Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

[Guest thanatoid]

Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

 

letterman@invalid.com wrote in

news:lluld49ctum4ghi8h7ha2fvnusgmcpink8@4ax.com:

 

<SNIP>

 

Something else occurred to me. There's a program called

"Dependency Walker". It shows you what DLL's etc. your program

"depends on" to run and whether you have them, or maybe you have

the wrong version. It only works on 32 and 64 bit "modules", but

your 3.11 program MAY be a 32 bit program for 3.11 OR there

might be another program which will analyze the same things for

a 16-bit modules. But you'll have to find it yourself, unless

someone here knows.

 

 

 

--

Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the

votes decide everything.

- Josef Stalin

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

 

Let's try this again, letterman. Are you unable to answer this

definitively and objectively?

> letterman@invalid.com wrote:

>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:22:51 -0600, "Bill in Co."

>> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

>>

>>> You CAN'T boot to real DOS unless you had previously installed DOS (say

>>> like DOS 6.22), OR Win9X (which brings DOS with it), onto that drive.

>>> I'm

>>> NOT talking about the pseudo-DOS cmd shell in XP or NT. I'm talking

>>> about

>>> the old bonafide, bootable, real DOS operating system (versions 1.0

>>> through

>>> 7.1 (which came with Win98SE, as I recall)

>>>

>> I ran Fdisk and Format from a Dos bootable floppy (With dos from

>> Win98). After the hard drive was formatted, I ran SYS.COM to transfer

>> the system to the HD. Then I copied all the dos files from the boot

>> floppy and a second floppy with the "not needed for booting files".

>> I created a simple autoexec.bat and config.sys, put the path to

>> C:\Dos, and I had a working dos bootable HD.

>>

>> After that, I ran the install for Win2K, I told it to leave the dos

>> alone, keep the fat 32 formatting and just install 2k.

 

Something like that might have also been possible with Windows XP, right?

(You can choose to setup and use FAT32 for WinXP, if you want).

>> When I boot now, I have the menu to choose Dos or Win2K.

 

Same comment as above. (more below)

>>>> or (for example) XP, -AND- The harddrive is

>>>> formatted to Fat32, one can still access all the files on the drive,

>>>> including the XP files.

>>>

>>> Of course.

>>>

>>>> I know this for fact because my laptop has

>>>> Win2k installed, but I can boot to dos at startup (I get the dual boot

>>>> option). Of course, I have no idea what to do to fix 2K, like I do

>>>> with 98se.

>>>

>>> But this has nothing to do with my original statement, that there is no

>>> real

>>> DOS mode in NT or XP. There IS a command processor (cmd.exe) that runs

>>> DOS-like commands in a box, however.

>>>

>> Yes, I tried that thing on an XP computer. As with everything about

>> XP, it did little but aggravate me. However, everything about XP

>> aggravates me.

 

I'm still not sure exactly what it is about WinXP that you are so

aggravated by.

One of the MAJOR annoyances (that stupid default Start Menu) can be

reconfigured to the classic look, just like in Win98SE, for example; and

trust me, I did!).

 

Doesn't Win2K also have those other user profiles too, for a multiuser

capability (even though many of us don't want or need them), just like

WinXP? So what specific differences or annoyances about XP are you talking

about?

>> I never tried it in Win2K. I have my real dos folder and that is all I

>> need.

>>

>> I have always said this. When windows fails, I can always hack it

>> back together, or destroy it from the Dos prompt. Normally I fix it,

>> but there have been times that I intentionally installed Win98 and

>> Win2K on a spare HD, just to abuse it and see how badly I could screw

>> it up. Swapping the names on the registry files can be lots of fun!

[Guest PCR]

Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

| Let's try this again, letterman. Are you unable to answer this

| definitively and objectively?

 

If you only accept definitive & objective answers, Colorado-- no one

will ever talk to you! I can't blame letterman for leaving! Sounds to me

letterman set up a dual boot with DOS & Win2K. I guess you can do that

with WinXP too. Why not? Just be careful what you do to the XP

partitions & files after booting to DOS & maybe visa versa. You know

True DOS can kill LFNs for one thing. And, if you want to do any

partitioning in DOS, you know it won't see NTFS partitions-- better not

have any! Careful with things like that! Definitely do not try a

ScanReg, you know-- but use that new one someone wrote for XP instead!

