Please help - Windows 98 SE freeze!

[James]

Hello,



I am trying to fix my dad's computer for him. He is running Windows 98 SE
on an IDE WD 80 GB HD. The computer will freeze up on him at all different
times. It can be on startup, after running for a short while or after a long
while, but does it everyday. Once it starts on that day it does it a lot.



Here is what I did so far:



Replaced hard drive- my dad's request.

Replaced cable for hard drive

Replaced cooling fan in power box, original fan made awful noise at startup.

Added extra cooling fan mid tower.



After replacing the hard drive I ran the Manufacture's diagnostics software
on the old drive, found no errors. I also did a scan disk and defrag with no
trouble. So I don't believe the hard drive was the problem. The computer ran
for me all night using the old drive with the case open and a fan blowing on
it near by. So it could have been a heat problem.



I would like to test the following before giving the computer back:



RAM

All hardware

Look for hardware and program conflicts.



Can anyone please suggest the best software for doing the above? Any other
suggestions would be very much welcomed too. I doubt what I did so far fixed
the computer. I don't have a lot of time to spend watching the computer run.
He has been dealing with this freezing problem for a long time and has
gotten very aggravated over it. He is now dealing with having cancer and
going for chemo treatments so I would like to give the computer back to him
fixed.



Thank you in advance for any and all help!



James

 

[Don Phillipson]

"James" <flyerfanno1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:23687248-6C73-43B4-A85A-F3E0624F6A6C@microsoft.com...

> I am trying to fix my dad's computer for him. He is running Windows 98 SE
> on an IDE WD 80 GB HD. The computer will freeze up on him at all different
> times. It can be on startup, after running for a short while or after a
long
> while, but does it everyday. Once it starts on that day it does it a lot.
>
> Here is what I did so far:
> Replaced hard drive- my dad's request.
> Replaced cable for hard drive
> Replaced cooling fan in power box, original fan made awful noise at
startup.
> Added extra cooling fan mid tower.
>
> After replacing the hard drive I ran the Manufacture's diagnostics
software
> on the old drive, found no errors. I also did a scan disk and defrag with
no
> trouble. So I don't believe the hard drive was the problem. The computer
ran
> for me all night using the old drive with the case open and a fan blowing
on
> it near by. So it could have been a heat problem.

The post does not say when Win98SE was last reinstalled.
Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or
two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite before
assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably
5 to 10 years old.)

1. Reliable guidance for reinstallation of Windows is at
http://home.satx.rr.com/badour/html/w98_restore.html

2. Some manufacturers offer diagnostic downloads for
RAM, hard drives etc. But genuine computer repair shops
(if you can find one where you live) have test facilities of
higher quality and can test components like the motherboard.
(E.g. I needed to replace power supply modules 3 times and
a cooling fan once in 25 years of running PCs at home.)
Since peace of mind is important, you should consider this.
A genuine repair shop can advise about overheating problems
better than you or I could by guesswork. They will also remind
you of little things (e.g. whenever in doubt, and the CMOS
battery is two or more years old, replace it just in case, cost $2.)

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

 

[philo]

"James" <flyerfanno1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:23687248-6C73-43B4-A85A-F3E0624F6A6C@microsoft.com...
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I am trying to fix my dad's computer for him. He is running Windows 98 SE
> on an IDE WD 80 GB HD. The computer will freeze up on him at all different
> times. It can be on startup, after running for a short while or after a
long
> while, but does it everyday. Once it starts on that day it does it a lot.
>
>
>
> Here is what I did so far:
>
>
>
> Replaced hard drive- my dad's request.
>
> Replaced cable for hard drive
>
> Replaced cooling fan in power box, original fan made awful noise at
startup.
>
> Added extra cooling fan mid tower.
>
>
>
> After replacing the hard drive I ran the Manufacture's diagnostics
software
> on the old drive, found no errors. I also did a scan disk and defrag with
no
> trouble. So I don't believe the hard drive was the problem. The computer
ran
> for me all night using the old drive with the case open and a fan blowing
on
> it near by. So it could have been a heat problem.
>
>
>
> I would like to test the following before giving the computer back:
>
>
>
> RAM
>
> All hardware
>
> Look for hardware and program conflicts.
>
>
>
> Can anyone please suggest the best software for doing the above? Any
other
> suggestions would be very much welcomed too. I doubt what I did so far
fixed
> the computer. I don't have a lot of time to spend watching the computer
run.
> He has been dealing with this freezing problem for a long time and has
> gotten very aggravated over it. He is now dealing with having cancer and
> going for chemo treatments so I would like to give the computer back to
him
> fixed.
>
>
>
> Thank you in advance for any and all help!
>
>
>
> James
>


Ram test:
http://oca.microsoft.com/en/windiag.asp


BTW: How is the CPU temp?
is the heatsink and fan OK???

