Jeff Richards

That's what I said - a clean install is recommended. But it's not REQUIRED,
which was your claim

Quote
"I'd use Win2k as it takes about the same resources as WinME but is
considerably more stable.

It will of course require a clean install though"
Unquote

W2k does NOT require a clean install. There is an upgrade patch from Windows
98.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:e01WjCkBJHA.4368@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
> "Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message
> news:OeZXbtjBJHA.2060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Installing Windows 2000 would not require a clean install. Windows 98
>> can
>> be upgraded to W2K without any particular problems.
>>
>> A clean install might be recommended, but it is certainly not required.
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/250297
>
>
> That's what MS says but I happen to live in the real world.
>
> Though I have tried upgrading a number of times and the upgrades did take
> place,
> the systems always had problems. Some major, others more subtle , but in
> no
> case
> as good as a clean install.
>
> True, some say a properly prepped Win98 system can be upgraded OK...
> and that may be true, but a clean install is usually a better bet...
> and faster than the so-called "preps" .
>
>
> As an experiment, I have done a fresh install of Win98,
> then before I did anything else...immediately performed and upgrade...
> and yep, it worked fine...
> but the Win98 installation was pristine. In the real world, there is no
> such
> thing as a pristine Win98 installation!
>
>
>
>
>> Jeff Richards
>> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
>> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:ukJb1RjBJHA.4700@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> >
>> > snip <
>> >
>> > I would not bother at all with WinME really.
>> >
>> > I'd use Win2k as it takes about the same resources as WinME but is
>> > considerably more stable.
>> >
>> > It will of course require a clean install though
>>
>>
>
>

glee

"Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message
news:exdOdFmBJHA.4340@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> snip
> W2k does NOT require a clean install. There is an upgrade patch from Windows 98.

....and before everyone starts asking for a link to this 'patch', I do believe Jeff's
typo was meant to be 'path'.
:-)
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+
http://dts-l.net/
http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm

Curt Christianson

<Quote>
<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
> Don't that suck !!!!
> I hate XP, I can not see myself using it, EVER. I can tolerate
> Win2000, but not XP. Worse yet, eventually Vista will be required. I
> guess that's when we will all be buying Mac computers.
<End of Quote>

You're assuming Apple will never change *their* code??

--
Curt

http://dundats.mvps.org/
http://www.aumha.org/
http://dundats.mvps.org/AutoIt/default.aspx





,

letterman@invalid.com

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:03:44 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
><letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
>news:u3p2b49j0133up1nhj8b38hoch7b1mfdt6@4ax.com.. .
>| On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 06:13:09 -0500, "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote:
>|
>| >
>| ><letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
>| >news:8th1b4530tnkrmnijd1nvqkjgetee1ij16@4ax.com.. .
>| >> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:19:02 -0500, "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote:
>| >>
>| >>
>| >> >>
>| >> >
>| >> >Yes
>| >> >
>| >> >I agree. Clean install is the best option...
>| >> >
>| >> >But ugrading from Win2k to XP generally works .
>| >> >
>| >> >OTOH: I always advise not to attempt upgrading Win98 ==> XP
>| >> >
>| >>
>| >> What about upgrading Win98 to WinME?
>| >>
>| >
>| >
>| >Never tried that one as I've only used WinME for evaluation purposes...
>| >but my guess is that though it may work, there would also be a chance for
>a
>| >number of minor problems.
>| >
>| >(But I've never tried it, so do not know.)
>| >
>| >
>| >The thing is , Win95, Win98 and WinME are all in the same "family" so to
>| >speak...essentially DOS based.
>| >
>| >While the NT "family ...NT4, Win2000 and XP are not DOS-based as they use
>a
>| >hardware abstraction layer.
>| >
>| >Though MS has designed (for example) Win2000 to be able to upgrade a
>Win98
>| >system...
>| >
>| >It has been my experience that attempting to upgrade a "win9x" os to an
>"NT"
>| >based os,
>| >generally leads to problems.
>| >
>| >In most instances the best option is a clean installation.
>| >
>| >About the only upgrades I don't think I've ever seen fail to work is the
>one
>| >from win95 to win98.
>| >
>| >(and of course win98 ==>win98se )
>| >
>|
>| This is why I asked this question. Your last statement that Win98
>| ==>Win98se generally works. I know this.....
>| There was a time that I thought WinME was a whole new OS (the MS
>| advertising suggested that). But I've grown to learn that WinME is
>| just an upgrade to Win98se, and little more. This makes me wonder why
>| I never upgraded to ME already. (especially since I have a licensed
>| copy). I have no intention to upgrade to XP or Vista. I use Win2K on
>| my laptop, but am not all that happy with it. Yet, if I'm running
>| 98se, why not upgrade to ME. ME looks and works identically. The USB
>| support of ME would be most welcome, since all the drivers needed for
>| USB in 98 are a pain in the ass.
>|
>
> The statement regarding ME is somewhat misleading. ME is not the same as
>98SE. ME was the first consumer based OS to use restore points and other
>aspects now carried through into the newer NT OSs.
> ME also hid the DOS based aspects by using a layer of deception and removal
>of DOS access from the common user [there are modifications available to
>return those aspects].
> It would be reasonable to consider ME [consumer] and 2000 [business] as the
>transitional OSs created and designed to push users over into the [new
>style] NT based environment, something that had been resisted until their
>creation.
>
> You should also note that not all programs created for 9X work in ME due to
>certain system file changes and other modifications.
>
>--
> MEB
> http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

