Cloning a 2.5" IDE/PATA Laptop Hard drive

Ant wrote:
wrote:
...
I never connect at 56k. If I get 44K I'm lucky. Most of the time I get
around 30K. There is about one mile of old copper cable coming to my
house from the pedestal along the road, and the wire coming ot the
pedestal is probably also real old. When you live in a rural area, these
old wires were only meant to be used for voice telephone.

Better than me. Mine were awful at home and college 30 minuts away.
Connections were mostly at 26400. Lucky at 31200. It didn't matter where
and how good my modems were. Average was about 3kBs for compressed datas
in downloads.

But you know why that is, right ?

Your download max was 33.6, not 56K.

A 56K modem has a fallback to 33.6K protocol, if the modem pool at the
other end indicates it doesn't support 56K.

The people who run modem pools, can't always afford to upgrade them.

There are standards like V.34, V90, and V92. I didn't get
V92 here - AFAIK, things stopped here at V90.


Also, I couldn't get DSL. I could get IDSL, but that was like 144 Kbs
that costed over $100 IIRC back in the 2000s. And then Excite@Home with
Adelphia came among. It sucked too until it became DOCSIS complaint and
had a complete digital makeover. :/

That was ISDN, and the max there is "2B+D". 2*64K+16K = 144K.
With ISDN, you could "take a phone call", and your computer
connection would drop to approximately half speed. Which is neat.

The deployment of ISDN was delayed enough, it overlapped
with ADSL, and thus ISDN couldn't have any momentum.

At work, one of my buddies worked on ISDN. He got a
reward and a plaque, for finishing the project on time.
(Not many of our major projects finished on time :-) )
And he got promoted. Too bad that ISDN didn't sell,
and ten years later, when telecoms were interested in
installing it, the product was "manufacturer discontinued".
Which means we never made any money off it. There
was no "production peak".

The people in Europe seemed to have access to ISDN,
and I vaguely remember some "Fritz modem" being used
for the ISDN end.

Paul

In message , Ant
writes:
Some Guy wrote:
[]
Back in the late 1980's and early 1990's I had a dial-up connection to a
university server (Silicon Graphics machine). From there I would do FTP
to wustl and other servers to get software.

Heh. I used to do those too. My favorite was ftp.cdrom.com for
sharewares, playable demos, and DOOM addons!

I remember F.O.S.I. - ought to have been malware-infested, but I never
had any problems with anything I got from it.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Going to church doesn't make you a Christian anymore than going to a garage
makes you a car." - Laurence J. Peter

In message ,
writes:
[]
The only floppy cable I have is a single. Only one connector. (not
including the MOBO end). But I do remember the double ones on some of my
real old computers. I may even have another one in one of the old

There were two sorts of dual-floppy cables: ones for two 3.5" drives
(with the twist), and ones for the two different sizes of drive (the
5.25" ones mostly had a sort of PCB-edge connector).

computers in the garage tbat I still have. But I see no reason for two
floppy drives these days. Back in the DOS days I had a 3.5 and 5.25
drive on the same computer. I know I'll never use a 5.25 drive again.

(I keep one or two for archaeological purposes.)

There were also the dual drives - really a 5.25" one with a very thin
(similar to as appeared in laptops briefly) 3.5" one on top of it, with
of course the relevant slit in the front. (IIRR, those connected to the
ribbon by one single connector.)

Anyhow, this cable is for a single floppy drive and has that twist.

I kind of wonder if I used a cable without a twist, would the ONLY drive
become B: instead of A:?

Good question!
[]
One thing about floppy drives, they seem to go bad even if they are not
used. I think it's all because of dust getting in them. Computers are

Certainly, if unused but in a computer that is being used ...

notorious for sucking in dust. Every year I have to vacuum out mine. And

.... for that reason. I don't think they go bad if just sitting on a
shelf - though they may seem to, because the one on a shelf is probably
on a shelf because it was removed because it was faulty, and
record-keeping was lax.

(I have the feeling that 5.25" ones suffered less in this respect: they
tended to be more open construction, whereas the 3.5" ones were
semi-sealed, meaning more places for the dust to accumulate. Could also
have been just the lower data density, as already discussed.)

every 3 years or so I open the power supply and blow it out with an air
compressor, cuz them fans really get filthy.
I think they should make air filters foir them!

