No product key

"win98 fan :)" wrote:

> excuse my ignorance...but I can't get on my desktop - can I do this from my laptop and use a generic product key???
>

news:BE3D8916-52E4-47EF...@microsoft.com...

And you are doing this on a microsoft newsgroup maintained by the same
people you're ripping off!!!!

Go out and buy a legit product as clearly you need help and it comes with
some.

news:37C81B88-E915-4556...@microsoft.com...

What's the error report and when do you get it? More info would
help. Has your disk been wiped clean?

Regards,

Bill Watt
Win98 Computer Help & Other Information http://home.ptd.net/~bwatt/

"pjp" <pjpoirier_is_located_at_@_hotmail_._com> wrote in message
news:OyrogXjN...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

Is yours a brand name PC, such as Dell? If so, the manufacturer will have
diagnostic software available for download, or it may already be installed
on your disk, and there will be a procedure for running diagnostics to
confirm that the machine is still operating properly. If it's old enough
to be running W98 it's probably old enough to be prone to hardware problems.

The other possibility is that you somehow started the machine with a W98
installation CD in the drive. In that case you have replaced your
installation of W98 with a different version, and it is likely that not all
of the correct drivers were installed. But as Bill says, we need more
details about the error, including the point in the startup process where it
occurs and the exact wording of the message, before it's possible to take a
guess at what's happening.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)

news:37C81B88-E915-4556...@microsoft.com...

Windows 98 can't / doesn't detect or know if it is using an "illegal"
product key.

Microsoft has no mechanism to communicate with win-98 systems and tell
them that specific keys are "illegal" (but it does this with Win-XP
systems all the time, probably Vista too).

If you want some keys, look here:

http://www.angelfire.com/weird2/hyakuhei/micro_oft_serialz.pdf
http://www.psico.univ.trieste.it/pub//win98_serials.html
http://lolekserwer.friko.pl/LOLEK/NS/SN.txt

Or use these:

F73HC-XYXR3-R34GV-B4F9M-XWTR8
P8M8D-X9F2M-37GPT-MKTMV-VVX8T
VTXBY-99K94-9C6CW-Q2FR4-8Q4VQ
BCM7H-BH7XW-JQC9R-Y3GDB-26B93
KXX9H-QVH8V-RP4VR-2XQ9X-VW2JH

The info you gave in your reply was incomplete. "invalid page fault - exe
0197:00401F31" is not what you saw. The message would name a particular .exe file
and would probably also name the module involved, such as "Explorer.exe caused an
invalid page fault in module kernel32.dll at 0197:00401F31" or something like that.
This is the info we need word for word as it appears in the error details, along
with exactly when the error occurs.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+

news:4888FD3B-9919-4E96...@microsoft.com...

Look guy, I didn't say anywhere I agreed with MS's policy. In fact, I detest
it. Just kinda stupid to expect help from an MS "sponsered" newsgroup.

To continue though ... MS demonstrates so clearly unbridled capitalism at
it's finist. In fact, I hate that social system so badly I'd tell Bill Gates
(and all the other corporate parasites feed off society) to get the hell off
my property and I'd not even phone 911 if he was bleeding to death out on
the road I detest the accepted morals and ethics of business in our society
that strongly. I'm not any sort of terrorist but I'd personally be very
happy to see the US (in particular) simply cease to exist as a nation.
Nothing but war mongering hypocrits intent on exploiting the rest of the
world to further their own greedy inhumane quest for money and power.
There's NOTHING for any US citizen to be proud of about their country from
my point of view.

Incidently, I've never bought any version of anything from MS. I have 7 pc's
right now running 98SE all off the same cd and it's legit because I have a
10 pc site license. I also have valid copy of ME, 2000 and both XP Home and
Pro. All of these are legit also, given to me or came via old pc's no longer
work. The only other OS I run on an 8th pc is a "no need to validate" copy
of XP Pro.

All I would like to see for MS to do something like it for the older OS
systems and not to sit on their product keys, to make a downloadable user
manual with tips and remarks. That they stopped the develop department is
understandable, it's too expensive to run a side line for that, but the
basic info that already brought the profit Billy needed, that's something
else. And if MS reads this, that's even better, they might decide to make a
special page for the older systems that aren't supported by the update page
anymore.