Thanks for the info. I was not aware of the program problems. Maybe
thats enough to make me avoid it. But I dont understand the lack of
DOS. Ok, I have only played with ME for a couple hours one time.
That was several years ago, so I cant recall what occurred as far as
Dos.

On the other hand, I have Win2000 on my laptop. I heard that both ME
and Win2K and XP lack dos. If this is the case, how come I have a
"command" prompt icon in Win2K (Dos icon). However, this might be the
way I installed it. Here is what I have.
I ran fdisk and formatted the drive to Fat32, using a dos boot disk.
Then I made the drive bootable, using the SYS command. Then I copied
all the Dos files to a directory called Dos. (using the dos files
from Win98se).

After doing that, I installed Win2000, and made it dual boot. So, I
can either boot to dos, or boot to Win2000. After I got Win2K
installed, I found that it has a Dos Window icon. That's where I get
confused. I was told that Win2K did not have dos, and that is why I
created the dual booting.

Is this just because I already had dos installed, or because I chose
the Fat32 formatting? Or, did a later version of Win2K put this back
in the OS?

PS. in brief, what are the modifications that allow access to dos in
WinME?

letterman@invalid.com

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:03:36 -0500, "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote:

>
><letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
>news:u3p2b49j0133up1nhj8b38hoch7b1mfdt6@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 06:13:09 -0500, "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ><letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
>> >news:8th1b4530tnkrmnijd1nvqkjgetee1ij16@4ax.com.. .
>> >> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:19:02 -0500, "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes
>> >> >
>> >> >I agree. Clean install is the best option...
>> >> >
>> >> >But ugrading from Win2k to XP generally works .
>> >> >
>> >> >OTOH: I always advise not to attempt upgrading Win98 ==> XP
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> What about upgrading Win98 to WinME?
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >Never tried that one as I've only used WinME for evaluation purposes...
>> >but my guess is that though it may work, there would also be a chance for
>a
>> >number of minor problems.
>> >
>> >(But I've never tried it, so do not know.)
>> >
>> >
>> >The thing is , Win95, Win98 and WinME are all in the same "family" so to
>> >speak...essentially DOS based.
>> >
>> >While the NT "family ...NT4, Win2000 and XP are not DOS-based as they use
>a
>> >hardware abstraction layer.
>> >
>> >Though MS has designed (for example) Win2000 to be able to upgrade a
>Win98
>> >system...
>> >
>> >It has been my experience that attempting to upgrade a "win9x" os to an
>"NT"
>> >based os,
>> >generally leads to problems.
>> >
>> >In most instances the best option is a clean installation.
>> >
>> >About the only upgrades I don't think I've ever seen fail to work is the
>one
>> >from win95 to win98.
>> >
>> >(and of course win98 ==>win98se )
>> >
>>
>> This is why I asked this question. Your last statement that Win98
>> ==>Win98se generally works. I know this.....
>> There was a time that I thought WinME was a whole new OS (the MS
>> advertising suggested that). But I've grown to learn that WinME is
>> just an upgrade to Win98se, and little more. This makes me wonder why
>> I never upgraded to ME already. (especially since I have a licensed
>> copy). I have no intention to upgrade to XP or Vista. I use Win2K on
>> my laptop, but am not all that happy with it. Yet, if I'm running
>> 98se, why not upgrade to ME. ME looks and works identically. The USB
>> support of ME would be most welcome, since all the drivers needed for
>> USB in 98 are a pain in the ass.
>>
>
>I would not bother at all with WinME really.
>
>I'd use Win2k as it takes about the same resources as WinME but is
>considerably more stable.
>
>It will of course require a clean install though
>

Since I already am somewhat familiar with Win2K from having it on my
laptop, I might consider upgrading to 2K, even though I like the looks
and feel of win9x better. I suppose I could get used to 2K. My main
reason for not wanting to go all the way with 2K is because I dont
want to reinstall everything. I've got 8 years of programs installed.

