Printable View
I have Windows 98SE and it really pisses me off to see all those hidden folders in the Temp folder or Temporary Internet Files folder.
There is no way to get to these folders unless you search for them in 'Search Files & Folders' or use the browser's address bar.
My question is: can I completely wipe out all these files and folders?
i wouldnt do that if i were u. those folders store all of the cookies and data from wut u see on the net. and also, the folder would probably come return after u delete it since ur comp stores everything u see from the net.
You can delete the folders in the temporary files folder. Just don't delete the Content.IE5 that holds those hidden folders. All that is in them are copies of what is in the temporary files folder (not hidden). 98SE sucks for deleting those files, ME will allow you to delete them all at once for some reason. I know that 98SE is better than ME though.
98se has the least bugs... itz like supposedly "the perfect windows" althought itz like really old now....
If you delete Content.IE5 , windows will recreate it on next boot.
yes u can deleat every thing in both the windows temp folder and the window temp inet folders dont deleat the folders them selfs just whats in themQuote:
Originally posted by DataMore@13 February 2003 - 00:50
I have Windows 98SE and it really pisses me off to see all those hidden folders in the Temp folder or Temporary Internet Files folder.
There is no way to get to these folders unless you search for them in 'Search Files & Folders' or use the browser's address bar.
My question is: can I completely wipe out all these files and folders?
if u want to be able too see them from windows explorer the go to
My computer-> click on view-> folder options-> click the view tab
and find where it says hidden files. under that click the show all files option and ull be able to see the folders in winexplorer
i dont know about "the perfect windows" but it is the most stable build out right nowQuote:
Originally posted by Soul814@13 February 2003 - 00:58
98se has the least bugs... itz like supposedly "the perfect windows" althought itz like really old now....
save for maybe win 2000 pro but that more of a server then a user frendly OS even workstation is prity much just for accesing the server
BTW did u hear that the gen NT(what 2000pro is) is supost too finaly have a jornaling file system :) about time!
Win 2k Pro isn't the server version of Win2k, it's for normal users (i use it myself and lvoe it, will never go back to Win 9x).... And Win2k Server, Advanced Server and DataCenter Server are the server versionsQuote:
Originally posted by QuietSilence!@14 February 2003 - 02:06
save for maybe win 2000 pro but that more of a server then a user frendly OS even workstation is prity much just for accesing the server
!
And yup, that's true and is another one of the reasons the NT kernel is so much more stable.. :)Quote:
BTW did u hear that the gen NT(what 2000pro is) is supost too finaly have a jornaling file system :) about time
And to be ontopic now..
You can safely delete the Content.IE5 folder (I delete mine all the time) and it'll get recreated automagically
Haven't you guys ever heard of Windows XP?!?!?! :huh:
It's possible to veiw the hidden folders without having to "search" for them. In the folder options, make sure hidden folders are veiwable. And it's perfectly safe to delete temp files. I don't think it's such a good idea to delete the actual folders themselves, like Quietsilence said.
See if I remember correctly it has several dravbacks.Quote:
Originally posted by Supernatural@14 February 2003 - 10:32
Haven't you guys ever heard of Windows XP?!?!?! :huh:
It's huge
It has so many things in it that you will never use that it is hard to find what you want in the begining.
It isn't as stable as win 2k or 98.
There are more things but I thend to forget things I dislike. :)
acualy there all the exact same program they just come with more and more options as u go up but ur right the one called pro is the workstation version with the fewest options
i got a speachal version that has all of them execpt data center server on 1 cd all the difrent types use the same set of cabs to install they just use diffrent setups to install the options and configurations prity cool realy :)
the main reason i still use win98se is for dos compatablity i just can give up the os i grewup with besides i still use some of my dos progs but rarely and i do use my bats to do a lot of stuff still but then a gain i wouldnt use win 3.11 at all i hated windows till 95 came out guess im just a dos man at hart
but for the genral public win2000 is just not a frendly os its too easy for them to mess it up
my server is a wi2k server as a mater of fact but i dont use it for much besides network verafication and proxy and file share and such i dont use it for my every day stuff it just sit and runs all the time has yet to ever crash last time i looked it had been up like 240 days:)
Isn't as stable as 98? :lol: How people will lie to just make an argument. XP is as stable, if not MORE stable, than 2k. When I had 98, I would get 2-5 blue screens a day. Now that I have XP pro, I have gotten the blue screen a total of 1 time since installing it (that was in back in October, so about 4 months).Quote:
It isn't as stable as win 2k or 98.
ya and if MS ever gets it too work right i might even use it but i dought it :)Quote:
Originally posted by Supernatural@14 February 2003 - 10:32
Haven't you guys ever heard of Windows XP?!?!?! :huh:
It's possible to veiw the hidden folders without having to "search" for them. In the folder options, make sure hidden folders are veiwable. And it's perfectly safe to delete temp files. I don't think it's such a good idea to delete the actual folders themselves, like Quietsilence said.