But it's logical to me that the OP in need of information about a product
turned to the producer of that product and expects them to help to continue
to use and enjoy their older stuff. And the only place where he can find it
now is the MS-newsgroup.

In my eyes Billy did nothing wrong, but he tried and failed to have the
computer OS monopoly, so now and even more after the great success of Vista
he needs some goodwill to keep his business going or Apple and Linux(+all
the variations of it) will steal his market. Still hoping that someone at
MS will actually read this. ;)

Thanks for your input

news:e6fXcWGO...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

Are you blind?

I've posted win-98 product keys in this thread.

And note -> Micro$oft doesn't sponsor or control this newsgroup.

http://www.colba.net/~hlebo49/errexplo.htm#ERREXPLORER.EXE

news:ECA301F5-0A79-47AF...@microsoft.com...

Microsoft created the microsoft.* hierarchy and made it available to the
Usenet. Microsoft may not control what is posted or replicated on other
servers in the Usenet but it does control what is posted or replicated
on *their* servers (msnews), for example, Microsoft removes spam and
inappropriate posts on their servers pretty well every day, if others
who run news servers "synchronize" to the Microsoft servers these posts
will also be removed on their servers, if others just add new posts then
their servers may contain posts which aren't on Microsoft servers, these
posts are usually mostly spam and porn related. Finally, the one who
started this thread, Marie, posted using the Windows 2000 CDO. That
tells me she posted to the discussion groups directly accessed at
Micorsoft.com and hosted on Microsoft servers. Microsoft *does*
"sponsors" the groups there (they pay for the servers and the
maintenance) and they *can* control what is posted there, they can
remove any posts they want on their servers and they can kick anyone
they want of their servers!

John

Probably they did. Lots of groups are or have been created by
individuals and organizations over the years.

It doesn't matter who created a given group or set of groups. If
they're propagated outside the organization that created it, then they
will have no control over what is posted, nor on what is removed.

Only usenet makes posts available to usenet. Microsoft plays no role
in making any MS group "available" to usenet. Microsoft's NNTP
servers play no special or unique role in the availability or
propagation of MS usenet groups.

The operator of any NNTP server can control or perform oversight and
removal of posts. The removal of posts on a local system almost NEVER
means that same post is also removed from other NNTP servers elsewhere
on the net.

And I see that my post on Wed. Dec 5 (where I posted links to various
MS product keys, and specifically posted 5 win-98se product keys) was
removed or is otherwise not being shown on the ms technet interface to
this group.

Must keep someone busy at MS to censor posts like that.

Anyone who wants to see the FULL, UNCENSORED version of this thread,
should look here:

http://tinyurl.com/27xre3

There are 19 posts. Only 11 are being shown on the MS server.

There is a post on Dec. 4 by Bill Watt that was removed (no idea
why). Several posts by win98_fan have also been removed.

Oddly, there is a Dec 5 post by the OP (Marie) that also doesn't show
up on the MS server, and it contains nothing that I'd consider as
censorship material, so it's not clear to me why it's not showing up
on the MS server. Maybe you can explain it.

Here is a link to the technet posts:

http://tinyurl.com/ynqp82

You'll have to expand the tree beside the "No product key" thread.

Doubt it.

Posts that make it to the MS server (but are removed later by a
censor) would have been propagated to other servers. The vast
majority of usenet operators do not honor external message cancels, so
even if MS sent one out (which is only speculation that they do) it is
highly unlikely to be honored by the operators of other servers.

"98 Guy" <9...@Guy.com> wrote in message news:47596345...@Guy.com...

98 Guy wrote:

They not "Probably did" they did, period!

What does that have to do with Microsoft? Do you think that you are
giving us a great revelation by telling us that lots of Usenet groups
have been created by others?

They will have control on what is posted directly to their servers and
to what is removed on their servers. If you want to post directly to
one of their servers and if they refuse to post it then it won't be on
the Usenet system at all! No one ever said that Microsoft controls
posts on other servers in the Usenet system.

