A
Anton
Can it be done as in W2k/VP and how?
- Thread starter
- #2
P
philo
"Anton" <nosp@m.com> wrote in message
news:O3oz8sKuIHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Can it be done as in W2k/VP and how?
>
>
First off, what *exactly* went wrong?
One of the options for effecting a Win98 repair
would be to restore a previous registry...
but without knowing your problem it's impossible to tell if that would be
advisable.
Win98, Win2k and XP all have a different set of repair options.
Though there is some degree of over-lap...without more information I would
not want to hazard a guess.
news:O3oz8sKuIHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Can it be done as in W2k/VP and how?
>
>
First off, what *exactly* went wrong?
One of the options for effecting a Win98 repair
would be to restore a previous registry...
but without knowing your problem it's impossible to tell if that would be
advisable.
Win98, Win2k and XP all have a different set of repair options.
Though there is some degree of over-lap...without more information I would
not want to hazard a guess.
- Thread starter
- #3
B
Bob Harris
In short, no, at least not like the repair function that is available in XP.
You could format the partition containing 98 and re-install 98 from scratch.
Of course, you would lose all other data, settings, and programs on that
partition. Data could be backed-up by a simple copy&paste using windows
explorer, or even via the DOS XCOPY command run from a floppy. Programs
would need to be re-installed, after 98 was re-installed. Be sure to have
their CDs, or if downloads, to have a copy of their installer program.
AND, you would need to have a complete set of win98 drivers for all hardware
(especially video and audio). Ditto for printer, scanner, etc drivers.
Unlike XP, 98 has limited plug-n-play capability. In fact, you will probaly
need to use "safe mode" to boot for the first time, until after the correct
drivers have been installed.
Information on performing a clean installation can be found at:
http://www.geekstogo.com/forum/How-to-install-Windows-98-t9803.html
http://www.windowsreinstall.com/win98/install98cd/indexfullpage.htm
http://www.tek-tips.com/faqs.cfm?fid=2740
HOWEVER, you might want to post back with more specific problems, and
possibly someone will suggest a less drastic solution.
"Anton" <nosp@m.com> wrote in message
news:O3oz8sKuIHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Can it be done as in W2k/VP and how?
>
>
>
>
>
>
You could format the partition containing 98 and re-install 98 from scratch.
Of course, you would lose all other data, settings, and programs on that
partition. Data could be backed-up by a simple copy&paste using windows
explorer, or even via the DOS XCOPY command run from a floppy. Programs
would need to be re-installed, after 98 was re-installed. Be sure to have
their CDs, or if downloads, to have a copy of their installer program.
AND, you would need to have a complete set of win98 drivers for all hardware
(especially video and audio). Ditto for printer, scanner, etc drivers.
Unlike XP, 98 has limited plug-n-play capability. In fact, you will probaly
need to use "safe mode" to boot for the first time, until after the correct
drivers have been installed.
Information on performing a clean installation can be found at:
http://www.geekstogo.com/forum/How-to-install-Windows-98-t9803.html
http://www.windowsreinstall.com/win98/install98cd/indexfullpage.htm
http://www.tek-tips.com/faqs.cfm?fid=2740
HOWEVER, you might want to post back with more specific problems, and
possibly someone will suggest a less drastic solution.
"Anton" <nosp@m.com> wrote in message
news:O3oz8sKuIHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Can it be done as in W2k/VP and how?
>
>
>
>
>
>
- Thread starter
- #4
R
RMD
On Sun, 18 May 2008 07:50:10 +0200, "Anton" <nosp@m.com> wrote:
>Can it be done as in W2k/VP and how?
>
>
>
>
>
>
Read
http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/repair.html
Basically start from a boot floppy with the Win98SE CD in the CDROM
drive and run setup.exe on the Win98SE CD.
I've used this repair function on changing motherboards on a C-drive
with a lot of application programs on it that I really didn't want to
re-install. It upgrades things like the CDROM driver if you are doing
this.
Ross
>Can it be done as in W2k/VP and how?
>
>
>
>
>
>
Read
http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/repair.html
Basically start from a boot floppy with the Win98SE CD in the CDROM
drive and run setup.exe on the Win98SE CD.
