[arachne] Re: Wiz's Win Tips (was Re: Removing Exploder)

Arachne at FreeLists---The Arachne Fan Club!

OK List!
Here's the copy of the email I sent to Greg...
Greg,

I hope you don't mind, but I decided to spare ourselves further flaming 
from those that think we're crazy, lazy or inept for not ditching Windows
since we find ourselves using those operating systems and I took this
off the list.  I run Windows 95 A, the original, Explorer is not nor does it
contain Internet Explorer.  I had to install a web browser after I had
upgraded from Windows 3.11.  Anyway, I've progressed to preferring
Opera as my default browser, and FoxMail 2.1 for email.  Hopefully that
will clear up any misconceptions about Explorer and Internet Explorer.
By the way, in Win98 (and in Win95 with IE4 or later!!) the Explorer has 
an option to "View as Web Files" or such...don't use this approach, it
will slow your system.  OK, on to speeding up your Win98...

First and foremost...with the mouse pointer anywhere on the Desktop, 
but not on an icon (picture), press the right mouse button one time.
This should bring a dialogue box up...one of the first menu choices 
should be something about Active Desktop.  TURN THIS OFF!!!!
If you want, I can explain what that is, but suffice to say that since 
neither of us are connected to the web via high speed, broadband,
and only dialup, and that isn't 24-7-365, Active Desktop is going to
use up much of your CPU cycles and system resources!  Win95 is
not installed with AD, but it is part of Internet Explorer 4 and later...
I do not run Active Desktop at all.  Also, if you have a lot of desktop
icons that have corresponding Start Menu shortcuts, you may want
to consider getting rid of one or the other...me, I don't care for desktop
icon shortcuts and keep only My Computer and Recycle Bin...everything
else goes on the Start Menu, in places I choose!  Some people say a
large Start Menu slows down the menu display, BUT, compared to 
slow drawing of the desktop, and increased GDI usage, I'd say my
system is much faster!
Second, check your video resolution...if you are like me and only
have a 14 inch maybe a 15 inch monitor, set your resolution to 
640 x 480, 256 colors.  There are few times when I find it necessary
to run at higher resolution and color depth.  Only when I'm tinkering
with pictures from friends/family via digital cameras!  If your monitor
is 17 inch or larger, then use 800 x 600, 256 color.  The lower resolution
will improve graphic speed IMMENSELY on a 133 mHz CPU!!
Lastly, and I'm sure you've been advised to do this...run ScanDisk, 
let it fix any errors, then run Disk Defragmenter, and defragment your
hard disk drives.  This will improve hard drive performance.  The other
option will be to increase the amount of physical ram installed...I'm 
running on 96 meg, with 4 meg for video, 92 for Windows and apps.
I would suggest at least 64 meg.  With enough RAM installed, you 
then can limit the size of the paging file used for swap...but that is 
a bit more than we need to worry about for the moment.

I hope you find these tips useful!  I've got many years of Windows 
experience, from version 2 up to XP, and while I don't consider 
myself a "Windows guru", many people turn to me for help even
now, as a self-proclaimed DOS lover!!

Good luck, and let me know of any questions you may have,
C U L8R!
Wiz  <{;-)
Wizard57M
http://www.geocities.com/wizard57m/index.html