I'll admit to XP's only drawback is it's size. But a price has to be paid for fancy visuals. :)
XP Pro is definitely a lot more stable than 2K, 2K started out life as NT5 but with the millennium just around the corner Microsoft renamed it. It was supposed to be a joining of the NT4 base software and 98/ME, but all they managed to was have a common OS with all of the bugs from both. To date XP Pro is the best they’ve so far come up with, it still has bugs in it but far less than the previous OS’s they’ve produced.
Datamore,
Your best bet would be to use a piece of software that deletes these files automatically for you, like Evidence Eliminator. The directories themselves if deleted will just be regenerated next time you boot up. If you download the 30 day free trial of EE version 5.057 you can turn it into a full registered version with this:-
Serial :Evidence Eliminator v5.057
Name: bill gates
Code: EE50-9500D8513560
To all the folk in this topic who say XP is the best & most stable version of windows to date then tell me why there is over 130mb of updates to make XP work reet???
Windows 2000Quote:
Originally posted by Grim@14 February 2003 - 14:17
To all the folk in this topic who say XP is the best & most stable version of windows to date then tell me why there is over 130mb of updates to make XP work reet???
Service pack 1: 0.3Mb
Service pack 2: 106Mb
Service pack 3: 131Mb
Security rollup pack: 173Mb
SQL server service pack: 52Mb
Total____________462.3Mb
and thats without even touching the 1782 patches to make it run how it was supposed to.
You say XP has 130Mb of updates thats child's play compared to Microsofts other operating systems. Also you tell me of a OS thats on the market that doesn't have some problems with it.
To date I've used:-
Unix
Solaris
Windows 3.1
Windows 3.11
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows 98SE
Windows NT3
Windows NT4
Windows ME
Windows 2000
Windows XP/Pro
Linux
Solaris was by far the best but XP comes a close second.
Win2k was never sposed to be a merger of 9x and the NT kernel... That's more along the lines of what M$ is touting XP as being...Quote:
Originally posted by Leech_Killer@14 February 2003 - 06:54
XP Pro is definitely a lot more stable than 2K, 2K started out life as NT5 but with the millennium just around the corner Microsoft renamed it. It was supposed to be a joining of the NT4 base software and 98/ME, but all they managed to was have a common OS with all of the bugs from both. To date XP Pro is the best they’ve so far come up with, it still has bugs in it but far less than the previous OS’s they’ve produced.
Win2k is just an update to NT4, hence why it's called NT5 and XP is called NT5.1, so it's really not a merger of 9x and the NT kernel either, is just a little update to Win2k (much like ME was to 98)
I seem to be a little confused here. I purposely "hide" folders that I don't want a computer illiterate person to find. I you run a search, my hidden folders have never come up. This is obviously a bad way to hide anything, but am I wrong that they won't come up unless you go to folder options an click the option for " show all files"?Quote:
Originally posted by DataMore@12 February 2003 - 18:50
I have Windows 98SE and it really pisses me off to see all those hidden folders in the Temp folder or Temporary Internet Files folder.
There is no way to get to these folders unless you search for them in 'Search Files & Folders' or use the browser's address bar.
My question is: can I completely wipe out all these files and folders?
The folders are only being hidden from "explorer" which is seperate program used to browse system directories. You can't hide files from the OS itself. :lol:
yeah, you can delete the folders.
I've been running w2k for nearly 2 years and have never seen a blue screen or a locked system.
When one considers w2k has been out nearly 4 years now and the updates have amounted to as little as they have, its a pretty stable OS. I don't know where the 400meg figure is coming from because I just installed w2k on another system just 5 days ago and I know it didn't take longer than 2 hours to have it completely updated including IE6, DirectX, WMP and some drivers over a TI connection.
I can't imagine anyone still using an OS older than winME. Unless they just like to chat, email and do some light accounting.
With video being the next big growth area for PCs a person is going to have to consider switching to a NT OS. 4GB file sizes don't cut it when you consider NTFS handles up to 1000GB files. Then to compound the problem further non-NT OSs only support 512mb of memory.