I've used this repair function on changing motherboards on a C-drive
with a lot of application programs on it that I really didn't want to
re-install. It upgrades things like the CDROM driver if you are doing
this.
Ross
- Thread starter
- #5
G
Gary S. Terhune
Doing what you suggest should be a last resort, desperate tactic to get back
in and retrieve data before reformatting and reinstalling from scratch.
Problem is, when you run Setup again, yes it rebuilds the hardware profile,
but it also replaces newer versions of many files with the older, original
ones from the CD. In short, what you end up with is DLL Hell, mis-matched
file versions, broken Windows Updates, etc.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com
"RMD" <ebff_qnyl@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
news:4830e9f7.1180781@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 07:50:10 +0200, "Anton" <nosp@m.com> wrote:
>
>>Can it be done as in W2k/VP and how?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Read
>
> http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/repair.html
>
> Basically start from a boot floppy with the Win98SE CD in the CDROM
> drive and run setup.exe on the Win98SE CD.
>
> I've used this repair function on changing motherboards on a C-drive
> with a lot of application programs on it that I really didn't want to
> re-install. It upgrades things like the CDROM driver if you are doing
> this.
>
> Ross
>
in and retrieve data before reformatting and reinstalling from scratch.
Problem is, when you run Setup again, yes it rebuilds the hardware profile,
but it also replaces newer versions of many files with the older, original
ones from the CD. In short, what you end up with is DLL Hell, mis-matched
file versions, broken Windows Updates, etc.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com
"RMD" <ebff_qnyl@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
news:4830e9f7.1180781@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 07:50:10 +0200, "Anton" <nosp@m.com> wrote:
>
>>Can it be done as in W2k/VP and how?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Read
>
> http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/repair.html
>
> Basically start from a boot floppy with the Win98SE CD in the CDROM
> drive and run setup.exe on the Win98SE CD.
>
> I've used this repair function on changing motherboards on a C-drive
> with a lot of application programs on it that I really didn't want to
> re-install. It upgrades things like the CDROM driver if you are doing
> this.
>
> Ross
>
- Thread starter
- #6
R
RMD
On Mon, 19 May 2008 00:07:27 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:
>Doing what you suggest should be a last resort, desperate tactic to get back
>in and retrieve data before reformatting and reinstalling from scratch.
>Problem is, when you run Setup again, yes it rebuilds the hardware profile,
>but it also replaces newer versions of many files with the older, original
>ones from the CD. In short, what you end up with is DLL Hell, mis-matched
>file versions, broken Windows Updates, etc.
Hi Gary,
What you say may be correct. I don't use Windows Updates on my Win98SE
systems anyway since I have copies of all the updates and apply them
as needed. The ones I wanted were already applied to this system.
When I did the Win98SE re-install on changing the motherboard it
actually offered the option to keep at least some of the newer files.
Everything I normally use on this system is working as normal, so for
me it isn't an obviously broken system.
I never downgraded IE6 to an earlier IE either. I still have the
original IE6 and it seems to be working fine. I usually use Firefox
anyway, and that is also working fine. I haven't found anything
amongst my applications I have had to re-install, it has all worked to
date.
I doubt I'll be re-installing everything at this stage since, for me,
the re-installation for the new motherboard is working fine.
It is working much better than with a motherboard that wouldn't start
just for starters.
Ross
>Doing what you suggest should be a last resort, desperate tactic to get back
>in and retrieve data before reformatting and reinstalling from scratch.
>Problem is, when you run Setup again, yes it rebuilds the hardware profile,
>but it also replaces newer versions of many files with the older, original
>ones from the CD. In short, what you end up with is DLL Hell, mis-matched
>file versions, broken Windows Updates, etc.
Hi Gary,
What you say may be correct. I don't use Windows Updates on my Win98SE
systems anyway since I have copies of all the updates and apply them
as needed. The ones I wanted were already applied to this system.
When I did the Win98SE re-install on changing the motherboard it
actually offered the option to keep at least some of the newer files.
Everything I normally use on this system is working as normal, so for
me it isn't an obviously broken system.
