A
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A
Arkadiusz 'Black Fox' Artyszuk
SJH said:[...] Is it possible to uninstall then reinstall Explorer?
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/293907/EN-US/
A
Arkadiusz 'Black Fox' Artyszuk
SJH said:[...] Is it possible to uninstall then reinstall Explorer?
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/293907/EN-US/
A
Arkadiusz 'Black Fox' Artyszuk
SJH said:[...] Is it possible to uninstall then reinstall Explorer?
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/293907/EN-US/
R
Richard Berger
I totally agree that Win2K is much better than XP. On the other hand, ISam said:Win 2000 would be much better. In any case, don't depend on the MS
firewall!
would sooner upgrade 98 to 98se on an older machine. my 233mhz machine with
64megs of ram and win98se runs pretty error free with all the 98se updates
installed, and IE6, sp1 installed. Actually, it's a faster machine than my
1.8gigahertz machine running Win2K. Lets face it, you don't need the bloat,
and win98se has been around long enough to have the bugs worked out, plus,
whatever extra you get with XP can be added to 98se.
Dickey B
R
Richard Berger
I totally agree that Win2K is much better than XP. On the other hand, ISam said:Win 2000 would be much better. In any case, don't depend on the MS
firewall!
would sooner upgrade 98 to 98se on an older machine. my 233mhz machine with
64megs of ram and win98se runs pretty error free with all the 98se updates
installed, and IE6, sp1 installed. Actually, it's a faster machine than my
1.8gigahertz machine running Win2K. Lets face it, you don't need the bloat,
and win98se has been around long enough to have the bugs worked out, plus,
whatever extra you get with XP can be added to 98se.
Dickey B
R
Richard Berger
I totally agree that Win2K is much better than XP. On the other hand, ISam said:Win 2000 would be much better. In any case, don't depend on the MS
firewall!
would sooner upgrade 98 to 98se on an older machine. my 233mhz machine with
64megs of ram and win98se runs pretty error free with all the 98se updates
installed, and IE6, sp1 installed. Actually, it's a faster machine than my
1.8gigahertz machine running Win2K. Lets face it, you don't need the bloat,
and win98se has been around long enough to have the bugs worked out, plus,
whatever extra you get with XP can be added to 98se.
Dickey B
R
Richard Berger
I totally agree that Win2K is much better than XP. On the other hand, ISam said:Win 2000 would be much better. In any case, don't depend on the MS
firewall!
would sooner upgrade 98 to 98se on an older machine. my 233mhz machine with
64megs of ram and win98se runs pretty error free with all the 98se updates
installed, and IE6, sp1 installed. Actually, it's a faster machine than my
1.8gigahertz machine running Win2K. Lets face it, you don't need the bloat,
and win98se has been around long enough to have the bugs worked out, plus,
whatever extra you get with XP can be added to 98se.
Dickey B
R
Richard Berger
I totally agree that Win2K is much better than XP. On the other hand, ISam said:Win 2000 would be much better. In any case, don't depend on the MS
firewall!
would sooner upgrade 98 to 98se on an older machine. my 233mhz machine with
64megs of ram and win98se runs pretty error free with all the 98se updates
installed, and IE6, sp1 installed. Actually, it's a faster machine than my
1.8gigahertz machine running Win2K. Lets face it, you don't need the bloat,
and win98se has been around long enough to have the bugs worked out, plus,
whatever extra you get with XP can be added to 98se.
Dickey B
R
Richard Berger
I totally agree that Win2K is much better than XP. On the other hand, ISam said:Win 2000 would be much better. In any case, don't depend on the MS
firewall!
would sooner upgrade 98 to 98se on an older machine. my 233mhz machine with
64megs of ram and win98se runs pretty error free with all the 98se updates
installed, and IE6, sp1 installed. Actually, it's a faster machine than my
1.8gigahertz machine running Win2K. Lets face it, you don't need the bloat,
and win98se has been around long enough to have the bugs worked out, plus,
whatever extra you get with XP can be added to 98se.
