Hello

I've installed Litestep several days ago and I used the default (austerity) theme. Everything works fine, beside one thing.. Sometimes when I startup Litestep, only wallpaper is loaded and nothing beside it.. For couple of seconds cursor is in "loading" mode, but then it stops loading anything and I can do nothing more than just restart computer.. But what is strange - sometimes computer is loading several times in row without any problems, when next time I can't make the damn thing working..

Thanks for any help.

Ufff, I finally got it.

The problem was AVG Antyvirus.. Precisely, three .VXD files used by AVG that were loaded by Windows. So, just remove them from loading file or disable them directly from AVG and everything will work fine.

I suggest to make this thread as sticky if someone will have the same problem, cause AVG is a popular free antyvirus.

Um, does AVG actually work after you've disabled those vxds? 'Cause I wouldn't call crippling your AV program a good solution.

I used to use AVG with Litestep, and had zero problems with it.

Same here. But I've never used LS/AVG on Win9x though. Basically, running Windows 9x is asking for trouble.

Well, I removed AVG but today I'll install it again and then I'll be able to say if after removing those .vxd's files it still is working. Maybe after reinstalling AVG it won't be even neccesary to remove those .vxd, cause if you're saying

West: Actually in my opinion Windows XP is the biggest shit from all versions and Windows 98se is a lot better than it.. For 99% my problem has nothing to do with the OS..

Actually in my opinion Windows XP is the biggest *** from all versions and Windows 98se is a lot better than it.

If it works for you, fine. To each his own. My 9x days was a nightmare and after turning to 2K/XP I've never looked back. But saying 98SE is better than XP is... well, taking it a bit too far. In what way is it better? OK, it's cheaper. It will run on pretty old hardware. It doesn't have a ton of unnecessary cosmetic embellishments. But aside from that it's just a load of badly coded, bug-ridden crap.

For 99% my problem has nothing to do with the OS.

If the VXDs indeed are the problem, then it *has* something to do with OS since 2K/XP doesn't use VXDs, but 9x does. And quite frankly, if you're able to state something with that kind of certainty I don't see why you're here asking questions to begin with. You should be able to figure out that one measly percent yourself.

Today I have reinstalled AVG and tried to resolve the startup problem in other way than removeing .VXD's files. After few attempts I think I found solution - just uncheck "Scan Program Files" in Resident Shield. Well, so far everything works good.. So it wasn't problem with .VXD'S - previously I wanted just to remove the problem and that's why I removed all .VXD's.. It worked, but I agree - bad solution.

West: For the question "In what way is it better" you have actually answered.. Win98se is faster, without the whole cosmetic and useless crap and it has ms-dos.. Also the new explorer UI and start menu in XP is much worse and uncomfortable (I know, you can change it.. but they could make something better).. Another thing is startup speed - when I worked on XP on computer as fast as mine, it was working slower than 98se..

You say win98SE is badly coded - I have my Win98SE reinstalled several months ago and so far, I had no errors, hang ups and no problems overall (of course without this one with AVG..).. It's just the way how people use win98SE - if someone install a lot of **** programs and forget to uninstall them, have a lot of programs at startups, don't do spyware and virus check at least once a month than it isn't suprising they have problems with it..

In that case you're a lucky guy. I've heard others claim that 98SE is really good (wasn't there an article on that subject over on shell-shocked some year ago?) but there are precious few people of that opinion. In my experience 9x has more problems than good qualities. I've had it crash on me during installations and/or just after installations. I've had it crash unexpectedly during file operations, resulting in data loss. Come to think of it, I think I've had it crash on me in every imaginable scenario. I've had it suddenly lose settings, drivers and entire CD drives that worked fine at last boot-up. I've had it spontaneously set drives to compatibility mode and other strange things that only a reinstall will remedy. Its memory management (or lack thereof) forces you to reboot it all the time if you like running anything heavier than notepad. And believe me, my problems with 9x have never been related to viruses or malware and such. I've always been quite meticulous when it comes to stuff like that and I've actually never EVER had a virus.

Sure, XP is slightly slower but its performance can be tweaked a great deal. All the cosmetics can be turned off, unnecessary services and programs can be disabled. Networking and memory management can be tailor-suited to your hardware. Once you've beaten XP into submission it's not really that much of a difference. And even if it still *is* slower, I prefer stability over speed. I rather have a slow, stable machine than an ultra-fast machine that crashes twice an hour.

You go ahead and think it's just a matter of how people use 9x. I agree that not maintaining your OS and letting it become infested with viruses and spyware certainly won't do wonders for its performance, but i DO NOT agree to that making all the difference. The NT-based range of Windows is simply much more stable, well-constructed, advanced and secure than the 9x range. And that is not just an opinion, that's a simple fact.

So HOW is it possible, that I have NO problems with running 98se ? I'm running a lot of huge programs at the same moment, opening them and closeing a lot during the day and I don't need to make even one reboot during whole day..

The only thing I made was setting several things just after installing 98SE with popular software X-setup, clearing the autostart by msconfig and disabling several cosmetic things. I think this isn't big deal, 10 minutes and you have everything configured, so everyone can make this.. I'm also keeping my OS clean - makeing from time to time registry cleaning, uninstalling no longer used software, removing temp files and so on..

