics (altho
the default XP 'Teletubbies" theme is far from prettier). I'm well aware of
XP's shortcomings in the security issues, however it's still far better
than any Win9X/ME product.
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 09:03:56 -0400, Renata <[email protected]>
wrote:
>How 'bout the converse - expecting new sw to work on old hw? The
>gurus at work are installing Win2k on P166s w/64M of RAM.
>
>Renata
I have installed winXP on several really old low spec machines-
pentium 1 with 48 megs of ram kinda boxes- they're damn slow but seem
to be stable.
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 01:42:03 -0000, CyBrShRk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I wasn't replying to the security aspects of XP, was replying to the notion
> that XP is just a bloated version of Win9X with prettier graphics (altho
> the default XP 'Teletubbies" theme is far from prettier).
Oh, its not a bloated version of Windows 9x, that's what ME was for.
It's the bloated version of Windows 2000 (also known as NT 5.0).
> I'm well aware of
> XP's shortcomings in the security issues, however it's still far better
> than any Win9X/ME product.
Maybe by longhorn, they'll be back to the security and stability of
Windows 3.1's system. I'll be watching from the sidelines though,
having given up on Microsoft and moved to mac and linux.
In a slight defense of Microsoft, expecting 10 year old software to
work on a modern machine isn't all that realistic. I've made some
old stuff for win95 or older work on my Linux box by running an old
version of windows within a virtual machine (VMWare), which works
flawlessly, but expecting backwards compatibility to extend to a decade
or more is a bit much to expect. Better that they try (and they assure
us that they are trying, despite appearances) to fix the bugs and
security problems, than spend that time making current systems work
with decade-old software.
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 03:50:59 GMT, Mark Jerde <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>> Maybe by longhorn, they'll be back to the security and stability of
>> Windows 3.1's system.
>
> ??? TSRs & 640k ???
Yup, it was secure until they added tcp/IP support... and note that I didn't
say it's stability was all that good, just that they've been worse since.
> Win 3.x + networking = constant problems. I reinstalled Windows at least
> 100 times on the handful of machines I was responsible for.
See above ;)
Dave
>Yup, it was secure until they added tcp/IP support... and note that I didn't
>say it's stability was all that good, just that they've been worse since.
>
>> Win 3.x + networking = constant problems. I reinstalled Windows at least
>> 100 times on the handful of machines I was responsible for.
>
>See above ;)
>
If you are just looking for drive sharing there is a small DOS TSR that rides
in about 60k and allows file sharing, unfortunately it doesn't "talk" FAT32 so
I had to stop using it.
I am still running 3 pure DOS machines tho. (MP3 players). They never crash,
boot in seconds, don't need to be "shutdown" and the total software load will
fit on a diskette, leaving more disk for tunes.
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 19:03:52 +0200, Phil Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> I know this is not exactly the same thing, but you might check out
>> KeyNote <http://keynote.prv.pl> You could set it up to do nearly what
>> you describe, the only place it would be lacking would be search
>> capability. I have started using it to keep track of magazine articles
>> that I think I might want to use in the future as well as being a
>> general organizational tool for all of my other files and notes.
>>
>As a follow up:
>The new version 1.5.6 has extensive search facilities. Upgrade now <G>
>You can searh across all nodes and notes. Getting used to the program
>now and like it a lot
I'm currently running 1.6.1.
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 12:53:29 -0700,
[email protected] wrote:
>On 20 Apr 2004 02:44:24 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>In a slight defense of Microsoft, expecting 10 year old software to
>>work on a modern machine isn't all that realistic.
>
>
>it's funny how often it does work. a lot of that old software is
>pretty simple and doesn't need much from the OS. I keep around and use
>a copy of cardfile.exe mined from windows 3.1 for use as a small
>standalone database. it has almost no features and has worked fine
>without complaining on every system I've had.
Hmmm. That's one I should dredge up. I've tried for years to find a
decent cardfile program for windows. I started using that in 3.1 and
when it disappeared in 95 I switched to the cardfile in Sidekick, but
that drags along all the rest of the Sidekick stuff. Cardfile was darn
near perfect for keeping lists - books loaned and borrowed, insurance
policy numbers and contact information, serial numbers of tools and
date acquired - thousands of things that otherwise just get spread out
over a huge number of places, making it impossible to retrieve what
you need when you need it. I've always wondered why no one seems to
make a really compact cardfile program with a simple interface and
basic search capability. Once you start using something like that it
becomes addictive.
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 02:30:22 GMT, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I know this is not exactly the same thing, but you might check out
>KeyNote <http://keynote.prv.pl> You could set it up to do nearly what
>you describe, the only place it would be lacking would be search
>capability. I have started using it to keep track of magazine articles
>that I think I might want to use in the future as well as being a
>general organizational tool for all of my other files and notes.