Now you are showing more of your ignorance. Microsoft could have
decided to make their newsgroups private, they could have decided to not
make their groups available to the Usenet. Are you saying that if
Microsoft had decided to have private newsgroups that anyone could hack
their servers and make all the contents of their private groups
available on the Usenet? Do you really think that's how things work?
Microsoft (and a pile of other companies) also has private newsgroups
and these groups were not made available to the Usenet and they don't
show up on the Usenet.

It does if someone is trying to originate the post from the Microsoft
servers, if Microsoft decides to not post it at all then it won't be
there for other servers to replicate it.

Well gee, why are you trying to first deny that they can't remove posts
and then you turn around and say that "...The operator of any NNTP
server can control..."? What is your point, if you even have one?

This isn't a TechNet group.

Why should they have left that on *their* servers? What gives you the
right to participate in software piracy and to then insist that
Microsoft help you do it by having their servers at your disposition for
your piracy activities? Would you be so kind and gentle as to hold the
door open for crooks at your house while you were being robbed?

Exactly, as I first said, Microsoft can, and does remove some posts from
*their* servers. That is what I said in my first reply to you, nothing
more and nothing less. If you want to keep on arguing and posting
contradictions then do as you please, it's the Usenet. If your posts
don't make it to the Microsoft servers I for one won't be crying if I
don't see them.

That is not a link to TechNet groups. It appears plainly enough to me
that you don't know what TechNet is or that you are incorrectly using
the name to describe something else.

More silliness, I see that you don't know what "synchronization" means.

No one said otherwise, but the whole point is that if you are trying to
post directly to a msnews Microsoft server and if (for any reason
whatsoever) the post doesn't even make it to the groups to begin with
then it won't be on the Usenet anywhere. Of course if you post to a non
Microsoft server then the post will be on whatever server that wants to
have it, but that doesn't mean that Microsoft has to accept the post or
replicate it on their servers, and the fact that Microsoft *does*
control what is on their servers and that they can and do at times
remove posts has been clearly demonstrated in this thread. Which brings
us back to your initial statement and the one that I first commented on:

Microsoft created the group, Microsoft hosts the group on their servers
and Microsoft can remove anything it pleases on *their* servers. No one
ever said that they (Microsoft) control other servers owned by others in
the Usenet system. What others do with their servers is their business,
not Microsoft's, and vice-versa.

John

I posted links for you to use to start troubleshooting the error you are getting,
two days ago. You may not have seen the post, so I will give them to you again:

http://www.colba.net/~hlebo49/errexplo.htm#ERREXPLORER.EXE

--

If you found a key that works and now have a different problem, please
repost with the new problem, including any error messages.

Ben

The first one ends with cybermedia.com and gives: Error: Access is Denied.
[[[How come Glen? ]]]

And the second one gives this as a solution:
Windows 98
1. Restart Windows 98, press and hold CTRL, and then choose Command
Prompt Only from the Startup menu.
2. At the command prompt, type the following command, and then press
ENTER
ren <drive>:\<windows>\system\shdocvw.dll shdocvw.old
where <drive> is the drive letter on which the Windows folder is
located, and <windows> is the name of the folder in which Windows is
installed. For example:
ren c:\windows\system\shdocvw.dll shdocvw.old
NOTE: This procedure assumes you do not have a Shdocvw.old file
already located on your hard disk. If this file already exists, use a file
name extension that is not currently in use.
3. Extract the Shdocvw.dll file from the correct media source to the
Windows\System folder. For information about how to do so, see the following
article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:
129605 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/129605/EN-US/) How to Extract
Original Compressed Windows Files
NOTE: If you are unable to access your CD-ROM drive at a command
prompt, you need to load the real-mode CD-ROM driver and real-mode Microsoft
CD-ROM Extensions driver (Mscdex.exe), in your Config.sys and Autoexec.bat
files. For more information, please see the following article in the
Microsoft Knowledge Base:
135174 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/135174/EN-US/) Cannot Access
CD-ROM Drive from MS-DOS Mode or Command Prompt
4. Restart your computer.

news:877403BB-DAF1-45B8...@microsoft.com...

Marie:

Please note that because you are reading and posting these messages on
Microsoft's own server, you are not seeing all the posts because
someone here (most likey an MVP) is alerting microsoft to some posts,
and they are being removed.

