Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 



ZortMcGort11

every new computer interface SUCKS, sticking with winME

Recommended Posts

Fido-X asked above:

> One question: when you installed Unoficial Service Pack 3 for Win 98 SE, did you lose the ability to read "help" files?

No, help files display fine on my system. But... two things i do that might make a difference:

1) The first thing i do after a *clean* install of 98SE is install Internet Explorer 6.0 Service Pack 1, even tho i won't be using IE. I believe it contains some updated .DLLs that deal with help files (and other things). (Later on, i remove IE with IEradicator, but it wisely doesn't touch most needed system DLLs.)

2) Then on this relatively-clean system, i install the "Main Updates" from Unofficial Service Pack. (And when later versions of USP are released, i've never had trouble updating.)

Note that the USP Main Updates need to be installed separately -- by themselves. (Of course, other USP options can be installed later on.)

Also be careful *NOT* to install the "IE Core Files" option if you have not removed IE (with 98Lite or IEradicator).

Dunno if this info might help, but it might be worth a try.

- Doug B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Tommy said:

I'm looking to start using Linux and learning it. I've used it before but never truly engaged in the learning curve of it. If Microsoft can't get their act together, which I'm sure it never will, and when my computers stop doing what I need them to do, I'm off to Linux land.

On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 2:38 PM, rloew said:

...Linux for experimenting.

Since the subject of moving to Linux came up... Many of you know I always planned to do this myself when Windows 9x would could no longer perform everyday tasks. I made the attempt once only to find that the Linux world was even more crazy about the constant update/upgrade cycle than the Windows world and I could no longer download new packages for my distro version of choice after only 3 or 4 years. So I came back to Windows and decided to tolerate XP for a while. Even decided I maybe can stomach Vista at the utmost end of need...

But, I've just recently discovered an extremely nice little Linux distro that is dedicated to providing a classic user interface experience and long-term release support (long-term for Linux at least). With a few clicks on this system and it's provided tools/wizards one can have a desktop and Start Menu that's almost a perfect mirror of the Windows Classic UI (or XP "Lego" UI if you prefer). It's been many years since I could say I was impressed by any operating system - but now I can finally say it again. Have a look at Q4OS. :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oooh, this sounds exciting! I just might have to give it a spin and see what I think about it. It's hard to replace my main OS since it's my server as well.

Also, not to derail the thread even more, but is there really a reason to keep updating your Linux distro except for security updates? I noticed they have a lifecycle as well but is it a requirement or just recommended?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep my linux updated. Although building a lot of updated packages myself is very time consuming.

SLACKWARE.JPG

Edited by PROBLEMCHYLD
image
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Tommy said:

Oooh, this sounds exciting! I just might have to give it a spin and see what I think about it. It's hard to replace my main OS since it's my server as well.

Also, not to derail the thread even more, but is there really a reason to keep updating your Linux distro except for security updates? I noticed they have a lifecycle as well but is it a requirement or just recommended?

Well, updating is not a "requirement" of course but one inevitably faces the same issues all of us have faced when trying to run older Microsoft OS'es. Sooner or later things stop "just working" as they should if you don't update. Now with Linux, you can in theory build your own packages from their source code (as PC mentioned in passing) and depending on your level of knowledge can probably keep things going for a long time.

The main issue I see with Linux is the potential for a situation known as "dependency hell" - wherein a newer package, say "Firefox" for example, will require a newer version of some other package, say "libsomething1" and subsequently "libsomething1" will depend on a newer version of "libsomethingelse2" and so on ad infinitum. A blessing and a curse with Linux - every package is independently developed but interdependent on other subsequently independently developed packages. So in other words if you want to update "Firefox" on an "older" Linux installation you should be prepared for a potential cascade of dependency problems.

Repositories of files and packages targeted for a given Linux distro version also have a tendency to disappear over time as newer versions are produced, and since packages are interdependent it can make it very difficult to find working packages for an older distro if you didn't archive them.

All that being said I still believe Linux has promise, especially given the direction Microsoft is going. We may all end up there eventually, lol. :}

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My granny still on 98SE/NT4/XP with classic theme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking at Q4OS.  Do they use Debian repositories or software packages?  I like the idea of installing it to an ARM device, but I'm not sure what Debian build is needed for that.  I checked out the link that Q4OS provided, but there are a few ARM entries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, JodyT said:

I was looking at Q4OS.  Do they use Debian repositories or software packages?  I like the idea of installing it to an ARM device, but I'm not sure what Debian build is needed for that.  I checked out the link that Q4OS provided, but there are a few ARM entries.