(I forget the name of it.)

 

|> letterman@invalid.com wrote:

|>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:22:51 -0600, "Bill in Co."

|>> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

|>>

|>>> You CAN'T boot to real DOS unless you had previously installed DOS

|>>> (say like DOS 6.22), OR Win9X (which brings DOS with it), onto

|>>> that drive. I'm

|>>> NOT talking about the pseudo-DOS cmd shell in XP or NT. I'm

|>>> talking about

|>>> the old bonafide, bootable, real DOS operating system (versions 1.0

|>>> through

|>>> 7.1 (which came with Win98SE, as I recall)

|>>>

|>> I ran Fdisk and Format from a Dos bootable floppy (With dos from

|>> Win98). After the hard drive was formatted, I ran SYS.COM to

|>> transfer the system to the HD. Then I copied all the dos files

|>> from the boot floppy and a second floppy with the "not needed for

|>> booting files".

|>> I created a simple autoexec.bat and config.sys, put the path to

|>> C:\Dos, and I had a working dos bootable HD.

|>>

|>> After that, I ran the install for Win2K, I told it to leave the dos

|>> alone, keep the fat 32 formatting and just install 2k.

|

| Something like that might have also been possible with Windows XP,

| right? (You can choose to setup and use FAT32 for WinXP, if you want).

|

|>> When I boot now, I have the menu to choose Dos or Win2K.

|

| Same comment as above. (more below)

|

|>>>> or (for example) XP, -AND- The harddrive is

|>>>> formatted to Fat32, one can still access all the files on the

|>>>> drive, including the XP files.

|>>>

|>>> Of course.

|>>>

|>>>> I know this for fact because my laptop has

|>>>> Win2k installed, but I can boot to dos at startup (I get the dual

|>>>> boot option). Of course, I have no idea what to do to fix 2K,

|>>>> like I do with 98se.

|>>>

|>>> But this has nothing to do with my original statement, that there

|>>> is no real

|>>> DOS mode in NT or XP. There IS a command processor (cmd.exe)

|>>> that runs DOS-like commands in a box, however.

|>>>

|>> Yes, I tried that thing on an XP computer. As with everything about

|>> XP, it did little but aggravate me. However, everything about XP

|>> aggravates me.

|

| I'm still not sure exactly what it is about WinXP that you are so

| aggravated by.

| One of the MAJOR annoyances (that stupid default Start Menu) can be

| reconfigured to the classic look, just like in Win98SE, for example;

| and trust me, I did!).

|

| Doesn't Win2K also have those other user profiles too, for a

| multiuser capability (even though many of us don't want or need

| them), just like WinXP? So what specific differences or annoyances

| about XP are you talking about?

|

|>> I never tried it in Win2K. I have my real dos folder and that is

|>> all I need.

|>>

|>> I have always said this. When windows fails, I can always hack it

|>> back together, or destroy it from the Dos prompt. Normally I fix

|>> it, but there have been times that I intentionally installed Win98

|>> and Win2K on a spare HD, just to abuse it and see how badly I could

|>> screw it up. Swapping the names on the registry files can be lots

|>> of fun!

 

--

Thanks or Good Luck,

There may be humor in this post, and,

Naturally, you will not sue,

Should things get worse after this,

PCR

pcrrcp@netzero.net

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

 

PCR wrote:

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> Let's try this again, letterman. Are you unable to answer this

>> definitively and objectively?

>

> If you only accept definitive & objective answers, Colorado-- no one

> will ever talk to you! I can't blame letterman for leaving!

 

LOL.

> Sounds to me

> letterman set up a dual boot with DOS & Win2K. I guess you can do that

> with WinXP too.

 

I think so too.

I was just wondering what his specific and objective beef with XP was.

> Why not? Just be careful what you do to the XP

> partitions & files after booting to DOS & maybe visa versa. You know

> True DOS can kill LFNs for one thing. And, if you want to do any

> partitioning in DOS, you know it won't see NTFS partitions-- better not

> have any! Careful with things like that! Definitely do not try a

> ScanReg, you know-- but use that new one someone wrote for XP instead!

