Searching \ for '[PIC] When did MPLAB stop supporting Win98?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/ios.htm?key=port
Search entire site for: 'When did MPLAB stop supporting Win98?'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[PIC] When did MPLAB stop supporting Win98?'
2005\11\21@202854 by Barry Gershenfeld

face picon face
Having just meticulously restored the errant hard drive partition link on
my laptop and regained full use of it, I installed the latest available
MPLAB 7.22.    It said that it may not work with Windows 98.  It promptly
started acting weird ("Target not in debug mode") so I thought I had better
retreat to 7.00, which is running on my main system.  The installer for
that one won't even install the program!  Meanwhile, I discover said
desktop system is using 98SE, so that's why I didn't have trouble with it.

So I want to know what the latest MPLAB does work with 98.  I found the
archives, but there is no information about the files.

Barry

2005\11\21@224708 by Mike Young

picon face
Maybe just missing a USB driver? '98 didn't install one by default.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Gershenfeld" <spam_OUTbarry_gTakeThisOuTspamzmicro.com>
To: <.....piclistKILLspamspam@spam@mit.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 7:28 PM
Subject: [PIC] When did MPLAB stop supporting Win98?


> Having just meticulously restored the errant hard drive partition link on
> my laptop and regained full use of it, I installed the latest available
> MPLAB 7.22.    It said that it may not work with Windows 98.  It promptly
> started acting weird ("Target not in debug mode") so I thought I had
> better

2005\11\21@230153 by Harold Hallikainen

face picon face
I think I'm running the latest MPLAB on a win98se machine at work. Works
fine. I think it's 7.22.

Harold


{Quote hidden}

> -

2005\11\22@073844 by olin piclist

face picon face
Barry Gershenfeld wrote:
> Having just meticulously restored the errant hard drive partition link
> on my laptop and regained full use of it, I installed the latest
> available MPLAB 7.22.    It said that it may not work with Windows 98. It
> promptly started acting weird ("Target not in debug mode") so I
> thought I had better retreat to 7.00, which is running on my main
> system.  The installer for that one won't even install the program!
> Meanwhile, I discover said desktop system is using 98SE, so that's why
> I didn't have trouble with it.
> So I want to know what the latest MPLAB does work with 98.

Who cares!!?  Upgrade to Windows XP already and stop wasting time with the
stone knives and bearskins.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products

2005\11\22@091343 by Roy J. Gromlich - PA

picon face
Sorry Olin - that's not a very practical suggestion.  If you have an old low-powered machine running Win98SE and try to upgrade to WinXP you will more than likely end up with a good boat anchor.   WinXP makes demands on the hardware that 98SE never dreamed of.  I have several machines running 98SE precisely because they are not powerful enough to run WinXP in any useful fashion.  And some machine - like the HP I am using right now - have no upgrade path to WinXP - there are no hardware drivers for it that work with WinXP.   If you don't want to / can't afford to upgrade your hardware to at least P-IV / 2+ GHz / 500megabyte RAM / 80 gig HD don't bother with WinXP - - - if you want to actually DO anything with the resulting machine.  Speaking from experience - - -
RJG
 {Original Message removed}

2005\11\22@092804 by Jan-Erik Soderholm

face picon face
Roy J. Gromlich - PA wrote :

> If you
> don't want to / can't afford to upgrade your hardware to at
> least P-IV / 2+ GHz / 500megabyte RAM / 80 gig HD don't
> bother with WinXP...

Using a P-III / 800 Mhz / 256 Mb box with a lot of
stuff incl MPLAB 7.2x. No particular problem.
Not saying that I do not *want* to upgrade, but
that's another matter... :-)

And, I guess that at least W2K would be better then 98...

Jan-Erik



2005\11\22@093311 by Kevin

picon face
>Roy said
>you don't want to / can't afford to upgrade your hardware
>to at least P-IV / 2+
>GHz / 500megabyte RAM / 80 gig HD don't bother with WinXP -
>- - if you want to actually DO anything with the resulting
> machine.  Speaking from experience

I have a HP PIII 30 gig HD 384 Mb of ram running WinXP PRO
quite nicely and have no complaints. No performance issues
to speak of, never had a problem with it.