Dickey B
R
Richard Berger
I totally agree that Win2K is much better than XP. On the other hand, ISam said:Win 2000 would be much better. In any case, don't depend on the MS
firewall!
would sooner upgrade 98 to 98se on an older machine. my 233mhz machine with
64megs of ram and win98se runs pretty error free with all the 98se updates
installed, and IE6, sp1 installed. Actually, it's a faster machine than my
1.8gigahertz machine running Win2K. Lets face it, you don't need the bloat,
and win98se has been around long enough to have the bugs worked out, plus,
whatever extra you get with XP can be added to 98se.
Dickey B
R
Richard Berger
I totally agree that Win2K is much better than XP. On the other hand, ISam said:Win 2000 would be much better. In any case, don't depend on the MS
firewall!
would sooner upgrade 98 to 98se on an older machine. my 233mhz machine with
64megs of ram and win98se runs pretty error free with all the 98se updates
installed, and IE6, sp1 installed. Actually, it's a faster machine than my
1.8gigahertz machine running Win2K. Lets face it, you don't need the bloat,
and win98se has been around long enough to have the bugs worked out, plus,
whatever extra you get with XP can be added to 98se.
Dickey B
R
Richard Berger
I totally agree that Win2K is much better than XP. On the other hand, ISam said:Win 2000 would be much better. In any case, don't depend on the MS
firewall!
would sooner upgrade 98 to 98se on an older machine. my 233mhz machine with
64megs of ram and win98se runs pretty error free with all the 98se updates
installed, and IE6, sp1 installed. Actually, it's a faster machine than my
1.8gigahertz machine running Win2K. Lets face it, you don't need the bloat,
and win98se has been around long enough to have the bugs worked out, plus,
whatever extra you get with XP can be added to 98se.
Dickey B
W
Wolf Kirchmeir
Richard Berger wrote:
[...] lets face it, you don't need the bloat,
Win9x, even in its most recent incarnation, is not as stable a system as
WinNT/2K/XP, nor is it as capable. If you haven't encountered this fact,
you just haven't worked your system very hard. (Bloat is another issue -
there is no technical reason for WinXP to be so bloated, but that's MS's
marketing strategy, and in any conflict between marketing and
engineering, engineering loses.)
And, sorry, your last point is simply wrong: many of the extras that
come with XP are not available for Win9x. What's more, they won't be,
since XP is not a DOS extension, like Win9x, and what's written for XP
won't run on Win9x without extensive rewriting, which MS will not do.
That's what "no more support means." Future extras and upgrades will not
be available for Win9x; MS has closed the door on that OS. BTW, MS will
phase out DOS support in its future OSs. To run a DOS program in WinXP,
a virtual DOS machine must be set up, which adds complications.
As for the bugs being worked out of Win98SE, again, you just haven't
worked your system hard enough to encounter them. The reason MS
abandoned Win9x is that it was clear that it could not be made into the
stable, multitasking system that people want and business needs. That's
why MS chose to develop NT into Win2000 and WinXP.
[...] lets face it, you don't need the bloat,
and win98se has been around long enough to have the bugs worked out, plus,
whatever extra you get with XP can be added to 98se.
Dickey B
Win9x, even in its most recent incarnation, is not as stable a system as
WinNT/2K/XP, nor is it as capable. If you haven't encountered this fact,
you just haven't worked your system very hard. (Bloat is another issue -
there is no technical reason for WinXP to be so bloated, but that's MS's
marketing strategy, and in any conflict between marketing and
engineering, engineering loses.)
And, sorry, your last point is simply wrong: many of the extras that
come with XP are not available for Win9x. What's more, they won't be,
since XP is not a DOS extension, like Win9x, and what's written for XP
won't run on Win9x without extensive rewriting, which MS will not do.
