What service pack for Win98se?

Hi I need to download the latest service pack for Win 98se, I have service
pack 3 for Win XP - are they both the same?

Thanks
GK

First Gabriel Knight top-poasted this:

Thanks for all the info I'll go with installing Win98 as reccomended

Then Gabriel Knight wrote this 4 hours later:

Hi I need to download the latest service pack for Win 98se, I have
service pack 3 for Win XP - are they both the same?

Gabriel, is there a reason you did not cross-post the above 2 messages
to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion?

Did you not notice that most or all of the comments you received from
your original post came because I cross-posted your original post to
that group?

I am again cross-posting your messages to
microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion for your benefit. Please pay
attention next time and consider more carefully which groups you post
to.

To answer your question:

I need to download the latest service pack for Win 98se, I have
service pack 3 for Win XP - are they both the same?

It's quite strange that you think that Win 98se is in some way "the
same" as Win XP.

They are VERY different.

If you have a Windows XP cd, then I suggest that you use it to install
Windows on your PC.

I suggest that because if you don't know the difference between Win-98
and Win-XP, then you're not ready to deal with the various issues that
will face you in using Windows 98 in the year 2012, and therefore
Windows XP will be a more ergonomic or practical operating system for
you to have.

98 Guy wrote in :

I need to download the latest service pack for Win 98se, I have
service pack 3 for Win XP - are they both the same?

It's quite strange that you think that Win 98se is in some way "the
same" as Win XP.

They are VERY different.

If you have a Windows XP cd, then I suggest that you use it to install
Windows on your PC.

I suggest that because if you don't know the difference between Win-98
and Win-XP, then you're not ready to deal with the various issues that
will face you in using Windows 98 in the year 2012, and therefore
Windows XP will be a more ergonomic or practical operating system for
you to have.



I think so too. W98 isn't an easy first base, it;s mainkly used by people who
still needed it and can make up for its flaws. WXP has flaws too, but they
are at least handled by current cupport from Microsoft.

Whichever OS chosen, figure out how to get control, and KEEP contol, then it
doesn't really matter which we choose. That way we can stop being forced to
change before we even get used to our first choice.

I think a person unfamiliar with this did well to ask on Usenet. This is NOT
advice they're likely to see on the web. Basically my adice is: Take time,
look deep, choose the OS you will end up LIVING with, and try not to catch
'upgrade fever'. It's very contagious.

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
98 Guy wrote in :

I need to download the latest service pack for Win 98se, I have
service pack 3 for Win XP - are they both the same?

It's quite strange that you think that Win 98se is in some way "the
same" as Win XP.

They are VERY different.

If you have a Windows XP cd, then I suggest that you use it to install
Windows on your PC.

I suggest that because if you don't know the difference between Win-98
and Win-XP, then you're not ready to deal with the various issues that
will face you in using Windows 98 in the year 2012, and therefore
Windows XP will be a more ergonomic or practical operating system for
you to have.



I think so too. W98 isn't an easy first base, it;s mainkly used by people
who
still needed it and can make up for its flaws. WXP has flaws too, but they
are at least handled by current cupport from Microsoft.

Whichever OS chosen, figure out how to get control, and KEEP contol, then
it
doesn't really matter which we choose. That way we can stop being forced
to
change before we even get used to our first choice.

Agreed. Keeping control of your system is THE key. Going from 98 to XP
(and above), you do have to lose a little of that, however - but that's the
price you pay. You just can't "micromanage" XP and above the same way you
did with 98 and below. It's not the days of DOS much anymore. :-)

I think a person unfamiliar with this did well to ask on Usenet. This is
NOT
advice they're likely to see on the web. Basically my adice is: Take time,
look deep, choose the OS you will end up LIVING with, and try not to catch
'upgrade fever'. It's very contagious.

