install printer drivers

[mc]

I'm reinstalling my old win 95 (1st version) that came with my packard bell.
It is not installing my hp laser jet 5L correctly using the original disks
(3).It did not install an uninstall icon either. I tried to install abuilt
in driver like the hp 4L but it does not install either. Anyone remember any
tricks to get the hardware wizard to install a driver? How can I uninstall
the the driver I installed but did not work?
mc

 

[Jeff Richards]

In W98, you uninstall a printer by right-clicking the printer in the
printers 'folder' in My Computer and selecting Delete.

Only the supprting utilities that the vendor sometimes provides will have an
entry in Add/Remove Programs.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"mc" <wcwall.awm@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:uDkmWv0oIHA.5836@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> I'm reinstalling my old win 95 (1st version) that came with my packard
> bell. It is not installing my hp laser jet 5L correctly using the original
> disks (3).It did not install an uninstall icon either. I tried to install
> abuilt in driver like the hp 4L but it does not install either. Anyone
> remember any tricks to get the hardware wizard to install a driver? How
> can I uninstall the the driver I installed but did not work?
> mc
>

 

[philo]

"Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message
news:ucbmGH5oIHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> In W98, you uninstall a printer by right-clicking the printer in the
> printers 'folder' in My Computer and selecting Delete.
>
> Only the supprting utilities that the vendor sometimes provides will have
an
> entry in Add/Remove Programs.



And the proceedure for win95 would be the same



> Jeff Richards
> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
> "mc" <wcwall.awm@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:uDkmWv0oIHA.5836@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> > I'm reinstalling my old win 95 (1st version) that came with my packard
> > bell. It is not installing my hp laser jet 5L correctly using the
original
> > disks (3).It did not install an uninstall icon either. I tried to
install
> > abuilt in driver like the hp 4L but it does not install either. Anyone
> > remember any tricks to get the hardware wizard to install a driver? How
> > can I uninstall the the driver I installed but did not work?
> > mc
> >
>
>

 

[mc]

I'm wondering if that will also remove the status window it created that
sits on the staus bar??
mc
"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:%23kH3OSApIHA.672@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> "Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message
> news:ucbmGH5oIHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> In W98, you uninstall a printer by right-clicking the printer in the
>> printers 'folder' in My Computer and selecting Delete.
>>
>> Only the supprting utilities that the vendor sometimes provides will have
> an
>> entry in Add/Remove Programs.
>
>
>
> And the proceedure for win95 would be the same
>
>
>
>> Jeff Richards
>> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
>> "mc" <wcwall.awm@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:uDkmWv0oIHA.5836@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> > I'm reinstalling my old win 95 (1st version) that came with my packard
>> > bell. It is not installing my hp laser jet 5L correctly using the
> original
>> > disks (3).It did not install an uninstall icon either. I tried to
> install
>> > abuilt in driver like the hp 4L but it does not install either. Anyone
>> > remember any tricks to get the hardware wizard to install a driver? How
>> > can I uninstall the the driver I installed but did not work?
>> > mc
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Jeff Richards]

It would indeed )
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:%23kH3OSApIHA.672@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> snip <
>
> And the proceedure for win95 would be the same
>
>
>
>> Jeff Richards
>> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
>> "mc" <wcwall.awm@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:uDkmWv0oIHA.5836@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> > I'm reinstalling my old win 95 (1st version) that came with my packard
>> > bell. It is not installing my hp laser jet 5L correctly using the
> original
>> > disks (3).It did not install an uninstall icon either. I tried to
> install
>> > abuilt in driver like the hp 4L but it does not install either. Anyone
>> > remember any tricks to get the hardware wizard to install a driver? How
>> > can I uninstall the the driver I installed but did not work?
>> > mc
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

 

[mc]

well the right click approach will not let me delete the icon...I wonder if
there was a printer update for the first versions of win 95 A?
mc

 

[Jeff Richards]

What happened when you tried? Is the delete option missing or greyed out,
or is it there but doesn't seem to do anything?

Have you tried selecting the printer and then hitting DEL or choosing File /
Delete?
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"mc" <wcwall.awm@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:O%23rQXEapIHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> well the right click approach will not let me delete the icon...I wonder
> if there was a printer update for the first versions of win 95 A?
> mc
>

 

[mc]

It just does not respond...
mc
"Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message
news:uFWVa7epIHA.6096@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> What happened when you tried? Is the delete option missing or greyed out,
> or is it there but doesn't seem to do anything?
>
> Have you tried selecting the printer and then hitting DEL or choosing File
> / Delete?
> --
> Jeff Richards
> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
> "mc" <wcwall.awm@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:O%23rQXEapIHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> well the right click approach will not let me delete the icon...I wonder
>> if there was a printer update for the first versions of win 95 A?
>> mc
>>
>
>

 

[J. P. Gilliver]

thanatoid wrote:
[]
> Since the OP was talking about 95A (and because I get lazy), I
> did not bother getting into 98SE, let alone Lite.
>
> I have been a happy user of 98SE Lite for about 4 years, since I

Nice to meet another fan lite seems to be viewed somewhat suspiciously in
at least one of the '98 'groups.
[]
> drive on which I installed the aforementioned 98SE Lite. I left
> IE in because it is necessary to read chm files, but that

If those are HTML-style help files, then you don't need the full IE - just
it's "rendering engine" (which I think is a couple of .dll files). I can't
remember the details though, nor where I learnt this.

> machine is not even connected to the internet, so no IE
> "problems"
>
> My internet machine (this one) is a 10.5 year old 166 w/ 96MB
> RAM running highly tweaked 95B. It boots in less than 45 seconds
> and never crashes. Take that, Vista.

My internet machine is a 400MHz laptop w/128M running highly tweaked
98lite - it does most of what I want, fairly reliably - _rarely_ crashes.
The assorted spoilsports keep making things difficult for we '9x fans,
though (mainly by withdrawing support in new versions of things).
--
J. P. Gilliver | Tel. +44 1634 203298

 

[J. P. Gilliver]

95/98 ramblings (was: Re: install printer drivers)

thanatoid wrote:
> "J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in
> news:4876466c$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:
>
>> thanatoid wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>>> I have been a happy user of 98SE Lite for about 4 years,
>>> since I
>>
>> Nice to meet another fan lite seems to be viewed somewhat
>> suspiciously in at least one of the '98 'groups.
>
> The one full of venerable MVP's, I would imagine...

Hmm. I hadn't entirely made that connection ... (-:
[]
> going anywhere. I think having IE on an internet-connected
> machine is probably OK as long as you NEVER use it for anything
> BUT chm files
>
> (Of course, I have forgotten its tendencies to "take over all
> internet functions" etc. since the last time I used it for
> internet was probably about 10 years ago.)

Not just all _internet_ fns, AFAICR (I haven't had it on for years either).
[]
>> reliably - _rarely_ crashes. The assorted spoilsports keep
>> making things difficult for we '9x fans, though (mainly by
>> withdrawing support in new versions of things).
>
> Yes, it's very annoying. Like it would KILL them to keep
> providing small simple (AOT Vista or even XP) drivers. Sometimes
> you get lucky - I haven't installed any new hardware for ages,
> but I read recently someone used 2000 drivers for something and
> they worked on 98. I HAVE used software which claims not to run
> on 95 and it works. And the other way around, unfortunately.

Ditto (especially pen drives. And yes, I do know about the "universal" USB
driver - screwed up my machine right royally conversely, I've recently set
up a machine using soporific's "10th anniversary 1998 UBCD" which included
an XP-like [i. e. universal] USB driver, and so far that has worked with
anything I've tried on it).
>
> The ONLY disadvantage to Lite is that since it uses the 95 shell
> sometimes a program which "runs on 98" will /not/ run on 98 Lite
> because of some stupid hook into the shell driver. Sigh.

Sometimes it's only the install routine. Usually the installer gives you a
crash window saying which routine it couldn't find (often something like,
IIRR, "calloutaddress in explorer.exe"). I've had success with these by one
of 3 (on a 98 system that's been "lite"d) - 1: do a temporary shell swap
using 98lite, run the install, swap back 2: same thing manually (rename the
two files - which 98lite keeps there, just renames them from .dll and .exe
to .w98) (I think you have to boot in DOS to do this), run the installer,
rename them back 3: using a hex. editor, hack the installer file so that
where it says "explorer.exe" [near the call to the routine that doesn't
exist], change it to "explorer.w98, then install.

The _only_ thing I _notice_ that I miss by normally using the '95 shell is
that, when doing a copy or move of more than one file, the progress bar
starts again for each file, whereas in the '98 shell it does it for the lot.
(Though I don't know if, when it shows 50%, it's done half the data or just
half the number of files.) But for the greatly increased speed, and what
seems to be increased robustness, I'm willing to live with that little
thing!
>
> I have found over the years that there has been VERY little of
> anything /really/ new and worthwhile released (I am not a gamer
> who needs a graphics card with 512MB of memory, of course, nor

Ditto

> am I a myspace or UTube addict) and that programs written prior

Ditto

> to 2000 are the ones I use most and very happily. There ARE
> exceptions, but a good program should run on ANY 32bit platform.

Agreed. Or, ones that are written _as if_ running on the old OS and
hardware - usually this means keeping the size down IrfanView goes from
strength to strength, and I've recently been quite taken with the Roadkil
(yes, one L) utilities. Mind you, I still want to know how whoever wrote
"flamer.com" - a DOS prog. that just simulates a fire on screen, and has run
on everything I've ever run it on - managed to get it into 453 bytes!

> Also, I firmly believe that excepting MAJOR technological
> developments, if a program does not have all necessary features
> by ver. 4 or so, the authors are either greedy jerks withholding
> features on purpose or just stupid. Then there is the bloat

Hmm. An interesting hypothesis/proposition/whatever I see what you mean,
though the version numbers vary a bit depending on what prompted the author
to declare a major number change (I have some v6 and v7 things I've stopped
at).

> thing - which FEW are immune to. It's astouhnding how programs
> which ran just fine when they were 1.5 MB are now 25 MB or more.

And now crawl (even to open).
[]
> [The reason I got the virus in the email is that I turned off
> on-line scanning after having it on for a while and realizing
> that due to my "safe computing" habits it was just a waste of
> resources (my numerous fans may recall we are talking about a
> 166 with 64 (now 96) MB of RAM).]

The email/news/etc. software I use keeps attachments safe (it even limits
HTML rendering), so that no attachment is dangerous unless saved (and even
then not unless run, though you have to be careful with some that it isn't
obvious are executable - pictures [but IrfanView doesn't use the vulnerable
renderer], Word and other Office documents, etc.), so I don't think I've
ever had email scanning turned on. I think there are other softwares as safe
in this respect as Turnpike, too.
>
> Anyway, one virus or no virus, I think it /is/ reasonable to
> have an A-V program and run it /once in a while/. Now that F-

With you there. You need broadband these days though: both AVG and McAfee's
daily downloads are BIG (McAfee's usually about 30-50 Meg these days!).
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver | Tel. +44 1634 203298

 

[thanatoid]

Re: 95/98 ramblings

"J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in
news:48779622$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:

<SNIP

>>> Nice to meet another fan lite seems to be viewed
>>> somewhat suspiciously in at least one of the '98 'groups.
>>
>> The one full of venerable MVP's, I would imagine...
>
> Hmm. I hadn't entirely made that connection ... (-:

Yes, they get /rather/ miffed when anyone suggests you can run
Windows without IE installed Nothing like being brainwashed,
huh?

> []
>> going anywhere. I think having IE on an internet-connected
>> machine is probably OK as long as you NEVER use it for
>> anything BUT chm files
>>
>> (Of course, I have forgotten its tendencies to "take over
>> all internet functions" etc. since the last time I used it
>> for internet was probably about 10 years ago.)
>
> Not just all _internet_ fns, AFAICR (I haven't had it on
> for years either). []

Yes, regrettably, I tend to exaggerate. But I believe IE still
doesn't /really/ know what Usenet is. Or FTP. Or IRC. Now
/that's/ a jungle I have only ventured into once or twice -
/WHERE/ DO YOU START? I did once manage to DL an extremely rare
still of one of my favorite actresses that I have /never/ seen
anywhere else, but it's just not worth the time it would take to
learn to navigate through the insane maze of servers and
channels.