FWIW, Kevin


2005\11\22@094008 by Stef Mientki

flavicon
face


Roy J. Gromlich - PA wrote:

>Sorry Olin - that's not a very practical suggestion.  If you have an old low-powered machine running Win98SE and try to upgrade to WinXP you will more than likely end up with a good boat anchor.   WinXP makes demands on the hardware that 98SE never dreamed of.  I have several machines running 98SE precisely because they are not powerful enough to run WinXP in any useful fashion.  And some machine - like the HP I am using right now - have no upgrade path to WinXP - there are no hardware drivers for it that work with WinXP.   If you don't want to / can't afford to upgrade your hardware to at least P-IV / 2+ GHz / 500megabyte RAM / 80 gig HD don't bother with WinXP - - - if you want to actually DO anything with the resulting machine.  Speaking from experience - - -
>
>  
>
I can imagine your feelings,
and why isn't mplab supported under Linux ??

Stef

2005\11\22@095915 by Nelson Johnsrud

flavicon
face


Roy J. Gromlich - PA wrote:

>Sorry Olin - that's not a very practical suggestion.  If you have an old low-powered machine running Win98SE and try to upgrade to WinXP you will more than likely end up with a good boat anchor.   WinXP makes demands on the hardware that 98SE never dreamed of.  I have several machines running 98SE precisely because they are not powerful enough to run WinXP in any useful fashion.  And some machine - like the HP I am using right now - have no upgrade path to WinXP - there are no hardware drivers for it that work with WinXP.   If you don't want to / can't afford to upgrade your hardware to at least P-IV / 2+ GHz / 500megabyte RAM / 80 gig HD don't bother with WinXP - - - if you want to actually DO anything with the resulting machine.  Speaking from experience - - -
>  
>
The HP machine I am typing on right now was given just such an upgrade.  
It is a 700 Mhz Celeron machine with 30 Meg HD that originally ran with
64 Meg of RAM and HP's casterated version of BIOS and operating system.  
I upgraded the RAM to 512 Meg (would have done that anyway) and changed
to a new Phoenix BIOS, then installed XP pro without a hitch.  The
machine runs faster now than when it was new (or seems like).  Changing
the BIOS was the key though.  It would not work without doing that.

Nels

2005\11\22@102802 by Roy J. Gromlich - PA

picon face
OK everyone - I guess others haven't had the problems I have had with some of these upgrades. I heartily agree with Nelson Johnsrud though - if you have an old machine with an old BIOS, a BIOS upgrade will "probably" allow the thing to run WinXP successfully.  I suspect that the reason I haven't upgraded these machines to XP is that I think it would be a lot more trouble than it would be worth to me.  After all, they are working.
I have many fast machines at the office which run XP as well as anything can run a Microsoft OS.  I have never been a Windows fan, and suspect (at my age) that I never will be, so I don't feel any thrill at the idea of upgrading to a later & greater Windows.  I haven't gotten any particular joy out of tinkering with BIOSs and drivers and memory mapping and etc. in a lot of years - and have long ago come to hold the opinion that "if it isn't broken, don't try to fix it".

Just my opinion - your mileage may vary.

RJG
 {Original Message removed}

2005\11\22@110914 by olin piclist

face picon face
Roy J. Gromlich - PA wrote:
> After all, they are working.

Obviously not, else you wouldn't be asking here.  At least if you define
"working" as running the latest MPLAB without problems.

> and have long ago come to hold the
> opinion that "if it isn't broken, don't try to fix it".

