3 Days to Activate?

I changed my hardware and had to reactivate XP once again. All day
Saturday Microsoft activation severs seemed to be down. Worse, I thought
you had 30 days to activate with XP? But Windows was telling me that I
only had 3 days.

So today I was going to do the phone activation method. But I tried one
last time over the Internet this morning and it worked just fine.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.3.0
Centrino Core Duo T2300 1.66GHz - 4GB - ATI X1400 - Windows XP SP2

BillW50 wrote:

I changed my hardware and had to reactivate XP once again.
All day Saturday Microsoft activation severs seemed to be down.

Still think XP is superior to 98?

It's nice not worrying about Windoze Genuine disAdvantage.

Worse, I thought you had 30 days to activate with XP? But Windows
was telling me that I only had 3 days.

I'm pretty sure you have 30 days to activate a new installation, but 3
days if a current installation fails hardware hash.

And once you re-validate, you'd better not change too much hardware
because you can't re-validate again for 120 days.

98 Guy" "98 wrote:
BillW50 wrote:

I changed my hardware and had to reactivate XP once again.
All day Saturday Microsoft activation severs seemed to be down.

Still think XP is superior to 98?

If you need to run a lot of programs from the last decade, yes. :-)
But it's also nice not worrying about any USB compatibility or resource
limitation issues, too. Also, if you're working with large video files, or
even disk imaging programs, it's nice not having to worry about the 2 or 4
GB max file limit inherent with FAT32. But otherwise, I agree it might be a
close call.

Bill in Co wrote:

Still think XP is superior to 98?

If you need to run a lot of programs from the last decade, yes. :-)

Opera 12, Flash 11.6, Java JRE 1.6.0_45, VLC 2.0.8.

Foxit PDF reader 2.3 (although Acrobat 6 can still open 99% of the PDF
files I come across today).

programs from the last decade

Show me something that Office 2010 can do that Office 2000 can't do.

But it's also nice not worrying about any USB compatibility

We've been through this. As you well know, NUSB allows complete
compatibility with external mass storage devices. HID devices (like USB
keyboards and mice) are no problem for win-98. I myself switched to a
USB "vertical mouse" a few years ago on my win-98 systems (a vertical
mouse allows your hand to be rotated to a more natural position while
mousing). Other devices (like printers and composite devices) have
always required their own drivers be obtained and installed - even for
NT-based OS's.

or resource limitation issues, too.

And you keep intentionally spreading misinformation about the resource
heap sizes in Win-98.

And by the way, I'm running win-98 with 2 gb of ram, with all of it
available to the OS for program use.

Also, if you're working with large video files, or even disk
imaging programs, it's nice not having to worry about the 2 or 4
GB max file limit inherent with FAT32.

It's 4 gb, and that's a FAT32 limitation - not really something to blame
Win-98 for.

But otherwise, I agree it might be a close call.

You abandoned Win-98 without really trying all the hacks and mods that
have been available for the past 5 years (like Kex and NUSB) and you
probably never ran it on a system with a P4 CPU or with more than 256 mb
of ram.

An amazing amount of the Win32 API is shared and compatible between
win-9x/me and the NT-based OS's.

In ,
98 Guy" "98 typed:
Bill in Co wrote:

Still think XP is superior to 98?

If you need to run a lot of programs from the last decade, yes. :-)

Opera 12, Flash 11.6, Java JRE 1.6.0_45, VLC 2.0.8.

Foxit PDF reader 2.3 (although Acrobat 6 can still open 99% of the PDF
files I come across today).

programs from the last decade

Show me something that Office 2010 can do that Office 2000 can't do.

Actually Office 2000 has features that 2010 doesn't have like text with
layout and WordArt. MS Office 2000 is still my most favorite Office
version.

But it's also nice not worrying about any USB compatibility

We've been through this. As you well know, NUSB allows complete
compatibility with external mass storage devices. HID devices (like
USB keyboards and mice) are no problem for win-98. I myself switched
to a USB "vertical mouse" a few years ago on my win-98 systems (a
vertical mouse allows your hand to be rotated to a more natural
position while mousing). Other devices (like printers and composite
devices) have always required their own drivers be obtained and
installed - even for NT-based OS's.

or resource limitation issues, too.

And you keep intentionally spreading misinformation about the resource
heap sizes in Win-98.

And by the way, I'm running win-98 with 2 gb of ram, with all of it
available to the OS for program use.

Also, if you're working with large video files, or even disk
imaging programs, it's nice not having to worry about the 2 or 4
GB max file limit inherent with FAT32.

It's 4 gb, and that's a FAT32 limitation - not really something to
blame Win-98 for.

But otherwise, I agree it might be a close call.