>>> reliably - _rarely_ crashes. The assorted spoilsports
>>> keep making things difficult for we '9x fans, though
>>> (mainly by withdrawing support in new versions of
>>> things).
>>
>> Yes, it's very annoying. Like it would KILL them to keep
>> providing small simple (AOT Vista or even XP) drivers.
>> Sometimes you get lucky - I haven't installed any new
>> hardware for ages, but I read recently someone used 2000
>> drivers for something and they worked on 98. I HAVE used
>> software which claims not to run on 95 and it works. And
>> the other way around, unfortunately.
>
> Ditto (especially pen drives. And yes, I do know about the
> "universal" USB driver - screwed up my machine right
> royally conversely, I've recently set up a machine using
> soporific's "10th anniversary 1998 UBCD" which included an
> XP-like [i. e. universal] USB driver, and so far that has
> worked with anything I've tried on it).

BION, I have NEVER tried USB with my 98SE machine (all my
current peripherals are parallel or P/S). I just assume it
works. But I'm glad you mentioned the soporific driver, I'll
look it up and DL it. JUst in case.

(Update:
I have searched, and it seems it (if that's in fact what it is)
is only available as part of a ~220MB DL. Would you mind
terribly posting it in some binaries group - just the "10th
anniv. USB" ? I would really appreciate it.)

A few years ago, during a period of highly increased masochistic
tendencies coupled with too much free time, I did install a twin
USB port PCI card in this 95B machine and DL'd all the stuff
that was supposed to make it work. Unfortunately, I was trying
it with a Wacom graphics tablet I had just semi-coincidentally
bought (no one would lend me a USB peripheral) and wasn't really
familiar with it the first place (so I was dealing with 2
unknowns at the same time - a certain recipe for disaster), and
I couldn't get anything to work. So I returned the tablet, which
I kind of regret now because it was a nice all-white one and
much cheaper than the recent models, and it would most probably
work great on my 98SE machine.

>> The ONLY disadvantage to Lite is that since it uses the 95
>> shell sometimes a program which "runs on 98" will /not/
>> run on 98 Lite because of some stupid hook into the shell
>> driver. Sigh.
>
> Sometimes it's only the install routine. Usually the
> installer gives you a crash window saying which routine it
> couldn't find (often something like, IIRR, "calloutaddress
> in explorer.exe"). I've had success with these by one of 3
> (on a 98 system that's been "lite"d) - 1: do a temporary
> shell swap using 98lite, run the install, swap back 2:
> same thing manually (rename the two files - which 98lite
> keeps there, just renames them from .dll and .exe to .w98)
> (I think you have to boot in DOS to do this), run the
> installer, rename them back 3: using a hex. editor, hack
> the installer file so that where it says "explorer.exe"
> [near the call to the routine that doesn't exist], change
> it to "explorer.w98, then install.

Thank you, that's an EXCELLENT suggestion, and not at all hard
to follow (well, I am not enough of a tech guy to alter the
install file, but 1 and 2 are no problem).

The first thing I always install whenever I set up a computer
(admittedly it's been /a/while/) is XTree for DOS, so I am not
afraid of doing things outside of Windows, like renaming, moving
hidden files etc.

> The _only_ thing I _notice_ that I miss by normally using
> the '95 shell is that, when doing a copy or move of more
> than one file, the progress bar starts again for each file,
> whereas in the '98 shell it does it for the lot. (Though I
> don't know if, when it shows 50%, it's done half the data
> or just half the number of files.) But for the greatly
> increased speed, and what seems to be increased robustness,
> I'm willing to live with that little thing!

I'm not sure what you mean because I don't use Windows Explorer.
I find the single pane interface maddening, and running two
instances side by side stupid. Not to mention its functionality
is limited, and I am being kind.

I have purchased and am a happy user of Total Commander 6.55. I
believe you get free updates for life but I didn't like the cute
XP style icons and some other unfortunate interface improvements
he put in the 7.02 version so I went back to 6.55. (I have the
interface very minimal, and all in shades of grey, like all of
Windows - courtesy DisplaySet, PC Magazine). I am STILL learning
something new about that program every week! It's AMAZING what
it can do.

<SNIP>

>> to 2000 are the ones I use most and very happily. There
>> ARE exceptions, but a good program should run on ANY 32bit
>> platform.
>
> Agreed. Or, ones that are written _as if_ running on the
> old OS and hardware - usually this means keeping the size
> down IrfanView goes from strength to strength, and I've
> recently been quite taken with the Roadkil (yes, one L)
> utilities. Mind you, I still want to know how whoever wrote
> "flamer.com" - a DOS prog. that just simulates a fire on
> screen, and has run on everything I've ever run it on -
> managed to get it into 453 bytes!

I like old programs for too many reasons to mention - I have
seen quite a few instances where it is simply unbelievable that
a program SO tiny can not just run so fast but do so much. Quite
a few of them I have found on the www.tinyapps.org site - if
you're N/F I /highly/ recommend it.

I guess the ultimate example of evil bloat and dysfunctionality
is Windows itself. I read somewhere Vista still has code from
the 80's in it - but that may have just been malicious slander.
After all, WHO could ever possibly check it? How many millions
of lines code IS that thing [shudder]?

>> Also, I firmly believe that excepting MAJOR technological
>> developments, if a program does not have all necessary
>> features by ver. 4 or so, the authors are either greedy
>> jerks withholding features on purpose or just stupid. Then
>> there is the bloat
>
> Hmm. An interesting hypothesis/proposition/whatever I see
> what you mean, though the version numbers vary a bit
> depending on what prompted the author to declare a major
> number change (I have some v6 and v7 things I've stopped
> at).

Of course I was being very general. But seeing, just as an
example, OmniPage version 12 or 15 is a little ridiculous.
Haven't they heard of going with decimals for minor changes?
Still, IMO it is preferable to using year numbers instead of
version numbers.

ACDSee is another insane bloat example - I still use ver. 2.22
because in the next major revision those lunatics decided to
make the browser and viewer SEPARATE programs which made for a
/really enjoyable/ blank screen flash and delay on this 166MHz.
Plus they committed the ULTIMATE crime - changing some keyboard
shortcuts. Like Adobe did with PageMaker when they bought out
Aldus. Grrrrr. I will NEVER forgive them for that!

Anyway, ACDSee 2.22 is an 824KB exe. I believe the current
version, 12 or something, is over 20 MB and I am almost willing
to bet it does nothing intrinsically useful AFA image
management. When I need a file manager, I use T.C. When I want
to play an mp3, I use STP, a 250KB program from tinyapps. Etc.
When I want to check a few images, I don't want to wait for a 25
MB app with ten 15-line long menus to load!

<SNIP>

> The email/news/etc. software I use keeps attachments safe
> (it even limits HTML rendering), so that no attachment is
> dangerous unless saved (and even then not unless run,
> though you have to be careful with some that it isn't
> obvious are executable - pictures [but IrfanView doesn't
> use the vulnerable renderer],

No, someone with (IMO) a rather wicked sense of humor wrote that
JPG exploit exclusively for the MS dll.

<SNIP>

> You need broadband these days though: both
> AVG and McAfee's daily downloads are BIG (McAfee's usually
> about 30-50 Meg these days!). []

Heh heh. 33.6 modem over here But I only update definitions
once every couple of months - I have an Acronis image in case of
some disaster.

(The NOD32 updates are only about 16MB or so, another plus.)

Regards,
t.

--
There is nothing bad which could not turn into something worse.
- S. I. Witkiewicz

 

[Tim Slattery]

Re: 95/98 ramblings

thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:

>Yes, regrettably, I tend to exaggerate. But I believe IE still
>doesn't /really/ know what Usenet is. Or FTP. Or IRC.

No, IE doesn't know what Usenet is, or what IRC is. IE includes
clients for HTTP, FTP and Gopher (Gopher was hot when IE first
launched, but the WWW eclipsed it in short order). OE was/is a Usenet
client (not necessarily the best one but....). AFAIK, MS never put out
an IRC client.

> Now
>/that's/ a jungle I have only ventured into once or twice -
>/WHERE/ DO YOU START? I did once manage to DL an extremely rare
>still of one of my favorite actresses that I have /never/ seen
>anywhere else, but it's just not worth the time it would take to
>learn to navigate through the insane maze of servers and
>channels.

I assume you're talking about IRC. I wholeheartedly agree. I dabbled
long ago, but I never really figured it out.

>> Ditto (especially pen drives. And yes, I do know about the
>> "universal" USB driver - screwed up my machine right
>> royally conversely, I've recently set up a machine using
>> soporific's "10th anniversary 1998 UBCD" which included an
>> XP-like [i. e. universal] USB driver, and so far that has
>> worked with anything I've tried on it).

Interesting. The only version of Win95 that had any USB support was
OEM SR2, and that was a first draft. They didn't really get it right
until Win98SE. I've heard of a universal driver for Win98SE, but I'm
amazed you can run such a thing in Win95.

--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(Shell/User)
Slattery_T@bls.gov
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt

 

[J. P. Gilliver]

Re: 95/98 ramblings

thanatoid wrote:
> "J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in
> news:48779622$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:
[]
> Yes, they get /rather/ miffed when anyone suggests you can run
> Windows without IE installed Nothing like being brainwashed,
> huh?

(-:
[]
>> Ditto (especially pen drives. And yes, I do know about the
>> "universal" USB driver - screwed up my machine right
>> royally conversely, I've recently set up a machine using
>> soporific's "10th anniversary 1998 UBCD" which included an
>> XP-like [i. e. universal] USB driver, and so far that has
>> worked with anything I've tried on it).
>
> BION, I have NEVER tried USB with my 98SE machine (all my
> current peripherals are parallel or P/S). I just assume it
> works. But I'm glad you mentioned the soporific driver, I'll
> look it up and DL it. JUst in case.

(I don't know BION.) Well, 98SE seems to handle USB as such moderately
well - though most things need extra drivers, which they come with (or,
these days, you have to download, and they might not exist). I think things
like hubs, keyboards, and mice, it manages OK, but anything like a pen
drive, card reader, printer, scanner, or ADSL Modem/hub, you need a driver.
With the excepion of pen drives, I've not found anything I've not managed to
get working, though.
>
> (Update:
> I have searched, and it seems it (if that's in fact what it is)
> is only available as part of a ~220MB DL. Would you mind
> terribly posting it in some binaries group - just the "10th
> anniv. USB" ? I would really appreciate it.)

Ah, misunderstanding there. What soporific has created is a "tenth
anniversary" version of Windows 98 - see
http://sharethefiles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=104845&start=0 for details.
(This is available in two forms - a few hundred megabyte one that can be
downloaded but only includes freeware, and a 701 megabyte .iso image you'll
have to get into the dark worlds of file sharing to get.) It _includes_ a
universal driver (not sure in which edition) it's also available as part of
his autopatcher, which is a sort of collection of lots of updates, from
Microsoft and elsewhere, with a sort of wrapper front end: I think that's
what you found.

There _is_ (at least one) universal driver - a link on
http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=291927 (some way down) is
the first mention of anything like I find, but
http://www.technical-assistance.co.uk/kb/usbmsd98.php looks more like the
one I've tried before I don't know if it's the one soporific incorporates
or not. I did try this on one of my 98lite systems, and it screwed up my USB
usage - but that _may_ be because I didn't necessarily follow the
instructions properly (such as removing any existing USB drivers first).
Lots of people seem happy with it it (the latter one that is) I'm pretty
certain appeared to _install_ OK under '98lite, so may work on your '95.
[]
>>> The ONLY disadvantage to Lite is that since it uses the 95
>>> shell sometimes a program which "runs on 98" will /not/
>>> run on 98 Lite because of some stupid hook into the shell
>>> driver. Sigh.
>>
>> Sometimes it's only the install routine. Usually the
>> installer gives you a crash window saying which routine it
>> couldn't find (often something like, IIRR, "calloutaddress
>> in explorer.exe"). I've had success with these by one of 3
>> (on a 98 system that's been "lite"d) - 1: do a temporary
>> shell swap using 98lite, run the install, swap back 2:
>> same thing manually (rename the two files - which 98lite
>> keeps there, just renames them from .dll and .exe to .w98)
>> (I think you have to boot in DOS to do this), run the
>> installer, rename them back 3: using a hex. editor, hack
>> the installer file so that where it says "explorer.exe"
>> [near the call to the routine that doesn't exist], change
>> it to "explorer.w98, then install.
>
> Thank you, that's an EXCELLENT suggestion, and not at all hard
> to follow (well, I am not enough of a tech guy to alter the
> install file, but 1 and 2 are no problem).

It's not hard: I used the edit functions in XTree! the filename -
explorer.exe, shell32.dll or whatever - occurs in plain text somewhere in
the installer, so it's fairly simple to change .exe or .dll or whatever to
..w98. However, method 1 is probably as easy!
>
> The first thing I always install whenever I set up a computer
> (admittedly it's been /a/while/) is XTree for DOS, so I am not
> afraid of doing things outside of Windows, like renaming, moving
> hidden files etc.