I think I have downgrade fever, at least on a lot (most?) of the newer apps.
The old apps generally work better for me, as they keep adding more junk
(i.e. unneeded and unwanted features, and bells and whistles, and eye candy)

Gabriel Knight wrote:

Hi I need to download the latest service pack for Win 98se, I have service
pack 3 for Win XP - are they both the same?

Not an issue with Windows *XP*, the topic of *this* newsgroup. To ask
questions about Windows 98, visit THOSE newsgroups, which a

microsoft.public.win98.*

A service pack for one version of Windows is not usable for a different
version of Windows. The service pack targets a specific version of
Windows (and may even differ in what it deposits based on which edition
within a version of Windows, like Home versus Professional editions for
the same version of Windows).

When a Microsoft product goes beyond its extended support period (first
to expire is mainstream support which includes some count of free
incidents followed by extended support), they may no longer provide
updates or service packs via their Windows Update site.

http://support.microsoft.com/ph/1139
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/294871 ("Note" mentions KB 224420)

I take it your question was evoked because you visited the Windiws
Update site and if offered you no service packs or updates. Extended
support for Windows XP will end 2014-04-08 which may spur many XP users
(me included) to move to a later version of Windows when and if MS no
longer provides security updates that they release for the later
versions. Extended support for Windows 98 SE ended back on 2006-07-11.

Did you if a search at visit http://www.microsoft.com/downloads lists
service packs for Windows 98? I didn't see any but then I didn't think
from what I've read that Microsoft released a service for the SE edition
of Windows 98. See:

http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/...ice-Pack.shtml
or
http://download.cnet.com/Unofficial-...7_4-52713.html
(but Cnet likes to use its adware/downloader wrapper.

Both from the same author/Exuberbant source, use at your own risk, save
an image backup before committing surgery on the OS.

Note: Your munged e-mail address in your post here is using someone
else's registered domain. Don't do that. Use a domain that doesn't
exist, example.com, or anystring.invalid. Don't energize spambots to
slam someone else's domain just because you like your cutsy munge.

"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Whichever OS chosen, figure out how to get control, and KEEP contol,
then it
doesn't really matter which we choose. That way we can stop being
forced to
change before we even get used to our first choice.

Agreed. Keeping control of your system is THE key. Going from 98 to
XP (and above), you do have to lose a little of that, however - but
that's the price you pay. You just can't "micromanage" XP and above the
same way you did with 98 and below. It's not the days of DOS much
anymore. :-)

I think a person unfamiliar with this did well to ask on Usenet. This
is NOT
advice they're likely to see on the web. Basically my adice is: Take
time, look deep, choose the OS you will end up LIVING with, and try not
to catch 'upgrade fever'. It's very contagious.

I think I have downgrade fever, at least on a lot (most?) of the newer
apps. The old apps generally work better for me, as they keep adding
more junk (i.e. unneeded and unwanted features, and bells and whistles,
and eye candy)


Interesting connection between both points above: The Win32 API. I've
recently taken to C enough to actually DO things that have some use, like the
monitor shut-off program I posted a few days ago. (Not unique, there are
versions all over the place I think), and something to come, a way to shut
down a specific disk in W98, at will, to save power. That took some help with
an undocumented API call (from Rudolph Loew) and some learning of my own.

The two main points that leads to are these:
1. The Win32 API lets us micromange damn near everything in ANY Windows.
But it's not for everyone, it is more than a tad arcane.
2. Bloat and annoyances appear to be proportional to the distance coders put
between themselves and direct handling of that API.

If downgrade fever means staying with that API I'll do it and enjoy it even
if it's only like that nice heady feeling we get before coming down with big
flu. When it is harder to do ANYTHING, the tendency is to do that which is
most useful. Besides, the higher level stuff might not even let us do the
really cool and useful things. Which might be why some coders go the other
way.

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Whichever OS chosen, figure out how to get control, and KEEP contol,
then it
doesn't really matter which we choose. That way we can stop being
forced to change before we even get used to our first choice.