On the other hand, I suppose it might be time to get rid of unused
stuff and get a fresh start. However, aside from having two
computers, is it possible to install Win2K as a second boot (dual
boot), without ruining my present Win98 installation? That way I can
slowly build the 2K installation without losing access to my "regular"
system. By the way. I would use a Fat32 format on the 2K partition.
I always want full dos access to all files.

By the way, if ME and 2K use the same power, how much less (percent)
does 98Se use?

Thanks

MEB

<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:naa4b4pq216mem5se5fco5so9dtj3m0524@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:03:44 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >
| ><letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
| >news:u3p2b49j0133up1nhj8b38hoch7b1mfdt6@4ax.com.. .
| >| On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 06:13:09 -0500, "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote:
| >|
| >| >
| >| ><letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
| >| >news:8th1b4530tnkrmnijd1nvqkjgetee1ij16@4ax.com.. .
| >| >> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:19:02 -0500, "philo" <philo@privacy.net>
wrote:
| >| >>
| >| >>
| >| >> >>
| >| >> >
| >| >> >Yes
| >| >> >
| >| >> >I agree. Clean install is the best option...
| >| >> >
| >| >> >But ugrading from Win2k to XP generally works .
| >| >> >
| >| >> >OTOH: I always advise not to attempt upgrading Win98 ==> XP
| >| >> >
| >| >>
| >| >> What about upgrading Win98 to WinME?
| >| >>
| >| >
| >| >
| >| >Never tried that one as I've only used WinME for evaluation
purposes...
| >| >but my guess is that though it may work, there would also be a chance
for
| >a
| >| >number of minor problems.
| >| >
| >| >(But I've never tried it, so do not know.)
| >| >
| >| >
| >| >The thing is , Win95, Win98 and WinME are all in the same "family" so
to
| >| >speak...essentially DOS based.
| >| >
| >| >While the NT "family ...NT4, Win2000 and XP are not DOS-based as they
use
| >a
| >| >hardware abstraction layer.
| >| >
| >| >Though MS has designed (for example) Win2000 to be able to upgrade a
| >Win98
| >| >system...
| >| >
| >| >It has been my experience that attempting to upgrade a "win9x" os to
an
| >"NT"
| >| >based os,
| >| >generally leads to problems.
| >| >
| >| >In most instances the best option is a clean installation.
| >| >
| >| >About the only upgrades I don't think I've ever seen fail to work is
the
| >one
| >| >from win95 to win98.
| >| >
| >| >(and of course win98 ==>win98se )
| >| >
| >|
| >| This is why I asked this question. Your last statement that Win98
| >| ==>Win98se generally works. I know this.....
| >| There was a time that I thought WinME was a whole new OS (the MS
| >| advertising suggested that). But I've grown to learn that WinME is
| >| just an upgrade to Win98se, and little more. This makes me wonder why
| >| I never upgraded to ME already. (especially since I have a licensed
| >| copy). I have no intention to upgrade to XP or Vista. I use Win2K on
| >| my laptop, but am not all that happy with it. Yet, if I'm running
| >| 98se, why not upgrade to ME. ME looks and works identically. The USB
| >| support of ME would be most welcome, since all the drivers needed for
| >| USB in 98 are a pain in the ass.
| >|
| >
| > The statement regarding ME is somewhat misleading. ME is not the same as
| >98SE. ME was the first consumer based OS to use restore points and other
| >aspects now carried through into the newer NT OSs.
| > ME also hid the DOS based aspects by using a layer of deception and
removal
| >of DOS access from the common user [there are modifications available to
| >return those aspects].
| > It would be reasonable to consider ME [consumer] and 2000 [business] as
the
| >transitional OSs created and designed to push users over into the [new
| >style] NT based environment, something that had been resisted until their
| >creation.
| >
| > You should also note that not all programs created for 9X work in ME due
to
| >certain system file changes and other modifications.
| >
| >--
| > MEB
| > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
|
| Thanks for the info. I was not aware of the program problems. Maybe
| thats enough to make me avoid it. But I dont understand the lack of
| DOS. Ok, I have only played with ME for a couple hours one time.
| That was several years ago, so I cant recall what occurred as far as
| Dos.
|
| On the other hand, I have Win2000 on my laptop. I heard that both ME
| and Win2K and XP lack dos. If this is the case, how come I have a
| "command" prompt icon in Win2K (Dos icon). However, this might be the
| way I installed it. Here is what I have.
| I ran fdisk and formatted the drive to Fat32, using a dos boot disk.
| Then I made the drive bootable, using the SYS command. Then I copied
| all the Dos files to a directory called Dos. (using the dos files
| from Win98se).
|
| After doing that, I installed Win2000, and made it dual boot. So, I
| can either boot to dos, or boot to Win2000. After I got Win2K
| installed, I found that it has a Dos Window icon. That's where I get
| confused. I was told that Win2K did not have dos, and that is why I
| created the dual booting.
|
| Is this just because I already had dos installed, or because I chose
| the Fat32 formatting? Or, did a later version of Win2K put this back
| in the OS?
|
| PS. in brief, what are the modifications that allow access to dos in
| WinME?