I never downgraded IE6 to an earlier IE either. I still have the
original IE6 and it seems to be working fine. I usually use Firefox
anyway, and that is also working fine. I haven't found anything
amongst my applications I have had to re-install, it has all worked to
date.
I doubt I'll be re-installing everything at this stage since, for me,
the re-installation for the new motherboard is working fine.
It is working much better than with a motherboard that wouldn't start
just for starters.
Ross
- Thread starter
- #7
G
Gary S. Terhune
"RMD" <ebff_qnyl@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
news:4831690f.1371963@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 00:07:27 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:
>
>>Doing what you suggest should be a last resort, desperate tactic to get
>>back
>>in and retrieve data before reformatting and reinstalling from scratch.
>>Problem is, when you run Setup again, yes it rebuilds the hardware
>>profile,
>>but it also replaces newer versions of many files with the older, original
>>ones from the CD. In short, what you end up with is DLL Hell, mis-matched
>>file versions, broken Windows Updates, etc.
> Hi Gary,
>
> What you say may be correct. I don't use Windows Updates on my Win98SE
> systems anyway since I have copies of all the updates and apply them
> as needed. The ones I wanted were already applied to this system.
your system needs ALL of the Critical Updates. And at least a couple of the
so-called "Optional" Updates. In any case, you missed the point. Once you
have applied Updates, which frequently involve the replacement of system
files with newer versions, if you then run Setup from the CD, three's a
decent chance that Update will be broken by having had it's versions of
files replaced with older ones. I don't care where you get the Updates,
whether it's Windows Updates or a collection of installers on a CD or
whatever, these facts hold true.
> When I did the Win98SE re-install on changing the motherboard it
> actually offered the option to keep at least some of the newer files.
Yes, in some places it does that. In others, it doesn't. People will also
claim that SFC can be used by updating it first and then running it again
after Setup. That doesn't catch all the changes, either.
> Everything I normally use on this system is working as normal, so for
> me it isn't an obviously broken system.
Most broken systems aren't obviously so. Most of what concernes me,
regarding Updates, especially, is that they are often fixes intended to
close security holes. Most of the stuff they protect against are things you
wouldn't notice in the first place.
> I never downgraded IE6 to an earlier IE either. I still have the
> original IE6 and it seems to be working fine. I usually use Firefox
> anyway, and that is also working fine. I haven't found anything
> amongst my applications I have had to re-install, it has all worked to
> date.
IE6 was not original in any version of Windows 98. But I'm glad to hear you
have it installed. And, again, just because an app seemes to work properly
doesn't mean it's not broken. An app can work fine, then you add an Update
(perhaps security related, but maybe for compatibility with other apps or
teh OS, or to comply more with standards... All kinds of possibilities. When
you apply any update, how many times do you notice some change (unless it's
negative and something goes wrong with teh update procedure)? Why do you
think you'd notice the change, immediately or ever, if teh update is broken.
DLL Hell isn't always easily identifiable.
In any case, are you saying htat your system runs flawlessly, never
freezing, never crashing, etc.?
> I doubt I'll be re-installing everything at this stage since, for me,
> the re-installation for the new motherboard is working fine.
Like I said, how do you know?
> It is working much better than with a motherboard that wouldn't start
> just for starters.
Can't argue with that. But you're kidding yourself if you think you have a
good, safe installation of Windows. Bad enough the reinstall, but your
picking and choosing amongst Updates is foolhardy. It's your machine and
it's your choice, but I have to strenuously disagree with the advice you
gave to the thread, and I hope you think twice about offering it up again
except under the emergency conditions I described.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com
news:4831690f.1371963@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 00:07:27 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:
>
>>Doing what you suggest should be a last resort, desperate tactic to get
>>back
>>in and retrieve data before reformatting and reinstalling from scratch.
>>Problem is, when you run Setup again, yes it rebuilds the hardware
>>profile,
>>but it also replaces newer versions of many files with the older, original
>>ones from the CD. In short, what you end up with is DLL Hell, mis-matched
>>file versions, broken Windows Updates, etc.