They probably do if you look for them. But unless maintained (i. e.
either changed, or at least blown/shaken out from time to time), a
filter can be worse than no filter: when they get clogged, they can
restrict the airflow, and also drop gunk into the system if _very_
choked.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Going to church doesn't make you a Christian anymore than going to a garage
makes you a car." - Laurence J. Peter

In message , Paul
writes:
[]
But you know why that is, right ?

Your download max was 33.6, not 56K.

A 56K modem has a fallback to 33.6K protocol, if the modem pool at the
other end indicates it doesn't support 56K.

It was only ever 56k for download, basically because the mainframe
computer via the telephone system effectively had direct control of the
D-A converter in the exchange and could thus generate the waveform,
whereas in the upload direction, your computer (MoDem) did not know the
sampling instant of the A-D in the exchange, so had to go slow enough
(oversimplifying) that waveform detection worked.

The people who run modem pools, can't always afford to upgrade them.

There are standards like V.34, V90, and V92. I didn't get
V92 here - AFAIK, things stopped here at V90.

Wasn't the difference between V90 and V92 just a firmware upgrade, not
requiring hardware changes? It was all such a Long Time Ago ... (-:
[]
The deployment of ISDN was delayed enough, it overlapped
with ADSL, and thus ISDN couldn't have any momentum.
[]
The people in Europe seemed to have access to ISDN,
and I vaguely remember some "Fritz modem" being used
for the ISDN end.

Paul

I don't think it really got wide use here (UK) - certainly not for home
use, and I don't think much for business; (a) it was too expensive, (b)
I don't think it was asymmetrical (the A in ADSL, though I gather that's
usually omitted in US), which is what most people want. Again, ADSL
appeared here too before ISDN had much chance to be introduced.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Going to church doesn't make you a Christian anymore than going to a garage
makes you a car." - Laurence J. Peter

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:26:46 -0600, (Ant) wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 02:22:18 -0500, Paul wrote:


I compared the two files, and there is a weirdness at
around every ~32KB of data in the ZIP. Almost as if
maybe the file was being re-encoded on the fly
by the NGINX server.

Maybe you need to run PKZIPFIX on it.
That has always been handy. None of the Windows ZIP programs have that
sort of thing.....

I miss the old days like PKWARE. V2.04g was the last version IIRC for DOS!

I still use zip and unzip commands in Linux, UNIX, etc. though.

I still use Dos fairly often on my Win98 machine, so I still have PKZIP
and a lot of other dos utilities installed.

What I liked about Dos utilities was that they did not need to be
installed. If I install Dos on another computer, I just copy my entire
"Utilities" folder over to the other machine and it all works right
away.

I didnt know Linux used ZIP. I see a lot of Linux stuff compressed with
..TAR. I know there is something on one of my computers that will open
them things, but I rarely get them. I have a couple bootable flash
drives with some of the old (small) linux editions, but I dont do much
with Linux. I did install PCLinux on a spare HDD, but it was an old one.
Seems linux these days is doing the same as Microsoft. Bloating the crap
out of everything. I cant even get any of the newer Linux to boot, it
just hangs. I mostly use those old ones to boot if XP gets screwed up.
For example I saved a file with a filename that was too long. I dont
know why Windows allowed me to save it, but it did, and it kept causing
errors. XP would not allow me to delete it, rename it, or do anything.
Linux let me get rid of it.

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:30:14 -0600, (Ant) wrote:

Better than me. Mine were awful at home and college 30 minuts away.
Connections were mostly at 26400. Lucky at 31200. It didn't matter where
and how good my modems were. Average was about 3kBs for compressed datas
in downloads.

Also, I couldn't get DSL. I could get IDSL, but that was like 144 Kbs
that costed over $100 IIRC back in the 2000s. And then Excite@Home with
Adelphia came among. It sucked too until it became DOCSIS complaint and
had a complete digital makeover. :/
--

My downloads are never over 3kbs. Usually closer to 2kbs. I downloaded a
1.5MB file yesterday and it took close to 1/2 hour.