But it *is* broken.  Apparently your opinion is actually "Don't fix it
because it's too much hassle.".  That's fine, and its your call to make,
just don't complain when it can't do everything you want it to.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products

2005\11\22@111939 by Harold Hallikainen

face picon face

> Barry Gershenfeld wrote:
>> Having just meticulously restored the errant hard drive partition link
>> on my laptop and regained full use of it, I installed the latest
>> available MPLAB 7.22.    It said that it may not work with Windows 98.
>> It
>> promptly started acting weird ("Target not in debug mode") so I
>> thought I had better retreat to 7.00, which is running on my main
>> system.  The installer for that one won't even install the program!
>> Meanwhile, I discover said desktop system is using 98SE, so that's why
>> I didn't have trouble with it.
>> So I want to know what the latest MPLAB does work with 98.
>
> Who cares!!?  Upgrade to Windows XP already and stop wasting time with the
> stone knives and bearskins.
>

I'm upgrading to linux (all new machines running it and old Windows
machines being retired). Meanwhile, I'm running MPLAB 7.21 on Win98SE with
no problems (other than Windows normal problems). I'm also running C18 and
an ICD-2 on it.

Harold



--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com

2005\11\22@113258 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
Nelson wrote regarding 'Re: [PIC] When did MPLAB stop supporting Win98?' on Tue, Nov 22 at 09:05:
> The HP machine I am typing on right now was given just such an upgrade.  
> It is a 700 Mhz Celeron machine with 30 Meg HD that originally ran with
> 64 Meg of RAM and HP's casterated version of BIOS and operating system.  

You might consider upgrading that hard drive - a 30Meg drive probably
isn't very fast at all by modern hard drive standards - and I'm
surprised that you managed to get an XP install into less than 30MB.
:)

--Danny, who doesn't consider XP an "upgrade" over anything

2005\11\22@114428 by Kevin

picon face
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Danny Sauer wrote:

> Nelson wrote regarding 'Re: [PIC] When did MPLAB stop supporting Win98?' on Tue, Nov 22 at 09:05:
> > The HP machine I am typing on right now was given just such an upgrade.
> > It is a 700 Mhz Celeron machine with 30 Meg HD that originally ran with
> > 64 Meg of RAM and HP's casterated version of BIOS and operating system.
>
> You might consider upgrading that hard drive - a 30Meg drive probably
> isn't very fast at all by modern hard drive standards - and I'm
> surprised that you managed to get an XP install into less than 30MB.
> :)
>
> --Danny, who doesn't consider XP an "upgrade" over anything

I am sure he meant 30 gig as my 286 had a 20 meg hard
drive.

2005\11\22@114959 by Bob Blick

face picon face
> Sorry Olin - that's not a very practical suggestion.  If you have an old
> low-powered machine running Win98SE and try to upgrade to WinXP you will
> more than likely end up with a good boat anchor.

Not to mention Win XP costs probably $100 for the "upgrade" version. Money
better spent elsewhere - upgrading computers after the first two years is
never worth it in the long run.

But back to the original subject, it sounds like the new MPLAB works on
98SE but not 98. What are the real differences between the versions?

Cheers,

Bob


2005\11\22@122528 by Dwayne Reid

flavicon
face
At 09:49 AM 11/22/2005, Bob Blick wrote:

>But back to the original subject, it sounds like the new MPLAB works on
>98SE but not 98. What are the real differences between the versions?

Not that much!  However, wiping the hard drive and installing Win98SE
from scratch should be only an afternoon's work.  The license key
from Win98 will work with Win98SE - I've done this many times with
the oem version.

If you are adventurous, you can install Win98SE right over top of
your existing Win98 installation.  This is supposed to work -
provided your machine is stable.  I've had mixed results.

One other thought: hard drives are cheap these days.  Consider
purchasing a new drive and temporarily removing your existing
drive.  Install 98SE on the new drive and apply all the
patches.  Then install the old drive as a slave and either copy what
you want from it or perhaps even run apps from where they currently
live on the old drive.

Couple of things:

1) many older motherboards / bios combinations can't handle large
drives.  A discounted copy of Ontrack Drive Manager can be purchased
from <http://www.ontrack.com/fujitsu/>.  Make sure you get the full
version that works with all drives.