That's what "no more support means." Future extras and upgrades will not
be available for Win9x; MS has closed the door on that OS. BTW, MS will
phase out DOS support in its future OSs. To run a DOS program in WinXP,
a virtual DOS machine must be set up, which adds complications.
As for the bugs being worked out of Win98SE, again, you just haven't
worked your system hard enough to encounter them. The reason MS
abandoned Win9x is that it was clear that it could not be made into the
stable, multitasking system that people want and business needs. That's
why MS chose to develop NT into Win2000 and WinXP.
W
Wolf Kirchmeir
Richard Berger wrote:
[...] lets face it, you don't need the bloat,
Win9x, even in its most recent incarnation, is not as stable a system as
WinNT/2K/XP, nor is it as capable. If you haven't encountered this fact,
you just haven't worked your system very hard. (Bloat is another issue -
there is no technical reason for WinXP to be so bloated, but that's MS's
marketing strategy, and in any conflict between marketing and
engineering, engineering loses.)
And, sorry, your last point is simply wrong: many of the extras that
come with XP are not available for Win9x. What's more, they won't be,
since XP is not a DOS extension, like Win9x, and what's written for XP
won't run on Win9x without extensive rewriting, which MS will not do.
That's what "no more support means." Future extras and upgrades will not
be available for Win9x; MS has closed the door on that OS. BTW, MS will
phase out DOS support in its future OSs. To run a DOS program in WinXP,
a virtual DOS machine must be set up, which adds complications.
As for the bugs being worked out of Win98SE, again, you just haven't
worked your system hard enough to encounter them. The reason MS
abandoned Win9x is that it was clear that it could not be made into the
stable, multitasking system that people want and business needs. That's
why MS chose to develop NT into Win2000 and WinXP.
[...] lets face it, you don't need the bloat,
and win98se has been around long enough to have the bugs worked out, plus,
whatever extra you get with XP can be added to 98se.
Dickey B
Win9x, even in its most recent incarnation, is not as stable a system as
WinNT/2K/XP, nor is it as capable. If you haven't encountered this fact,
you just haven't worked your system very hard. (Bloat is another issue -
there is no technical reason for WinXP to be so bloated, but that's MS's
marketing strategy, and in any conflict between marketing and
engineering, engineering loses.)
And, sorry, your last point is simply wrong: many of the extras that
come with XP are not available for Win9x. What's more, they won't be,
since XP is not a DOS extension, like Win9x, and what's written for XP
won't run on Win9x without extensive rewriting, which MS will not do.
That's what "no more support means." Future extras and upgrades will not
be available for Win9x; MS has closed the door on that OS. BTW, MS will
phase out DOS support in its future OSs. To run a DOS program in WinXP,
a virtual DOS machine must be set up, which adds complications.
As for the bugs being worked out of Win98SE, again, you just haven't
worked your system hard enough to encounter them. The reason MS
abandoned Win9x is that it was clear that it could not be made into the
stable, multitasking system that people want and business needs. That's
why MS chose to develop NT into Win2000 and WinXP.
W
Wolf Kirchmeir
Richard Berger wrote:
[...] lets face it, you don't need the bloat,
Win9x, even in its most recent incarnation, is not as stable a system as
WinNT/2K/XP, nor is it as capable. If you haven't encountered this fact,
you just haven't worked your system very hard. (Bloat is another issue -
there is no technical reason for WinXP to be so bloated, but that's MS's
marketing strategy, and in any conflict between marketing and
engineering, engineering loses.)
And, sorry, your last point is simply wrong: many of the extras that
come with XP are not available for Win9x. What's more, they won't be,
since XP is not a DOS extension, like Win9x, and what's written for XP
won't run on Win9x without extensive rewriting, which MS will not do.
That's what "no more support means." Future extras and upgrades will not
be available for Win9x; MS has closed the door on that OS. BTW, MS will
phase out DOS support in its future OSs. To run a DOS program in WinXP,
a virtual DOS machine must be set up, which adds complications.