Agreed. Keeping control of your system is THE key. Going from 98 to
XP (and above), you do have to lose a little of that, however - but
that's the price you pay. You just can't "micromanage" XP and above the
same way you did with 98 and below. It's not the days of DOS much
anymore. :-)

I think a person unfamiliar with this did well to ask on Usenet. This
is NOT
advice they're likely to see on the web. Basically my adice is: Take
time, look deep, choose the OS you will end up LIVING with, and try not
to catch 'upgrade fever'. It's very contagious.

I think I have downgrade fever, at least on a lot (most?) of the newer
apps. The old apps generally work better for me, as they keep adding
more junk (i.e. unneeded and unwanted features, and bells and whistles,
and eye candy)


Interesting connection between both points above: The Win32 API. I've
recently taken to C enough to actually DO things that have some use, like
the
monitor shut-off program I posted a few days ago. (Not unique, there are
versions all over the place I think), and something to come, a way to shut
down a specific disk in W98, at will, to save power. That took some help
with
an undocumented API call (from Rudolph Loew) and some learning of my own.

The two main points that leads to are these:
1. The Win32 API lets us micromange damn near everything in ANY Windows.

But it's not for everyone, it is more than a tad arcane.

snip

Indeed.
But heck, I wasn't even thinking at that level - the Win API level. Even
just managing application files and some app customizations is more
cumbersome, due to the use of multiple user accounts in XP (even if you are
the only user!), and the use of Application Data directories for some of the
application's information, this in addition to the use of the Program Files
directory.

Application and windows-related files were a lot easier to find and maintain
in Win9x, since there was only ONE account!, and the Program Files directory
to store the app-related stuff in. Well, and the windows and system
directories, which stored a bunch of INI files, of course. But I think the
use of INI files got considerably downgraded since XP and its successors,
for better or for worse (I say that because I often found the use of them -
instead of the registry - convenient for customizing some program
application settings).

Thanks for the cross posting for me 98 Guy and I will make sure to use the
microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion group for any more Win 98 questions -
I apologize sincerely.



I am using Win98 for one reason that is I bought an old pc game that needs
an old pc so I have built a pc for that but I though the service packs for
98 and xp were the same, I was wrong there. I know I can run VMware, dosbox
or program compatibility on Win xp but I don't want to do that. It's been a
while for me with win 98 so my questions were a bit off - my apologies
again.



I needed a service pack for 98 because before I installed an ATI Radeon 3d
card driver I had to install "Net Framework 1.1" and internet explorer 6 or
the driver would not install, later I found the driver or the card were not
working 100% so before that I thought an up to date service pack might help
as one game I used as a test said something was missing but I was later
seeing a bad driver problem because of graphic mishaps after the driver was
installed so now I am in the process of getting another driver to try or I'll
use an NVidia card.





Thanks all

GK




"Gabriel Knight" wrote in message
nd.com...
Hi I need to download the latest service pack for Win 98se, I have service
pack 3 for Win XP - are they both the same?

Thanks
GK

"Bill in Co" wrote in
:

Application and windows-related files were a lot easier to find and
maintain in Win9x, since there was only ONE account!, and the Program
Files directory to store the app-related stuff in. Well, and the
windows and system directories, which stored a bunch of INI files, of
course. But I think the use of INI files got considerably downgraded
since XP and its successors, for better or for worse (I say that because
I often found the use of them - instead of the registry - convenient for
customizing some program application settings).



This relates to the Unix file system too, and the disagreements I have with
it.

The whole thing is set up for accounts, separating people from each other on
one machine. My starting questrion is: Is it a mainframe, or isn't it?
Mainframes never vanished. They just got shoved into desktop machines! I
never wanted to run a machine like that, so DOS based systems worked best for
me.

W9X does actually have accounts too, but more of a way to let people keep
their own preferences rather than to secure a user's data against
interference or errors caused by others. In the registry, I always go for
HKEY_USERS. So long as the system is default-installed and no new accounts
made prior to customisation, the CurrentUser branch just mirrors the main
Users one.