Likewise! Pity about the lack of long filenames. I've never invested enough
time to really play with Ztree - have you? (Incidentally, another thing I
don't like about XP: right-clicking on a filename in explorer in '9x, and
looking at properties, will show you what the DOS name - such as
progra~1.xyz - is this seems to have disappeared from XP. [Maybe only if
under NTFS, I don't know.])
[]
> I'm not sure what you mean because I don't use Windows Explorer.
> I find the single pane interface maddening, and running two
> instances side by side stupid. Not to mention its functionality
> is limited, and I am being kind.

It does for me. I have downloaded a free two-pane variant, but haven't got
round to playing with it much.
[]
> I like old programs for too many reasons to mention - I have
> seen quite a few instances where it is simply unbelievable that
> a program SO tiny can not just run so fast but do so much. Quite
> a few of them I have found on the www.tinyapps.org site - if
> you're N/F I /highly/ recommend it.

Did I mention http://www.roadkil.net/downloads.php? Some small ones there
....
[]
> Of course I was being very general. But seeing, just as an
> example, OmniPage version 12 or 15 is a little ridiculous.
> Haven't they heard of going with decimals for minor changes?
> Still, IMO it is preferable to using year numbers instead of
> version numbers.

Each has its advantages - if you take your eye off one for a little while,
at least you know roughly how old it is, whereas you don't with version 12.
[]
> Anyway, ACDSee 2.22 is an 824KB exe. I believe the current
> version, 12 or something, is over 20 MB and I am almost willing
> to bet it does nothing intrinsically useful AFA image

I can't remember what ACDSee does - if images, I use IrfanView. (The core is
still about the size of a floppy, though the plugins - which you _can_ get
by without - push it up somewhat if you want to handle every aspect of every
image format under the sun).

> management. When I need a file manager, I use T.C. When I want
> to play an mp3, I use STP, a 250KB program from tinyapps. Etc.

WinAmp or IrfanView ...

> When I want to check a few images, I don't want to wait for a 25
> MB app with ten 15-line long menus to load!

Yes, that's what I like about IrfanView - that plus the easy keyboard
navigation.
[]
>> You need broadband these days though: both
>> AVG and McAfee's daily downloads are BIG (McAfee's usually
>> about 30-50 Meg these days!). []
>
> Heh heh. 33.6 modem over here But I only update definitions
> once every couple of months - I have an Acronis image in case of
> some disaster.

It's how you actually _use_ the image if you have to that worries me.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver | Tel. +44 1634 203298

 

[thanatoid]

Re: 95/98 ramblings

"J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in
news:487e3595$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:

>> BION, I have NEVER tried USB with my 98SE machine (all my
>> current peripherals are parallel or P/S). I just assume it
>> works. But I'm glad you mentioned the soporific driver,
>> I'll look it up and DL it. JUst in case.
>
> (I don't know BION.)

Do you mean you don't know that it stands for 'believe it or
not' or that it's not rare for people to have never used USB?
Gotta be the latter!

<SNIP>

> Ah, misunderstanding there.

<SNIP>

> There _is_ (at least one) universal driver - a link on
> http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=291927
> (some way down) is the first mention of anything like I
> find, but
> http://www.technical-assistance.co.uk/kb/usbmsd98.php looks
> more like the one I've tried before (...) it (the
> latter one that is) I'm pretty certain appeared to
> _install_ OK under '98lite, so may work on your '95.

Nah, I still don't have a single USB device nor do I intend to
ever try USB with 95 again, but just in case 98 ever gives me
trouble...
Thanks for the additional links, I'll visit.

[update]
I did, and even though it was only last night, I already forgot
WHERE I actually got it, but I ended up with the "Maximus Decim
Native USB ver.3.3" which I believe covers most of the bases.
Anyway, I still don't have a single USB device, so...

<SNIP>

> Likewise! Pity about the lack of long filenames. I've never
> invested enough time to really play with Ztree - have you?

Well, I don't know about 'really' - but I did use it for a
while. It is very impressive. But it has SO many very advanced
features added to it that I couldn't deal with it. And once I
found it, I decided I prefer Total Commander, ultimately. I
think the functionality is about the same (at the /very least/)
and the ease of use much higher in T.C.

> (Incidentally, another thing I don't like about XP:
> right-clicking on a filename in explorer in '9x, and
> looking at properties, will show you what the DOS name -
> such as progra~1.xyz - is this seems to have disappeared
> from XP. [Maybe only if under NTFS, I don't know.])

I know nothing about XP and VERY sincerely hope to keep it this
way. I just read a link from another group about how there is
really no more XP support (I never cared about 95 or 98 support,
but with XP you actually appear to HAVE to communicate with MS
to even get it running - or running AGAIN - so it's a different
- and smelly - kettle of fish).

One of the comments on that link page said his daughter just
installed Ubuntu, it does everything XP does and no more MS
nightmares.

(BTW, Total Commander has an option to show you the 8.3 names
right in the 2 panes along with the long names.)

>> I'm not sure what you mean because I don't use Windows
>> Explorer. I find the single pane interface maddening, and
>> running two instances side by side stupid. Not to mention
>> its functionality is limited, and I am being kind.
>
> It does for me. I have downloaded a free two-pane variant,
> but haven't got round to playing with it much.

Didn't know there was one. Forgive me for being prejudiced, but
I'm sure it sucks.

>> I like old programs for too many reasons to mention - I
>> have seen quite a few instances where it is simply
>> unbelievable that a program SO tiny can not just run so
>> fast but do so much. Quite a few of them I have found on
>> the www.tinyapps.org site - if you're N/F I /highly/
>> recommend it.
>
> Did I mention http://www.roadkil.net/downloads.php? Some
> small ones there ...

You did mention it but I didn't know what you meant... Will
visit.

(Just did... It seems to be one of the - regrettably - few sites
by a good programmer who believes in freeware... I love that!
Have you tried the data recovery utils? There are almost no free
ones! If his programs are as good as the site
design/functionality, it's a winner! Although the advantage of
tinyapps is that it has a HUGE variety of programs from
everywhere, not just one person's work.)

>> Of course I was being very general. But seeing, just as
>> an example, OmniPage version 12 or 15 is a little
>> ridiculous. Haven't they heard of going with decimals for
>> minor changes? Still, IMO it is preferable to using year
>> numbers instead of version numbers.
>
> Each has its advantages - if you take your eye off one for
> a little while, at least you know roughly how old it is,
> whereas you don't with version 12. []

Well, you DO have a point there

>> Anyway, ACDSee 2.22 is an 824KB exe. I believe the current
>> version, 12 or something, is over 20 MB and I am almost
>> willing to bet it does nothing intrinsically useful AFA
>> image
>
> I can't remember what ACDSee does - if images, I use
> IrfanView. (The core is still about the size of a floppy,
> though the plugins - which you _can_ get by without - push
> it up somewhat if you want to handle every aspect of every
> image format under the sun).

I have great respect and admiration for IrfanView and the
author's attitude, but when I tried it (admittedly a long time
ago) I found the interface clumsy and ugly, and was already
/very/ used to ACDSee which I'd been using since the early 90's.

I'd try it again, but like I said, I prefer a program to do ONE
thing well than 5 things well (usually it ends up one well, 4
very badly), plus I actually paid for ACDSee so it would be a
little "unpleasant" to switch. I wonder if the interface looks
any better now. (I know that's not the most important thing, but
I am a bit of an aesthete, and for instance, simply could NOT
look at the default icons of ThumbsPlus - otherwise MOST useful
software - so used a program to make my own icons for it. WHAT
an improvement!)

<SNIP>

> It's how you actually _use_ the image if you have to that
> worries me.

Not sure what you mean. By a funny coincidence, the article I
mention above about no XP support actually mentions no support
from Acronis as well. My story is kind of amusing - I have NEVER
heard of disk-imaging programs, but about 5 or so years ago I
bought a copy of PC Answers (a GREAT - then, anyway) British
magazine and it had a full free working version of Acronis T.I.
Deluxe on the CD. (I got a completely free version of AABBY OCR
the same way - incredible!)

It has NEVER failed me - it is simply wonderful. OTOH, I have
read quite a few people complain of problems with later
versions.

Small is beautiful.

WHY can't people just leave well enough alone???

Regards,
t.


--
[from a recent conversation]
thanatoid: So why did you decide you needed broadband?
Neighbor: I wanted to read my e-mail faster.

 

[J. P. Gilliver]

Re: 95/98 ramblings

thanatoid wrote:
> "J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in
> news:487e3595$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:
>
>>> BION, I have NEVER tried USB with my 98SE machine (all my
>>> current peripherals are parallel or P/S). I just assume it
>>> works. But I'm glad you mentioned the soporific driver,
>>> I'll look it up and DL it. JUst in case.
>>
>> (I don't know BION.)
>
> Do you mean you don't know that it stands for 'believe it or
> not' or that it's not rare for people to have never used USB?
> Gotta be the latter!

No, I hadn't come across BION before (-:.
[]
> Thanks for the additional links, I'll visit.
>
> [update]
> I did, and even though it was only last night, I already forgot
> WHERE I actually got it, but I ended up with the "Maximus Decim
> Native USB ver.3.3" which I believe covers most of the bases.
> Anyway, I still don't have a single USB device, so...

Good luck with it when you do. I find pen drives (or whatever you wish to
call them) somewhat useful, these days.
[]
>> invested enough time to really play with Ztree - have you?
>
> Well, I don't know about 'really' - but I did use it for a
> while. It is very impressive. But it has SO many very advanced
> features added to it that I couldn't deal with it. And once I
> found it, I decided I prefer Total Commander, ultimately. I
> think the functionality is about the same (at the /very least/)
> and the ease of use much higher in T.C.

I like my keyboard shortcuts. (So I still use Xtree quite a bit.)
[]
> I know nothing about XP and VERY sincerely hope to keep it this

Ah, know thine enemy (-:! I have to use it here at work, and for everyday
tasks, it's fine: there are even some of the things I like.

> way. I just read a link from another group about how there is
> really no more XP support (I never cared about 95 or 98 support,
> but with XP you actually appear to HAVE to communicate with MS
> to even get it running - or running AGAIN - so it's a different
> - and smelly - kettle of fish).

Only once, and that can be by MoDem. (Or not at all if you're a big
corporate or institutional installer, though if you're that you probably
will communicate with them regularly anyway.)
>
> One of the comments on that link page said his daughter just
> installed Ubuntu, it does everything XP does and no more MS
> nightmares.

Ah, well, if you open the door a crack enough to let in the Windows/*x wars,
you'll never hear the end of them ...
[]
>>> Explorer. I find the single pane interface maddening, and
>>> running two instances side by side stupid. Not to mention
>>> its functionality is limited, and I am being kind.
>>
>> It does for me. I have downloaded a free two-pane variant,
>> but haven't got round to playing with it much.
>
> Didn't know there was one. Forgive me for being prejudiced, but
> I'm sure it sucks.

What exactly do you mean by single pane - do you mean (you want to be
capable of) seeing two lists of files as once (like F8 in Xtree)? If so,
that's one of the things the freebie included. I think it might have been
http://www.zabkat.com/x2lite.htm (581 kB [he says the setup is 2,834]). I
think I'll have another play with it.
>
>>> I like old programs for too many reasons to mention - I
>>> have seen quite a few instances where it is simply
>>> unbelievable that a program SO tiny can not just run so
>>> fast but do so much. Quite a few of them I have found on
>>> the www.tinyapps.org site - if you're N/F I /highly/
>>> recommend it.
>>
>> Did I mention http://www.roadkil.net/downloads.php? Some
>> small ones there ...
>
> You did mention it but I didn't know what you meant... Will
> visit.
>
> (Just did... It seems to be one of the - regrettably - few sites
> by a good programmer who believes in freeware... I love that!
> Have you tried the data recovery utils? There are almost no free
> ones! If his programs are as good as the site
> design/functionality, it's a winner! Although the advantage of

Yes, now that you mention it, the UI _is_ good, too. I've downloaded quite a
few of them (note that some appear under several of the categories). A
colleague has even been trying his uninterruptable copier for genuine work.
(I found his Sudoku very difficult - but then I've never really understood
how setters "rate" a sudoku puzzle, anyway.)

> tinyapps is that it has a HUGE variety of programs from
> everywhere, not just one person's work.)