> (I forget the name of it.)

 

Well, I have no interest in doing it, since I'm rarely using DOS that much

now. Besides which, I already have a USB DOS Flash Drive, which I can plug

in! So I can just boot up on that, when I want!

 

>>> letterman@invalid.com wrote:

>>>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:22:51 -0600, "Bill in Co."

>>>> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> You CAN'T boot to real DOS unless you had previously installed DOS

>>>>> (say like DOS 6.22), OR Win9X (which brings DOS with it), onto

>>>>> that drive. I'm

>>>>> NOT talking about the pseudo-DOS cmd shell in XP or NT. I'm

>>>>> talking about

>>>>> the old bonafide, bootable, real DOS operating system (versions 1.0

>>>>> through

>>>>> 7.1 (which came with Win98SE, as I recall)

>>>>>

>>>> I ran Fdisk and Format from a Dos bootable floppy (With dos from

>>>> Win98). After the hard drive was formatted, I ran SYS.COM to

>>>> transfer the system to the HD. Then I copied all the dos files

>>>> from the boot floppy and a second floppy with the "not needed for

>>>> booting files".

>>>> I created a simple autoexec.bat and config.sys, put the path to

>>>> C:\Dos, and I had a working dos bootable HD.

>>>>

>>>> After that, I ran the install for Win2K, I told it to leave the dos

>>>> alone, keep the fat 32 formatting and just install 2k.

>>

>> Something like that might have also been possible with Windows XP,

>> right? (You can choose to setup and use FAT32 for WinXP, if you want).

>>

>>>> When I boot now, I have the menu to choose Dos or Win2K.

>>

>> Same comment as above. (more below)

>>

>>>>>> or (for example) XP, -AND- The harddrive is

>>>>>> formatted to Fat32, one can still access all the files on the

>>>>>> drive, including the XP files.

>>>>>

>>>>> Of course.

>>>>>

>>>>>> I know this for fact because my laptop has

>>>>>> Win2k installed, but I can boot to dos at startup (I get the dual

>>>>>> boot option). Of course, I have no idea what to do to fix 2K,

>>>>>> like I do with 98se.

>>>>>

>>>>> But this has nothing to do with my original statement, that there

>>>>> is no real

>>>>> DOS mode in NT or XP. There IS a command processor (cmd.exe)

>>>>> that runs DOS-like commands in a box, however.

>>>>>

>>>> Yes, I tried that thing on an XP computer. As with everything about

>>>> XP, it did little but aggravate me. However, everything about XP

>>>> aggravates me.

>>

>> I'm still not sure exactly what it is about WinXP that you are so

>> aggravated by.

>> One of the MAJOR annoyances (that stupid default Start Menu) can be

>> reconfigured to the classic look, just like in Win98SE, for example;

>> and trust me, I did!).

>>

>> Doesn't Win2K also have those other user profiles too, for a

>> multiuser capability (even though many of us don't want or need

>> them), just like WinXP? So what specific differences or annoyances

>> about XP are you talking about?

>>

>>>> I never tried it in Win2K. I have my real dos folder and that is

>>>> all I need.

>>>>

>>>> I have always said this. When windows fails, I can always hack it

>>>> back together, or destroy it from the Dos prompt. Normally I fix

>>>> it, but there have been times that I intentionally installed Win98

>>>> and Win2K on a spare HD, just to abuse it and see how badly I could

>>>> screw it up. Swapping the names on the registry files can be lots

>>>> of fun!

>

> --

> Thanks or Good Luck,

> There may be humor in this post, and,

> Naturally, you will not sue,

> Should things get worse after this,

> PCR

> pcrrcp@netzero.net

[Guest PCR]

Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

| PCR wrote:

|> Bill in Co. wrote:

|>> Let's try this again, letterman. Are you unable to answer this

|>> definitively and objectively?

|>

|> If you only accept definitive & objective answers, Colorado-- no one

|> will ever talk to you! I can't blame letterman for leaving!

|

| LOL.

 

:-).

 

|> Sounds to me

|> letterman set up a dual boot with DOS & Win2K. I guess you can do

|> that with WinXP too.

|

| I think so too.

| I was just wondering what his specific and objective beef with XP was.