I have NEVER had a major problem with Drive Manager - my old laptop
and one of my desktop machines use it, as do many other systems I
have worked on over the past several years.

2) A simple way of applying all current patches to bring Win 98 SE up
to the latest version can be found at
<http://exuberant.ms11.net/98sesp.html> .  Thanks to Fred Langa (
<http://langalist.com> ) for that link.

Win 98 SE is still a viable OS for under-powered computers.  I still
spend at least a third of my computing day on Win 98 boxes.

dwayne

--
Dwayne Reid   <dwaynerspamKILLspamplanet.eon.net>
Trinity Electronics Systems Ltd    Edmonton, AB, CANADA
(780) 489-3199 voice          (780) 487-6397 fax

Celebrating 21 years of Engineering Innovation (1984 - 2005)
 .-.   .-.   .-.   .-.   .-.   .-.   .-.   .-.   .-.   .-
    `-'   `-'   `-'   `-'   `-'   `-'   `-'   `-'   `-'
Do NOT send unsolicited commercial email to this email address.
This message neither grants consent to receive unsolicited
commercial email nor is intended to solicit commercial email.

2005\11\22@123418 by Roy J. Gromlich - PA

picon face
Actually, I am not the OP on this - I was just throwing out a comment regarding upgrading Windows.  But you are correct - Win98SE and even Win-Me (which is what came on this computer) work well enough for what I am using these machines for.  It would be more trouble than (I think) it is worth to upgrade them for the sake of upgrading them, if you know what I mean.

If I run into an application which won't run under 98SE or Me, and I REALLY need that application to run on one of these machines, I would then consider the upgrade, since the time spent would then be justified.

As you say - my choice to make.

RJG
 {Original Message removed}

2005\11\22@163356 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
Kevin wrote regarding 'Re: [PIC] When did MPLAB stop supporting Win98?' on Tue, Nov 22 at 10:51:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Danny Sauer wrote:
> > You might consider upgrading that hard drive - a 30Meg drive probably
[...]
> I am sure he meant 30 gig as my 286 had a 20 meg hard
> drive.

I am too, but it's more fun to not make assumptions. :)

--Danny, who ha*s* a 20MB drive in his 286...

2005\11\22@180156 by Mchipguru

picon face
98se supports USB among other fixes
{Quote hidden}

> --

2005\11\22@184821 by Bob Blick

face picon face
> 98se supports USB among other fixes

Regular 98 had USB, too.

Cheers,

Bob

2005\11\22@191114 by Steph Smith

flavicon
face
the differences? win98 was a 'lash-up'; 98se
was a more refined 'cock-up'.Microsoft crash test
using real dummies;people who pay for their product.
must sign off before my win98se system
locks up again...
{Original Message removed}

2005\11\22@195354 by Chen Xiao Fan

face
flavicon
face
It is said that the original Win98 has some problems in the USB
stack and class drivers. Win98 SE fixed them. Then again WinXP
fixed lots of the problems of Win9x and are actually quite
good even on lower spec PCs. I've used WinXP on a P3 450 PC
which ran much faster than Redhat 9 Linux.

For example, the HID class driver is different. Win98 original
supports only HID 1.0. Win98 SE supports HID 1.1 which adds
the ability to do interrupt OUT transfers.

PICkit 1/2 will not work under original Win98 but they will
work under Win98 SE since they need HID 1.1.

Please refer to the following URL for more details.
http://lvr.com/usbwin.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/bus/usb/USBFAQ_intro.mspx

Regards,
Xiaofan

-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-bouncesspamspam_OUTmit.edu
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 12:50 AM
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [PIC] When did MPLAB stop supporting Win98?

But back to the original subject, it sounds like the new MPLAB works on
98SE but not 98. What are the real differences between the versions?