But men, I have NEVER heard about someone haveing so problems with 98SE as you had.. Believe me, it isn't problem with 98SE. Lost settings, data, drivers, CD drives.. I have never lost a single file beacouse of bad Win98SE behaviour. I can only agree about the data managment - I also had problem with it, but after changeing several settings everything how works perfect..

In all fairness to Win98SE, with all the updates and a little tweaking, it is fast and stable. But, with its hardware limitations, it's best left to older systems. To say "Windows XP is the biggest *** from all versions and Windows 98se is a lot better than it," though, is complete ignorance. I won't bore you with facts. The net is full of them.

Actually I have a 98SE machine for running some antiquated music software. And is that machine very unstable, you ask? I honestly don't know. I only use it occasionally, for shorter periods of time. I store nothing locally on it, all files are kept on my main [XP] machine. I just don't trust 9x and I never will again. It has caused me to lose irreplaceable material in the past and I will never allow that to happen again. If your machine works great -- good for you. But be warned, things can go bad when you least expect it. That's true for any OS of course, but running 9x the odds are really against you.

Sorry for all the off topic ranting. I've had nothing but problems with 9x and therefore I was a little upset when I saw someone praising it and [indirectly] recommending it.

You said you were little upset when I said 9x is better than XP.. I get upset when people are recommending XP, personally I don't know anyone who wouldn't have any problems with it.. People pay a BIG amount of cash, just to have OS than ran slower than much cheaper 9x, and beside comsetic-useless things, it bringst nothing new..

But well, let stop this offtopic ;P Everyone have different opinion on this subject - you had problems with 98se, and I had only problems with XP.. We won't change our thinking;]

Hehe exactly.It's fun debating it though but I suppose this is not the place :)

This is as good a place as any boys. Have at it.

XP has a lot of boosts over 98SE....

For one.. system restore (if you use it)

Not to mention: better memory management, crashes on 1 program wont force the whole system to reboot, ...the LACK of MS-Dos..., more hardware support - not to mention better hardware support. Networking was streamlined, and supports broadband much better than 98SE. XP has a lot of multi-media focused updates, including better use of DX9.X, and powerful support for high end graphics cards. Security management, integrated popup blocker (with SP2) and that all important built in support for USB and WiFi.

There's also that whole 3+ Gigs of memory thing, and 100GB HDDs.


On the flip side - 98SE has... uhh... Oregon Trail? :-D

Granted, when the change to XP came, a lot of software became obsolete, and cost lots and lots of money to upgrade everything. However, that's the price of progress. When longhorn comes out, a whole new slew of changes will occur, and I'm willing to bet that if you use your 98 Machine for work related projects, you will find yourself behind the times very rapidly.


That's just my 2 cents... (and probably just me taking the time to say what everyone else is thinking).


Amejin

Yes, I have to agree with Amejin here. There's just no conceivable way the benefits of Windows 98SE can outweigh those of Windows XP.

Aside from that XP is also a M$ product, which of course means that various aspects of it will inevitably suck, I don't really have many bad things to say about it. Windows 2000 was also solid and stable but it was a pretty terrible gaming OS -- maybe it's better nowadays after all the SPs, I don't know. But with XP gaming is good and I happen to like the cosmetic stuff that was added. Well, at least the visual style system, which in my experience is a lot faster and more stable than Window Blinds. The lack of real mode DOS is indeed a good thing, not a bad thing, and should you need to access your machine in real mode, well, a bootable floppy will do the trick. Remote Desktop can be useful sometimes -- before me and my girlfriend lived together I often used her machine to access mine at home via Remote Desktop -- even though I normally keep it disabled for security reasons.

System Restore, well, I don't use that. It simply doesn't work as advertised so I think it's just a waste of space and processing power. NTFS, hm, I'm sure that's a good file system in a multi-user environment, but on a single-user system like mine you really have no use for its features (and it's also nice being able to access your drives from a DOS boot disk, should you need to). I also dislike some overly "user-frienly" features of the OS, e.g. annoying hardware/driver wizards that refuses to do what you tell them to do. Contrary to what the Windows developers seem to think, stuff like that doesn't actually make it easier setting things up. Novice users normally don't mess around with hardware installations and driver upgrades, and more experienced users already know how to go about it.

Many people who complain about XP being slow and having too much useless stuff running aren't realising that this is an OS that ships in vast numbers, and to be able to handle all possible hardware configurations it might encounter it has to have certain services and programs enabled that most of us won't need. You can't just go setting XP up and expecting it to work great right away, like 9x. You have to tweak this and that, optimize the OS for your hardware. Then, only then, can you really have a valid opinion about its performance.

Anyway I don't really see myself using Windows for very much longer. I have no intention of moving to Vista, and XP will surely be phased out once it's released. I won't go through another Windows migration with software and drivers that won't work, hardware becoming "legacy", exploits and security holes -- I just won't. I've always been reluctant to move to Linux since there's so much good software I use that I wouldn't want to be without (LiteStep, for example) but somewhere deep inside I know that I'm destined to go down that path sooner or later. :)

West, I think most of us feel the exact same way about Linux.
I just hope someone manages to port LS over by then :]

hey, as soon as Linux has full support for games, I'm there, no questions asked. but until then, since I use my home pc primarily for gaming, I'm still a WinXP man.