At 12/20/06 1:29:00 AM, you wrote:
>Arachne at FreeLists---The Arachne Fan Club!
>
>Well, Wiz,
>                  I would sure like to see fine tuning
>tips for W$ from anyone who has had the
>guts to try to "fine tune W$dz" . <ggg>
>
>Eric
>
>On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:32:47 -0600 Glenn Gilbreath Jr.
><wizard57m@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> Arachne at FreeLists---The Arachne Fan Club!
>> 
>> Well...
>> If the list would like a copy of my tips, just ask!  They are
>> a short list gained from YEARS of experience!  My Win95
>> has never crashed and burned...yeah, I restart it every now
>> and again, but hey, I have to when I reboot into plain DOS!
>> Wiz  <{;-)
>> At 12/30/99, you wrote:
>> >arachne4dos @coollist.com General List ----------------
>> >
>> >Hey Wiz,
>> >                    Are those secret tips or
>> >can the rest of us survive seeing them?
>> >
>> >Eric
>> >
>> >On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:11:44 -0800 (PST) Glenn Gilbreath Jr.
>> ><wizard57m@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >> arachne4dos @coollist.com General List ----------------
>> >> 
>> >> Greg,
>> >> 
>> >> While I was at it, I sent you a couple of emails "off-list"...
>> >> just a few tips to maybe speed up your Win 98 without
>> >> doing anything drastic!
>> >> 
>> >> C U L8R!
>> >> Wiz  <{;-)
>> >> At 12/18/06 4:30:00 PM, you wrote:
>> >> >Arachne at FreeLists---The Arachne Fan Club!
>> >> >
>> >> >On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:4:3 -0600, Glenn Gilbreath Jr. wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Isn't that what I told you to Google search for...98Lite??
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes, you did. And the electronicsaustralia site had a totally 
>> >> outdated
>> >> >version.
>> >> >
>> >> >> And isn't the article referenced talking about Internet 
>> Explorer?
>> >> >
>> >> >They use the name Internet Explorer, but also refer to it as
>> >> >explorer.exe.
>> >> >
>> >> >I think this is confusion in the mind of the author who admits 
>> he 
>> >> is not
>> >> >running 98, but only 95.
>> >> >
>> >> >They are two different things: IE is iexplorer.exe. However I 
>> >> believe
>> >> >that in 95 they were the same thing (I don't know for sure as I 
>> >> have
>> >> >never used W95).
>> >> >
>> >> >> Now, the second problem...your CPU is, as has been noted,
>> >> >> not stout enough for Win98.  It's been my experience that
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes it is. It is just that it runs only in low gear with 98.
>> >> >
>> >> >> anything less than 233 mHz and 64 meg RAM is NOT going
>> >> >> to perform "satisfactorally", yes, Win98 will "go", but it 
>> will
>> >> >> not really "run".
>> >> >
>> >> >But it gets there eventually. I'm darned if I will upgrade to a 
>> >> faster
>> >> >computer just to satisfy the people bringing out the bloatware.
>> >> >
>> >> >>  Windows 95 will run much better on CPUs
>> >> >> less than 233 mHz, and in 32 meg RAM.  You may not have
>> >> >> the codecs to handle new WMV and WMA (used to be AVI)
>> >> >> files, but hey...if you're like me and using dialup, you 
>> probably
>> >> >> would prefer that email correspondents NOT include those
>> >> >> monstrosities!
>> >> >
>> >> >RIGHT ON!!!!!!!
>> >> >
>> >> >>  The problem, naturally, is finding a Win95
>> >> >> installation CD.
>> >> >
>> >> >Or better yet get rid of Windoze.... and as soon as I can get 
>> >> suitable
>> >> >drivers and other software for Linux, that's where I'll be 
>> going.
>> >> >
>> >> >But until I learn Linux, and until I can find those drivers, I 
>> am 
>> >> stuck
>> >> >with 98 for my camera and scanner/printer, and for all the photo 
>> 
>> >> and
>> >> >music editing software that I am using almost on a daily basis.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >..   ,-./\
>> >> >..  /     \     from Greg Mayman, in Adelaide, South Australia
>> >> >..  \_,-*_/     "Queen City of The South"    34:55 S  138:36 E
>> >> >..       v
>
>                  Arachne at FreeLists                  
>-- Arachne, The Premier GPL Web Browser/Suite for DOS --
>
>
Wizard57M
http://www.geocities.com/wizard57m/index.html

                  Arachne at FreeLists                  
-- Arachne, The Premier GPL Web Browser/Suite for DOS --

Other related posts: