Roostron

Member
  • Content count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Roostron

  1. Hi again! Hey, Octopuss and Slugfiller... as the originator of this thread, I'm finding it annoying and somewhat alarming that you two are trying to turn this into another Win98 vs. XP trashing session. Aren't there already about 1.8X10^27 threads already in existence on that topic where you can slug it out in until you're both blue in the keyboard? This thread was supposed to be about the current state of various OSs, and related thoughts - not another "My OS is better than your OS" thread. Please... drop it... if you are men enough to do so. Roostron
  2. Hi! You forgot one very important step... Windows 98SE will NOT copy the "WIN386.SWP" swap file inside the "Windows" directory - it will stop the copy process when it encounters this file. In order to copy the Windows directory properly, you need to: (1) Create a "Windows" directory on the destination (D:) drive in Explorer (2) Go into the "Windows" directory on the source (C:) drive and select everything BUT the "WIN386.SWP" file, and finally (3) Copy/Paste the selected files. Hope this is helpful!
  3. Hi again! You, Sir, are a GENIUS. A certifiable, 100%, complete and utter GENIUS!!!! I disabled the 10/100 wired ethernet interface in the motherboard BIOS, uninstalled the drivers for the same in the Windows 98SE network setup window, and the wireless connection started showing the drive shares immediately and miraculously!!! I can now see and use the desktop shares from the laptop, and the laptop shares from the desktop! Everything is working 100% Any thoughts on how I could re-enable the wired connection without it interfering in case I ever wanted to plug a cable in for faster transfers? Or is it pretty much hopeless? Thanks, Kwibus!!! You are my HERO!!!! Roostron
  4. Hello! Yes, I had this same idea yesterday... I changed the laptop Wireless IP address to 192.168.1.22, and it didn't make any difference. In answer to your 2nd question, yes... the laptop has a normal 100MBPS wired network plug, I've plugged the cable directly into the router (using 192.168.1.21 as the "wired" IP address) and it works fine... talks to the 2 desktop machines perfectly and all shares are displayed on all machines. Something about the wireless connection is keeping the laptop from accessing the 2 desktop shares under ANY conditions... and seems to be "shielding" the desktop machines from "seeing" the laptop unless the share name is entered manually (i.e. \\LAPTOP\C\). Even then, the share won't "persist" and stay as an icon in the networking folders - it dissappears as soon as you close the network folders and open a new instance. I'm really hating this problem - as I NEED access to the desktop machines from the laptop (the whole reason I set up the network!) and that is exactly the direction of connecting that is blocked! Roostron
  5. Chozo4, I tried what you suggested (and a few other things also, changing only one thing at a time) and it still isn't working. The 2 desktop machines talk to each other just fine, and can be made to "see" the laptop by manually entering the share names... but the laptop cannot "see" either desktop machine using ANY method. Also, the desktop machines do NOT ever put an icon for the laptop in the network folders, except when you manually enter the laptop share name... then the icon is temporary and goes away. I'm beating my head against the wall on this one... and getting ready to beat all the computers against that same wall if I don't find a solution soon... What could be going on here? This is completely maddening! Roostron
  6. OK... I've been struggling with this for 3 days now and I'm completely baffled, confused, perplexed, aggravated, and about as fed up as a person can get. In short - at the end of the proverbial rope - I've hit bottom, and started digging! I've worked with, built, and configured hundreds of computers - and nothing has ever caused me this much grief! I have a laptop machine running Windows 98SE. I've recently installed a Linksys Wireless-G USB adapter to the laptop. I have 2 desktop machines, both running Windows 98SE. They are hooked to a Linksys Wireless-G router. There is no Internet connection - I just want to use the router to enable drive sharing between the 3 machines. The 2 desktop machines are hard-wired to the router with cables, they talk to each other wonderfully. The laptop machine connects to the router wirelessly just fine..., using 128 bit WEP, and can't find ANYTHING on the 2 desktop machines. It doesn't see either desktop machine, even if I enter the share names manually. I can only see the laptop shares from the desktop machines by MANUALLY entering the machine name, it will NOT appear in the network neighborhood automatically like the 2 desktop machines do. I can use VNC programs from the desktop machines to talk to the laptop, so I know the connection is working fine... it's just a problem of drive shares not working properly. All 3 machines have: TCP/IP with NetBIOS enabled as the ONLY protocol (no other protocols installed) The same workgroup name, and 3 different computer names and descriptions DHCP server is DISABLED, all IP addresses configured manually The same subnet mask (255.255.255.0) These 3 IP addresses: 192.168.1.11, 192.168.1.12, 192.168.1.121 The router and wireless USB adapter on the laptop are configured with the same SSID (linksysshop) File and printer sharing are enabled Gateways, WINS, and DNS all disabled or left blank The router is at IP address 192.168.1.101 What will it take to get the desktop machines to "see" the laptop drive shares, and for the laptop to see the desktop machines drive shares? Please help... I'm out of ideas and patience - about to open fire with an H&K 9mm on the whole cluster of misbehaving hardware! Roostron
  7. Hello again! Doing another Windows 98SE minimization project... and once again I find myself going through the SYSTEM folder and deleting DLL, OCX, Etc. files then rebooting to see if my core configuration "breaks" or not. For the Nth time, I find myself wishing that there was a complete NON-INTERNET (I'm doing this at a remote site with no net access) based source of information about what each of these files actually does... something that would get rid of the "trial and error" approach. Does something like this exist? Some kind of help file, text file, HTML file, or some-such that might help with future endeavors of this sort? Thanks!