Finally got around to looking at this. It looks like a great product
and source code is available. I've not worked with Borland Delphi, but
this is the type of app that might inspire me to learn. Thanks for the
tip!
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
How 'bout the converse - expecting new sw to work on old hw? The
gurus at work are installing Win2k on P166s w/64M of RAM.
Renata
On 20 Apr 2004 02:44:24 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
-snip-
>In a slight defense of Microsoft, expecting 10 year old software to
>work on a modern machine isn't all that realistic. I've made some
>old stuff for win95 or older work on my Linux box by running an old
>version of windows within a virtual machine (VMWare), which works
>flawlessly, but expecting backwards compatibility to extend to a decade
>or more is a bit much to expect. Better that they try (and they assure
>us that they are trying, despite appearances) to fix the bugs and
>security problems, than spend that time making current systems work
>with decade-old software.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> "Bite the bullet" aka making microsloth even richer? Why? I still run
> 95 and it does all I want. I'm not fighting any battle that I'm aware
> off, nor am I losing anything. I would be losing $$$$$ by "upgrading"
>
Same here. Oh, OK, it's not a very good platform for developing
Unix software, but I've got Linux for that. And I'm retired, so
I don't do that anymore, anyway, anyhow :-).
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
Bay Area Dave wrote:
> yeah, I guess you can't get more official than dropping
> mouse support for Win98.
>
> I got the last laugh though; I got the mouse to work on my
> pc. so Billy boy, if your listening (although I know you
> aren't)...[Bronx cheer]. The mouse is cool but your support
> (or lack thereof) blows! The left/right scrolling doesn't
> work, but I don't care about that.
If you want left-right scrolling then get an IBM. That wiggly-wheel
nonesence is just a clumsy attempt to work around IBM's
scrollpoint/trackpoint patent.
> dave
>
> Brian wrote:
>> MSFT announced quite a while ago, that 98 was officially no longer
>> supported.
>>
>> Brian.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>While shopping in a faraway Costco I got intrigued by an
>>>optical cordless mouse for $36 (Microsoft), so after making
>>>sure it fit my hand, I repackaged it and threw it in the cart.
>>>
>>>As I went to install it I see a warning tag on the connector
>>>to install the software first. I rip the CD package open,
>>>insert the CD, shutdown other apps and prepare for my new
>>>toy. Double click on "setup.exe" and it all turns to sh*t.
>>> The mouse only works on XP, 2000, etc.; not Windows 98!
>>>Jeez! It's just a frickin' mouse!
>>>
>>>I go online to see what's up and damn if EVERY Microsoft
>>>mouse I checked on won't work with 98. Thanks a bunch,
>>>Billy boy!
>>>
>>>I check out Logitech optical cordless mice and sure enough,
>>>as expected, they will work with 95 and 98, as well they
>>>should. Don't ya just love capitalism at it's finest?? sigh.
>>>
>>>dave
>>>
>>
>>
>>
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in message
> Go ahead; bite the bullet and make the upgrade. You're fighting a losing
> battle trying to keep 98 alive.
Losing battle?
My computer is currently a 98. It is stable software and hardware wise.
Upgrading to XP would require a good weekend of work, and spending money
upgrade every piece of software that is currently on my system. Not to mention
hardware that wouldn't be supported and would require replacement.
Quick question: have you priced upgrades for 98, office, frontpage, antivirus,
accounting, and personal finance software? ( Just to mention some of the
software)
My kids computer is currently an XP. I simply don't find I need to upgrade. I
can't find any real difference. It my be more "stable," but mine is currently
fine.
What irritates me the most is that micosoft "ends" support for 98, and no
consumer backlash at all.
Imagine a car company saying they wouldn' provide parts or repairs to cars
older than 8 years old?
: "The only person sure of himself is the man who wishes to
: leave things as they are, and he dreams of an impossibility"
: -- George M. Wrong.
:
: Angelo Castellano emails - statsone@sympatico dot gov
: gov to be replaced with ca
: www.reliable-quality.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBQHlFbZOWK89ESPDqEQIuAgCfbeo7aI7KV1cEfMqUkSmqK8t0Fz0AnA1E
GkdNs1NRtfggPwOiYw87gbCk
=r6OA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Bay Area Dave wrote:
> >
> > I go online to see what's up and damn if EVERY Microsoft
> > mouse I checked on won't work with 98. Thanks a bunch,
> > Billy boy!
> >
>
>
> I don't know what's stopping you from upgrading operating systems, unless your
> machine is so far out of date as to not be upgradable. Win XP is 1000 times the
> operating system that 98 was, and I used 98 for a long time.
>
> Go ahead; bite the bullet and make the upgrade. You're fighting a losing battle
> trying to keep 98 alive.