Read up on the ME > DOS issue.

http://www.geocities.com/mfd4life_2000/
http://www.dewassoc.com/support/winme/real_dos.htm
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op...ivingston.html
http://www.mvps.org/dts/WinME_DOS/Win-ME.htm
http://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch000361.htm
http://www.duxcw.com/digest/Howto/so...tup/page1.html
http://www.mdgx.com/95.htm


WIN 2000 {2K} CMD:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...00&btnG=Search
http://www.geocities.com/thestarman3/DOS/DOSinWIN.html
http://support.microsoft.com/search/...3comm=1&res=20

WINXP CMD:

Get an idea of what it is and can be used for:
http://support.microsoft.com/search/...3comm=1&res=20

VISTA:

http://support.microsoft.com/search/...3comm=1&res=20

*****

Lots of other information on the above available... that's why they created
search engines. <wink>

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________

Read up on the ME > DOS issue.

http://www.geocities.com/mfd4life_2000/
http://www.dewassoc.com/support/winme/real_dos.htm
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op...ivingston.html
http://www.mvps.org/dts/WinME_DOS/Win-ME.htm
http://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch000361.htm
http://www.duxcw.com/digest/Howto/so...tup/page1.html
http://www.mdgx.com/95.htm


WIN 2000 DOS:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...00&btnG=Search
http://www.geocities.com/thestarman3/DOS/DOSinWIN.html
http://support.microsoft.com/search/...3comm=1&res=20


--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________

John John (MVP)

letterman@invalid.com wrote:

> [snip]
>
> On the other hand, I have Win2000 on my laptop. I heard that both ME
> and Win2K and XP lack dos. If this is the case, how come I have a
> "command" prompt icon in Win2K (Dos icon). However, this might be the
> way I installed it. Here is what I have.
> I ran fdisk and formatted the drive to Fat32, using a dos boot disk.
> Then I made the drive bootable, using the SYS command. Then I copied
> all the Dos files to a directory called Dos. (using the dos files
> from Win98se).
>
> After doing that, I installed Win2000, and made it dual boot. So, I
> can either boot to dos, or boot to Win2000. After I got Win2K
> installed, I found that it has a Dos Window icon. That's where I get
> confused. I was told that Win2K did not have dos, and that is why I
> created the dual booting.
>
> Is this just because I already had dos installed, or because I chose
> the Fat32 formatting? Or, did a later version of Win2K put this back
> in the OS?

It might look like DOS but it isn't DOS at all. NT operating systems
(Windows 2000 is NT 5.0) are pure 32-bit operating systems, they do not
have DOS on board. What you see when you run Cmd.exe is the native NT
32-bit command processor, you can run many of the same old DOS commands
from Cmd.exe but on NT systems those commands have been repackaged to
work in the 32-bit environment.

Windows 2000 can run many DOS programs, where you will run into
difficulties is if your DOS applications want or need direct access to
the hardware, some DOS applications may want to re-configure some
hardware settings to their liking. NT operating systems do absolutely
not allow this, such applications will not run properly on NT systems.