> Hi Gary,
>
> What you say may be correct. I don't use Windows Updates on my Win98SE
> systems anyway since I have copies of all the updates and apply them
> as needed. The ones I wanted were already applied to this system.
your system needs ALL of the Critical Updates. And at least a couple of the
so-called "Optional" Updates. In any case, you missed the point. Once you
have applied Updates, which frequently involve the replacement of system
files with newer versions, if you then run Setup from the CD, three's a
decent chance that Update will be broken by having had it's versions of
files replaced with older ones. I don't care where you get the Updates,
whether it's Windows Updates or a collection of installers on a CD or
whatever, these facts hold true.
> When I did the Win98SE re-install on changing the motherboard it
> actually offered the option to keep at least some of the newer files.
Yes, in some places it does that. In others, it doesn't. People will also
claim that SFC can be used by updating it first and then running it again
after Setup. That doesn't catch all the changes, either.
> Everything I normally use on this system is working as normal, so for
> me it isn't an obviously broken system.
Most broken systems aren't obviously so. Most of what concernes me,
regarding Updates, especially, is that they are often fixes intended to
close security holes. Most of the stuff they protect against are things you
wouldn't notice in the first place.
> I never downgraded IE6 to an earlier IE either. I still have the
> original IE6 and it seems to be working fine. I usually use Firefox
> anyway, and that is also working fine. I haven't found anything
> amongst my applications I have had to re-install, it has all worked to
> date.
IE6 was not original in any version of Windows 98. But I'm glad to hear you
have it installed. And, again, just because an app seemes to work properly
doesn't mean it's not broken. An app can work fine, then you add an Update
(perhaps security related, but maybe for compatibility with other apps or
teh OS, or to comply more with standards... All kinds of possibilities. When
you apply any update, how many times do you notice some change (unless it's
negative and something goes wrong with teh update procedure)? Why do you
think you'd notice the change, immediately or ever, if teh update is broken.
DLL Hell isn't always easily identifiable.
In any case, are you saying htat your system runs flawlessly, never
freezing, never crashing, etc.?
> I doubt I'll be re-installing everything at this stage since, for me,
> the re-installation for the new motherboard is working fine.
Like I said, how do you know?
> It is working much better than with a motherboard that wouldn't start
> just for starters.
Can't argue with that. But you're kidding yourself if you think you have a
good, safe installation of Windows. Bad enough the reinstall, but your
picking and choosing amongst Updates is foolhardy. It's your machine and
it's your choice, but I have to strenuously disagree with the advice you
gave to the thread, and I hope you think twice about offering it up again
except under the emergency conditions I described.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com
- Thread starter
- #8
R
RMD
On Mon, 19 May 2008 08:17:53 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:
>
>"RMD" <ebff_qnyl@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
>news:4831690f.1371963@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> On Mon, 19 May 2008 00:07:27 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:
>>
>>>Doing what you suggest should be a last resort, desperate tactic to get
>>>back
>>>in and retrieve data before reformatting and reinstalling from scratch.
>>>Problem is, when you run Setup again, yes it rebuilds the hardware
>>>profile,
>>>but it also replaces newer versions of many files with the older, original
>>>ones from the CD. In short, what you end up with is DLL Hell, mis-matched
>>>file versions, broken Windows Updates, etc.
>> Hi Gary,
>>
>> What you say may be correct. I don't use Windows Updates on my Win98SE
>> systems anyway since I have copies of all the updates and apply them
>> as needed. The ones I wanted were already applied to this system.
>your system needs ALL of the Critical Updates. And at least a couple of the
>so-called "Optional" Updates. In any case, you missed the point. Once you
>have applied Updates, which frequently involve the replacement of system
>files with newer versions, if you then run Setup from the CD, three's a
>decent chance that Update will be broken by having had it's versions of
>files replaced with older ones. I don't care where you get the Updates,
>whether it's Windows Updates or a collection of installers on a CD or
>whatever, these facts hold true.
>
>> When I did the Win98SE re-install on changing the motherboard it
>> actually offered the option to keep at least some of the newer files.
>
>Yes, in some places it does that. In others, it doesn't. People will also
>claim that SFC can be used by updating it first and then running it again
>after Setup. That doesn't catch all the changes, either.
>
>> Everything I normally use on this system is working as normal, so for
>> me it isn't an obviously broken system.