>
.. but it's not just the OS. Depending on the SW he's running, he
will also be on the hook for upgrading *that* to XP compatible as well
(and no, not all 98 software will run under XP).
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 10:37:28 -0400, "ddinc" <[email protected]> wrote:
>It is amazing to me how people will drop $3000 into "updating" their
>computers every year ($5000 just a few years ago) and will
>hesitate and complain in buying a decent solid wood table that is the same
>price, and will last their lifetimes.
>
I often wonder this too. I know I spent a lot for my Powermatic 66
ten years ago, almost $2000. If my PM66 was a computer it would be
worth about $20 today, if that. New vehicles depreciate very quickly
too. I think my furniture has actually increased in value, perhaps
more so after I'm dead.
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:33:42 -0400, "GRL" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>...but they un-announced that partially and said that ME IS still supported.
Is anyone still running that gawdawful piece of crap?
- -
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 00:37:20 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]>
wrote:
<snip>
>I go online to see what's up and damn if EVERY Microsoft
>mouse I checked on won't work with 98. Thanks a bunch,
>Billy boy!
>
>I check out Logitech optical cordless mice and sure enough,
>as expected, they will work with 95 and 98, as well they
>should. Don't ya just love capitalism at it's finest?? sigh.
>
>dave
Always carefully check "Requirements" before purchasing any computer
component or application. The requirements can be found on the box.
Logitech is actually a good mouse. I have a corded Microsoft
Intellimouse that's connected to a PS/2 port on my (very) old Windows
98SE machine. It worked without running the bloated MS setup stuff.
I bet it would work with Linux too. Even after meeting the
requirements, compatibility issues are more common than ever.
yeah, I guess you can't get more official than dropping
mouse support for Win98.
I got the last laugh though; I got the mouse to work on my
pc. so Billy boy, if your listening (although I know you
aren't)...[Bronx cheer]. The mouse is cool but your support
(or lack thereof) blows! The left/right scrolling doesn't
work, but I don't care about that.
dave
Brian wrote:
> MSFT announced quite a while ago, that 98 was officially no longer
> supported.
>
> Brian.
>
>
>
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>While shopping in a faraway Costco I got intrigued by an
>>optical cordless mouse for $36 (Microsoft), so after making
>>sure it fit my hand, I repackaged it and threw it in the cart.
>>
>>As I went to install it I see a warning tag on the connector
>>to install the software first. I rip the CD package open,
>>insert the CD, shutdown other apps and prepare for my new
>>toy. Double click on "setup.exe" and it all turns to sh*t.
>> The mouse only works on XP, 2000, etc.; not Windows 98!
>>Jeez! It's just a frickin' mouse!
>>
>>I go online to see what's up and damn if EVERY Microsoft
>>mouse I checked on won't work with 98. Thanks a bunch,
>>Billy boy!
>>
>>I check out Logitech optical cordless mice and sure enough,
>>as expected, they will work with 95 and 98, as well they
>>should. Don't ya just love capitalism at it's finest?? sigh.
>>
>>dave
>>
>
>
>
"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> While shopping in a faraway Costco I got intrigued by an
> optical cordless mouse for $36 (Microsoft), so after making
> sure it fit my hand, I repackaged it and threw it in the cart.
>
> As I went to install it I see a warning tag on the connector
> to install the software first. I rip the CD package open,
> insert the CD, shutdown other apps and prepare for my new
> toy. Double click on "setup.exe" and it all turns to sh*t.
> The mouse only works on XP, 2000, etc.; not Windows 98!
> Jeez! It's just a frickin' mouse!
>
> I go online to see what's up and damn if EVERY Microsoft
> mouse I checked on won't work with 98. Thanks a bunch,
> Billy boy!
>
> I check out Logitech optical cordless mice and sure enough,
> as expected, they will work with 95 and 98, as well they
> should. Don't ya just love capitalism at it's finest?? sigh.
>
> dave
I understand that the mouse is working to some degree (I'd expect basic
functions to work with no software installed at all). But I'll clue you in
on something. There's lots of programs and drivers from companies other
than Microsoft that don't have explicit support for Win98. So, Microsoft
isn't forging new territory here. And since Logitech stuff works with
Win9x, it looks like capitalism is working just fine, thank you. I'll stop
here since I gave up calling people morons for Lent.
todd
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 01:46:29 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I don't know what's stopping you from upgrading operating systems, unless your
>machine is so far out of date as to not be upgradable. Win XP is 1000 times the
>operating system that 98 was, and I used 98 for a long time.
>
>Go ahead; bite the bullet and make the upgrade. You're fighting a losing battle
>trying to keep 98 alive.