Try downloading your DV camcorder to a non-NT OS and find out what happens after 11minutes of video transfer, the system stops and reports you've reached the max file size.
Win2k was never sposed to be a merger of 9x and the NT kernel... That's more along the lines of what M$ is touting XP as being...Quote:
Originally posted by Yusuke+15 February 2003 - 08:31--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Yusuke @ 15 February 2003 - 08:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Leech_Killer@14 February 2003 - 06:54
XP Pro is definitely a lot more stable than 2K, 2K started out life as NT5 but with the millennium just around the corner Microsoft renamed it. It was supposed to be a joining of the NT4 base software and 98/ME, but all they managed to was have a common OS with all of the bugs from both. To date XP Pro is the best they’ve so far come up with, it still has bugs in it but far less than the previous OS’s they’ve produced.
Win2k is just an update to NT4, hence why it's called NT5 and XP is called NT5.1, so it's really not a merger of 9x and the NT kernel either, is just a little update to Win2k (much like ME was to 98)[/b][/quote]
Windows 2000 IS a merger of NT and 98 if you don't believe me then check out the link to Microsoft's own website.
Windows 2000 Professional Overview
All that page says about Win98 is this:
And all that is saying is that it has the look of Win98's interface, not that it's any kinda of merger with 98...Quote:
Built on Windows NT® technology and the easy-to-use, familiar Windows® 98 user interface, Windows 2000 Professional gives business users increased flexibility
Win2k is just an update to NT 4 to make it more user friendly, much like XP is an update to Win2k to make it even more user friendly....
Have you even used Win2k though?? If not, try using it than you'll see for yourself...
In the Windows family, I would say XP Pro is the best and most stable. It is extremely stable, has a nice interface, and is very customizable and flexible. I have been using XP Pro for 7 months or so now and it has never blue screened or crashed. Usually the only time it needs to restart is when you have updated windows. Very nice OS overall.
Have I ever used it, well in 1997/1998 I worked for a software house. We'd won a contract from Microsoft to do work on NT5 Beta 1/2. You keep telling me that 2K isn't a merger of codes, but having worked for a company that helped write it I know for a fact that it is. 2K was built on the NT4 code base to utilies it's multi-tasking abilities but also had major improvements in reliability, ease of use, increased Internet compatibilities, mobile computing support, Plug and Play, advanced networking, USB devices, IEEE 1394 devices and infrared devices, most of which were taken from 98. Even Microsoft isn't foolish enough to re-write codes that they already have that are working. If 2K is just the next step on from NT why has there been so many problems between the two, an example of this is has always being when trying to get a NT machine to handshake with a 2K server, it's a right pain in the arse to set it up correctly. You said yourself that it has the look of Win98's interface, how do you think it got that look without using the same codes.Quote:
Originally posted by Yusuke@18 February 2003 - 05:44
Have you even used Win2k though?? If not, try using it than you'll see for yourself...
absolutely right about win98se :DQuote:
Originally posted by Soul814@13 February 2003 - 00:58
98se has the least bugs... itz like supposedly "the perfect windows" althought itz like really old now....
cu
i think all of you out there that are dissing windows xp either dont have it or just dont know how to use it. comparing win98 to winxp is like comparing a ford or chevy to a lexus or its like comparing a tv dinner to a nice steak dinner.
yeah a ford or chevy will do what you need it to do but with the lexus your riding in style and comfort and class.
a tv dinner will fill you up but leaves you longing for more.the steak dinner satisfies.
so for all you idiots out there trying to compare win98 to winxp shut the fuck up because the majority rules here!
Have I ever used it, well in 1997/1998 I worked for a software house. We'd won a contract from Microsoft to do work on NT5 Beta 1/2. You keep telling me that 2K isn't a merger of codes, but having worked for a company that helped write it I know for a fact that it is. 2K was built on the NT4 code base to utilies it's multi-tasking abilities but also had major improvements in reliability, ease of use, increased Internet compatibilities, mobile computing support, Plug and Play, advanced networking, USB devices, IEEE 1394 devices and infrared devices, most of which were taken from 98. Even Microsoft isn't foolish enough to re-write codes that they already have that are working. If 2K is just the next step on from NT why has there been so many problems between the two, an example of this is has always being when trying to get a NT machine to handshake with a 2K server, it's a right pain in the arse to set it up correctly. You said yourself that it has the look of Win98's interface, how do you think it got that look without using the same codes. [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by Leech_Killer+18 February 2003 - 07:57--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Leech_Killer @ 18 February 2003 - 07:57)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Yusuke@18 February 2003 - 05:44
Have you even used Win2k though?? If not, try using it than you'll see for yourself...