I've had a look round there. Excellent site (though not very well
maintained - quite a few of the links went to things that clearly aren't
what they were. But that's life).
[]
>>> Anyway, ACDSee 2.22 is an 824KB exe. I believe the current
>>> version, 12 or something, is over 20 MB and I am almost
>>> willing to bet it does nothing intrinsically useful AFA
>>> image
>>
>> I can't remember what ACDSee does - if images, I use
>> IrfanView. (The core is still about the size of a floppy,
>> though the plugins - which you _can_ get by without - push
>> it up somewhat if you want to handle every aspect of every
>> image format under the sun).
>
> I have great respect and admiration for IrfanView and the
> author's attitude, but when I tried it (admittedly a long time
> ago) I found the interface clumsy and ugly, and was already
> /very/ used to ACDSee which I'd been using since the early 90's.

Still going - new version out today, with lots of things fixed/added that I
hadn't realised I wanted it to do, and (the main prog.) still under a
floppy's worth. A few iterations ago, it added the ability to use toolbars
of your own design, and there are a few available now. I _like_ the
interface - although it's virtually all GUIable too, there's a lot that can
be done from the keybaord.
>
> I'd try it again, but like I said, I prefer a program to do ONE
> thing well than 5 things well (usually it ends up one well, 4
> very badly), plus I actually paid for ACDSee so it would be a

I don't think there's a lot that IV actually does do that it doesn't do well
(well, I wouldn't use it much for sound and video, but those aren't what
it's for!). I've actually paid for it as I like it so much.
[]
>> It's how you actually _use_ the image if you have to that
>> worries me.
>
> Not sure what you mean. By a funny coincidence, the article I

I had to think for a while, since we'd been talking about Image prog.s such
as IrfanView, before I remembered we were talking about disc images. What I
mean is: however wonderful your disc imaging software is: how do you restore
from the image, if for some reason your OS won't boot? The imaging prog.
must have some way of starting a basically dead machine in order to do the
restore - I'd say ideally something that can start from a floppy (or at a
pinch these days CD or bootable USB stick).
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver | Tel. +44 1634 203298

 

[thanatoid]

Re: 95/98 ramblings

"J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in
news:48861a63$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:

> I find pen drives (or
> whatever you wish to call them) somewhat useful, these
> days. []

Oh, they are wonderful (although useless to me personally) and
the prices are getting INSANE. I saw an 8GB (!) online for about
$25 after a rebate, or something! 3 or 4 years ago I bought a
256MB (perhaps 512MB, I can't remember) for a Xmas gift for a
friend and paid well over $50!

>>> invested enough time to really play with Ztree - have
>>> you?

<SNIP>

> I like my keyboard shortcuts. (So I still use Xtree quite a
> bit.)

Total Commander has an ASTONISHING mile-long custom shortcut key
assignment menu. The main reason people don't like it is that
most people can not readjust their brain to the double pane
view. But if you are an Xtree fan, you should love it. Explorer-
like tree view is also possible, or course (accidentally found
THAT option a few weeks ago... I hit the wrong F key along with
the Ctl key... I find new stuff ALL the time).

www.ghisler.com

(Don't be put off by the godawful screenshot. The interface is
quite configurable.)

I try to use the mouse (I actually have a Logitech Marble
Trackman) as little as possible, but it is unfortunately
unavoidable. (What I really hate is programs that allow for
virtually NO kbd shortcuts.)

Still, nothing is funnier/sadder than a person trying to select
3 words to delete from their text with a mouse, letter by space
by letter... I do it with 2-4 keyboard hits (one optional mouse
click) and they almost faint

>> I know nothing about XP and VERY sincerely hope to keep it
>> this
>
> Ah, know thine enemy (-:! I have to use it here at work,
> and for everyday tasks, it's fine: there are even some of
> the things I like.

Well, purely coincidentally, in the last week or so, I have
actually started thinking of putting it on my 2GHz machine...
(If any other posters who know me read this they WILL have to
have ammonia salts brought to them.)

First I thought of making it a multiboot but it is simply
impractical to backup all the crap on it - as I would have to
do, being the kind of person who follows warnings, and
especially when they are about to mess about with the MBR), but
then I thought, I have 16 partitions, the ONLY stuff on C is the
OS and programs (a few DOS programs aren't even on C), and I
have an Acronis Image of the latest config, so why not just wipe
C and install XP on IT? (see later for more on Acronis).

So I am thinking about it. I am concerned some of the programs I
USE which date from over 10 years ago may not run on XP and I am
not clear on whether there is any DOS/3.1 programs support with
XP - I vaguely recall reading somewhere there was a 10MB (or
something huge anyway) "DOS emulator" in it - I don't know if
it's true or not in it but I just saw it as another reason to
stay clear of it. We'll see.

Another concern is NTFS. The remaining 15 partitions will
obviously remain FAT32, and I am not sure whether the version I
am thinking of installing (a "modified" one, shall we say, MS
isn't selling it anymore and that was THEIR decision) allows for
a choice of NTFS or FAT32. I once read an MVP (!) refer to NTFS
as a "fiasco" so I would prefer to install XP with FAT32 - the
partition it is going on IS formatted in FAT32 so perhaps it
will simply "play along".

The bigger concern is (I lack the deeper knowledge of these
things) is whether the stuff on the other partitions in FAT32
will interact properly with XP /should it/ install with NTFS. I
would /think/ the actual file structure system is irrelevant to
what the end-user and the OS "see" and work with, but I don't
know for sure. In any case, should everything go to hell, I have
my trusty Acronis CD-R.

I am not really sure why I am even thinking of it - there are NO
XP-only programs I want to run, but I am just SO SICK of having
watched almost the same screen for 12+ years (I have a wallpaper
changer and LOTS of various wallpapers most of which I made
myself but most of the icons are the ones I had 10 years ago or
almost equivalent), that I hope having a new interface and an
assortment of new annoyances (there are BOUND to be SOME if not
/many/ - although it almost seems that when MS stops "improving"
and "supporting" an OS, THEN is the time to start using it
may give my mind something new to think about as well as inspire
me to try some of the programs I have had for years and never
"got around to". I just have to do a major cleanup-prune-archive
job of all the things I will never look at again anyway (well -
at least I am aware that it is nothing but my pedantry that is
forcing me to perform unnecessary time-consuming actions - like
saving emails from 10 years ago).

<SNIP>

> Ah, well, if you open the door a crack enough to let in the
> Windows/*x wars, you'll never hear the end of them ...

So I have noticed

<SNIP>

> What exactly do you mean by single pane - do you mean (you
> want to be capable of) seeing two lists of files as once
> (like F8 in Xtree)?

Exactly. And Total Commander and about half of the other
"alternatives" to Windows Explorer have that as the basic
feature. As you know, among hundreds (thousands?) of other
things, the 2 panes allow you to use one key to copy or move
file(s) - once you select them of course... I have only used my
advanced file rename utility ONCE, I think, since I got Total
Commander - it includes an EXCELLENT multiple file renamer.

<SNIP>

> (I found his Sudoku very difficult - but then I've never
> really understood how setters "rate" a sudoku puzzle,
> anyway.)

I once spent about 15 seconds trying to comprehend the principle
behind Sudoku and what pleasure can be gained from engaging in
it, but my patience for such things is extremely low. Still, to
me it's just another sign that humans may be descended from
aliens and that if so, the Japanese are the closest relatives...

>> tinyapps is that it has a HUGE variety of programs from
>> everywhere, not just one person's work.)
>
> I've had a look round there. Excellent site (though not
> very well maintained - quite a few of the links went to
> things that clearly aren't what they were. But that's
> life).

Feel free to write to the site owner if you feel it's worth your
time.
(I wrote to him once about a program he has on there that I had
a horrible problem with and he actually answered me!)

I haven't DL'd anything from there in quite a while, but I am
almost sure it is the only place on the web to get STP - a tiny
mp3 player (written by some young Russian guy before he got
drafted and basically disappeared) which is just fantastic. I
learned about quite a few other nice apps there as well.
Understandably, especially when this 166 was my only computer, I
was really into small apps. I still am. For instance, I use the
program from www.goldenhawk.com (under 1.5 MB DL) for CD
burning. IMO it is better and faster than all the well-known
ones - there are a few even smaller ones but they either burn
too many coasters, or have about 3 options instead of 6 or 7
complete and /very/ comprehensive modules, or just don't do
anything - I've tried quite a few after deciding the people who
wrote Nero were just sadists.

<SNIP>

> What I mean is: however
> wonderful your disc imaging software is: how do you restore
> from the image, if for some reason your OS won't boot? The
> imaging prog. must have some way of starting a basically
> dead machine in order to do the restore - I'd say ideally
> something that can start from a floppy (or at a pinch these
> days CD or bootable USB stick).

I don't understand HOW it does it, since it even does it on my
11.5 yr old 95B machine, but all you do is put the Acronis CD in
the drive and reboot the machine. It's simply miraculous. The
fact it was free (on-line reg. was all that was req'd) STILL
blows my mind. I would not at all be surprised if the new
versions offered a USB stick boot option.


--
[from a recent conversation]
thanatoid: So why did you decide you needed broadband?
Neighbor: I wanted to read my e-mail faster.

 

[J. P. Gilliver]

Re: 95/98 ramblings

thanatoid wrote:
> "J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in
> news:48861a63$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:
>
>> I find pen drives (or
>> whatever you wish to call them) somewhat useful, these
>> days. []
>
> Oh, they are wonderful (although useless to me personally) and
> the prices are getting INSANE. I saw an 8GB (!) online for about
> $25 after a rebate, or something! 3 or 4 years ago I bought a
> 256MB (perhaps 512MB, I can't remember) for a Xmas gift for a
> friend and paid well over $50!

Yes - I recently wanted to get something so that a non-computer-savvy friend
could back things up in case of emergency (she's an accountant, so not dim -
just not computerate), and a pen drive seemed the easiest way (her accounts
package offers to back up wherever you say, whenever you quit it - and I've
checked that the restore onto a new PC is easy too) my local supermarket
was selling them. I think they go up to 32G these days ...
[]
> Total Commander has an ASTONISHING mile-long custom shortcut key
> assignment menu. The main reason people don't like it is that
> most people can not readjust their brain to the double pane

I thought (as you say below) that was - initially - the point!
[]
> www.ghisler.com
>
> (Don't be put off by the godawful screenshot. The interface is

If you mean http://www.ghisler.com/picture.htm, then the one for xplorer2
(http://www.zabkat.com/index.htm), at http://www.zabkat.com/tour1.htm, is
probably worse.

> quite configurable.)
>
> I try to use the mouse (I actually have a Logitech Marble
> Trackman) as little as possible, but it is unfortunately
> unavoidable. (What I really hate is programs that allow for
> virtually NO kbd shortcuts.)

Indeed. As well as personal preference (and productivity - I think most
things _can_ be done faster from the keyboard, _though not all_ [some things
_are_ quicker with the mouse]), I have another interest: computing for the
blind. For them, keyboard shortcuts are virtually essential: OK, a good
"screenreader" (the name for the interface software of course, it does a
lot more than just read the screen these days) can make _most_ things usable
to some extent (other than image manipulation which they won't be using
anyway), but things are a lot easier to use if the designer has put them in.
>
> Still, nothing is funnier/sadder than a person trying to select
> 3 words to delete from their text with a mouse, letter by space
> by letter... I do it with 2-4 keyboard hits (one optional mouse
> click) and they almost faint

Or watching them fill in a form - type, mouse, type, mouse - rather than
using the tab key. (Mind you, in a few cases the order the tab key taked you
round the boxes is, at the least, invigorating - the more obscure corners of
IrfanView's configuration screens are a good example I presume it's how
whichever software it is has developed). And closing down: Win, u, e (with a
few Alt-space, X [and enter to save if necessary] if anything needs closing
first). In XP, incidentally, it's Win, U, U to close - in many cases (can
depend on configuration).
[XP]
> Well, purely coincidentally, in the last week or so, I have
> actually started thinking of putting it on my 2GHz machine...
[]
> So I am thinking about it. I am concerned some of the programs I
> USE which date from over 10 years ago may not run on XP and I am
> not clear on whether there is any DOS/3.1 programs support with
> XP - I vaguely recall reading somewhere there was a 10MB (or
> something huge anyway) "DOS emulator" in it - I don't know if
> it's true or not in it but I just saw it as another reason to
> stay clear of it. We'll see.

I _think_ I don't have anything that works in the DOS box in '9x that
doesn't in XP there might have been the odd one where the built-in XP
function was sufficiently acceptable (or, heresy to say, better) than my old
utility so I either didn't worry that it didn't work or didn't try, but not
many.
>
> Another concern is NTFS. The remaining 15 partitions will
> obviously remain FAT32, and I am not sure whether the version I
> am thinking of installing (a "modified" one, shall we say, MS
> isn't selling it anymore and that was THEIR decision) allows for
> a choice of NTFS or FAT32. I once read an MVP (!) refer to NTFS
> as a "fiasco" so I would prefer to install XP with FAT32 - the

I agree with your "(!)" most MVPs definitely toe the party line on that!