>
>Most broken systems aren't obviously so. Most of what concernes me,
>regarding Updates, especially, is that they are often fixes intended to
>close security holes. Most of the stuff they protect against are things you
>wouldn't notice in the first place.
>
>> I never downgraded IE6 to an earlier IE either. I still have the
>> original IE6 and it seems to be working fine. I usually use Firefox
>> anyway, and that is also working fine. I haven't found anything
>> amongst my applications I have had to re-install, it has all worked to
>> date.
>
>IE6 was not original in any version of Windows 98. But I'm glad to hear you
>have it installed. And, again, just because an app seemes to work properly
>doesn't mean it's not broken. An app can work fine, then you add an Update
>(perhaps security related, but maybe for compatibility with other apps or
>teh OS, or to comply more with standards... All kinds of possibilities. When
>you apply any update, how many times do you notice some change (unless it's
>negative and something goes wrong with teh update procedure)? Why do you
>think you'd notice the change, immediately or ever, if teh update is broken.
>DLL Hell isn't always easily identifiable.
>
>In any case, are you saying htat your system runs flawlessly, never
>freezing, never crashing, etc.?
>
>> I doubt I'll be re-installing everything at this stage since, for me,
>> the re-installation for the new motherboard is working fine.
>
>Like I said, how do you know?
>
>> It is working much better than with a motherboard that wouldn't start
>> just for starters.
>
>Can't argue with that. But you're kidding yourself if you think you have a
>good, safe installation of Windows. Bad enough the reinstall, but your
>picking and choosing amongst Updates is foolhardy. It's your machine and
>it's your choice, but I have to strenuously disagree with the advice you
>gave to the thread, and I hope you think twice about offering it up again
>except under the emergency conditions I described.
>
>--
>Gary S. Terhune
>MS-MVP Shell/User
>www.grystmill.com
>
>
Gary,
You make good points.
But most Windows systems are broken somewhere. I guess it depends
whether it makes any significant difference to your applications
whether one might care.
Otoh suggesting complete re-installs is not such a good idea either.
This may not be so simple to do with heavily altered and patched
systems with a lot of applications installed over years. In fact, for
many it may be essentially impossible to do this.
Frankly, I'd rather chew my fingers off than completely re-install
everything on whatever is currently my main computer.
However technically correct that might be.
Ross
>
>"RMD" <ebff_qnyl@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
>news:4831690f.1371963@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> On Mon, 19 May 2008 00:07:27 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:
>>
>>>Doing what you suggest should be a last resort, desperate tactic to get
>>>back
>>>in and retrieve data before reformatting and reinstalling from scratch.
>>>Problem is, when you run Setup again, yes it rebuilds the hardware
>>>profile,
>>>but it also replaces newer versions of many files with the older, original
>>>ones from the CD. In short, what you end up with is DLL Hell, mis-matched
>>>file versions, broken Windows Updates, etc.
>> Hi Gary,
>>
>> What you say may be correct. I don't use Windows Updates on my Win98SE
>> systems anyway since I have copies of all the updates and apply them
>> as needed. The ones I wanted were already applied to this system.
>your system needs ALL of the Critical Updates. And at least a couple of the
>so-called "Optional" Updates. In any case, you missed the point. Once you
>have applied Updates, which frequently involve the replacement of system
>files with newer versions, if you then run Setup from the CD, three's a
>decent chance that Update will be broken by having had it's versions of
>files replaced with older ones. I don't care where you get the Updates,
>whether it's Windows Updates or a collection of installers on a CD or
>whatever, these facts hold true.
>
>> When I did the Win98SE re-install on changing the motherboard it
>> actually offered the option to keep at least some of the newer files.
>
>Yes, in some places it does that. In others, it doesn't. People will also
>claim that SFC can be used by updating it first and then running it again
>after Setup. That doesn't catch all the changes, either.
>
>> Everything I normally use on this system is working as normal, so for
>> me it isn't an obviously broken system.
>
>Most broken systems aren't obviously so. Most of what concernes me,
>regarding Updates, especially, is that they are often fixes intended to
>close security holes. Most of the stuff they protect against are things you
>wouldn't notice in the first place.