 

I'm fairly sure it has irradiated his pinky toes to a shade of purple.

 

|> Why not? Just be careful what you do to the XP

|> partitions & files after booting to DOS & maybe visa versa. You know

|> True DOS can kill LFNs for one thing. And, if you want to do any

|> partitioning in DOS, you know it won't see NTFS partitions-- better

|> not have any! Careful with things like that! Definitely do not try a

|> ScanReg, you know-- but use that new one someone wrote for XP

|> instead! (I forget the name of it.)

|

| Well, I have no interest in doing it, since I'm rarely using DOS that

| much now. Besides which, I already have a USB DOS Flash Drive,

| which I can plug in! So I can just boot up on that, when I want!

 

All right. You've got it covered. That's best. Anyhow, you can run that

new-fangled registry restore from a floppy, if necessary.

 

|>>> letterman@invalid.com wrote:

|>>>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:22:51 -0600, "Bill in Co."

|>>>> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

|>>>>

|>>>>> You CAN'T boot to real DOS unless you had previously installed

|>>>>> DOS (say like DOS 6.22), OR Win9X (which brings DOS with it),

|>>>>> onto that drive. I'm

|>>>>> NOT talking about the pseudo-DOS cmd shell in XP or NT. I'm

|>>>>> talking about

|>>>>> the old bonafide, bootable, real DOS operating system (versions

|>>>>> 1.0 through

|>>>>> 7.1 (which came with Win98SE, as I recall)

|>>>>>

|>>>> I ran Fdisk and Format from a Dos bootable floppy (With dos from

|>>>> Win98). After the hard drive was formatted, I ran SYS.COM to

|>>>> transfer the system to the HD. Then I copied all the dos files

|>>>> from the boot floppy and a second floppy with the "not needed for

|>>>> booting files".

|>>>> I created a simple autoexec.bat and config.sys, put the path to

|>>>> C:\Dos, and I had a working dos bootable HD.

|>>>>

|>>>> After that, I ran the install for Win2K, I told it to leave the

|>>>> dos alone, keep the fat 32 formatting and just install 2k.

|>>

|>> Something like that might have also been possible with Windows XP,

|>> right? (You can choose to setup and use FAT32 for WinXP, if you

|>> want).

|>>

|>>>> When I boot now, I have the menu to choose Dos or Win2K.

|>>

|>> Same comment as above. (more below)

|>>

|>>>>>> or (for example) XP, -AND- The harddrive is

|>>>>>> formatted to Fat32, one can still access all the files on the

|>>>>>> drive, including the XP files.

|>>>>>

|>>>>> Of course.

|>>>>>

|>>>>>> I know this for fact because my laptop has

|>>>>>> Win2k installed, but I can boot to dos at startup (I get the

|>>>>>> dual boot option). Of course, I have no idea what to do to fix

|>>>>>> 2K, like I do with 98se.

|>>>>>

|>>>>> But this has nothing to do with my original statement, that there

|>>>>> is no real

|>>>>> DOS mode in NT or XP. There IS a command processor (cmd.exe)

|>>>>> that runs DOS-like commands in a box, however.

|>>>>>

|>>>> Yes, I tried that thing on an XP computer. As with everything

|>>>> about XP, it did little but aggravate me. However, everything

|>>>> about XP aggravates me.

|>>

|>> I'm still not sure exactly what it is about WinXP that you are so

|>> aggravated by.

|>> One of the MAJOR annoyances (that stupid default Start Menu) can be

|>> reconfigured to the classic look, just like in Win98SE, for example;

|>> and trust me, I did!).

|>>

|>> Doesn't Win2K also have those other user profiles too, for a

|>> multiuser capability (even though many of us don't want or need

|>> them), just like WinXP? So what specific differences or annoyances

|>> about XP are you talking about?

|>>

|>>>> I never tried it in Win2K. I have my real dos folder and that is

|>>>> all I need.

|>>>>

|>>>> I have always said this. When windows fails, I can always hack it

|>>>> back together, or destroy it from the Dos prompt. Normally I fix

|>>>> it, but there have been times that I intentionally installed Win98

|>>>> and Win2K on a spare HD, just to abuse it and see how badly I

|>>>> could screw it up. Swapping the names on the registry files can

|>>>> be lots of fun!