  8. Hi! Thank you - that's GREAT news! Does anyone know if DOS mode Scandisk will also work in a MS-DOS window from Windows for USB based large hard disks? Thanks!
  9. Greets to all! First off, let me say that I absolutely LOVE this forum! Finally, I'm finding a group of like-minded people who appreciate retro OS'es, and enjoy wringing every last bit of performance out of "obsolete" software. I guess I don't have a "main point" to make here, just wanted to share a few personal ideas and experiences... and maybe get a discussion going about what other people see as the current state of computer OS'es, and why they still use older OS'es. I personally see computer science as being in it's infancy - I've envisioned what computers SHOULD do as compared to what they currently do... and my conclusion is that they are SORELY lacking in many ways. Adding new "skins", fancy icons, better help pages, and other "tacked on" interface fluff is not going to fix this, the Nth patched-over beautified OS variant from Microsoft (the only company ever named after it's founder's... well, nevermind!) will not fix this. The solution to bloat and software complexity is NOT more bloat and software complexity... I'm personally of the opinion that the mainstream OS vendor (Microshaft) is writing software in order to create a market for faster/bigger/more expensive hardware... and "building in" as many bugs as possible, in order to sell newer OS variants as they create them (insuring themselves a profitable future!). I don't see this situation changing until OS'es become less "application centric" and more "data centric". The data is "the thing", after all... the very reason we use computers. We don't go and buy a new machine so we can see the pretty new Word startup logo and application button bar... or to read endless help files on how to use the latest Excel commands... we buy computers so we can create, manipulate, and exchange DATA of various types. The faster, easier, and more application-independent (and ultimately, more OS independent) we can achieve this, the more satisfied we will be with our computing experience. I like Windows 98SE because it allows me to tailor my OS the way that I (in it's capital form) want it to be. I have a NATIVE MODE underlying DOS command line interface (God's own interface!) that allows me to strip out all the GARBAGE that I don't want in my OS and applications, and I know that I can get a MINIMALLY functional, reliable, compact, and efficient OS on my desktop that won't require a 10,000,000 GHZ processor and half the world's RAM to run at a halfway decent speed. I don't want an OS that is there for the OS'es sake... I want a simple, reliable system that I can COUNT on every time I open a document for editing, or a browser window for net research, or to write a piece of software. When I go into a graphics editor to view a piece of pr0n, I don't want a 5 minute application bootup time followed by 3 "tips" windows that need to be shut down... I just want to right-click the file in explorer and see a little thumbnail that I can click on to get full-screen wanking-good imagery. When I go to a webpage to research the latest embedded systems and electronic components, I don't want to be greeted with "Download this font" or "Viewable only with Internet Exploder V2306.5" or stupid "plugin" downloads that will crash my browser during the install process. In short, I want an OS and applications that will provide the MINIMUM of hassle in order to get to what I REALLY want to do - work with the DATA that I'm interested in. I've tried pretty much every OS variant out there, in terms of mainstream desktop "consumer oriented" operating sytems, and so far Windows 98SE is the only one that really fills my needs. Questions? Comments? Hate mail? I look forward to it all! Roostron
  10. Hello everyone! Great forum you have here! This is my first post, which I'm reluctantly making after several hours of searching and browsing. I'm aware that the LBA-48 barrier of 137GB in Windows 98SE has now been broken with a new user-supported driver that replaces the ESDI506 files. I'm very happy to hear this, after partitioning my large drives in 125GB chunks for many years now! However... this fix is nearly USELESS to me if I can't do a Scandisk - I have many drives with THOUSANDS of files, and occasional data corruption is just a matter of course... I have to have a way to fix disk data problems when they occur. Has any progress been made toward creation of a Scandisk version that actually works above 137GB? I'm aware of Tihiy's 32-bit scandisk, but it also seems to have the 137GB limit (as well as being KERNEL32 dependent) so I don't see that as a solution to the problem. Any feedback? I'm very grateful for any help that can be offered! Roostron