On NT operating systems DOS applications run inside a Virtual DOS
Machine (NTVDM) they run in a virtual environment. The Virtual DOS
Machine has a different Command Processor to accept and pass commands to
and from 16-bit DOS applications to the the underlying 32-bit operating
system, it uses Command.com for this. The version of Command.com that
ships with NT operating systems is not the same as the MS-DOS/Windows 9x
version. The NT version of Command.com only runs inside the NT Virtual
Dos Machine (NTVDM) and only has a few internal commands. The NT
version of Command.com prepares and passes all of the non internal
commands it receives to Cmd.exe for execution, that is command.com's
limited role on NT systems, other than the few internal commands it has
it can't do anything on its own and it should never be used for anything
other than running 16-bit legacy applications.

John

Jeff Richards

Thank you for the correction. That is one myth I would particularly not want
to be supporting.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
news:uUwu$QmBJHA.3496@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> "Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message
> news:exdOdFmBJHA.4340@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> snip
>> W2k does NOT require a clean install. There is an upgrade patch from
>> Windows 98.
>
> ...and before everyone starts asking for a link to this 'patch', I do
> believe Jeff's typo was meant to be 'path'.
> :-)
> --
> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+
> http://dts-l.net/
> http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm
>

Buffalo

letterman@invalid.com wrote:
>
> Since I already am somewhat familiar with Win2K from having it on my
> laptop, I might consider upgrading to 2K, even though I like the looks
> and feel of win9x better. I suppose I could get used to 2K. My main
> reason for not wanting to go all the way with 2K is because I dont
> want to reinstall everything. I've got 8 years of programs installed.
>
> On the other hand, I suppose it might be time to get rid of unused
> stuff and get a fresh start. However, aside from having two
> computers, is it possible to install Win2K as a second boot (dual
> boot), without ruining my present Win98 installation? That way I can
> slowly build the 2K installation without losing access to my "regular"
> system. By the way. I would use a Fat32 format on the 2K partition.
> I always want full dos access to all files.
>
> By the way, if ME and 2K use the same power, how much less (percent)
> does 98Se use?
>
> Thanks

I went from Win98SE and installed 2K on another partition on the same HDD. I
did, however, make the 2k partition an NTSF partition. The dual boot was
almost automatic when I installed 2k and it went without a hitch. 2k sees
all of the Fat32, but Win98Se does not see the NTSF partition, which you
already knew.
Anyhow, when I did the dual boot, it went without a hitch.
AMD 2100XP Palamino CPU, 1 GB DDR ram,ATI-8500LE vid card,ECS K7S5a
motherboard, and so on.
Now I use 2k almost exclusively.
Hope this helps.

philo

"Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message
news:exdOdFmBJHA.4340@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> That's what I said - a clean install is recommended. But it's not
REQUIRED,
> which was your claim
>
> Quote
> "I'd use Win2k as it takes about the same resources as WinME but is
> considerably more stable.
>
> It will of course require a clean install though"
> Unquote
>
> W2k does NOT require a clean install. There is an upgrade patch from
Windows
> 98.

Win2k does not require a clean install.
It merely requires a clean install if you want it to work!



> Jeff Richards
> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:e01WjCkBJHA.4368@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >
> > "Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:OeZXbtjBJHA.2060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >> Installing Windows 2000 would not require a clean install. Windows 98
> >> can
> >> be upgraded to W2K without any particular problems.
> >>
> >> A clean install might be recommended, but it is certainly not required.
> >> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/250297
> >
> >
> > That's what MS says but I happen to live in the real world.
> >
> > Though I have tried upgrading a number of times and the upgrades did
take
> > place,
> > the systems always had problems. Some major, others more subtle , but in
> > no
> > case
> > as good as a clean install.
> >
> > True, some say a properly prepped Win98 system can be upgraded OK...
> > and that may be true, but a clean install is usually a better bet...
> > and faster than the so-called "preps" .
> >
> >
> > As an experiment, I have done a fresh install of Win98,
> > then before I did anything else...immediately performed and upgrade...
> > and yep, it worked fine...
> > but the Win98 installation was pristine. In the real world, there is no
> > such
> > thing as a pristine Win98 installation!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Jeff Richards
> >> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
> >> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
> >> news:ukJb1RjBJHA.4700@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >> >
> >> > snip <
> >> >
> >> > I would not bother at all with WinME really.
> >> >
> >> > I'd use Win2k as it takes about the same resources as WinME but is
> >> > considerably more stable.
> >> >
> >> > It will of course require a clean install though
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>