>
>> I never downgraded IE6 to an earlier IE either. I still have the
>> original IE6 and it seems to be working fine. I usually use Firefox
>> anyway, and that is also working fine. I haven't found anything
>> amongst my applications I have had to re-install, it has all worked to
>> date.
>
>IE6 was not original in any version of Windows 98. But I'm glad to hear you
>have it installed. And, again, just because an app seemes to work properly
>doesn't mean it's not broken. An app can work fine, then you add an Update
>(perhaps security related, but maybe for compatibility with other apps or
>teh OS, or to comply more with standards... All kinds of possibilities. When
>you apply any update, how many times do you notice some change (unless it's
>negative and something goes wrong with teh update procedure)? Why do you
>think you'd notice the change, immediately or ever, if teh update is broken.
>DLL Hell isn't always easily identifiable.
>
>In any case, are you saying htat your system runs flawlessly, never
>freezing, never crashing, etc.?
>
>> I doubt I'll be re-installing everything at this stage since, for me,
>> the re-installation for the new motherboard is working fine.
>
>Like I said, how do you know?
>
>> It is working much better than with a motherboard that wouldn't start
>> just for starters.
>
>Can't argue with that. But you're kidding yourself if you think you have a
>good, safe installation of Windows. Bad enough the reinstall, but your
>picking and choosing amongst Updates is foolhardy. It's your machine and
>it's your choice, but I have to strenuously disagree with the advice you
>gave to the thread, and I hope you think twice about offering it up again
>except under the emergency conditions I described.
>
>--
>Gary S. Terhune
>MS-MVP Shell/User
>www.grystmill.com
>
>
Gary,
You make good points.
But most Windows systems are broken somewhere. I guess it depends
whether it makes any significant difference to your applications
whether one might care.
Otoh suggesting complete re-installs is not such a good idea either.
This may not be so simple to do with heavily altered and patched
systems with a lot of applications installed over years. In fact, for
many it may be essentially impossible to do this.
Frankly, I'd rather chew my fingers off than completely re-install
everything on whatever is currently my main computer.
However technically correct that might be.
Ross
- Thread starter
- #9
G
Gary S. Terhune
Except that what you recommend, running Setup, is not the way to rebuild the
hardware profile. The way to do that is by deleting the HKLM\ENUM key from
the Registry before installing the new hardware. When Windows cranks up
again it will be as if it was building the hardware profile for the first
time, just like running Setup but without the nasty side effects.
I only suggest clean installs when they're warranted, and I only suggest
"overinstalls" when they're warranted, which is, as I say, in last ditch
circumstances preparatory to a clean install. Point is to avoid doing them
in the first place. As for "broken", yes, it's a relative thing and a
relatively unknown status when it comes to Windows 9x. But I have decent
luck by following sensible rules and I can say that I'm as well-protected as
I can be, (without getting into the realm of the ridiculous,) even if it
isn't perfect.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com
"RMD" <ebff_qnyl@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
news:48323f5c.1814093@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 08:17:53 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:
>
>>
>>"RMD" <ebff_qnyl@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
>>news:4831690f.1371963@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> On Mon, 19 May 2008 00:07:27 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Doing what you suggest should be a last resort, desperate tactic to get
>>>>back
>>>>in and retrieve data before reformatting and reinstalling from scratch.
>>>>Problem is, when you run Setup again, yes it rebuilds the hardware
>>>>profile,
>>>>but it also replaces newer versions of many files with the older,
>>>>original
>>>>ones from the CD. In short, what you end up with is DLL Hell,
>>>>mis-matched
>>>>file versions, broken Windows Updates, etc.
>>> Hi Gary,
>>>
>>> What you say may be correct. I don't use Windows Updates on my Win98SE
>>> systems anyway since I have copies of all the updates and apply them
>>> as needed. The ones I wanted were already applied to this system.
>>your system needs ALL of the Critical Updates. And at least a couple of
>>the
>>so-called "Optional" Updates. In any case, you missed the point. Once you
>>have applied Updates, which frequently involve the replacement of system
>>files with newer versions, if you then run Setup from the CD, three's a
>>decent chance that Update will be broken by having had it's versions of
>>files replaced with older ones. I don't care where you get the Updates,
>>whether it's Windows Updates or a collection of installers on a CD or
>>whatever, these facts hold true.