I cant even get DSL. There is no cable either. All I can get is a
satellite dish, and that would cost over $100 per month. They wont just
install it for internet, you have to get the whole package with TV. I
watch very little tv, so I dont need that.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
In message , Paul
writes:
[]
But you know why that is, right ?

Your download max was 33.6, not 56K.

A 56K modem has a fallback to 33.6K protocol, if the modem pool at the
other end indicates it doesn't support 56K.

It was only ever 56k for download, basically because the mainframe
computer via the telephone system effectively had direct control of the
D-A converter in the exchange and could thus generate the waveform,
whereas in the upload direction, your computer (MoDem) did not know the
sampling instant of the A-D in the exchange, so had to go slow enough
(oversimplifying) that waveform detection worked.

Didn't FCC only allow up to 53K speed?


The people who run modem pools, can't always afford to upgrade them.

There are standards like V.34, V90, and V92. I didn't get
V92 here - AFAIK, things stopped here at V90.

Wasn't the difference between V90 and V92 just a firmware upgrade, not
requiring hardware changes? It was all such a Long Time Ago ... (-:

I remember some USR Sportster modems could get V92 firmware upgrades.
--
Quote of the Week: "I go out of my way to avoid stepping on ants." --Terry McGovern, daughter of Senator George and Eleanor McGovern, subject of the book "Terry by her father"
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
( ) ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

Ant wrote:


Didn't FCC only allow up to 53K speed?

That's a signal amplitude issue. There is some
regulatory limit defined for the phone system.

On the one hand, the C.O. may have some
limits on launch amplitude.

And on the other, telephone receivers have protection
devices across the receiver screw terminals.

I have some first-hand experience, that at least
some telephone company equipment, can put out a
fairly high amplitude signal - high enough I have
to hold the phone three inches from my head, so I
didn't lose an eardrum. The equipment has some
"unused capabilities" that show up occasionally
when something is mis-configured.

A possible explanation might have been crosstalk in
cable bundles, but that's just a guess. On a more modern
POTS system, the copper section is only 500 feet from
your street corner to home, and it's no longer 18000 feet
of wire and associated crosstalk.


I remember some USR Sportster modems could get V92 firmware upgrades.

Yes, you could get firmware, but if the modem pool doesn't
do V92, it hardly matters. I think a V92 would drop back
to V90 then V.34 and so on, all the way down to 300 baud
if you waited long enough. It's backward compatible all the
way back to the beginning of computing. If you phoned up one
of the old private BBSes, it could well end up running
at 300 or 1200.

Paul

In message ,
writes:
[]
just hangs. I mostly use those old ones to boot if XP gets screwed up.
For example I saved a file with a filename that was too long. I dont
know why Windows allowed me to save it, but it did, and it kept causing
errors. XP would not allow me to delete it, rename it, or do anything.
Linux let me get rid of it.

Did you try using its 8.3 name?

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"If just one child is saved, then we'll have created a police state for the
benefit of just one child."

In message , Ant
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
In message , Paul
writes:
[]
But you know why that is, right ?

Your download max was 33.6, not 56K.

A 56K modem has a fallback to 33.6K protocol, if the modem pool at the
other end indicates it doesn't support 56K.

It was only ever 56k for download, basically because the mainframe
computer via the telephone system effectively had direct control of the
D-A converter in the exchange and could thus generate the waveform,
whereas in the upload direction, your computer (MoDem) did not know the
sampling instant of the A-D in the exchange, so had to go slow enough
(oversimplifying) that waveform detection worked.

Didn't FCC only allow up to 53K speed?

They may have where the FCC reigns (the reason Paul gives is a plausible
one). I don't _think_ there was any such limit here (UK) - certainly,
this is the first time I can _remember_ seeing the figure of 53.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"If just one child is saved, then we'll have created a police state for the
benefit of just one child."

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 03:23:43 -0500, Paul wrote:


Yes, you could get firmware, but if the modem pool doesn't
do V92, it hardly matters. I think a V92 would drop back
to V90 then V.34 and so on, all the way down to 300 baud
if you waited long enough. It's backward compatible all the
way back to the beginning of computing. If you phoned up one
of the old private BBSes, it could well end up running
at 300 or 1200.