> partition it is going on IS formatted in FAT32 so perhaps it
> will simply "play along".

From what I remember (I have installed XP a few times, but not enough to say
I'm familiar with the process), if it finds an already-existant FAT
partition, it will offer to convert it to NTFS, but not oblige you to do so.
This may depend on which version of XP you try, and/or what choices (e. g.
default or custom) you choose, I don't know, though. (I nearly always choose
custom on any install that offers it, on the basis that the defaults under
custom are usually the same as the default, so any setting I don't
understand I leave anyway.)
>
> The bigger concern is (I lack the deeper knowledge of these
> things) is whether the stuff on the other partitions in FAT32
> will interact properly with XP /should it/ install with NTFS. I
> would /think/ the actual file structure system is irrelevant to
> what the end-user and the OS "see" and work with, but I don't

I'm pretty sure XP will see and use any FS regardless of what the one it's
installed on is. (This even, I think, applies to an HD you put into an
external box and connect to the USB port [or use a USB-to-IDE cable - I'v
used this, though so far only with a FAT one].) It still reads/writes
floppies (though there's something about 720k ones - can't remember if it's
no altogether, or just it can't write or maybe format them).

> know for sure. In any case, should everything go to hell, I have
> my trusty Acronis CD-R.
>
> I am not really sure why I am even thinking of it - there are NO
> XP-only programs I want to run, but I am just SO SICK of having

Unfortunately, it is getting increasingly hard to get new hardware to run
under '9x - a lot of it just won't, and even that which does, I have the
feeling that I'm having to spend more time fighting it than I used to. (That
_could_ just be compared to XP, where I'm afraid to say a lot of it just
_works_, often without having to install _anything_. I recenty bought a
microscope, for example.)

> watched almost the same screen for 12+ years (I have a wallpaper
> changer and LOTS of various wallpapers most of which I made

Panorama? (Works under XP by the way.)

> myself but most of the icons are the ones I had 10 years ago or
> almost equivalent), that I hope having a new interface and an

Well, the initial default interface (complete with what in UK is often
referred to as the "Teletubbies" wallpaper, from its resemblance to a
children's TV series) will sicken you: with each new iteration, it seems to
me they make for more pastel colours, and bigger icons - with the result
that though you may have a higher-resolution display, you still can only get
the same number of icons on it. Fortunately, you can switch both the start
menu and taskbar, and the appearance of windows in general, to a "classic"
view (e. g. with square corners). (Mind you, some of the normal things -
like altering the colours of various parts of a window - are now hidden
behind an "Advanced" button! What that says about what they think of their
target audience ...)

> assortment of new annoyances (there are BOUND to be SOME if not
> /many/ - although it almost seems that when MS stops "improving"

To be fair, after the initial familiarisation (and the feeling of loss of
control, due in large part to NTFS which I won't use if I go XP), not a lot.
A lot of it does just work.

> and "supporting" an OS, THEN is the time to start using it

Are you me (-:?!?
[]
> <SNIP>

(Sorry, that's what my "[]" mean.)
[]
> advanced file rename utility ONCE, I think, since I got Total
> Commander - it includes an EXCELLENT multiple file renamer.

As does IrfanView (including the ability to rename files based on their EXIF
data, so the first thing I usually do when taking .jpg files from my
camera's card is rename them from pic001 or whatever to 2008-08-12 9-51-18
or whatever).
[]
> I once spent about 15 seconds trying to comprehend the principle
> behind Sudoku and what pleasure can be gained from engaging in
> it, but my patience for such things is extremely low. Still, to

There _is_ a satisfaction in doing it, especially when you get moderately
familiar with some of the ways. Still, I'd say it's pretty unproductive -
slightly more so than doing cryptic crosswords, which at least teaches you
(very occasionally) new words/facts.

> me it's just another sign that humans may be descended from
> aliens and that if so, the Japanese are the closest relatives...

Naughty!
>
>>> tinyapps is that it has a HUGE variety of programs from
[]
> Feel free to write to the site owner if you feel it's worth your
> time.
> (I wrote to him once about a program he has on there that I had
> a horrible problem with and he actually answered me!)

I really should, since he's gone to all the trouble of creating the site. It
wasn't any of his own, I think - some of his links to other sites no longer
are.
[]
> program from www.goldenhawk.com (under 1.5 MB DL) for CD
> burning. IMO it is better and faster than all the well-known
> ones - there are a few even smaller ones but they either burn
> too many coasters, or have about 3 options instead of 6 or 7
> complete and /very/ comprehensive modules, or just don't do
> anything - I've tried quite a few after deciding the people who
> wrote Nero were just sadists.

Ah, I've got burn4free, and another even smaller one burn4free (if I've
remembered it's name right) seems to work very well, and also doesn't need
new drivers to match new drives (including DVD ones), unlike "Easy" CD
Creator, which is Adaptec/Roxio's competitor to Nero. I will admit I tend to
_use_ ECDC, simply because I got it with a drive and have got used to its
UI.
[]
> I don't understand HOW it does it, since it even does it on my
> 11.5 yr old 95B machine, but all you do is put the Acronis CD in
> the drive and reboot the machine. It's simply miraculous. The

Does imply a BIOS that can boot from CD.

> fact it was free (on-line reg. was all that was req'd) STILL

Hmm. Sadly, doesn't seem to be any more, at a quick glance, unless I've
missed the part of the web page (I could understand if it's just hidden -
any pointers?) the excellent http://www.oldversion.com/ (you do know it, I
take it? not oldversionS) doesn't seem to know it. (I've tried a couple of
others too - http://www.oldapps.com/.) Do you know the Last Freeware version
site, as well (http://www.321download.com/)? That links, but only to the
paid version. (Googling for acronis and free finds lots of links, mostly
mentioning V7 I'll have to look into them.)

> blows my mind. I would not at all be surprised if the new
> versions offered a USB stick boot option.

Nor would I.

Do you know ERD/ERU (on the W95 CD under misc\other, or other\misc, or
something like that - but not copied over by default, for reasons I've never
been sure of it's tiny)? Though not a full backup by any means, it backs up
about a dozen files by default (including the two that form the registry)
[you can choose which, and also change its list with a bit of tweaking,
though I haven't], into a directory of your choice, along with a
DOS-runnable executable that restores it? It has got me (and others) out of
a hole many times. It works under '98 fine (though I'm not sure it's on the
'98 CD). And, someone's written a version - called ERUNT, google for it -
that works under XP (and, as you'd guess, NT I think now Vista too). I'll
certainly be installing that (not that it needs "installing") if I go XP.
--
J. P. Gilliver | Tel. +44 1634 203298

 

[thanatoid]

Re: 95/98 ramblings

"J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in
news:48a14ffa$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:

> thanatoid wrote:

<SNIP>

>> Total Commander has an ASTONISHING mile-long custom
>> shortcut key assignment menu. The main reason people don't
>> like it is that most people can not readjust their brain
>> to the double pane
>
> I thought (as you say below) that was - initially - the
> point! []

If you mean the pane, well, for /me/ it is, I can not function
with one pane, but it seems many people are so "accustomed" to
what comes with Windows (I don't know how long it's been since
File Manager was dropped, but even though it was included in W95
and maybe even W98 or 2000, hardly anyone used it) that maybe
the two pane thing is just too difficult for some. After all, "I
have one computer, [usually] one partition [another subject,
sigh...] so WHY would there be /two/ panes?"

Or did you mean something else?

>> (Don't be put off by the godawful screenshot. The
>> interface is
>
> If you mean http://www.ghisler.com/picture.htm, then the
> one for xplorer2 (http://www.zabkat.com/index.htm), at
> http://www.zabkat.com/tour1.htm, is probably worse.

It is only worse in that the unbelievable screen clutter it
shows would instantly eliminate it as anything I would even want
to try. Albeit I find the red pointers to what is what helpful.
(I admit I have not read any of the text - the clutter may be
from cramming ALL the functions into one screen to prove what it
can do - nor have I enlarged the image - if it's possible.)

The current Ghisler screen shot is OK, but it suffers from the
same clutter - although it IS about 1/10 of the clutter in
zabkat. I guess Ghisler wants to show most options visible,
whereas even if you've never used a 2-paner before, shortcuts
become automatic very quickly. Also, he is even showing the FTP
connection (IMHO one of the very few unnecessary extras the
program has - there are SO many free FTP programs), and a bunch
of other things which just clutter it up. Not to mention the
godawful XP style box.

(The good thing is he has just released 7.04a as a successor to
7.02a - which I had installed and went back to 6.55 because he
gave it too much of an XP look: just the mere icons for the
drives were bugging me. The latest version seems to compromise
between the old simple rectangular drive icon and the new
horror, IOW /may/ be very slightly rounded but they are smaller
and the color is less offensive. Also, there actually ARE 2 or 3
new features that are worthwhile. [Of course, I still have not
learned of all the original features. Astounding program.])

FWIW, all I have on /my/ TC screen are the drive boxes (which I
should probably take out since I have them all shortcutted
anyway, along with the most important directories) and one line
above each pane which tells me the used/free space on that
partition. I /do/ have the status bar on at the bottom - it is
quite essential to everyday operations (shows # of files or dirs
selected, their sizes, etc.)

This is /not/ the picture I was referring to, in any case.
Several years ago he had a different screenshot on the main
page, which was about the size of zabkat's screenshot, and also
showed most options enabled, but also had an absolutely /horrid/
color scheme.

After playing with colors for quite a few years when I was a wee
lad (said desktop color schemes often eliciting exclamations of
astonishment from co-workers, who did not even know it was
possible to change the colors, or that File Manager existed in
95, for that matter) , I have now gone to an all-grey scheme.
Much nicer.

I used PC Magazine's "DisplaySet" to achieve this, since it is
/considerably/ more comprehensive than the built-in Windows
color schemer, to put it mildly.

>> I try to use the mouse (I actually have a Logitech Marble
>> Trackman) as little as possible, but it is unfortunately
>> unavoidable. (What I really hate is programs that allow
>> for virtually NO kbd shortcuts.)
>
> Indeed. As well as personal preference (and productivity -
> I think most things _can_ be done faster from the keyboard,
> _though not all_ [some things _are_ quicker with the
> mouse]

Definitely true, but not many. But of course there are things
that can ONLY be done with a mouse no matter how much you'd like
to use the keyboard (although there ARE utilities to replace the
mouse with the arrow keys, they are an even bigger drag (DRAG!
HAAAAR!) than the mouse itself. And tablets are nice for image
retouching etc. I have a really old one.

> I have another interest: computing for the blind.

Hearing that kind of thing makes me feel I am a totally useless
space-wasting creature. But let's not get into personal problems
and lifestyles...

I would assume you have heard of Ray Kurzweil, a true genius,
responsible for a fantastic music synthesizer (since bought by
Kawaii - I believe - as Kurzweil moved on to other interests)
who also made the first ever book-reading machine for the blind.
I have no idea how much it cost, but I know that Stevie Wonder
had one. That was in the late 70's IIRC.

<SNIP>

>> Still, nothing is funnier/sadder than a person trying to
>> select 3 words to delete from their text with a mouse,
>> letter by space by letter... I do it with 2-4 keyboard
>> hits (one optional mouse click) and they almost faint
>
> Or watching them fill in a form - type, mouse, type, mouse
> - rather than using the tab key.

I still remember the astonishment and bewilderment as my co-
workers saw me use the alt-tab combination... "I did not know
whether to laugh or to cry..."

<SNIP>

>> So I am thinking about it. I am concerned some of the
>> programs I USE which date from over 10 years ago may not
>> run on XP and I am not clear on whether there is any
>> DOS/3.1 programs support with XP - I vaguely recall
>> reading somewhere there was a 10MB (or something huge
>> anyway) "DOS emulator" in it - I don't know if it's true
>> or not in it but I just saw it as another reason to stay
>> clear of it. We'll see.
>
> I _think_ I don't have anything that works in the DOS box
> in '9x that doesn't in XP there might have been the odd
> one where the built-in XP function was sufficiently
> acceptable (or, heresy to say, better) than my old utility
> so I either didn't worry that it didn't work or didn't try,
> but not many.

I asked and was told in another group - they were VERY helpful -
that XP allows you to install it ALONG with another Win OS,
usually 98 or ME. /And/ it appears XP does /not/ have to be on
C:, where the previous OS obviously resides. And it /appears/
the two can coexist. Once I clean out my other machine's drive,
I may find out. I am still not sure whether it is just temporary
insanity or what.