>>
>>> When I did the Win98SE re-install on changing the motherboard it
>>> actually offered the option to keep at least some of the newer files.
>>
>>Yes, in some places it does that. In others, it doesn't. People will also
>>claim that SFC can be used by updating it first and then running it again
>>after Setup. That doesn't catch all the changes, either.
>>
>>> Everything I normally use on this system is working as normal, so for
>>> me it isn't an obviously broken system.
>>
>>Most broken systems aren't obviously so. Most of what concernes me,
>>regarding Updates, especially, is that they are often fixes intended to
>>close security holes. Most of the stuff they protect against are things
>>you
>>wouldn't notice in the first place.
>>
>>> I never downgraded IE6 to an earlier IE either. I still have the
>>> original IE6 and it seems to be working fine. I usually use Firefox
>>> anyway, and that is also working fine. I haven't found anything
>>> amongst my applications I have had to re-install, it has all worked to
>>> date.
>>
>>IE6 was not original in any version of Windows 98. But I'm glad to hear
>>you
>>have it installed. And, again, just because an app seemes to work properly
>>doesn't mean it's not broken. An app can work fine, then you add an Update
>>(perhaps security related, but maybe for compatibility with other apps or
>>teh OS, or to comply more with standards... All kinds of possibilities.
>>When
>>you apply any update, how many times do you notice some change (unless
>>it's
>>negative and something goes wrong with teh update procedure)? Why do you
>>think you'd notice the change, immediately or ever, if teh update is
>>broken.
>>DLL Hell isn't always easily identifiable.
>>
>>In any case, are you saying htat your system runs flawlessly, never
>>freezing, never crashing, etc.?
>>
>>> I doubt I'll be re-installing everything at this stage since, for me,
>>> the re-installation for the new motherboard is working fine.
>>
>>Like I said, how do you know?
>>
>>> It is working much better than with a motherboard that wouldn't start
>>> just for starters.
>>
>>Can't argue with that. But you're kidding yourself if you think you have a
>>good, safe installation of Windows. Bad enough the reinstall, but your
>>picking and choosing amongst Updates is foolhardy. It's your machine and
>>it's your choice, but I have to strenuously disagree with the advice you
>>gave to the thread, and I hope you think twice about offering it up again
>>except under the emergency conditions I described.
>>
>>--
>>Gary S. Terhune
>>MS-MVP Shell/User
>>www.grystmill.com
>>
>>
>
> Gary,
>
> You make good points.
>
> But most Windows systems are broken somewhere. I guess it depends
> whether it makes any significant difference to your applications
> whether one might care.
>
> Otoh suggesting complete re-installs is not such a good idea either.
> This may not be so simple to do with heavily altered and patched
> systems with a lot of applications installed over years. In fact, for
> many it may be essentially impossible to do this.
>
> Frankly, I'd rather chew my fingers off than completely re-install
> everything on whatever is currently my main computer.
>
> However technically correct that might be.
>
> Ross
>
>
>
>
>
hardware profile. The way to do that is by deleting the HKLM\ENUM key from
the Registry before installing the new hardware. When Windows cranks up
again it will be as if it was building the hardware profile for the first
time, just like running Setup but without the nasty side effects.
I only suggest clean installs when they're warranted, and I only suggest
"overinstalls" when they're warranted, which is, as I say, in last ditch
circumstances preparatory to a clean install. Point is to avoid doing them
in the first place. As for "broken", yes, it's a relative thing and a
relatively unknown status when it comes to Windows 9x. But I have decent
luck by following sensible rules and I can say that I'm as well-protected as
I can be, (without getting into the realm of the ridiculous,) even if it
isn't perfect.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com
"RMD" <ebff_qnyl@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
news:48323f5c.1814093@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 08:17:53 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:
>
>>
>>"RMD" <ebff_qnyl@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
>>news:4831690f.1371963@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> On Mon, 19 May 2008 00:07:27 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Doing what you suggest should be a last resort, desperate tactic to get
>>>>back
>>>>in and retrieve data before reformatting and reinstalling from scratch.