AFAIK it uses mostly Debian repositories for everything other than some Q4OS-specific components and for certain packages where a later version may be more preferable, such as the Trinity Desktop package. It's based on Debian stable. 8.0 "Jessie" I believe, I'm not up on Linux codenames. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10.3.2017 at 8:45 PM, DougB said:

Perhaps i can add a few observations.

> Why does everything related to computers seem to be getting worse?

Because some companies like and want absolute control? (I remember when the IBM PC (with PC-DOS!) first came out in the early '80s... it was being touted as "Freedom from a mainframe -- a PERSONAL computer on your very-own desk! The ultimate in security! The ultimate in productivity!" :)

Also consider that the biggest segment of the bell-shaped curve is under the middle (the average, not the excellent). So if a business targets that segment for their product, they can potentially generate more profit. But the middle of the bell-shaped curve is... mediocrity. (The further out to the sides, the more of a niche market it becomes.)

Then there's also the ideology of planned obsolescence -- change for the sake of change. ("Hey, it's not anything personal, it's just business....")

> I hate new computers. I'm going to keep using my Windows ME
> computer forever. Ta Ta.

At work, we each have some recent version of Windows in our offices, but i only use it when i can't avoid it -- i do most of my work at home, using my pimped-up 98SE ("pimped up" meaning USP3, 98SE2ME, KEx, RP, IEradicator, DX9, etc). For the 1% of what i can't do with that, i have an auxiliary XP system... set to classic interface, of course. :)

Most of my students are using Macs....

> Windows ME ... was the zenith of a nice looking user interface
> and having intuitive and elegantly designed menus and screens.

Did anyone notice back when XP and its apps came out, how the standard interface/icons looked like illustrations from baby books? Chubby, round, simple-looking, soft pastel primary colors? I wondered what kind of message that was sending about users....

> I remember the good old days of Office 2000, simple, elegant, and
> still usable to this day.

And then there's the free Open Office v3.2.1 (2010) under KernelEx (or v2.4.3 (2009) on straight 9x):

http://kernelex.sourceforge.net/wiki/OpenOffice.org

No problems using it on my system!

> They force you to buy a 1080p monitor for no reason!

I have 19" 1280x1024 monitors that i set to a 1024x768 res desktop with large fonts -- this works well for me. I actually prefer 4:3 AR for doing work -- keeps info more centered, eyes don't have to keep moving back and forth, far left and far right over widescreen. Of course, 16:9 AR is a must for watching movies.

> Competition from Linux is growing, I think.

Linux has much going for it, but recent distributions are no longer targeted to run on "older, low-end" (now defined as late-2000 decade) systems. I remember when Linux used to brag about running on even ye olde 386 machine.... There *are* a few current "lite" distros that attempt to run on late-2000 machines.

Most of my students are using Macs....

- Doug B.

My friends gave me a 17" LCD (non CRT) for my old windows 98se machine. Actually been the first own 17" monitor I ever used at home (notebooks just rarely have that size but to be preciously even a 15" notebook tft has the same display size as a 17" CRT where only the diagonal size is counted if I remember correctly).

However the thing you mentioned reminds me of myself. I also hate the highest possible screen resolution. Its just so unusual to have that small desktop icons.

So althought I use 1366x768 for my working notebook  , I still stick to 1024x768 or similiar on the 17" LCD for Windows 98SE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's now been 5 years since I bought a 23" 1080p monitor for my Windows ME machine, it works fine with a graphic card as low as a Geforce FX 5200, going to anything lower in size/resolution would really feel like punishment.

 

Edited by loblo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, winxpi said:

My friends gave me a 17" LCD (non CRT) for my old windows 98se machine. Actually been the first own 17" monitor I ever used at home (notebooks just rarely have that size but to be preciously even a 15" notebook tft has the same display size as a 17" CRT where only the diagonal size is counted if I remember correctly).

However the thing you mentioned reminds me of myself. I also hate the highest possible screen resolution. Its just so unusual to have that small desktop icons.

