CBFalconer <c...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3...@yahoo.com: 

>> subst M: "c:\program files\long pathname with spaces"
> 
> Another caution:  If you set that up in autoexec.bat you will have
> to use the short filenames in the subst command, because long
> filename support does not exist when autoexec is executed.  At
> least for W9x.

Since that Win9x is unusable for anything but testing the reset switch on
one's PC I don't see this as a practical problem. :-) 

-- 
- Mark ->
--

"Mark A. Odell" wrote:
> CBFalconer <c...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> 
> >> subst M: "c:\program files\long pathname with spaces"
> >
> > Another caution:  If you set that up in autoexec.bat you will
> > have to use the short filenames in the subst command, because
> > long filename support does not exist when autoexec is executed. 
> > At least for W9x.
> 
> Since that Win9x is unusable for anything but testing the reset
> switch on one's PC I don't see this as a practical problem. :-)

My practice is to reboot every couple of weeks, or whenever
something else aborts.  My system keeps a record, of which the
following is an extract:

Booted at 10-03-03 21:37:36
Booted at 10-09-03 14:48:30
Booted at 10-15-03 17:22:36
Booted at 10-25-03 14:44:18
Booted at 10-26-03 05:02:40
Booted at 11-16-03 16:09:04
Booted at 11-19-03 11:36:02
Booted at 11-30-03 11:29:34
Booted at 12-06-03 11:43:33
Booted at 12-17-03 10:35:01
Booted at 12-19-03 16:25:04
Booted at 12-26-03 19:01:24

(I was away, and the machinery shut down, between 12-19 and
12-26).  This is running W98.  It runs a minimum of Microsoft
software.  The shell is 4dos.

Conceded, W98 can be harmed by runaway applications.  So can
anything in supervisor or root mode or the equivalent.  There is
nothing preventing use in a semi-intelligent manner.

-- 
Chuck F (c...@yahoo.com) (c...@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>;  USE worldnet address!

CBFalconer <c...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3...@yahoo.com: 

>> > Another caution:  If you set that up in autoexec.bat you will
>> > have to use the short filenames in the subst command, because
>> > long filename support does not exist when autoexec is executed. 
>> > At least for W9x.
>> 
>> Since that Win9x is unusable for anything but testing the reset
>> switch on one's PC I don't see this as a practical problem. :-)
> 
> My practice is to reboot every couple of weeks, or whenever
> something else aborts.  My system keeps a record, of which the
> following is an extract:
[snip]

Why not just get Win2k? It's *far* more robust, especially if used in a
semi-intelligent manner. 

-- 
- Mark ->
--

"Mark A. Odell" wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Why not just get Win2k? It's *far* more robust, especially if used
> in a semi-intelligent manner.

I can't stomach the EULA, and I don't want anything denying me
access to my own machine.  I see no reason to encourage Microsoft
in any way.  Color me fogy.

-- 
Chuck F (c...@yahoo.com) (c...@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>;  USE worldnet address!

"Mark A. Odell" <n...@embeddedfw.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9461A639D6121CopyrightMarkOdell@130.133.1.4...
> CBFalconer <c...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:3...@yahoo.com:

 [snip]
>
> Why not just get Win2k? It's *far* more robust, especially if used in a
> semi-intelligent manner.
>
> -- 
> - Mark ->
> --

Don't you have any programs that don't run on win2k?   I have a few.  I have
one win98 on one PC for that reason, and win2k on two others.
My win98 machine will run for days if I decide to leave it on, but I don't
see any need for that.

Mark

"Mark" <n...@invalid.com> wrote in
news:cZzIb.9415$V...@news20.bellglobal.com: 

>> Why not just get Win2k? It's *far* more robust, especially if used in a
>> semi-intelligent manner.
> 
> Don't you have any programs that don't run on win2k?  

Not one. I refuse to support developers who don't support the NT-based
OS's (or Linux). 

> I have a few.  I
> have one win98 on one PC for that reason, and win2k on two others.
> My win98 machine will run for days if I decide to leave it on, but I
> don't see any need for that.

I have mine on 24/7 so I just couldn't deal with Wintendo versions of
Windows. I can appreciate that there are some reasons to continue using it
however. 

Regards,

-- 
- Mark ->
--

CBFalconer <c...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3...@yahoo.com: 

>> Why not just get Win2k? It's *far* more robust, especially if used
>> in a semi-intelligent manner.
> 
> I can't stomach the EULA, and I don't want anything denying me
> access to my own machine.  I see no reason to encourage Microsoft
> in any way.  Color me fogy.

Fair enough.

-- 
- Mark ->
--