>>>>Problem is, when you run Setup again, yes it rebuilds the hardware
>>>>profile,
>>>>but it also replaces newer versions of many files with the older,
>>>>original
>>>>ones from the CD. In short, what you end up with is DLL Hell,
>>>>mis-matched
>>>>file versions, broken Windows Updates, etc.
>>> Hi Gary,
>>>
>>> What you say may be correct. I don't use Windows Updates on my Win98SE
>>> systems anyway since I have copies of all the updates and apply them
>>> as needed. The ones I wanted were already applied to this system.
>>your system needs ALL of the Critical Updates. And at least a couple of
>>the
>>so-called "Optional" Updates. In any case, you missed the point. Once you
>>have applied Updates, which frequently involve the replacement of system
>>files with newer versions, if you then run Setup from the CD, three's a
>>decent chance that Update will be broken by having had it's versions of
>>files replaced with older ones. I don't care where you get the Updates,
>>whether it's Windows Updates or a collection of installers on a CD or
>>whatever, these facts hold true.
>>
>>> When I did the Win98SE re-install on changing the motherboard it
>>> actually offered the option to keep at least some of the newer files.
>>
>>Yes, in some places it does that. In others, it doesn't. People will also
>>claim that SFC can be used by updating it first and then running it again
>>after Setup. That doesn't catch all the changes, either.
>>
>>> Everything I normally use on this system is working as normal, so for
>>> me it isn't an obviously broken system.
>>
>>Most broken systems aren't obviously so. Most of what concernes me,
>>regarding Updates, especially, is that they are often fixes intended to
>>close security holes. Most of the stuff they protect against are things
>>you
>>wouldn't notice in the first place.
>>
>>> I never downgraded IE6 to an earlier IE either. I still have the
>>> original IE6 and it seems to be working fine. I usually use Firefox
>>> anyway, and that is also working fine. I haven't found anything
>>> amongst my applications I have had to re-install, it has all worked to
>>> date.
>>
>>IE6 was not original in any version of Windows 98. But I'm glad to hear
>>you
>>have it installed. And, again, just because an app seemes to work properly
>>doesn't mean it's not broken. An app can work fine, then you add an Update
>>(perhaps security related, but maybe for compatibility with other apps or
>>teh OS, or to comply more with standards... All kinds of possibilities.
>>When
>>you apply any update, how many times do you notice some change (unless
>>it's
>>negative and something goes wrong with teh update procedure)? Why do you
>>think you'd notice the change, immediately or ever, if teh update is
>>broken.
>>DLL Hell isn't always easily identifiable.
>>
>>In any case, are you saying htat your system runs flawlessly, never
>>freezing, never crashing, etc.?
>>
>>> I doubt I'll be re-installing everything at this stage since, for me,
>>> the re-installation for the new motherboard is working fine.
>>
>>Like I said, how do you know?
>>
>>> It is working much better than with a motherboard that wouldn't start
>>> just for starters.
>>
>>Can't argue with that. But you're kidding yourself if you think you have a
>>good, safe installation of Windows. Bad enough the reinstall, but your
>>picking and choosing amongst Updates is foolhardy. It's your machine and
>>it's your choice, but I have to strenuously disagree with the advice you
>>gave to the thread, and I hope you think twice about offering it up again
>>except under the emergency conditions I described.
>>
>>--
>>Gary S. Terhune
>>MS-MVP Shell/User
>>www.grystmill.com
>>
>>
>
> Gary,
>
> You make good points.
>
> But most Windows systems are broken somewhere. I guess it depends
> whether it makes any significant difference to your applications
> whether one might care.
>
> Otoh suggesting complete re-installs is not such a good idea either.
> This may not be so simple to do with heavily altered and patched
> systems with a lot of applications installed over years. In fact, for
> many it may be essentially impossible to do this.
>
> Frankly, I'd rather chew my fingers off than completely re-install
> everything on whatever is currently my main computer.
>
> However technically correct that might be.
>
> Ross
>
>
>
>
>
Similar threads
- sh_xfab
- Windows Server 2022
- BunnyRaptor
- Windows 10
- Strelciuc Ana Maria
- Windows 10
- Lucky Chap
- Windows 11