So you are reading a censored version of this newsgroup.

If you follow this google-group link:

http://tinyurl.com/2ra347

you will be able to read the full, uncensored thread. There you will
see some posts that will give you the information you are asking for.
Look particularly at post #20.

cybermedia.com? What are you talking about?
This is the first link I gave:

It goes to the MS KB article described.

news:877403BB-DAF1-45B8...@microsoft.com...

Post #20 is identical in the two views.

"98 Guy" <9...@Guy.com> wrote in message news:475C637F...@Guy.com...
> snip <

Your post (above) makes it 32 posts (according to google groups).

The Microsoft web-interface to this newsgroup is showing 24 posts in
this same thread (no product key). There are 8 posts not showing up
on the MS server.

> Post #20 is identical in the two views.

Hmmm. I think I meant to say post #11 (Dec 5). That's Google-Groups
post #11. You won't find that post on the Microsoft server.

Compare these two views:

http://tinyurl.com/27xre3

http://tinyurl.com/ynqp82

And how would you explain that? Is MS using buggy software on the
web-interface machine?

Have you looked at the 8 missing posts to see if they have something
in common?

Since I haven't done that (access the MS server directly) I had no
idea that the posts are there. I didn't know that the MS server could
be accessed directly with an NNTP server.

Most likely the web interface is hosted by a different machine, and
either it's faulty, or there is censoring going on only on that
machine, and not the one that is accessible via NNTP.

For one thing, I wasn't aware that there are people (according to you
- MVP's) who advocate against using a web-interface to these groups.
Could you please point me to some of their posts where they advocate
against using (any) web-interface to usenet.

Second, even if those SAME people who advocate against using the
web-interface ARE the same people who are plaoying a role in post
removal, they wouldn't necessarily know that posts removed from the
web-interface machine aren't being removed from the NNTP-interface
machine.

Third, there may be MVP's who don't use the NNTP interface (and hence
aren't advocates for not using it vs direct NNTP access) and their
role in getting posts removed from the web-interface machine would
therefore be logical (in their eyes) AND they would see that their
efforts are working.

What all this means is this:

If the 8 posts in question are available on the MS NNTP server but not
the web-server, then either MS is running faulty software (and such a
differences are happening in other groups, making the web-interface
inherently unreliable), or there is censoring going on, but only on
the web interface.

If there is censoring, then presumably it is being done by the urging
of someone who only uses the web-interface. If it was being done
based on someone that uses the NNTP interface, then they would know by
now that their efforts at urging MS to remove posts are not working,
and hence presumably they wouldn't keep doing it.

I would guess that the number of people using the MS web-server vastly
outnumbers those reading the MS groups via direct NNTP. So the
realization that the NNTP server is more complete is not much of a
consolation.

Having lost the product key doesn't of itself make the copy illegal. [As for
illegal _versions_, they probably do exist, but ... (-:] (In this case, I
think Marie just genuinely didn't have it - no indication that she was
hacking.)

Hmm. There's already been plenty of heat on that one! Most, I suspect,
generated by people who were/weren't accessing via Microsoft servers, and
didn't know whether the person they were arguing was. (Then there seems to
be even further confusion over a web interface.)

Ah, that's the real reason I'm posting: I doubt if there's any useful help
available with a copy of '98. (Plus, what makes such a version "legit" - M.
no longer sell it themselves, so it'd have to be a truly transferable one to
be legit., and I think the legal situation there is hazy to say the least -
and probably differs between countries.)
[]
Anyway, hope Marie gets it sorted. It's a good OS when it's working!
--
J. P. Gilliver | Tel.: 01634 203298

Either I do or the worlds does, that's without doubt :)

So I like a rant occassionally. makes me feel like I done my part.

I'm coming in late.... if you have a computer that is already running
Win98 (or Win95), here is a good posting about how to get that
installation's
product key...

Newsgroups: alt.windows98
From: "Robert Duffy"
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 16:39:37 +1000
Local: Sun, May 11 2003 10:39 pm
Subject: Re: Product Key

Claude
Buy my book

news:%23MKqrZ3...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...