<SNIP>

> From what I remember (I have installed XP a few times, but
> not enough to say I'm familiar with the process), if it
> finds an already-existant FAT partition, it will offer to
> convert it to NTFS, but not oblige you to do so. This may
> depend on which version of XP you try, and/or what choices
> (e. g. default or custom) you choose, I don't know, though.
> (I nearly always choose custom on any install that offers
> it, on the basis that the defaults under custom are usually
> the same as the default, so any setting I don't understand
> I leave anyway.)

Same here. And thanks for the add'l info about XP.

<SNIP>

You mean a microscope whose image is shown on the screen, and it
works with XP out of the box? Surely you MUST have installed
SOME drivers!

(Just read your recent post in the 98 group. Didn't you say it
worked perfectly well in the post I'm replying to? BTW, booting
in "safe mode" and adding drivers 1 by 1 is a nightmare. Just my
opinion. Hope you figure out another way.)

> Unfortunately, it is getting increasingly hard to get new
hardware to run under '9x - a lot of it just won't, and even
that which does, I have the feeling that I'm having to spend
more time fighting it than I used to.

Well, so far I have been forced to just junk them. But there has
really been VERY little really innovative written since the
90's, IMO. The old programs are smaller, run faster, have no
bloat, and their authors should be suing the people who are re-
writing them with new names and 30 MB of eye candy and
/occasionally/ some (mostly useless) add'l "features".

Of course, I am just a home user. I'm sure it's a different
story with scientists etc.

>> watched almost the same screen for 12+ years (I have a
>> wallpaper changer and LOTS of various wallpapers most of
>> which I made
>
> Panorama? (Works under XP by the way.)

Huh? I just use Micrografx Picture Publisher (I don't do pre-
press for $250 coffee-table books so I don't need Photoshop, and
MPP had multiple undo and other great features YEARS before
Photoshop did).

>> myself but most of the icons are the ones I had 10 years
>> ago or almost equivalent), that I hope having a new
>> interface and an
>
> Well, the initial default interface (complete with what in
> UK is often referred to as the "Teletubbies" wallpaper,
> from its resemblance to a children's TV series) will sicken
> you:

It already did when I saw shots of it on web pages. Ugh.

I never made the Teletubs connection, but you are /so/ correct.
I saw a few moments of a TT episode once, and it /really/
creeped me out. I don't know WHAT the future generations will be
like, and I don't WANT to know.

> with each new iteration, it seems to me they make for
> more pastel colours, and bigger icons - with the result
> that though you may have a higher-resolution display, you
> still can only get the same number of icons on it.
> Fortunately, you can switch both the start menu and
> taskbar, and the appearance of windows in general, to a
> "classic" view (e. g. with square corners). (Mind you, some
> of the normal things - like altering the colours of various
> parts of a window - are now hidden behind an "Advanced"
> button! What that says about what they think of their
> target audience ...)

Well, you MUST have heard this famous quote:
"Let's face it, the average computer user has the brain of a
Spider Monkey." - Bill Gates, about his customers.

>> assortment of new annoyances (there are BOUND to be SOME
>> if not /many/ - although it almost seems that when MS
>> stops "improving"
>
> To be fair, after the initial familiarisation (and the
> feeling of loss of control, due in large part to NTFS which
> I won't use if I go XP), not a lot. A lot of it does just
> work.

So I hear, and so as long as I can make it not look like a 5
year old's (Spider Monkey's?) playroom and /hopefully/ use
Display Set to further customize it (who knows, maybe the
functions ARE in XP already - hidden, as you say), it may not be
so bad. My biggest concern was that some of my main programs
would not run on XP - but if I can keep 98SE, there is obviously
no problem.

>> and "supporting" an OS, THEN is the time to start using it
>>
>
> Are you me (-:?!?

Heh heh.

> []
>> <SNIP>
>
> (Sorry, that's what my "[]" mean.)

I took me a few minutes but I figured it out. I MUST admit it is
a LOT faster than typing <SNIP>.

(Just added it to my Short Keys list. WHY didn't I do that years
ago?????)

<SNIP>
<SNIP>
<SNIP>
ahhh...

>> advanced file rename utility ONCE, I think, since I got
>> Total Commander - it includes an EXCELLENT multiple file
>> renamer.
>
> As does IrfanView (including the ability to rename files
> based on their EXIF data, so the first thing I usually do
> when taking .jpg files from my camera's card is rename them
> from pic001 or whatever to 2008-08-12 9-51-18 or whatever).

I doubt I will ever own a digital camera. I did a lot of 35mm
photography when I was in my late teens and 20's, but the last
time I took any photos and enjoyed doing it was about 20 years
ago. I have two 35mm cameras (a $10 Vivitar and a used East-
German Practica SLR with a Japanese 'Takumar' lens which is not
bad at all), but I can not even remember when I last used either
one.

>> I once spent about 15 seconds trying to comprehend the
>> principle behind Sudoku and what pleasure can be gained
>> from engaging in it, but my patience for such things is
>> extremely low. Still, to
>
> There _is_ a satisfaction in doing it, especially when you
> get moderately familiar with some of the ways. Still, I'd
> say it's pretty unproductive - slightly more so than doing
> cryptic crosswords, which at least teaches you (very
> occasionally) new words/facts.

I hate crosswords. I can't even do the National Enquirer ones! I
tried the NYT (or Harper's, or something) crossword once and I
decided my IQ tests results (which have been consistent over the
years and fairly respectable) must be a hallucination.

(Out of curiosity, tried to do one from the Chicago Tribune
yesterday. What a nightmare. It's official - I have become a
moron.)

>> me it's just another sign that humans may be descended
>> from aliens and that if so, the Japanese are the closest
>> relatives...
>
> Naughty!

Oh no, I like aliens, but you MUST admit the Japanese culture,
aside from regaling the civilization with the Trinitron and
geishas, has also contributed things like sumo wrestling and
Transformers. On sushi I can go either way depending on the
slime factor

<SNIP>

>> I don't understand HOW it does it, since it even does it
>> on my 11.5 yr old 95B machine, but all you do is put the
>> Acronis CD in the drive and reboot the machine. It's
>> simply miraculous. The
>
> Does imply a BIOS that can boot from CD.

I think all BIOS's from 95-96 or so onwards can boot from "any"
source, but there's more to it than that. I have my current
image on the HD as well as on CD-R's with all the older ones and
if you reboot from Acronis it will restore the image from the HD
as well - never even entering into DOS - I /assume/ it passes
through the BIOS.

> Hmm. Sadly, doesn't seem to be any more, at a quick glance,
> unless I've missed the part of the web page (I could
> understand if it's just hidden - any pointers?) the
> excellent http://www.oldversion.com/ (you do know it, I
> take it?

Yes, it's come in handy a few times.

> (I've tried a couple of others too - http://www.oldapps.com/

That one was only introduced to me a few months ago and I was
quite disappointed. I find places like Garbo etc. infinitely
richer in nice old stuff.

> Do
> you know the Last Freeware version site, as well
> (http://www.321download.com/)?

Yes. I have links to a bunch of software collection sites (there
are way too many!) but what REALLY annoys me is that they always
have the latest version ONLY, and quite often when it's an older
program, often the DL link is to the author's web site, which in
many cases no longer exists. INFURIATING. But then again, WHO
could keep up?

Here's a nice one if you're not familiar with it:
http://freeware.intrastar.net

> That links, but only to the
> paid version. (Googling for acronis and free finds lots of
> links, mostly mentioning V7 I'll have to look into them.)

I am pretty sure all versions work with 95 (except maybe the
latest) and I am also pretty sure ver 6 and 7 were still
relatively unbloated.

> And, someone's written a version - called
> ERUNT, google for it - that works under XP (and, as you'd
> guess, NT I think now Vista too). I'll certainly be
> installing that (not that it needs "installing") if I go
> XP.

I have looked at ERUNT and it was a little confusing, and I
think unnecessary...

What I like about Acronis is that ALL the programs I had to have
to make sure I could salvage my machine when it "went boom" have
gone into retirement.

Anyway, I looked for drive imaging freeware that would run on
any system and here's one I found that looks fairly good. (There
were several free ones but they only run on 2000 and up, VERY
annoying.)

http://www.miray.de/products/sat.hdclone.html

There is also an apparently /fantastic/ freeware image burner
called imgburn. It is not a "disc imager" but I think it could
work as one. I believe it will create bootable discs as many
other CD/DVD burners will do - and with the most enthusiastic
reviews I have /ever/ seen ("THE best freeware program I've ever
used" etc.) this one sounds like it actually works (I tried
about 10 various CD burner programs - most didn't work or were
VERY buggy - and ended up buying the one from
www.goldenhawk.com - it is excellent, but it is $40).

I checked the Acronis site and it is as bloated now as the
latest versions. I was going to offer to post the zip of my
version along with the serial in some binaries group for you,
but there are a few "problems" associated with doing this. I
wrote to Acronis to see if they'll give me another license
number "for a friend" so we'll see what they say.


--
[from a recent conversation]
thanatoid: So why did you decide you needed broadband?
Neighbor: I wanted to read my e-mail faster.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Re: 95/98 ramblings

(I think I chose a good name for this thread - I suspect it will run and
run, even if mostly with the two of us!)

In message <Xns9AFDC7C32F77thanexit@66.250.146.158>, thanatoid
<waiting@the.exit.invalid> writes
[]
>File Manager was dropped, but even though it was included in W95
>and maybe even W98 or 2000, hardly anyone used it) that maybe

I _think_ it was still stuck with 8.3 filenames. (Which reminds me: at
least the file load/save window in 3.x was a bit more intuitive. The
file load and save windows, in '9x and beyond, present "where you are"
in a way that's _so_ different from how Explorer does [and how I
visualise things], that I have considerable trouble with at least two
friends who are new to computing [well, several years now actually], in
explaining how to navigate these windows, whereas he's just about
understanding Explorer.)

>the two pane thing is just too difficult for some. After all, "I
>have one computer, [usually] one partition [another subject,
>sigh...] so WHY would there be /two/ panes?"

I use several partitions, too (I assume that's what you are signing
about) ...
[]
>It is only worse in that the unbelievable screen clutter it
>shows would instantly eliminate it as anything I would even want
>to try. Albeit I find the red pointers to what is what helpful.

Agreed on that last point.
[much about TC]
>This is /not/ the picture I was referring to, in any case.
>Several years ago he had a different screenshot on the main
>page, which was about the size of zabkat's screenshot, and also
>showed most options enabled, but also had an absolutely /horrid/
>color scheme.

I fear I soldier on with Explorer (sometimes two instances). I'm sure
both TC and explorer2 or whatever zabkat's one is called (and which I
already have) are much better it's just a matter of the time needed to
learn any new prog., versus the time that will be saved by using it
after I've done so. (And, you and I may - almost certainly do - do
different things.)
>
>After playing with colors for quite a few years when I was a wee
>lad (said desktop color schemes often eliciting exclamations of
>astonishment from co-workers, who did not even know it was

I think I have the defaults, other than cyan instead of white for
backgrounds this does elicit some comments, though I don't think any
for a couple of years.
[]
>> I have another interest: computing for the blind.
>
>Hearing that kind of thing makes me feel I am a totally useless
>space-wasting creature. But let's not get into personal problems
>and lifestyles...

Oh, I don't actually _produce_ anything, I'm just interested in the
subject. I do have a blind couple (in their fifties, but very young at
heart, as is often the case I've found) who are friends, and I observe
with interest their experiences I've helped them out a lot, but not
written any of the software they use (in fact I've done very little
programming for decades [other than VHDL which is a very different
matter, and that not for a few years]) my help has been in building,
installing, and so on, and also describing.
>
>I would assume you have heard of Ray Kurzweil, a true genius,
>responsible for a fantastic music synthesizer (since bought by
>Kawaii - I believe - as Kurzweil moved on to other interests)
>who also made the first ever book-reading machine for the blind.
>I have no idea how much it cost, but I know that Stevie Wonder
>had one. That was in the late 70's IIRC.

I didn't know the Ray part, or in fact that it was an individual, or the
music bit I was aware of the concept of "a Kurzweill machine", as a
stand-alone scanner/speech synthesizer, which apparently was in some
public libraries (very few in this country, I think). Of course now
scanning and OCR are functions of most PCs, and in fact the OCR that
comes free with scanners these days really isn't bad (though the ability
to read light-text-on-dark arrived quite late in the day, and may still
not be in some of the free ones) having attended a few exhibitions with
my friends, I know that stand-alone scanners still exist (not everybody
can use or even wants to a computer), though these days they tend to be
about the size of a large A4 flatbed scanner only (though somewhat
deeper), rather than the big-photocopier-like thing I saw telly coverage
of when I first became aware of the Kurzweills.
[]
>I still remember the astonishment and bewilderment as my co-
>workers saw me use the alt-tab combination... "I did not know
>whether to laugh or to cry..."