|>

|> --

|> Thanks or Good Luck,

|> There may be humor in this post, and,

|> Naturally, you will not sue,

|> Should things get worse after this,

|> PCR

|> pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

--

Thanks or Good Luck,

There may be humor in this post, and,

Naturally, you will not sue,

Should things get worse after this,

PCR

pcrrcp@netzero.net

[Guest J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

 

In message <slmmd4df8q4k6b97k8avg5leh03gnsik9v@4ax.com>,

letterman@invalid.com writes

[]

>That explains a lot about why I can not stand XP. I hate Linux too.

>At the same time, I loved Dos back in the old days, and while earlier

>versions of windows 3.x and 9.x were poor, I have always liked Win98.

>It has it's problems, but its palatable. Too bad it has been

>abandoned. It could have been improved and become one hell of an OS.

 

I agree - millions wouldn't (-:

>Of course we all know MS is only interested in adding bloat, which

>needs more powerful hardware, and thus they are kissing ass to the

 

To be fair, MS aren't purely interested in adding bloat - they want to

add more (what they consider) useful features, and usability. The fact

that this tends to make it bloat isn't deliberate as such, just an

(inevitable) side-effect.

>hardware manufacturers. If Win98 could run on the latest fast

>computers, it would likely break the sound barrier. But instead,

 

Why not W3.1, or DOS? (Apart from, I think, some problems with large

disc sizes, DOS _will_ run on most modern hardware.)

>everytime a faster computer is designed, MS slows it back down to the

>same speed the 386 computer performed in 1990.

 

Yes, it does seem to have that effect! It is partly because it is easier

to get software working without spending lots of time making it

efficient - which isn't necessary on modern hardware as it _is_ so

powerful. If the choice is between optimising the code to do the same

thing but a fraction of a second faster, and {adding features or fixing

bugs}, it's fairly clear which they will choose. Programmer time = money

and is finite; fixed bugs or extra features will attract more users than

a slight increase in performance on some tasks, whether _we_ like it or

not.

[]

>Microsoft could have developed their "NT" based OS, AND continued to

>develop the dos based Win9x. After all, Linux has reams of different

 

They could have, but why should they - just to satisfy a few old

diehards like us? I don't think so. ..

>distros. Why must MS only have one choice? Are we all supposed to be

 

Aren't all the Linuxes (Linuces?) based on a common kernel?

>the same? Then too, I remember when I was still running Windows 3.x

>and MS was offerring Windows NT at the same time. At least then,

>there was the choice. At that same time there were also other

>alternative GUI operating systems, such as OS2, GEM, GEOWORKS, etc.

>(as well as Linux). Now in 2008 we only have two choices for the PC

>computer. Whatever is the latest version of MS Windows, and Linux.

 

(And MAC.) Well, I believe there _are_ one or two others still around;

they just have a tiny following.

[]

>Mac. Maybe the PC computer will soon be a relic. I know that I will

>never use XP or Vista. I dont even care for the Win2k on my laptop,

 

I think XP has now reached a similar position to '9x.

[]

>Then, add to that, the fact that MS has developed XP and Up, to make

>their users totally reliant on them. When MS decides to abandon XP

>(and eventually Vista), they can now FORCE the users to buy a new OS,

>as well as a new computer. When XP is abandoned, MS will probably no

>longer offer Activation. So, after 30 days of use, our screens will

 

Yes, I'm inclined to agree on that; MS seems not to be very forthcoming

on that subject. (You'd think they would be, if only to "encourage"

Vista takeup.)

>go blank, and all our data will be suspended in limbo. NO THANKS!

 

No, unless some very complex encryption is involved, the data _is_ still

accessible.

>At least with Win98, I can continue to reinstall it whenever I get a

>replacement computer, and all I have to do is enter the same product

>code that came with the CD. I think it's not going to be long before

 

You are taking it off the old one, I take it ... (-:

>MS abandons XP, and forces all users to go to Vista. MS didn't create

>their Activation process just to stop piracy, they did it more because

>they can now force users to upgrade, and thus make more money from

>users, as well as forcing users to continually buy new hardware and

>keep relearning how to use their computer.