INI files are ok, but in Unix file systems they seem to go for them a LOT,
..conf all over the place, although usually in one main branch and away from
the binary files. I'm sure there are meaningful reasons to do that but they
make no sense to me. If I wanted configs in ONE branch I'd use a registry,
it's faster, they're all loaded to RAM after all... On the other hand, when I
want INI files it's because I want portability, self-containment, all of a
program's support files in its base directory so that transplanting and
backing up is totally easy. The Unix file system seems to prefer STRONGLY
that we do not do this. We can do it, but I see no reason to choose a file
system that I will be fighting against rather than working with.

I will concede that the Unix file system makes sense in its storage of log
files in a separate branch though, that can make sense on ANY machine.

-------------------

*speculation*
W9X might be made as secure as any other OS for user data, if each user had
their own programs partition, separate and encrypted. Several small
partitions, perhaps with a tool to hide all but the current one for the
logged in user. Rudolph Loew does a drive encryption patch so this might be
entirely feasible for a few bucks spent. The registry branches would not be
secured by default, but that could still be done by deleting the single-
user's own branch after saving it to file on the encrypted partition before
logging off, and reversing the act on logging on.
/speculation.

"Bill in Co" wrote in
:

the use of Application Data directories for some of the
application's information, this in addition to the use of the Program
Files directory.


I see more of this occuring in W98 now, but I suspect it's caused by programs
that expect the structures, and generate them when they don't find them! I
usually try to reign that in when testing stuff, but missed a few. Sometimes
I cut those directories off at the root but they always grow back.

Lostgallifreyan wrote in
:

In the registry, I always go for
HKEY_USERS. So long as the system is default-installed and no new accounts
made prior to customisation, the CurrentUser branch just mirrors the main
Users one.


I should say, HKEY_USERS/.DEFAULT which I always use as my base for configs.

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
:

Application and windows-related files were a lot easier to find and
maintain in Win9x, since there was only ONE account!, and the Program
Files directory to store the app-related stuff in. Well, and the
windows and system directories, which stored a bunch of INI files, of
course. But I think the use of INI files got considerably downgraded
since XP and its successors, for better or for worse (I say that because
I often found the use of them - instead of the registry - convenient for
customizing some program application settings).



This relates to the Unix file system too, and the disagreements I have
with
it.

The whole thing is set up for accounts, separating people from each other
on
one machine. My starting questrion is: Is it a mainframe, or isn't it?
Mainframes never vanished. They just got shoved into desktop machines! I
never wanted to run a machine like that, so DOS based systems worked best
for
me.

W9X does actually have accounts too, but more of a way to let people keep
their own preferences rather than to secure a user's data against
interference or errors caused by others. In the registry, I always go for
HKEY_USERS. So long as the system is default-installed and no new accounts
made prior to customisation, the CurrentUser branch just mirrors the main
Users one.

OK. I was just referring to trying to keep track of app-related settings
and customizations that are (in XP and higher) made to one OR more of the
following account directories under the Documents and Settings master
directory, depending on the "mood" of the app:

Administrator
All Users
Bill (me)
Default User
Local Service

It's a bit tedious to keep track of. :-)
And don't forget, there are Application Data subdirectories in each one of
them!
Ditto on the location of program shortcuts when a program is installed, etc.

INI files are ok, but in Unix file systems they seem to go for them a LOT,
.conf all over the place, although usually in one main branch and away
from
the binary files. I'm sure there are meaningful reasons to do that but
they
make no sense to me. If I wanted configs in ONE branch I'd use a registry,
it's faster, they're all loaded to RAM after all... On the other hand,
when I
want INI files it's because I want portability, self-containment, all of a
program's support files in its base directory so that transplanting and
backing up is totally easy. The Unix file system seems to prefer STRONGLY
that we do not do this. We can do it, but I see no reason to choose a file
system that I will be fighting against rather than working with.