You abandoned Win-98 without really trying all the hacks and mods that
have been available for the past 5 years (like Kex and NUSB) and you
probably never ran it on a system with a P4 CPU or with more than 256
mb of ram.

An amazing amount of the Win32 API is shared and compatible between
win-9x/me and the NT-based OS's.

The biggest problem I have with Windows 98SE is the System Resource
limitations. I was always running out of them and then Windows gets slow
and unstable. NT Windows has no such limitations so problem solved. I
suppose all of those hacks and mods does nothing about this?

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core Duo T2300 1.66GHz - 4GB - ATI X1400 - Windows XP SP2

On 6/19/2014 6:01 AM PT, BillW50 typed:

Show me something that Office 2010 can do that Office 2000 can't do.

Actually Office 2000 has features that 2010 doesn't have like text with
layout and WordArt. MS Office 2000 is still my most favorite Office
version.

Ditto. I still use 2K too, but I also have (Libre and Open)Office as
backups in case 2K has issues. I rarely use Office suites anymore these
days at home though. At work, I still use Office (2010 Pro.) a lot.
--
"I got this aunt... Carpenter ant." --Girl and Crow
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

98 Guy" "98 wrote:
Bill in Co wrote:

Still think XP is superior to 98?

If you need to run a lot of programs from the last decade, yes. :-)

Opera 12, Flash 11.6, Java JRE 1.6.0_45, VLC 2.0.8.

Foxit PDF reader 2.3 (although Acrobat 6 can still open 99% of the PDF
files I come across today).

programs from the last decade

Show me something that Office 2010 can do that Office 2000 can't do.

I'm still using Office 2000! I might consider Office 2003 someday, but I
doubt it. As for the later "ribbon" versions - thanks, but no thanks.

But it's also nice not worrying about any USB compatibility

We've been through this. As you well know, NUSB allows complete
compatibility with external mass storage devices. HID devices (like USB
keyboards and mice) are no problem for win-98. I myself switched to a
USB "vertical mouse" a few years ago on my win-98 systems (a vertical
mouse allows your hand to be rotated to a more natural position while
mousing). Other devices (like printers and composite devices) have
always required their own drivers be obtained and installed - even for
NT-based OS's.

or resource limitation issues, too.

And you keep intentionally spreading misinformation about the resource
heap sizes in Win-98.

No, I'm not. The three heaps are 64K each, and I *have* run out of heap
resources. Just because you evidently never have, doesn't make it untrue.
So who here is spreading the misinformation? (rhetorical :-)

And by the way, I'm running win-98 with 2 gb of ram, with all of it
available to the OS for program use.

Also, if you're working with large video files, or even disk
imaging programs, it's nice not having to worry about the 2 or 4
GB max file limit inherent with FAT32.

It's 4 gb, and that's a FAT32 limitation - not really something to blame
Win-98 for.

Ummm. The reason I said 2 OR 4 GB is precisely because that IS the case.
I was quite clear in writing that statement.

Some W98 programs wouldn't handle 2GB. Maybe you haven't experienced
that, but I had. (I think it was due to an error in coding in these
programs, where they mistakenly used signed integers for the 16 bit handles
in some places instead of unsigned integers, which cuts the maximum range in
half, obviously. The net result was a 2 GB file size limitation in writing
an output file, which can be an issue if you're dealing with video files.

But otherwise, I agree it might be a close call.

You abandoned Win-98 without really trying all the hacks and mods that
have been available for the past 5 years (like Kex and NUSB) and you
probably never ran it on a system with a P4 CPU or with more than 256 mb
of ram.

As I've said before on several occasions, I had installed KernelEx (and
nusb), but there still were several programs I have that will NOT even
install on W98 even with KernelEx, as I've mentioned several times before.
I even gave you one example. And I did install nusb to get *some* USB
devices to work.

An amazing amount of the Win32 API is shared and compatible between
win-9x/me and the NT-based OS's.

On 06/19/2014 12:52 PM, Bill in Co wrote:
as for the later "ribbon" versions - thanks, but no thanks.

Hi Bill,

I am glad someone else find they annoying. It is not
intuitive to look for a picture the somewhat resembles
what you want to do, them try to find the little down arrow
to find it it has what you actually want to do. Obnoxious!

I can't tell you how many times I have given up at a customer
site and just pressed ctrlP if I wanted to print.

I can't help but notice that Libre Office is avoiding ribbons.

-T

Todd wrote:
On 06/19/2014 12:52 PM, Bill in Co wrote:
as for the later "ribbon" versions - thanks, but no thanks.

Hi Bill,

I am glad someone else find they annoying. It is not
intuitive to look for a picture the somewhat resembles
what you want to do, them try to find the little down arrow
to find it it has what you actually want to do. Obnoxious!