I know about all them things that got added to 2k :)
But just because 2k utilizes alot of them things that are from Win98 doesn't necessarily mean it was a code merger that made it possible... I'm sure the M$ programmers are smart enough to write the same functionality into 2k from scratch and make it better than it was in Win98..
But oh well, I'm really gettin tired of going on and on and on with you about this....
just posting so can track cuz theres a lot of hidden stuff on this used pc.
EXACTLY! :lol: :lol: Comparing 98 to XP? And not even comparing.. actually saying 98 is better than XP! WTF?!?!?! :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by computerfreak76@18 February 2003 - 08:16
i think all of you out there that are dissing windows xp either dont have it or just dont know how to use it. comparing win98 to winxp is like comparing a ford or chevy to a lexus or its like comparing a tv dinner to a nice steak dinner.
yeah a ford or chevy will do what you need it to do but with the lexus your riding in style and comfort and class.
a tv dinner will fill you up but leaves you longing for more.the steak dinner satisfies.
so for all you idiots out there trying to compare win98 to winxp shut the fuck up because the majority rules here!
didnt say any thing about its better or not i was talking about stability
one day Xp will be just as stable and probly more so as it bult on the much better NT kernal but that day has not yet come 98 and 2k have been out a lot longer then xp that is why they are more stable most of the bugs have finaly been fixed (not that 2k had many too begin with it was the most stable releace that ms ever had) but with Xp they still have not all even been found! let alone fixed and by the time they do get it all together there will be a new version of window with a slick new interface and lots of bells and whistles too make u gogle over and at that time ill probly be useing XP as theyll probly have most of the bugs fixed by then
as far as win2k it was a new updated version of nt with a new nt kernal with active x , WMI and useing inet explorer as the front end
just like 98 with a new 9x kernal was 95 with active x and inet explore as the front end
but note that there is no part of the win98 krenal in win2k
and by way the leach killer u would know this if u realy worked on the beta what did u do at that compony work in the mail room
LOL u dont win a contrast for this u just sighn up for it and if your a compony its pritty much garented ull be accepted i did it too and i did it on my own not as a compony (did 98 and ME too was asked to do it for xp too but i was too busy at the time as long as u email the end betas final report an partisapate in the bug reports forum they will ask u to come back) also there is no such thing as beta1/2 all the betas where released as a 4 digit build #'sQuote:
well in 1997/1998 I worked for a software house. We'd won a contract from Microsoft to do work on NT5 Beta 1/2
actualy they where all brand new code for the nt5 kernal though it was based on the nt4 kernalQuote:
quoteNT4 code base to utilies it's multi-tasking abilities but also had major improvements in reliability
these are all modules that where taken from win98 the same ones that where added to 95 to make 98 and u forgot driect X and WMI and the inet explorer front end integration(though ease of use and increased Internet compatibilities kida covers that sorta)Quote:
ease of use, increased Internet compatibilities, mobile computing support, Plug and Play, advanced networking, USB devices, IEEE 1394 devices and infrared devices, most of which were taken from 98
this is becouse of the advanced networking conponents u where talkin about acualy if u do the right updates to the nt 4 comp it is easy. basicly u got too bring the old os up to speed.Quote:
get a NT machine to handshake with a 2K server, it's a right pain in the arse to set it up correctly
a more comon name for this is backword compatablity
if u thing that hard try geting ether of them to work right with Novel now Thats hard! in fact if ur talkin stability on a pc based server u cant beat novel i have never seen it crash ever! though i have bent it once or twice but even then it still keeps on going and doing it work sept for the part u bent just fix the bend and restart the service and it still going still no restart involved
I dont know what you are talking about Quiet, as XP has never had an issue with stability. It is rock solid. 98 is still very unstable to this day, so your statement is false. All of XP's patches and updates are security related.
System stability boils down to the kernal. The very heart of any OS. XP's kernal is an update from the 2k kernal (nt5->nt5.1) and you yourself said 2k is stable. So that would mean an updated 2k kernal would be more stable, right? Not according to you. :blink:
Win 98 is CRAP, had it for four years and now use win2k pro with no problems. Mac users always use the 'blue screen of death' as n excuse to switch but it only happens on win 98.
(its funny how replys slowly drift away from the topic....)