As for the bugs being worked out of Win98SE, again, you just haven't
worked your system hard enough to encounter them. The reason MS
abandoned Win9x is that it was clear that it could not be made into the
stable, multitasking system that people want and business needs. That's
why MS chose to develop NT into Win2000 and WinXP.
[...] lets face it, you don't need the bloat,
and win98se has been around long enough to have the bugs worked out, plus,
whatever extra you get with XP can be added to 98se.
Dickey B
Win9x, even in its most recent incarnation, is not as stable a system as
WinNT/2K/XP, nor is it as capable. If you haven't encountered this fact,
you just haven't worked your system very hard. (Bloat is another issue -
there is no technical reason for WinXP to be so bloated, but that's MS's
marketing strategy, and in any conflict between marketing and
engineering, engineering loses.)
And, sorry, your last point is simply wrong: many of the extras that
come with XP are not available for Win9x. What's more, they won't be,
since XP is not a DOS extension, like Win9x, and what's written for XP
won't run on Win9x without extensive rewriting, which MS will not do.
That's what "no more support means." Future extras and upgrades will not
be available for Win9x; MS has closed the door on that OS. BTW, MS will
phase out DOS support in its future OSs. To run a DOS program in WinXP,
a virtual DOS machine must be set up, which adds complications.
As for the bugs being worked out of Win98SE, again, you just haven't
worked your system hard enough to encounter them. The reason MS
abandoned Win9x is that it was clear that it could not be made into the
stable, multitasking system that people want and business needs. That's
why MS chose to develop NT into Win2000 and WinXP.
W
Wolf Kirchmeir
Richard Berger wrote:
[...] lets face it, you don't need the bloat,
Win9x, even in its most recent incarnation, is not as stable a system as
WinNT/2K/XP, nor is it as capable. If you haven't encountered this fact,
you just haven't worked your system very hard. (Bloat is another issue -
there is no technical reason for WinXP to be so bloated, but that's MS's
marketing strategy, and in any conflict between marketing and
engineering, engineering loses.)
And, sorry, your last point is simply wrong: many of the extras that
come with XP are not available for Win9x. What's more, they won't be,
since XP is not a DOS extension, like Win9x, and what's written for XP
won't run on Win9x without extensive rewriting, which MS will not do.
That's what "no more support means." Future extras and upgrades will not
be available for Win9x; MS has closed the door on that OS. BTW, MS will
phase out DOS support in its future OSs. To run a DOS program in WinXP,
a virtual DOS machine must be set up, which adds complications.
As for the bugs being worked out of Win98SE, again, you just haven't
worked your system hard enough to encounter them. The reason MS
abandoned Win9x is that it was clear that it could not be made into the
stable, multitasking system that people want and business needs. That's
why MS chose to develop NT into Win2000 and WinXP.
[...] lets face it, you don't need the bloat,
and win98se has been around long enough to have the bugs worked out, plus,
whatever extra you get with XP can be added to 98se.
Dickey B
Win9x, even in its most recent incarnation, is not as stable a system as
WinNT/2K/XP, nor is it as capable. If you haven't encountered this fact,
you just haven't worked your system very hard. (Bloat is another issue -
there is no technical reason for WinXP to be so bloated, but that's MS's
marketing strategy, and in any conflict between marketing and
engineering, engineering loses.)
And, sorry, your last point is simply wrong: many of the extras that
come with XP are not available for Win9x. What's more, they won't be,
since XP is not a DOS extension, like Win9x, and what's written for XP
won't run on Win9x without extensive rewriting, which MS will not do.
That's what "no more support means." Future extras and upgrades will not
be available for Win9x; MS has closed the door on that OS. BTW, MS will
phase out DOS support in its future OSs. To run a DOS program in WinXP,
a virtual DOS machine must be set up, which adds complications.