I can't tell you how many times I have given up at a customer
site and just pressed ctrlP if I wanted to print.

I can't help but notice that Libre Office is avoiding ribbons.

-T

There is at least one saving grace option for the newer Office versions: you
can install an applet that removes or hides the ribbon (e.g: Office Classic
Menu or UbitMenu), and more or less restore the old Office look. But I'm
not doing anything that needs the newer Office versions. And you can even
get a FileFormatConverter (Microsoft Office File Format Converter Pack) that
allows you to open the newer .docx files.

Incidentally, as a freebie Office replacement, I've found Kingston Office to
be one of the best (and it has great reviews). It looks similar to Office
2000 or 2003. You might try it and compare it to the more bloated Libre
Office and Open Office, although the latter might have some added features
(e.g: the latter have a database module and Kingston Office doesn't, but I
rarely use the Office Access database program, anyways)

On 6/19/2014 12:52 PM PT, Bill in Co typed:

I'm still using Office 2000! I might consider Office 2003 someday,
but I
doubt it. As for the later "ribbon" versions - thanks, but no thanks.

Ugh, me too. I ma forced to use it at work due to 2010 Pro. Yuck.
--
"While an ant was wandering under the shade of the tree of Phæton, a
drop of amber enveloped the tiny insect; thus she, who in life was
disregarded, became precious by death." --Martial, Epigrams (c. 80-104
AD), Book VI, Epistle 15.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 22:33:01 -0400, 98 Guy "98"@Guy. com wrote:

Still think XP is superior to 98?

As much as I hate to say this on an XP newsgroup, I have always felt
Win98 is far superior to XP as far as an operating system. But it's not
been updated to keep up with current web browsers, newer hardware, and
other so called "improvements". I still use Win98 about 80% of the
time, and another 5% of the time is using Win2000, and yet another 5%
for linux. That leaves 10% for XP. I keep trying to "like" XP, but I
only TOLERATE IT! I'll continue using Win98 as long as I can, and will
continue to do my best to learn more about Linux, because there is no
way in hell that I'll ever use Windows 8, and I'll only "TRY" Windows 7
if I can get it free. (I did not mention Vista, because it's garbage).

In ,
typed:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 22:33:01 -0400, 98 Guy "98"@Guy. com wrote:

Still think XP is superior to 98?

As much as I hate to say this on an XP newsgroup, I have always felt
Win98 is far superior to XP as far as an operating system. But it's
not been updated to keep up with current web browsers, newer
hardware, and other so called "improvements". I still use Win98
about 80% of the time, and another 5% of the time is using Win2000,
and yet another 5% for linux. That leaves 10% for XP. I keep trying
to "like" XP, but I only TOLERATE IT! I'll continue using Win98 as
long as I can, and will continue to do my best to learn more about
Linux, because there is no way in hell that I'll ever use Windows 8,
and I'll only "TRY" Windows 7 if I can get it free. (I did not
mention Vista, because it's garbage).

Everything you hate about XP, Windows 7 compounds the aggravation. For
example, if you want to edit your hosts file, XP says no problem. Try
that with Windows 7 and it says the administrator doesn't have
permission to modify this file. :-(

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

BillW50 wrote:
In ,
typed:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 22:33:01 -0400, 98 Guy "98"@Guy. com wrote:

Still think XP is superior to 98?

As much as I hate to say this on an XP newsgroup, I have always felt
Win98 is far superior to XP as far as an operating system. But it's
not been updated to keep up with current web browsers, newer
hardware, and other so called "improvements". I still use Win98
about 80% of the time, and another 5% of the time is using Win2000,
and yet another 5% for linux. That leaves 10% for XP. I keep trying
to "like" XP, but I only TOLERATE IT! I'll continue using Win98 as
long as I can, and will continue to do my best to learn more about
Linux, because there is no way in hell that I'll ever use Windows 8,
and I'll only "TRY" Windows 7 if I can get it free. (I did not
mention Vista, because it's garbage).

Everything you hate about XP, Windows 7 compounds the aggravation. For
example, if you want to edit your hosts file, XP says no problem. Try
that with Windows 7 and it says the administrator doesn't have
permission to modify this file. :-(

Then who does? Is Windows 7 that much more restrictive? Egads.

On 30/06/2014 00:39, BillW50 wrote:
Try that with Windows 7 and it says the administrator doesn't have
permission to modify this file. :-(


Where did you get this crap from?



--

https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-firefox
Unsubscribe
?subject=Unsubscribe

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 27/06/2014 05:21, wrote:
As much as I hate to say this on an XP newsgroup, I have always felt
Win98 is far superior to XP as far as an operating system.

Is it because you don't do any serious computing?