It's a tradeoff, but, in retrospect, maybe it is best that the INI thing is
being phased out, all things considered. I can sure see the advantage of
having everything stored in "one location" (registry), and always in memory.
(Plus the normal limitation of 64K max for INI files, although I think some
programs found ways around that).

snip

"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

OK. I was just referring to trying to keep track of app-related
settings and customizations that are (in XP and higher) made to one OR
more of the following account directories under the Documents and
Settings master directory, depending on the "mood" of the app:

Administrator
All Users
Bill (me)
Default User
Local Service

It's a bit tedious to keep track of. :-)
And don't forget, there are Application Data subdirectories in each one
of them!
Ditto on the location of program shortcuts when a program is installed,
etc.


I've never had to do it but I know how I'd start trying, assuming I was admin
and had full access.. Save the entire branch to text, locate the user branch
sourcing a config to be migrated, find the subsection to migrate, copy,
locate destination, replace it from clipboard, repeat as desired... Merge the
saved result back to the registry when done. Log off. Next logged user gets
their new configs.

Tools like TextPad have macros that will automate this in cases where
periodic maintenance was needed.

I'm glad I don't have to do it though.

"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

It's a tradeoff, but, in retrospect, maybe it is best that the INI thing
is being phased out, all things considered. I can sure see the
advantage of having everything stored in "one location" (registry), and
always in memory. (Plus the normal limitation of 64K max for INI files,
although I think some programs found ways around that).


You're not a fan or portability and self-containment? Each has its place.

Defining that place isn;t so easy, I suppose the best expression of how to
define it is: Does the program serve the computer, or the computer serve the
program? In the first case, the general environment created on that machine
is what matters, and those programs added to support that might best use the
registry because of frequent fast accesses, and permanence there. Other
things, like compilers, will almost certainly be less frequently accesses
except by prolific coders, and have a huge collection of modified header
files and config tweaks, and being supported by the computer, and in turn
aiming to support a large number of possible computers with their compiled
code, it makes sense to keep them self contained just to keep track of it
all, never mind copy it to some other machine for local testing.

In short, INI files are not dead. Best of all are those programs that let us
choose which method to use, but those seem to be very rare. LTspice (circuit
simulator) will do it, and I think I have only one other that can, and I
can't remember what it is. Possibly LnS Firewall.

Gabriel Knight wrote:

Thanks for the cross posting for me 98 Guy and I will make sure to
use the microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion group for any more
Win 98 questions - I apologize sincerely.

No need to apologize.

Just recognize the utility of posting to the appropriate newsgroups.

However, I note that you *again* did not cross-post to
microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion, even though you are continuing
this dialog on a path that pertains to windows 98.

You seem to be going out of your way to NOT post replies in this thread
where I have already added microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion to the
distribution, but instead when you reply you do so by creating a new
thread - and only post it to the XP help-and-support group. This is
highly suspicious behavior.

I am using Win98 for one reason that is I bought an old pc game
that needs an old pc so I have built a pc for that but I though
the service packs for 98 and xp were the same, I was wrong there.

I know I can run VMware, dosbox or program compatibility on Win xp
but I don't want to do that. It's been a while for me with win 98
so my questions were a bit off - my apologies again.

I needed a service pack for 98 because before I installed an ATI
Radeon 3d card driver I had to install "Net Framework 1.1" and
internet explorer 6 or the driver would not install, later I found
the driver or the card were not working 100% so before that I
thought an up to date service pack might help as one game I used
as a test said something was missing but I was later seeing a bad
driver problem because of graphic mishaps after the driver was
installed so now I am in the process of getting another driver to
try or I'll use an NVidia card.

Thanks all

GK

I can only say that I'm baffled by your continued use of the XP
help-and-support group to post questions pertaining to win-98.

There might be others that will help you install win-98 with all the
appropriate accessories (like a functional driver for your video card,
..Net framework, etc) but I no longer have the inclination to help in
this hand-holding process just so you can play some old games.