Nah. I bought a 2.4ghz box a few months ago and paid a bit extra to
get a real P4 (instead of the Celery chip), 512g ram, and XP Pro (so I
could try it out).
After screwing around with XP for a while, I put on 98SE and the
machine ran faster and better - had a whole lot less footprint on it
than that new hog, too.
I already have dedicated apps that do most of the things that XP
bundles lamely into the OS. (ps don't believe the guys who tell you it
won't run usb 2.0 -- that's a damned lie.)
I use XP Pro at work and it locks up two or three times a day (yeah,
its got all the piggy patches). The uptime on my 98SE laptop (running
at a gaudy 300mhz) is measured in months.
Tomorrow I take possession of a new laptop, with the groovy Centrino
technoboogie stuff, loads of ram, etc.
It's gonna come with XP Home - but that'll get wiped first thing.
(watson - who ran Win95 on that 2.4ghz box for a few days and it was
blazin' fast - but too many apps/hardware don't like it - sigh...)
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker (ret)
Real Email is: tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
Website: http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:30:26 +0000, [email protected]
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>> .. but it's not just the OS. Depending on the SW he's running, he
>>will also be on the hook for upgrading *that* to XP compatible as well
>>(and no, not all 98 software will run under XP).
>
>*Practically* all will, _if_ you select 'Win98 compatibility mode', in the
>properties section.
The problem is that the more specialized your software and the more
dependent you are on it the less likely you are to be able to move it.
I have one package it would cost me over $500 to upgrade and all XP
says when I try to install it is "No Windows programs on this disk".
Compatibility mode is useless because XP just doesn't see the
executable as a program. Works fine in 98, so I keep on using 98 for
my main work machine.
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
Bay Area Dave wrote:
> Morris, the front of the box says PC and MAC. I wouldn't
> expect a mouse to require XP, for craps sakes. you can lay
> this off on me if you choose, but the fault as I see it is
> corporate greed. New Logitech mice still work on Win95.
Dave...
I've been a systems software cat since the fifties and Microsoft
has been a prominent part of my world since the seventies. In all
those years I've never once heard an impartial, knowledgable
professional praise either Mr. Gates' nor Microsoft's integrity,
business ethics or practices, product quality, or concern for
delivering fair value for price paid.
What you experienced, and your discovery of Gates'/Microsoft's
"corporate greed" is not new, is consistant with past history,
and was readily available information. One of the most common
complaints made about Microsoft has dealt with exactly the kind
of compatibility/support problem you "discovered".
I'm not trying to "dump" on you. Rather, I'm encouraging you to
be an informed consumer so that at least the next time you're
ready to spend on <whatever>, you'll do what you need to do /in
advance/ to ensure getting full value for your hard-earned
dollars - especially if it appears that the most readily
available product comes from a vendor with a questionable history
and ethic.
I hate to beat this point to death; but in a capitalistic system
it's important to understand that the consumer bears the
responsibility for choosing well. Blaming capitalism for poor
choices was an indication that you didn't understand this most
important fact. There's even a name for those who don't, can't,
or won't understand it. They're called "prey".
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA
too many programs would have to be upgraded on my dime. The
pc is from 97, IIRC. it works fine for the 'net, Excel and
photoshop. It has Firewire so I can edit videos. USB is
1.1 and all my peripherals work on that. 2 scanners and a
card reader, Visor cradle, etc. I'm not gonna ditch a pc
that does what i need just to get the "latest and greatest".
I've spent enough dough on bleeding edge technology. :)
dave
Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Bay Area Dave wrote:
>
>>I go online to see what's up and damn if EVERY Microsoft
>>mouse I checked on won't work with 98. Thanks a bunch,
>>Billy boy!
>>
>
>
>
> I don't know what's stopping you from upgrading operating systems, unless your
> machine is so far out of date as to not be upgradable. Win XP is 1000 times the
> operating system that 98 was, and I used 98 for a long time.
>
> Go ahead; bite the bullet and make the upgrade. You're fighting a losing battle
> trying to keep 98 alive.
>
>
>
"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:xa2ec.35608$%[email protected]...
> too many programs would have to be upgraded on my dime. The
> pc is from 97, IIRC. it works fine for the 'net, Excel and
> photoshop. It has Firewire so I can edit videos. USB is
> 1.1 and all my peripherals work on that. 2 scanners and a
> card reader, Visor cradle, etc. I'm not gonna ditch a pc
> that does what i need just to get the "latest and greatest".
> I've spent enough dough on bleeding edge technology. :)
I was using Win98 on a 1997 Dell and up graded in December to XP and a new
Dell. I did not have to upgrade any of my software. It all worked. As far
as your peripherals working on USB 1.1, they will work on 2.0 also as that
is backwards compatible. The only thing that did not work well was my older
Epson scanner. Not compatible with XP.