Paul

My first modem was a 1200. I used to use local BBSs. Yet, I could
connect to the BBS faster than I can now connect to many websites at
56K. Some sites cant even load anymore, especially the Media News sites.
Since they started using HTTPS on almost all sites, my speed has gone
down about 50%. Google is even worse. I used to wait maybe 10 seconds
when I clicked on www.google.com. Now I wait close to a full minute,
using Firefox.

I also used to use a browser called "Offbyone". That program would load
a webpage in it's most basic form. No scripts, no css, no crap. Just
text and pictures. But that no longer works either. It does not load any
HTTPS sites.

Add to that, almost everytime I load any webpage now, I get repeated
warnings saying "can not connect securely". Sometimes they are so bad
that I have to sit a weight on my ENTER key, to avoid having to hit the
enter key 20 - 50 or 100 times, while a page is loading.

It just keeps getting worse and worse trying to use the web. Most of the
time I get so frustrated, I just shut off the computer. About the only
things that still work are Usenet and Email, and even my email is slower
to load than it once was.

Personally, I think most of that security is senseless. Yea, if I am
using a site such as ebay or amazon, where I have to use a credit card,
I want security. But why is security needed to view a Wikipedia page, or
use Google?

The entire internet is going down the ****ter, if you ask me, and I have
friends who say the same. I see a day coming soon, when the only people
who can even use the www are those who have brand new compiuters running
Windows 10, and costly high speed service. And by then, the internet
will be entirely run thru facebook.

I personally do not see myself using the internet much longer. I cant
get high speed service where I live, dont intend to buy a new computer
or use Win10, and refuse to ever allow facebook to steal my identity. On
top of that, usenet is almost dead. So, I'm moatly just paying my ISP so
I can use email. I can send a text from my cellphone and it does about
the same thing......

wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:30:14 -0600, (Ant) wrote:

Better than me. Mine were awful at home and college 30 minuts away.
Connections were mostly at 26400. Lucky at 31200. It didn't matter where
and how good my modems were. Average was about 3kBs for compressed datas
in downloads.

Also, I couldn't get DSL. I could get IDSL, but that was like 144 Kbs
that costed over $100 IIRC back in the 2000s. And then Excite@Home with
Adelphia came among. It sucked too until it became DOCSIS complaint and
had a complete digital makeover. :/
--

My downloads are never over 3kbs. Usually closer to 2kbs. I downloaded a
1.5MB file yesterday and it took close to 1/2 hour.

I cant even get DSL. There is no cable either. All I can get is a
satellite dish, and that would cost over $100 per month. They wont just
install it for internet, you have to get the whole package with TV. I
watch very little tv, so I dont need that.


As a connoisseur of dialup, I'm sure you know this
already. Initially, there were two competing standards.
The standards body tried to combine them, making V90. The
idea was, you could get a firmware upgrade, to bring your
model to V90.

X2 ___
\___ V90
K56 ___/

Well, what happened ? Instead of unification, the modem
and front end still had to match for best results. This is
why I had two modems, a Supra for K56 and a USR for X2. Then,
it depended on whether I was dialing into work, or dialing
into Freenet, as to which modem worked best. If I used the
wrong modem, the result could be the "spiral of death".

V90 with an X2 ___

V90 with a K56 ___

The spiral of death, is a kind of negotiation failure. The
initial connection might be at 46K (i.e. a bit too high),
Over a period of minutes, transmission errors would pile up,
and the protocol would seek to adjust the properties to
compensate. The effective transmission rate was no longer
46K. It might take around 10 to 15 minutes, but the rate
would drop and drop, until there wasn't enough bandwidth to
do keep-alive on PPP. And the modem pool would hang up.
The protocol did not appear to have any ability to
"open the line up again", if line quality improved. It
would just go down and down, until the line dropped.

Now, the standard the Supra uses, at some point I no longer
had any of those to dial into. So the Supra collected dust.
I lost my last dialup a couple years ago (Freenet wants at
least $25 a year to keep an account on dialup), and I finally
put the USR away as well. I used to use FreeNet, to check the
ADSL status page at my ISP, when my ADSL wasn't working. It
was better to do that, than to phone the support number and
listen to Abba for 40 minutes until someone would pick up and
tell me how broken things were.