Cheers,

Bob

2005\11\23@173644 by Barry Gershenfeld

face picon face
Notice nobody answered the question.  (Which was the last MPLAB version for
98?)  I love this list :-)

Here is a recap of the facts...I know I like to tell stories and the facts
get obscured:
 - Works fine on 98SE -- on my desktop.
 - Does not work on 98, on the laptop.
 - Laptop is a Dell Latitude D300  (300 as in MHz)
 - Memory is 32 or 64 M -- don't remember.
 - Hard drive is 6 GB
 - Already has Win98, RH 7.3, a tiny Slackware partition, a DOS partition
for booting an embedded linux system, and a few other data partitions.
 - Was happily running MPLAB 6.1 when it suffered an unfortunate GRUB
incident.
 - Now restored, Mr Van Winkle got a shiny new MPLAB 7.22 install -- acted
funny.
 - Attempt to install MPLAB 7.00 -- installer refused to attempt it.
 - One (count 'em, 1) USB port.
 - Microsoft won't sell you Win98SE.  They will happily sell you XP, for $100.
 - Reinstalling an OS is a lot easier to say than to do. Well, it's not
the OS, but the customizing.

Mr Van Winkle did very well in the interim, running from a Knoppix CD.  But
he couldn't talk to his beloved PICs.

Now, someone suggested that during my 7.22 trial run, the USB driver didn't
load.  I do recall, from earlier days, there seemed to be two USB drivers
present with the ICD2.  But I checked on my desktop system, and I see only
the "Firmware Client".  And that driver was present when I was running it
on the laptop.  I was able to compile, download to the device, and hit
"run"; but when I stopped, the source display did not move into the
code.  Single-step resulted in the "Target not in debug mode" message.

Someone suggested replacing the BIOS.  I remember when the BIOS was
supposed to be the hardware specific part of a computer's operating
software.  Now it's all done in the drivers.  I don't get the feeling there
are upgrades to a Dell laptop BIOS, though.

Dwayne Reid had a good set of suggestions.  Some I may try.  (How to kick
it up to 98SE).  But not Ontrack Drive Manager.  This is a boot sector
virus that does disk address translation--suitable for Windows-only
installations but unecessary in most cases or if the BIOS is newer than
about 1996.  And I think GRUB hides itself in the same "secret location" so
there would be a conflict anyway.   I keep partitions smaller than 2 GB;
the Windows partition is only for software that has to run on Windows.

I have been watching the trailing edge of technology overtaking the 98
line.  Microsoft discontinuing support, now programs that suport SE/ME but
not the original, drivers that are only available from the vendor's website
(not supplied with the device), and now we're getting programs that support
only 2000 and up.  Progress, I guess.  I have a new machine at home with an
XP partition that I use for installing what I call "grunt" software (you
can hear the hard drive grunt when you install it).

Never could figure out why it's impossible to write a storage class driver
for 98.  This is the one nice feature of the NT line (2000, XP)

OK, I'll take an Athlon 3600 with 2 GB of RAM, and the biggest HD you have;
after all, I've got PIC's to program!

Barry  (Soapbox? Me?)



2005\11\23@184823 by Bob Blick

face picon face
On 23 Nov 2005 at 14:36, Barry Gershenfeld wrote:

> Notice nobody answered the question.  (Which was the last MPLAB version for
> 98?)  I love this list :-)

Hi Barry,

Two things you could do that might make it work.

1. Install a newer version of Internet Explorer. Usually Microsoft
includes updates for the OS in IE so it might make your system new
enough.

2. Dell laptops do have bios updates, and in my case it made a huge
difference to my linux installation but had no visible effect on the
Windows side.

Cheerful regards,

Bob

2005\11\23@210844 by Dwayne Reid

flavicon
face
At 03:36 PM 11/23/2005, Barry Gershenfeld wrote:

>Someone suggested replacing the BIOS.  I remember when the BIOS was
>supposed to be the hardware specific part of a computer's operating
>software.  Now it's all done in the drivers.  I don't get the
>feeling there are upgrades to a Dell laptop BIOS, though.