>

>

--

J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

 

"Bollocks," said Pooh, being more forthright than usual.

[Guest Jeff Richards]

Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

 

A memory error message is not going to be associated with a missing

runtime - the missing runtime is detected during load, before the program

starts, and the message is quite precise.

 

What was the result when you tried it with memory restricted to 64Mb?

--

Jeff Richards

MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)

<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message

news:lluld49ctum4ghi8h7ha2fvnusgmcpink8@4ax.com...

> snip <

>

> I'm reading this and still following the thread since I have not

> gotten the program to work.

>

> I have VBRUN100.DLL 200 and 300. All are in the Windows/System

> folder. I'll copy them to the Windows folder and give it a try. I do

> recall having to install them in Win3.x, and I probably copied them to

> Win98 for other older software. I'll see if that helps.

>

> Thanks for the help.

> LM

[Guest st]

Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

 

<letterman@invalid.com> hath written: news:lco6d4hmm43fe6dlj0nbjudlakpgri9gpg@4ax.com...

>I have a really great program that I used to use for special effects

> on a project that I do. For some reason, this program will not work

> on Win98se. What's really puzzling is that it gives me an "Out of

> Memory" error. Well, it used to run just fine on a 386 computer with

> 16 megs of Ram and Windows for Workgroups 3.11.

 

Your best chance is installing WWG in Virtual PC. There are S3 video drivers available.

BTW, 'Out of Memory' in 98% is caused by failing some (possibly undocumented) API call due to various implementations in WWG and Win98. Just back in '92 memory was the cause of most function failures.

And finally, what's your program name? Maybe there's known compatibility issue described in Win98 help.

[Guest Dan]

Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

 

<snip>

 

It is indeed too bad that letterman has left. I enjoy the diversity of the

individuals within the Windows 98 General Newsgroup. I hope letterman is

happy with using DOS and Windows 2000.

[Guest PCR]

Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

 

Dan wrote:

| <snip>

|

| It is indeed too bad that letterman has left. I enjoy the diversity

| of the individuals within the Windows 98 General Newsgroup. I hope

| letterman is happy with using DOS and Windows 2000.

 

I don't recall that he has entirely left all of Win98. Otherwise, I

might agree with you. It is good of you to wish everyone well.

 

 

--

Thanks or Good Luck,

There may be humor in this post, and,

Naturally, you will not sue,

Should things get worse after this,

PCR

pcrrcp@netzero.net

[Guest Dan]

Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

 

Thanks PCR and I do hope letterman will post in Windows 98 General in the

future.

 

"PCR" wrote:

> Dan wrote:

> | <snip>

> |

> | It is indeed too bad that letterman has left. I enjoy the diversity

> | of the individuals within the Windows 98 General Newsgroup. I hope

> | letterman is happy with using DOS and Windows 2000.

>

> I don't recall that he has entirely left all of Win98. Otherwise, I

> might agree with you. It is good of you to wish everyone well.

>

>

> --

> Thanks or Good Luck,

> There may be humor in this post, and,

> Naturally, you will not sue,

> Should things get worse after this,

> PCR

> pcrrcp@netzero.net

>

>

>

[Guest PCR]

Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

 

Dan wrote:

| Thanks PCR and I do hope letterman will post in Windows 98 General in

| the future.

 

Me too.

 

| "PCR" wrote:

|

|> Dan wrote:

|> | <snip>

|> |

|> | It is indeed too bad that letterman has left. I enjoy the

|> | diversity of the individuals within the Windows 98 General

|> | Newsgroup. I hope letterman is happy with using DOS and Windows

|> | 2000.

|>

|> I don't recall that he has entirely left all of Win98. Otherwise, I

|> might agree with you. It is good of you to wish everyone well.

|>

|>

|> --

|> Thanks or Good Luck,

|> There may be humor in this post, and,

|> Naturally, you will not sue,

|> Should things get worse after this,

|> PCR

|> pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

--

Thanks or Good Luck,

There may be humor in this post, and,

Naturally, you will not sue,

Should things get worse after this,

PCR

pcrrcp@netzero.net