The Monster that is Windows

[mikeymike]

JaXanim wrote:
In my fledgling attempts to understand the rudiments of the Win98 OS, I keep getting balked by my inability to open Zip files.
Whenever I click on a zipped archive, the system says it can't find 'Program'. I assume this is analogus to the Amiga's default tool, but my system doesn't have it it seems.

Broken file association at a (albeit I'm really tired) guess.  Get an explorer window up, go into View > Options > File Types > find the zip file association, edit it.

If you're using WinZip, the command line being run should look something like:

C:\Program Files\WinZip\winzip32.exe "%1"

Failing that:

C:\Progra~1\WinZip\winzip32.exe "%1"

On my system its:

D:\apps\WinZip\winzip32.exe "%1"

Reinstalling WinZip should fix the association.

The Win98 system was installed to a freshly formatted drive, so I would have thought this tool and any other used by the OS would be included (?).

WinXP has zip file reading capabilities.  They're not very good.

If that assumption is misguided (and I won't be surprised if it is), then where does one get this 'Program' tool - and where do you put it?  JaX

www.winzip.com

Install that baby.

I quite like WinRAR though, handles Zip files too.

As for the good old "which version of Windows is best?" argument, my personal preference is Windows 2000 by far over any version of Windows currently available (though 2003 Server is supposed to be quite nice).

[mikeymike]

Win2k can do hibernation... if you like I'll even send a screenshot :-)

I'd recommend 128 - 256MB or more for Win2k or XP.  Both require some (but not particularly 'heavy hardcore' tweaking) to reduce the memory footprint by a huge amount, there are guides on my site of how to do that.  I had 256MB in my machine for some time without any performance issues, so I have since upgraded to 768MB so I could do recoverable ramdisk stuff (so I have 512MB physical as far as Windows is concerned).

384MB for Win2k/XP should give a decent bit of slack for the vast majority of users.

At boot time my system uses about 50 - 64MB RAM (as in I can't remember exactly how much).  With a web browser, email, mp3 player plus a couple of other windows I'm typically using about 100MB (give or take 50MB) RAM.

For the extra robustness, Win2k/XP is worth the upgrade cost (inc. licence and RAM).  I'd go as far as to say that they're the first offerings by MS that stand up well (and surpass in many respects) to the competition.  I did like NT4 rather a lot though, it had the same robustness, but it could be hard work for the average user.

[mikeymike]

How is Windows 2000 not good for "day to day life"? :-)