So althought I use 1366x768 for my working notebook  , I still stick to 1024x768 or similiar on the 17" LCD for Windows 98SE.

The diagonal size measuring is the same for CRT's and LCD's, what may change is the form factor, CRT's are almost invariable 4:3, as well once LCD's were 4:3 whilst (recent, let's say in the last 10 years or so) LCD's tend to be 16_9 or 16:10.

BUT the technology is VERY different, unlike CRT's, LCD monitors have a "native" resolution.

If you set *any* other resolution but the "native" one, the result will invariably be a (slightly) fuzzier screen, as it is the result of a transformation of the original feed.

See:

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jaclaz said:

recent, let's say in the last 10 years or so) LCD's tend to be 16_9 or 16:10.

10 years ago 5:4 was still available and not-so-unpopular ^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mcinwwl said:

10 years ago 5:4 was still available and not-so-unpopular ^^

Pickyness challenge? :dubbio:

You lose.

I never said that 5:4 weren't available, as a matter of fact they are available even today, I said that:

1) the most common format for LCD screens was 4:3, like most (not all) CRT's

2) in the last ten years or so LCD's tend to be 16:9 or 16:10

Or, if you prefer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions

In this nice graphic representation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions#/media/File:Vector_Video_Standards8.svg

I can count:

#12 4:3 resolutions

#8 16:9 resolutions

#6 16:10 (8:5) resolutions

#2 5:4 resolutions [1]

Now, which would be the most common ones?

Possibly 4:3, then 16:9 or 16;10, as a matter of fact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_display_resolution

Quote

The favored aspect ratio of mass market display industry products has changed gradually from 4:3, then to 16:10, and then to 16:9, and now 21:9.[original research?] The 4:3 aspect ratio generally reflects older products, especially the era of the cathode ray tube (CRT). The 16:10 aspect ratio had its largest use in the 1995–2010 period, and the 16:9 aspect ratio tends to reflect post-2010 mass market computer monitor, laptop, and entertainment products displays.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_aspect_ratio

Quote

History
4:3 and 16:10

A 4:3 monitor
Until about 2003, most computer monitors had a 4:3 aspect ratio and some had 5:4. Between 2003 and 2006, monitors with 16:10 aspect ratio became commonly available, first in laptops and later also in standalone computer monitors. Reasons for this transition was productive uses for such monitors, i.e. besides widescreen movie viewing and computer game play, are the word processor display of two standard letter pages side by side, as well as CAD displays of large-size drawings and CAD application menus at the same time. 16:10 became the most common sold aspect ratio for widescreen computer monitors until 2008.

16:9
In 2008, the computer industry started to move from 4:3 and 16:10 to 16:9 as the standard aspect ratio for monitors and laptops. A 2008 report by DisplaySearch cited a number of reasons for this shift, including the ability for PC and monitor manufacturers to expand their product ranges by offering products with wider screens and higher resolutions, helping consumers to more easily adopt such products and "stimulating the growth of the notebook PC and LCD monitor market".

By 2010, virtually all computer monitor and laptop manufacturers had also moved to the 16:9 aspect ratio, and the availability of 16:10 aspect ratio in mass market had become very limited. In 2011, non-widescreen displays with 4:3 aspect ratios still were being manufactured, but in small quantities. The reasons for this according to Bennie Budler, product manager of IT products at Samsung South Africa was that the "demand for the old 'Square monitors' has decreased rapidly over the last couple of years". He also predicted that "by the end of 2011, production on all 4:3 or similar panels will be halted due to a lack of demand."

In March 2011, the 16:9 resolution of 1920×1080 became the most commonly used resolution among Steam users; the previous most common resolution was 1680×1050 (16:10).[6] In April 2012, the 16:9 resolution of 1366×768 became the most commonly used resolution worldwide; the previous most common resolution was 1024×768 (4:3). The third most common resolution at the time was 1280×800 (16:10).

jaclaz

[1] which are 1280x1024 and 2560x2048, of which the latter is rarely used

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Destro said:

welp i personally prefer 1920x1200 instead of pure HD res.  

Which is WUXGA, 16:10 (8:5) and if you have a 16:10 monitor with that "native" resolution, it is just fine :thumbup, while if you have a 16:9 monitor you would be better served by 1920x1080 "HD" (still given that that is the "native" resolution of the monitor).

jaclaz

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×