You *can* improve your lot in life to 5KB/sec. But
the last few times I used dialup, it was a living hell.
As even the most innocent web page, is megabytes of crap.
Everything ends up taking an hour to do. Tuning up the
dialup modem, won't make it heroic.

*******

This is one way for rural people to get Internet.
Smaller ISPs may offer this. For a company to offer
this, the payback is probably 20 years.

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

"Under ideal operating conditions, the system can
communicate over distances of 3.5 to 15 miles

Maximum range 120 miles
Type of signal: line-of-sight
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirele...rvice_provider

Paul

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 21:36:20 -0500, Paul wrote:


As a connoisseur of dialup, I'm sure you know this
already. Initially, there were two competing standards.
The standards body tried to combine them, making V90. The
idea was, you could get a firmware upgrade, to bring your
model to V90.

X2 ___
\___ V90
K56 ___/

Well, what happened ? Instead of unification, the modem
and front end still had to match for best results. This is
why I had two modems, a Supra for K56 and a USR for X2. Then,
it depended on whether I was dialing into work, or dialing
into Freenet, as to which modem worked best. If I used the
wrong modem, the result could be the "spiral of death".

V90 with an X2 ___

V90 with a K56 ___

The spiral of death, is a kind of negotiation failure. The
initial connection might be at 46K (i.e. a bit too high),
Over a period of minutes, transmission errors would pile up,
and the protocol would seek to adjust the properties to
compensate. The effective transmission rate was no longer
46K. It might take around 10 to 15 minutes, but the rate
would drop and drop, until there wasn't enough bandwidth to
do keep-alive on PPP. And the modem pool would hang up.
The protocol did not appear to have any ability to
"open the line up again", if line quality improved. It
would just go down and down, until the line dropped.

Now, the standard the Supra uses, at some point I no longer
had any of those to dial into. So the Supra collected dust.
I lost my last dialup a couple years ago (Freenet wants at
least $25 a year to keep an account on dialup), and I finally
put the USR away as well. I used to use FreeNet, to check the
ADSL status page at my ISP, when my ADSL wasn't working. It
was better to do that, than to phone the support number and
listen to Abba for 40 minutes until someone would pick up and
tell me how broken things were.

You *can* improve your lot in life to 5KB/sec. But
the last few times I used dialup, it was a living hell.
As even the most innocent web page, is megabytes of crap.
Everything ends up taking an hour to do. Tuning up the
dialup modem, won't make it heroic.

Yea, I know all about the spiral of death issue. That is the main reason
I only use Win98 on the internet. Whether it's XP or Windows 2000, both
of them suffer badly from that Spiral of death **** badly. But Win98
dont. I spent many hours of time trying to fix this years ago, and it
was all a waste of time. I finally just accepted that I will never be
able to use dialup with any OS other than Win98. Using Win98 is not a
problem in itself, except that I cant use a modern browser and that
makes connecting to many of the new websites impossible.

I do wonder if getting a different brand of modem would help though. I
have always used USR modems. Is the Supra a decent brand? I know that
some brands I used many years ago, were crappy modems. One brand that
comes to mind is Cardinal. That was a piece of ****.

I refuse to even try any more tests and configurations. That nearly
drove me bonkers back when I tried. But I might consider buying another
modem/brand if that might help. They can often be bought on ebay for
little money, since few people use modems any more.

I just bought another identical USR modem on ebay for about $15. I just
bought it so I have a spare, because I have lost several of them in the
past from lightning. But that has not happened lately because I unplug
the phone line at all times when I am not using the computer, and if a
storm is approaching, I unplug that phone line right away.

Does Supra make an external modem? I only use externals and they have to
be serial port type, because as you know, USB is lousy on Win98, and I
hate internal modems.

Once I tried to connect using Linux, and wondered if that would not get
the spiral of death, but I am not a Linux person. and never will be.
I have a few older versions of Linux on bootable flash drives but that's
just for emergency booting of XP is something goes wrong and I need to
access my data. As long as I dont have to use the linux command line, I
can copy data. But that about all I do with linux.