As for the bugs being worked out of Win98SE, again, you just haven't
worked your system hard enough to encounter them. The reason MS
abandoned Win9x is that it was clear that it could not be made into the
stable, multitasking system that people want and business needs. That's
why MS chose to develop NT into Win2000 and WinXP.
W
Wolf Kirchmeir
Richard Berger wrote:
[...] lets face it, you don't need the bloat,
Win9x, even in its most recent incarnation, is not as stable a system as
WinNT/2K/XP, nor is it as capable. If you haven't encountered this fact,
you just haven't worked your system very hard. (Bloat is another issue -
there is no technical reason for WinXP to be so bloated, but that's MS's
marketing strategy, and in any conflict between marketing and
engineering, engineering loses.)
And, sorry, your last point is simply wrong: many of the extras that
come with XP are not available for Win9x. What's more, they won't be,
since XP is not a DOS extension, like Win9x, and what's written for XP
won't run on Win9x without extensive rewriting, which MS will not do.
That's what "no more support means." Future extras and upgrades will not
be available for Win9x; MS has closed the door on that OS. BTW, MS will
phase out DOS support in its future OSs. To run a DOS program in WinXP,
a virtual DOS machine must be set up, which adds complications.
As for the bugs being worked out of Win98SE, again, you just haven't
worked your system hard enough to encounter them. The reason MS
abandoned Win9x is that it was clear that it could not be made into the
stable, multitasking system that people want and business needs. That's
why MS chose to develop NT into Win2000 and WinXP.
[...] lets face it, you don't need the bloat,
and win98se has been around long enough to have the bugs worked out, plus,
whatever extra you get with XP can be added to 98se.
Dickey B
Win9x, even in its most recent incarnation, is not as stable a system as
WinNT/2K/XP, nor is it as capable. If you haven't encountered this fact,
you just haven't worked your system very hard. (Bloat is another issue -
there is no technical reason for WinXP to be so bloated, but that's MS's
marketing strategy, and in any conflict between marketing and
engineering, engineering loses.)
And, sorry, your last point is simply wrong: many of the extras that
come with XP are not available for Win9x. What's more, they won't be,
since XP is not a DOS extension, like Win9x, and what's written for XP
won't run on Win9x without extensive rewriting, which MS will not do.
That's what "no more support means." Future extras and upgrades will not
be available for Win9x; MS has closed the door on that OS. BTW, MS will
phase out DOS support in its future OSs. To run a DOS program in WinXP,
a virtual DOS machine must be set up, which adds complications.
As for the bugs being worked out of Win98SE, again, you just haven't
worked your system hard enough to encounter them. The reason MS
abandoned Win9x is that it was clear that it could not be made into the
stable, multitasking system that people want and business needs. That's
why MS chose to develop NT into Win2000 and WinXP.
W
Wolf Kirchmeir
Richard Berger wrote:
[...] lets face it, you don't need the bloat,
Win9x, even in its most recent incarnation, is not as stable a system as
WinNT/2K/XP, nor is it as capable. If you haven't encountered this fact,
you just haven't worked your system very hard. (Bloat is another issue -
there is no technical reason for WinXP to be so bloated, but that's MS's
marketing strategy, and in any conflict between marketing and
engineering, engineering loses.)
And, sorry, your last point is simply wrong: many of the extras that
come with XP are not available for Win9x. What's more, they won't be,
since XP is not a DOS extension, like Win9x, and what's written for XP
won't run on Win9x without extensive rewriting, which MS will not do.
That's what "no more support means." Future extras and upgrades will not
be available for Win9x; MS has closed the door on that OS. BTW, MS will
phase out DOS support in its future OSs. To run a DOS program in WinXP,
a virtual DOS machine must be set up, which adds complications.
As for the bugs being worked out of Win98SE, again, you just haven't
worked your system hard enough to encounter them. The reason MS
abandoned Win9x is that it was clear that it could not be made into the
stable, multitasking system that people want and business needs. That's
why MS chose to develop NT into Win2000 and WinXP.