There in fact might be a newer BIOS available from Dell's
website.  I've upgraded the BIOS on many Dell machines, even long
after one would have thought support for obsolete models had
ended.  Its certainly worth the few minutes it takes to register on
their support site.  You will have the best luck if you know or can
get the Service Code associated with that machine - its often visible
while in BIOS setup.

>But not Ontrack Drive Manager.  This is a boot sector virus that
>does disk address translation--suitable for Windows-only
>installations but unecessary in most cases or if the BIOS is newer
>than about 1996.  And I think GRUB hides itself in the same "secret
>location" so there would be a conflict anyway.   I keep partitions
>smaller than 2 GB; the Windows partition is only for software that
>has to run on Windows.

I've had very good luck with Ontrack DM but that's me.  In at least
two of the instances where I've used it, the computer simply refused
to acknowledge that the drive even existed at the BIOS level.

OTOH - I've also read horror stories about problems with it.  I just
haven't (yet) had any of those problems happen to me.  One of my
machines using DM is my older Dell Inspiron laptop - it simply
refused to allow me to use any drive larger than 32GB.  However, DM
allowed me to bump that machine up to a 40G drive, then to a 60G
drive a couple of years later.  I will admit, though, that Ontrack's
tech support had to help me by talking me (via email) through some
hidden functions that finally persuaded the BIOS to talk to the
drive.  I use that laptop every day.

dwayne

--
Dwayne Reid   <@spam@dwaynerKILLspamspamplanet.eon.net>
Trinity Electronics Systems Ltd    Edmonton, AB, CANADA
(780) 489-3199 voice          (780) 487-6397 fax

Celebrating 21 years of Engineering Innovation (1984 - 2005)
 .-.   .-.   .-.   .-.   .-.   .-.   .-.   .-.   .-.   .-
    `-'   `-'   `-'   `-'   `-'   `-'   `-'   `-'   `-'
Do NOT send unsolicited commercial email to this email address.
This message neither grants consent to receive unsolicited
commercial email nor is intended to solicit commercial email.

2005\11\24@022019 by michael brown

picon face

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Blick" <KILLspambblickKILLspamspamsonic.net>


> 2. Dell laptops do have bios updates, and in my case it made a huge
> difference to my linux installation but had no visible effect on the
> Windows side.

Hmm, that's interesting.  What kind of effect do you mean?  Linux only
uses the BIOS for information purposes when the kernel is booting.
Outside of that, the BIOS is pretty much ignored.  DOSEMU and WINE would
be exceptions.

2005\11\24@105002 by Bob Blick

face picon face
Well, let's see. X wouldn't use all 1024x768 of the display until I
updated the bios. Battery life went from 1:30 to 2:30. Lid events started
working. Stuff like that. I think the statement you made about bios was
true 7 years ago but not today, especially with shared memory architecture
and ACPI power management.

Cheerful regards,

Bob

>> 2. Dell laptops do have bios updates, and in my case it made a huge
>> difference to my linux installation but had no visible effect on the
>> Windows side.
>
> Hmm, that's interesting.  What kind of effect do you mean?  Linux only
> uses the BIOS for information purposes when the kernel is booting.
> Outside of that, the BIOS is pretty much ignored.  DOSEMU and WINE would
> be exceptions.


2005\11\24@212603 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
Technically, getting information about the display capabilities and
power management settings would be things that the kernel would get
from the BIOS, at start up.  Shared memory is handled by the kernel,
not BIOS, and ACPI stuff is only initialized by the BIOS, not
controlled by it.

Though, I think the thing from years ago being referred to is hard
drive geometry.  Remember having to enter values for heads, tracks,
and cylinders?  I just did that last week on my router machine,
actually.  Argh.  I wonder where I can find a BIOS update for my
unlabeled, probably generic, Socket5 motherboard? :)

--Danny, unhappy with this top-posting thing ;)

Bob wrote regarding 'Re: [PIC] When did MPLAB stop supporting Win98?' on Thu, Nov 24 at 09:55:
{Quote hidden}

> --

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2005 , 2006 only
- Today
- New search...