I think a lot of the problems is my ISP. They have pretty much abandoned
the dialup, but they know that some of us rural people cant connect any
other way. so they keep a few modems running for those of us who have a
landline from them. Where I live, I must have a landline because my
cellphone dont get a signal.

In message ,
writes:
[]
I do wonder if getting a different brand of modem would help though. I

It might ...
[]
I think a lot of the problems is my ISP. They have pretty much abandoned
the dialup, but they know that some of us rural people cant connect any
other way. so they keep a few modems running for those of us who have a

.... as long as the "spiral of death" isn't caused by the other end.

(I still can't understand why you don't get it with Windows 98, but I
sympathise that you're fed up of trying things!)

landline from them. Where I live, I must have a landline because my
cellphone dont get a signal.

Would it be possible to erect some sort of aerial - do cellular signals
reach your location but too far above ground level? Or are you so remote
that you are not in a coverage area at all? I appreciate it'd be
awkward, since modern 'phones don't have an aerial socket, and it'd have
to be bidirectional, which makes boosters difficult (though can be
done), but if there is a signal, two passive but high-gain (i. e.
directional) aerials connected together, in your loft or on a pole,
_might_ make life a bit more bearable.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

You cannot simply assume someone is honest just because they are not an MP.

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:20:27 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message ,
writes:
[]
I do wonder if getting a different brand of modem would help though. I

It might ...
[]
I think a lot of the problems is my ISP. They have pretty much abandoned
the dialup, but they know that some of us rural people cant connect any
other way. so they keep a few modems running for those of us who have a

... as long as the "spiral of death" isn't caused by the other end.

(I still can't understand why you don't get it with Windows 98, but I
sympathise that you're fed up of trying things!)

landline from them. Where I live, I must have a landline because my
cellphone dont get a signal.

Would it be possible to erect some sort of aerial - do cellular signals
reach your location but too far above ground level? Or are you so remote
that you are not in a coverage area at all? I appreciate it'd be
awkward, since modern 'phones don't have an aerial socket, and it'd have
to be bidirectional, which makes boosters difficult (though can be
done), but if there is a signal, two passive but high-gain (i. e.
directional) aerials connected together, in your loft or on a pole,
_might_ make life a bit more bearable.

Thanks for starting a new thread. I was considering doing the same.

I have never understood why Win98 works and not any NT based OS. I still
have Win2000 installed on the same computer as Win98. All I use it for
is to do backups, because Win98 cant handle those external hard drives
on USB. I love Win98, but USB support has always been lousy. By (dual)
booting to Win2000, I can copy everything from my HDD to my backup,
including the Win98 OS files. I would have XP instead in that partition,
but this computer is not quite up to Xp level for power and such.

No, I dont get a usable cellphone signal. I live down a hill, cellphone
signals are poor to start with, and being downhill from the nearby town,
I dont get much. Sometimes I get one bar, but have to go outside (metal
covered house). But I know I will lose the signal at any time during the
call. Other times I dont get any signal. Most of the time I drive up the
hill to make calls. Thats why I keep my landline. In bad weather or an
emergency, I rely on that landline. I do not have long distance on that
landline, but I can call all local emergency numbers as well as persons
or busineesses in the immediate area. I dont make many long dist. calls,
but when I do, I do have to go up that hill and use the cellphone.

I do think the dialup problem is on the other end (ISP), but that still
dont explain why Win98 works and not any NT based OSs.

Being rural has it's disadvantages, but I'll accept the technology
disadvantages before I'd ever live in a city. The firsdt part of my life
was in a city, and I hated it.

I know they sell signal boosters for cellphones. I am sure that having
an antenna on the roof and a booster could solve the metal house
limitations, but I'd still be boosting a very weak signal.

The only way to get high speed internet here is a satellite, and that's
very costly around here. They sell the whole package, TV, Internet, and
other stuff, at a cost of well over $100 per month. I cant afford it,
and I do not want the tv part. I have a 40ft tv antenna, and I get
enough tv stations to suit me. I mostly just watch ME-TV anyhow. I'm
elderly and like the old shows. Modern tv is crap in my opinion.