I must admit that there's an add-on to Alt-Tab in XP (Microsoft produced
but not official - bit like TweakUI, in fact I think it is called a
powertoy) which I like, which gives you a miniaturised screenshot of the
tasks you're switching through rather than just an icon - useful if
you've got more than one instance of the same thing running. (The Vista
alt-tab is way over the top - a sort of 3d thing a bit like a
pharmacist's rolling cupboard ...)
[]
>I asked and was told in another group - they were VERY helpful -
>that XP allows you to install it ALONG with another Win OS,
>usually 98 or ME. /And/ it appears XP does /not/ have to be on

That is my understanding too. However (and this may depend on the
version of XP, and/or what you answer at various points), if you just
try to install it, it _does_ take over I'm not sure what you have to do
to force it to be (a) boot-menuable (b) on other than C: - if you find
out, please share.
[]
>You mean a microscope whose image is shown on the screen, and it
>works with XP out of the box? Surely you MUST have installed
>SOME drivers!

No - if you think about it, a microscope is just a camera as far as the
OS is concerned - at least a cheap one like this one is, there's no
software control of magnification, focusing, or lighting, those are all
just switches/knobs on the body. XP has basic interfacing with
(web)cameras built in. I can't remember if it just popped up a preview
screen after connection or if I had to start from a TWAIN-compliant app.
(in my case IrfanView but I lent it to a colleague who just used the
built-in - and not bad - image software).
>
>(Just read your recent post in the 98 group. Didn't you say it
>worked perfectly well in the post I'm replying to? BTW, booting

The microscope worked fine under XP is it the microscope you're
referring to?

>in "safe mode" and adding drivers 1 by 1 is a nightmare. Just my
>opinion. Hope you figure out another way.)

Yes, especially since I don't think it is the driver as such that is at
fault.
>
>> Unfortunately, it is getting increasingly hard to get new
>hardware to run under '9x - a lot of it just won't, and even
>that which does, I have the feeling that I'm having to spend
>more time fighting it than I used to.
>
>Well, so far I have been forced to just junk them. But there has

What, you've bought hardware and chucked it?

>really been VERY little really innovative written since the
>90's, IMO. The old programs are smaller, run faster, have no
>bloat, and their authors should be suing the people who are re-
>writing them with new names and 30 MB of eye candy and
>/occasionally/ some (mostly useless) add'l "features".

Well, things to do with video _are_ better, I think.
>
>Of course, I am just a home user. I'm sure it's a different
>story with scientists etc.

If you mean those who use computers as part of their work (for other
than general "office" tasks), I don't know that a lot of them use
Windows at all, other than in some cases as a front end.
>
>>> watched almost the same screen for 12+ years (I have a
>>> wallpaper changer and LOTS of various wallpapers most of
>>> which I made
>>
>> Panorama? (Works under XP by the way.)
>
>Huh? I just use Micrografx Picture Publisher (I don't do pre-
>press for $250 coffee-table books so I don't need Photoshop, and
>MPP had multiple undo and other great features YEARS before
>Photoshop did).

I just meant that the wallpaper-changer I use is Panorama 32
(http://www.ivory.org/oldwebsite/panorama.html).
[]
>I never made the Teletubs connection, but you are /so/ correct.
>I saw a few moments of a TT episode once, and it /really/
>creeped me out. I don't know WHAT the future generations will be
>like, and I don't WANT to know.

British children's TV has a long history of being surreal, and
(allegedly - though I think unintentionally) subversive. From the
flowerpot men, through the Magic Roundabout (a French or Belgian puppet
series, perfectly ordinary in the original however, the chap who put
English words to it didn't speak that language, so made up his own
storylines, which were a bit - other. Eric Thompson, father of actress
Emma).
[]
>Well, you MUST have heard this famous quote:
>"Let's face it, the average computer user has the brain of a
>Spider Monkey." - Bill Gates, about his customers.

To be fair, he's probably right. I think he gets a bad press: I'm fairly
sure he was a good software engineer in the early days - my first
computer (which I built myself, really built with a soldering iron),
with its 8K of memory, had a Microsoft BASIC, as did many other home
computers of that period. I think a lot of what Bill himself gets
accused of is largely due to what Microsoft has become - plus, he has
handed over control for a lot of things (I don't just mean to do with
his recent "retirement"), in a way with which I can sympathise as I get
older. He's made some fine howlers too of course (the 640K one is
oft-quoted, though usually out of context) - but haven't we all?
[]
>So I hear, and so as long as I can make it not look like a 5
>year old's (Spider Monkey's?) playroom and /hopefully/ use
>Display Set to further customize it (who knows, maybe the
>functions ARE in XP already - hidden, as you say), it may not be
>so bad. My biggest concern was that some of my main programs
>would not run on XP - but if I can keep 98SE, there is obviously
>no problem.

Well, I don't think they can co-exist to _that_ extent - I think it's a
boot choice, i. e. you're running one or the other. But as I said in an
earlier post, _I_ haven't found anything that I still actually want to
use that won't run under XP (even Xtree, in as much as it ran under '9x
[i. e. no long filenames], which even works with external drives like
pen drives and so on).
[]
><SNIP>
><SNIP>
><SNIP>
>ahhh...
>
>>> advanced file rename utility ONCE, I think, since I got
>>> Total Commander - it includes an EXCELLENT multiple file
>>> renamer.
>>
>> As does IrfanView (including the ability to rename files
>> based on their EXIF data, so the first thing I usually do
>> when taking .jpg files from my camera's card is rename them
>> from pic001 or whatever to 2008-08-12 9-51-18 or whatever).
>
>I doubt I will ever own a digital camera. I did a lot of 35mm
>photography when I was in my late teens and 20's, but the last
>time I took any photos and enjoyed doing it was about 20 years

Do get a cheap one and play a bit - the enjoyment comes back, enhanced
by (a) instant review (within the limits of the display) and (b) no
worries about the cost of film. Oh, and unless you're going to print
things out on A4, don't use maximum resolution all the time! I still use
my old - and first, really - Fuji 0.8 megapixel one, and most of the
time don't feel the need for anything else. (After all, how many
megapixels does my graphics card produce, and that's where I'll look at
them most of the time.)

>ago. I have two 35mm cameras (a $10 Vivitar and a used East-
>German Practica SLR with a Japanese 'Takumar' lens which is not
>bad at all), but I can not even remember when I last used either
>one.
Ah, the old M42 screw thread lenses - you could get excellent ones for a
song, because everyone wanted bayonet fittings. I still have my old
Zenit [Russian, I think very heavy!], though like you haven't used it
in anger for years. (I do use the digital - it's just a point-and-shoot,
no zoom or anything [and IGNORE digital zoom] - a fair bit, though.)
>
>>> I once spent about 15 seconds trying to comprehend the
>>> principle behind Sudoku and what pleasure can be gained
[]
>I hate crosswords. I can't even do the National Enquirer ones! I

I take it that's general knowledge rather than cryptic.
[]
>(Out of curiosity, tried to do one from the Chicago Tribune
>yesterday. What a nightmare. It's official - I have become a
>moron.)

No, you just have better things to do with your mind/time (-:!
[Acronis etc.]
>> Does imply a BIOS that can boot from CD.
>
>I think all BIOS's from 95-96 or so onwards can boot from "any"
>source, but there's more to it than that. I have my current

Hmm, I thought it was a bit later than that that it became universal
(for example, I'm pretty sure the '98 CD isn't self-booting), but you
could be right.

>image on the HD as well as on CD-R's with all the older ones and
>if you reboot from Acronis it will restore the image from the HD
>as well - never even entering into DOS - I /assume/ it passes
>through the BIOS.

Ah, can it make a floppy version of itself (to use an HD backup)?
Realistically, unless it uses some fiendish compression/encryption
algorithm (for which I can see no justification), it doesn't actually
[]
>> Do
>> you know the Last Freeware version site, as well
>> (http://www.321download.com/)?
>
>Yes. I have links to a bunch of software collection sites (there
>are way too many!) but what REALLY annoys me is that they always
>have the latest version ONLY, and quite often when it's an older

Indeed. That's why I like oldversion and LastFreewareVersion.
(Incidentally, I have somewhere copies of Windows 1 and 2, though I've
never played with them, and Netscape 0.9, which I remember actually
using. Oh, and an early Word, too [I normally use Word 97 Burgundy].)

>program, often the DL link is to the author's web site, which in
>many cases no longer exists. INFURIATING. But then again, WHO
>could keep up?

Indeed.
>
>Here's a nice one if you're not familiar with it:
>http://freeware.intrastar.net

Hmm. Your post pinned as "keep".
[]
>I am pretty sure all versions work with 95 (except maybe the
>latest) and I am also pretty sure ver 6 and 7 were still
>relatively unbloated.

(Acronis)
>
>> And, someone's written a version - called
>> ERUNT, google for it - that works under XP (and, as you'd
>> guess, NT I think now Vista too). I'll certainly be
>> installing that (not that it needs "installing") if I go
>> XP.
>
>I have looked at ERUNT and it was a little confusing, and I
>think unnecessary...

Hmm - you've probably never used ERU/ERD, then. Although not a full
backup by any means, it _does_ backup about a dozen files - including
the registry - and is much quicker to restore from than any full backup
could be, since it only restores those files I've quite often used it
to restore machines that wouldn't even go into Windows, or did so but
with some infuriating quirk, including an endless rebooting loop.
Basically, you just run it from a working system, tell it where to put
the saved files (it asks if I was doing it now on this machine, I'd
specify C:\ERD\20080817.000 - keeping to 8.3 filenames of course, though
it doesn't force you to). If I then wanted to restore to how it is now,
I'd start up in DOS, navigate to that directory, and type erd, and it
would restore things. (It puts a little executable with the saved
files.) If you haven't used it, try it, it won't break anything
(assuming you've got a '95 disc - I'm not sure it's on the '98 one).
>
>What I like about Acronis is that ALL the programs I had to have
>to make sure I could salvage my machine when it "went boom" have
>gone into retirement.

)-:
>
>Anyway, I looked for drive imaging freeware that would run on
>any system and here's one I found that looks fairly good. (There
>were several free ones but they only run on 2000 and up, VERY
>annoying.)
>
>http://www.miray.de/products/sat.hdclone.html

As I say, posting marked for keeping ... it's always the restore side
that concerns me. I may have a look.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders."
Newton [deliberately] misquoted by Hal Ableson, then quoted by chris harrison.

 

[thanatoid]

Re: 95/98 ramblings

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:MvS6ZQkmsDqIFw5V@soft255.demon.co.uk:

> (I think I chose a good name for this thread - I suspect it
> will run and run, even if mostly with the two of us!)

Agreed, but I wouldn't mind other fans of good, trouble-free and
fast OS's joining in.

>>File Manager was dropped, but even though it was included
>>in W95 and maybe even W98 or 2000, hardly anyone used it)
>
> I _think_ it was still stuck with 8.3 filenames.

I think you're right. Of course, 8.3 file names were never a
REAL limitation, just difficult for the conceptually-impaired.
You have certainly noticed that all MS files in 95 and 98
maintain the 8.3 name format ("MO MORE DOS!" /right/). I am not
yet familiar with the later systems (still working on cleaning
out the other HD for the XP tryout), but I would NOT be
surprised...

> (Which
> reminds me: at least the file load/save window in 3.x was a
> bit more intuitive. The file load and save windows, in '9x
> and beyond, present "where you are" in a way that's _so_
> different from how Explorer does [and how I visualise
> things], that I have considerable trouble with at least two
> friends who are new to computing [well, several years now
> actually], in explaining how to navigate these windows,
> whereas he's just about understanding Explorer.)

Frankly, it's been so long since I messed with MS File Manager
and 3.1 that I can't remember enough to understand what you
mean.

There /are/ a variety of alternate shells available for various
Win OS's but they might be even more difficult for the average
user. And since I have never tried one, I have no idea whether
the basic dialog boxes are any different. But there are
customizers for that too, like FileEx.

<SNIP>

> I must admit that there's an add-on to Alt-Tab in XP
> (Microsoft produced but not official - bit like TweakUI, in
> fact I think it is called a powertoy) which I like, which
> gives you a miniaturised screenshot of the tasks you're
> switching through rather than just an icon - useful if
> you've got more than one instance of the same thing
> running.

In 95 (I just switched off my 98 computer) there is a line of
text under the icons which tells you exactly which of the
several instances of the same icon you are about to end up in.

It should be quite interesting to see that and all the other
"improvements" in XP. I hope I manage to clean up that damn HD
soon, because I am actually getting curious.

