Way OT: How Many Win98 Users? - Thanks

[Steve]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at y...> wrote:
>
> I know this is way off topic, but I'm curious how many Windows 98
> users are out there. I still use Win98se, ...
> 
> ... Apple has upgraded Quicktime to Version 7 includes iTunes and 
> doesn't support Win98. 
>
> Just curious.
> 
> Steve/bboyminn

bboyminn:

Thanks everyone, good to know I'm not alone.

One of the reasons I resist getting WinXP is because every computer
I've used that has had it is slower than a dead dog in January. I'm
not so sure the actual computing is that much slower but the interface
seems to drag. 

Of course, WinXP starts countless unnecessary /processes/ that eat up
tremendous computer time. Many of the processes can be disabled, but
it's a headache trying to sort out which can and can't be removed.
Note: I have an AMD 900Mhz (with 512Mb, DVD, CD-RW, Epson Scanner,
HP-952 USP/Parallel Printer, and a DSL Line) that generally works fine
with Win98, plenty fast, the computers I've tried with WinXP have had
2.5Ghz processors, annoyingly slow. 

As I said, I tried to get the latest Quicktime movie viewer, but Apple
has stopped supporting Win98 altogether. The latest version, V7, only
supports Win2000 and WinXP. Thankfully I found a download sight that
still had Quicktime 6.5 available. Hopefully it will work. But it's
more than just the Quicktime version. Apple is switching their new
movie trailers to iTunes format (whatever that is). So, not only the
player, but the movie format is incompatable with Win98.

This all started when I had a hard drive crash, lost everything and I
mean everything. Bought a new hard drive, reinstalled Win98Se and have
had nothing but troubles. Eventually I discovered that there was a
problem with my Video card. I was getting constant lock-ups and
shutdowns, and just out of curiousity, I tried an ancient video card I
had laying around and my computer is about as stable now as Win98 ever
was. 

But I'm still having problems getting my scanner (USB) to work.
Eventually, I decided that the original install, which worked, had the
on-board USB 1.0 installed. Later, I installed a USB 2.0 Card and
disabled the USB 1.0. That work in all configurations. Now, even
though the USB ports and the Scanner all seem to be installed
properly, I can't get the Scanner working. Finally, I removed the USB
2.0 Card and re-activated the on-board USB 1.0 ports, then my Scanner
worked OK; not perfect, but OK. Then, ...are you getting tired of
hearing all this..., I installed the latest Windows Media Player (v9.0
or something)which has absolutely nothing to do with USB, but now my
Scanner is acting up again; it almost works.

WinXP has native built-in USB support, whereas Win98 merely has it
tacked on, so I'm thinking I could solve a lot of my problems if I
just installed WinXP.

Now to complicate matters futher, I ordered a replacement video card
to replace the piece of crap I was temporarily using. Of course, the
new card didn't work because my motherboard (build yr 2000) doesn't
support the latest AGP (Accelerated Graphics Port) specification. So,
I sent the new video card back and asked them for a recommendation.
Hopefully in a week or so, I should have a new video card. Then again,
maybe not.

I could buy a new computer, but the configuration I want would cost
about $600+ without the monitor, and I could part with that, I do have
savings, but at the same time that I have savings, I also have an
extremely low income. 

So, is my computer too old to cut the mustard or not? Who knows. Does
it really have some major problems on the verge of showing themselves
or has it just outlived it's old operating system? Who knows.

On the subject of memory. My brother just tried to upgrade the memory
in his EMachine which I think is about 500Mhz. It would only take
128Mb memories and then only the very old style. The problem with new
memory (DDR - Double Data Rate) is it uses a completely new
technology, where as the older memory (PC100/PC133 SDRAM) is ancient
technology that is not being updated; it's stagnant. So, 512Mb of new
DDR cost $40, but in the old technology for $40 you only get 128Mb of
SDRAM. 

By todays standards, if your computer isn't at least 500Mhz with 256Mb
of memory, you are computing in the dark ages. Personally, although
I'm completely satisfied with my computer, I am merely in the /dim/
ages of computing.

Sorry to ramble on so long, but sometimes a good RANT can be helpfull.

Steve/bboyminn