[...] lets face it, you don't need the bloat,
and win98se has been around long enough to have the bugs worked out, plus,
whatever extra you get with XP can be added to 98se.
Dickey B
Win9x, even in its most recent incarnation, is not as stable a system as
WinNT/2K/XP, nor is it as capable. If you haven't encountered this fact,
you just haven't worked your system very hard. (Bloat is another issue -
there is no technical reason for WinXP to be so bloated, but that's MS's
marketing strategy, and in any conflict between marketing and
engineering, engineering loses.)
And, sorry, your last point is simply wrong: many of the extras that
come with XP are not available for Win9x. What's more, they won't be,
since XP is not a DOS extension, like Win9x, and what's written for XP
won't run on Win9x without extensive rewriting, which MS will not do.
That's what "no more support means." Future extras and upgrades will not
be available for Win9x; MS has closed the door on that OS. BTW, MS will
phase out DOS support in its future OSs. To run a DOS program in WinXP,
a virtual DOS machine must be set up, which adds complications.
As for the bugs being worked out of Win98SE, again, you just haven't
worked your system hard enough to encounter them. The reason MS
abandoned Win9x is that it was clear that it could not be made into the
stable, multitasking system that people want and business needs. That's
why MS chose to develop NT into Win2000 and WinXP.
W
Wolf Kirchmeir
Richard Berger wrote:
[...] lets face it, you don't need the bloat,
Win9x, even in its most recent incarnation, is not as stable a system as
WinNT/2K/XP, nor is it as capable. If you haven't encountered this fact,
you just haven't worked your system very hard. (Bloat is another issue -
there is no technical reason for WinXP to be so bloated, but that's MS's
marketing strategy, and in any conflict between marketing and
engineering, engineering loses.)
And, sorry, your last point is simply wrong: many of the extras that
come with XP are not available for Win9x. What's more, they won't be,
since XP is not a DOS extension, like Win9x, and what's written for XP
won't run on Win9x without extensive rewriting, which MS will not do.
That's what "no more support means." Future extras and upgrades will not
be available for Win9x; MS has closed the door on that OS. BTW, MS will
phase out DOS support in its future OSs. To run a DOS program in WinXP,
a virtual DOS machine must be set up, which adds complications.
As for the bugs being worked out of Win98SE, again, you just haven't
worked your system hard enough to encounter them. The reason MS
abandoned Win9x is that it was clear that it could not be made into the
stable, multitasking system that people want and business needs. That's
why MS chose to develop NT into Win2000 and WinXP.
[...] lets face it, you don't need the bloat,
and win98se has been around long enough to have the bugs worked out, plus,
whatever extra you get with XP can be added to 98se.
Dickey B
Win9x, even in its most recent incarnation, is not as stable a system as
WinNT/2K/XP, nor is it as capable. If you haven't encountered this fact,
you just haven't worked your system very hard. (Bloat is another issue -
there is no technical reason for WinXP to be so bloated, but that's MS's
marketing strategy, and in any conflict between marketing and
engineering, engineering loses.)
And, sorry, your last point is simply wrong: many of the extras that
come with XP are not available for Win9x. What's more, they won't be,
since XP is not a DOS extension, like Win9x, and what's written for XP
won't run on Win9x without extensive rewriting, which MS will not do.
That's what "no more support means." Future extras and upgrades will not
be available for Win9x; MS has closed the door on that OS. BTW, MS will
phase out DOS support in its future OSs. To run a DOS program in WinXP,
a virtual DOS machine must be set up, which adds complications.
As for the bugs being worked out of Win98SE, again, you just haven't
worked your system hard enough to encounter them. The reason MS
abandoned Win9x is that it was clear that it could not be made into the
stable, multitasking system that people want and business needs. That's
why MS chose to develop NT into Win2000 and WinXP.
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.