> (The Vista alt-tab is way over the top - a sort of
> 3d thing a bit like a pharmacist's rolling cupboard ...)

As some say... "don't even go there"... (shudder)

>>I asked and was told in another group - they were VERY
>>helpful - that XP allows you to install it ALONG with
>>another Win OS, usually 98 or ME. /And/ it appears XP does
>>/not/ have to be on
>
> That is my understanding too. However (and this may depend
> on the version of XP, and/or what you answer at various
> points), if you just try to install it, it _does_ take
> over I'm not sure what you have to do to force it to be
> (a) boot-menuable (b) on other than C: - if you find out,
> please share. []

Some more patience will be required, as mentioned above.
Hopefully, my computer will not be scrap by the time I'm done
with the experiment.

<SNIP>

> The microscope worked fine under XP is it the microscope
> you're referring to?

Yes, I guess the bottom line is XP came with a huge amount of
drivers for almost everything, while with 9x you often have
to/had to search for them, and needless to say a lot of
manufacturers do not even provide them anymore.

>>in "safe mode" and adding drivers 1 by 1 is a nightmare.
>>Just my opinion. Hope you figure out another way.)
>
> Yes, especially since I don't think it is the driver as
> such that is at fault.

Agreed.

>>> Unfortunately, it is getting increasingly hard to get new
>>hardware to run under '9x - a lot of it just won't, and
>>even that which does, I have the feeling that I'm having to
>>spend more time fighting it than I used to.
>>
>>Well, so far I have been forced to just junk them. But
>>there has
>
> What, you've bought hardware and chucked it?

No, most of programs were either freeware, shareware trials, or
commercial programs with trial periods. Sometimes 3 minutes is
more than enough. I /will/ admit to DL'g cracked programs from
various sources - I am not going to spend $300 on a program just
because I am bored and curious about what exactly it is that it
does. In most cases they were deleted within 10 minutes anyway.
I am not a professional pirate, I have bought many programs, and
I have paid for freeware when I though the author deserved it,
more than once.

>>really been VERY little really innovative written since the
>>90's, IMO. The old programs are smaller, run faster, have
>>no bloat, and their authors should be suing the people who
>>are re- writing them with new names and 30 MB of eye candy
>>and /occasionally/ some (mostly useless) add'l "features".
>
> Well, things to do with video _are_ better, I think.

I didn't want to go on and on about it but obviously stuff
involving new or significantly changed technologies is exempt
from the above statement.

>>Of course, I am just a home user. I'm sure it's a different
>>story with scientists etc.
>
> If you mean those who use computers as part of their work
> (for other than general "office" tasks), I don't know that
> a lot of them use Windows at all, other than in some cases
> as a front end.

Well, I don't mean the guys at the most exclusive labs at MIT, I
just meant people who work in offices or average schools and do
some fairly serious stuff. Some of them DO need MS Office and
many other programs most people (myself included) have never
heard about. 99% of home users don't even know how to set tabs
in Word, but they have been brainwashed to HAVE to have Office.

<SNIP>

> I just meant that the wallpaper-changer I use is Panorama
> 32 (http://www.ivory.org/oldwebsite/panorama.html).

Ahh... I thought maybe you meant an image editor and the word is
so common that I felt googling would be pointless. I use
Wallpaper Changer (http://www.wallpaperchanger.de/). I have
tried a bunch and this one was the best, and free. I have never
heard of Panorama, will take a look for the hell of it.

Just did. Looks good, small etc. I do NOT like "Automatically
search your hard disk for image files" - I am capable of doing
this myself, and "Supports MS Plus! scaling" - I don't know what
it is but I don't like the sound of it. Plus! was always just
stupid IMO.

Wow. Just checked DL sizes and 'wallpaper changer' is even
smaller! And it has some GREAT options. Check it out!

>>I never made the Teletubs connection, but you are /so/
>>correct. I saw a few moments of a TT episode once, and it
>>/really/ creeped me out. I don't know WHAT the future
>>generations will be like, and I don't WANT to know.
>
> British children's TV has a long history of being surreal,
> and (allegedly - though I think unintentionally)
> subversive. From the flowerpot men, through the Magic
> Roundabout (a French or Belgian puppet series, perfectly
> ordinary in the original however, the chap who put English
> words to it didn't speak that language, so made up his own
> storylines, which were a bit - other. Eric Thompson, father
> of actress Emma).

I miss Europe - I think. Haven't been there once since 1972.
It's changed an awful lot I'm sure, probably more than North
America. Maybe not.

>>Well, you MUST have heard this famous quote:
>>"Let's face it, the average computer user has the brain of
>>a Spider Monkey." - Bill Gates, about his customers.

> To be fair, he's probably right. I think he gets a bad
> press: I'm fairly sure he was a good software engineer in
> the early days - my first computer (which I built myself,
> really built with a soldering iron), with its 8K of memory,
> had a Microsoft BASIC, as did many other home computers of
> that period. I think a lot of what Bill himself gets
> accused of is largely due to what Microsoft has become -
> plus, he has handed over control for a lot of things (I
> don't just mean to do with his recent "retirement"), in a
> way with which I can sympathise as I get older. He's made
> some fine howlers too of course (the 640K one is
> oft-quoted, though usually out of context) - but haven't we
> all? []

I agree. And I once did a search on the guy who sold QDOS to
Gates for 50 grand, and he has a job at MS and appears quite
happy even though he never got to be the richest man in the
world.

<SNIP>

>>My biggest concern was that some of my
>>main programs would not run on XP - but if I can keep 98SE,
>>there is obviously no problem.
>
> Well, I don't think they can co-exist to _that_ extent - I
> think it's a boot choice, i. e. you're running one or the
> other.

Oh, that is clear. You can't wear 2 pairs of shoes at the same
time... Well, maybe you /could/, but you know what I mean...

I am also sure that programs which dump stuff into win\sys and
refistry will have to be installed again for XP. Some of them
anyway... I'll know soon, I hope.

I like programs which do not install ANYTHING anywhere except
their directory and do not write anything to the registry. BTW,
a friend gave me an old classic: "The Mother of all Windows
Books" and I read about 80% of it while sitting on the john. It
was written for Win 3.1. Did you know the an early version of
the registry already existed in 3.1 ? I never noticed it /then/.
Makes me want to install 3.11 on the old 486/66 I have siting
around just to check it out.

<SNIP>

>>I doubt I will ever own a digital camera. I did a lot of
>>35mm photography when I was in my late teens and 20's, but
>>the last time I took any photos and enjoyed doing it was
>>about 20 years
>
> Do get a cheap one and play a bit - the enjoyment comes
> back, enhanced by (a) instant review (within the limits of
> the display) and (b) no worries about the cost of film.

I have no family or friends to speak of well, the total of
those 2 groups of people in my immediate vicinity is about 3,
and none that I would want to take pictures of. I hate where I
live and feel very self-conscious with a camera no matter
/where/ I am and whatever I am doing. I miss the old days when I
used to run around with 16mm film cameras or big video
camcorders and didn't care... Alas...

> Oh,
> and unless you're going to print things out on A4, don't
> use maximum resolution all the time!

Even if I had any pictures to take, I probably would not print
them. For one, I have a B&W laser printer and I also believe in
paperless computing. My first laser cartridge lasted 8 years!
I'm not lying!

> I still use my old -
> and first, really - Fuji 0.8 megapixel one, and most of the
> time don't feel the need for anything else. (After all, how
> many megapixels does my graphics card produce, and that's
> where I'll look at them most of the time.)

It astounds me that you can get a 10 megapixel camera for a
couple of hundred dollars now... 12 years ago 2 megapixels was
considered adequate for professionals, and cost nearly $1,000
IIRC.

>>I have two 35mm cameras (a $10 Vivitar and a used
>>East- German Practica SLR with a Japanese 'Takumar' lens
>>which is not bad at all), but I can not even remember when
>>I last used either one.

> Ah, the old M42 screw thread lenses - you could get
> excellent ones for a song, because everyone wanted bayonet
> fittings. I still have my old Zenit [Russian, I think very
> heavy!], though like you haven't used it in anger for
> years.

I don't use them because of anger, I use them because I have no
life. And I used to have a Zenit too, a VERY long time ago... My
dad really liked them, he said it was basically a copy of a
Leica he used before the war. And it was, except the Soviets
were not /quite/ as good with manufacturing as the Germans.

> (I do use the digital - it's just a point-and-shoot,
> no zoom or anything [and IGNORE digital zoom] - a fair bit,
> though.)

Anyone using a digital zoom is just dumb, although once you have
10 megapixels to work with, I imagine the results can be quite
acceptable. Maybe I am just spoiled by having used 10, 12 and
15x zooms with 16mm film cameras, but a 3 x zoom is COMPLETE
waste of time IMO. I see ads for paperback-sized consumer
camcorders with a 40x optical zoom and I just can NOT believe
it.

What I hate about the digital cameras are all the stupid add-ons
- image effects, mp3 playback, video recording, "pretty" case
colors, etc. Give me a 10x optical zoom with a good wide and a
macro, and forget everything else! But I really can't see ever
getting one.

<SNIP>

>>(Out of curiosity, tried to do one from the Chicago Tribune
>>yesterday. What a nightmare. It's official - I have become
>>a moron.)
>
> No, you just have better things to do with your mind/time
> (-:! [Acronis etc.]

Well, that's nice of you to say, but I actually don't - I
basically do nothing, I am a 53 yr old only child who failed in
life, caring for a 90 year old parent who apparently has decided
to never die. I am basically imprisoned in the house. I kill my
free time with the computer. Since it requires a certain amount
of brain-cell activity, it keeps my mind off my misery.

Anyway... I definitely noticed I was getting stupider around
when I turned 40, and it has been an ongoing process. The ONLY
improvement is I find it easier to concentrate on reading now,
even though I have always read a lot.

>>I think all BIOS's from 95-96 or so onwards can boot from
>>"any" source, but there's more to it than that. I have my
>>current
>
> Hmm, I thought it was a bit later than that that it became
> universal (for example, I'm pretty sure the '98 CD isn't
> self-booting), but you could be right.

I could be wrong

>>image on the HD as well as on CD-R's with all the older
>>ones and if you reboot from Acronis it will restore the
>>image from the HD as well - never even entering into DOS -
>>I /assume/ it passes through the BIOS.
>
> Ah, can it make a floppy version of itself (to use an HD
> backup)? Realistically, unless it uses some fiendish
> compression/encryption algorithm (for which I can see no
> justification), it doesn't actually []

No floppies, but you have to make a bootable recovery CD once
you install it, and then you're set.

<SNIP>

> That's why I like oldversion and
> LastFreewareVersion. (Incidentally, I have somewhere copies
> of Windows 1 and 2

Someone posted them in a.b.w.ibm-pc.old some time ago, but I
have never had time to try them. I hear that if you can get ver.
1 to run at all, you're basically in league with the devil, and
I do not mean Gates.

> though I've never played with them, and
> Netscape 0.9, which I remember actually using. Oh, and an
> early Word, too [I normally use Word 97 Burgundy].)

I use metapad lite. It IGNORES the biggest keyboard curse of all
(and I am NOT talking about the fact the keyboard layout we all
use is what it is because they designed it that way so it would
be MOST difficult to type quickly - since early typewriters
jammed a lot). I am talking about the insert/overwrite toggle!!!
AAAUUGH!!!!!

(Amusingly enough, the FULL version of metapad does NOT ignore
that key, although it has more functionality. But I use other
editors when I need that.)

<SNIP>

> I've quite often used it to
> restore machines that wouldn't even go into Windows, or did
> so but with some infuriating quirk, including an endless
> rebooting loop.

I've heard of that delightful symptom MANY times but I am
fortunate never to have experienced it. Still, I have my share
of horror stories.

> Basically, you just run it from a working
> system, tell it where to put the saved files (it asks if I
> was doing it now on this machine, I'd specify
> C:\ERD\20080817.000 - keeping to 8.3 filenames of course,
> though it doesn't force you to). If I then wanted to
> restore to how it is now, I'd start up in DOS, navigate to
> that directory, and type erd, and it would restore things.
> (It puts a little executable with the saved files.) If you
> haven't used it, try it, it won't break anything (assuming
> you've got a '95 disc - I'm not sure it's on the '98 one).

Yup, still have the original OEM that came with this computer -
I even made a backup of it! But I would probably just use XTree
to do what you are describing. I still use it when the registry
gets bloated and I need to put an older one in, etc.

<SNIP>

No word from Acronis yet. May never hear from them. Let me know
how that free program worked out.

Cheers.


--
[from a recent conversation]
thanatoid: So why did you decide you needed broadband?
Neighbor: I wanted to read my e-mail faster.