 

[James]

Hello Don,

Thank you for your help and your suggestion to re-install Windows 98. I
will follow the link you gave me and give it a try. I do believe the install
has been just done in the past year, but it will not hurt to do it again.

Thanks again,
James


"Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message
news:ebdoW22uIHA.3484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "James" <flyerfanno1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:23687248-6C73-43B4-A85A-F3E0624F6A6C@microsoft.com...
>
>> I am trying to fix my dad's computer for him. He is running Windows 98
>> SE
>> on an IDE WD 80 GB HD. The computer will freeze up on him at all
>> different
>> times. It can be on startup, after running for a short while or after a
> long
>> while, but does it everyday. Once it starts on that day it does it a lot.
>>
>> Here is what I did so far:
>> Replaced hard drive- my dad's request.
>> Replaced cable for hard drive
>> Replaced cooling fan in power box, original fan made awful noise at
> startup.
>> Added extra cooling fan mid tower.
>>
>> After replacing the hard drive I ran the Manufacture's diagnostics
> software
>> on the old drive, found no errors. I also did a scan disk and defrag with
> no
>> trouble. So I don't believe the hard drive was the problem. The computer
> ran
>> for me all night using the old drive with the case open and a fan blowing
> on
>> it near by. So it could have been a heat problem.
>
> The post does not say when Win98SE was last reinstalled.
> Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or
> two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite before
> assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably
> 5 to 10 years old.)
>
> 1. Reliable guidance for reinstallation of Windows is at
> http://home.satx.rr.com/badour/html/w98_restore.html
>
> 2. Some manufacturers offer diagnostic downloads for
> RAM, hard drives etc. But genuine computer repair shops
> (if you can find one where you live) have test facilities of
> higher quality and can test components like the motherboard.
> (E.g. I needed to replace power supply modules 3 times and
> a cooling fan once in 25 years of running PCs at home.)
> Since peace of mind is important, you should consider this.
> A genuine repair shop can advise about overheating problems
> better than you or I could by guesswork. They will also remind
> you of little things (e.g. whenever in doubt, and the CMOS
> battery is two or more years old, replace it just in case, cost $2.)
>
> --
> Don Phillipson
> Carlsbad Springs
> (Ottawa, Canada)
>
>

 

[James]

Hello Philo,

Thank you for the link for testing RAM. I really appreciate it.

CPU fan looks like it is running great. I did not go into the Bios yet to
check the temp, but will do that. I am sure it is running cool right now
because the side panel is off and I have a fan running in the room. When I
get done with the changes inside the computer I will run it for a day with
the panel on and keep an eye on the CPU temp.

Thanks again,
James



"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2qednVwAB9JF-6nVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d@ntd.net...
>
> "James" <flyerfanno1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:23687248-6C73-43B4-A85A-F3E0624F6A6C@microsoft.com...
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>>
>> I am trying to fix my dad's computer for him. He is running Windows 98
>> SE
>> on an IDE WD 80 GB HD. The computer will freeze up on him at all
>> different
>> times. It can be on startup, after running for a short while or after a
> long
>> while, but does it everyday. Once it starts on that day it does it a lot.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is what I did so far:
>>
>>
>>
>> Replaced hard drive- my dad's request.
>>
>> Replaced cable for hard drive
>>
>> Replaced cooling fan in power box, original fan made awful noise at
> startup.
>>
>> Added extra cooling fan mid tower.
>>
>>
>>
>> After replacing the hard drive I ran the Manufacture's diagnostics
> software
>> on the old drive, found no errors. I also did a scan disk and defrag with
> no
>> trouble. So I don't believe the hard drive was the problem. The computer
> ran
>> for me all night using the old drive with the case open and a fan blowing
> on
>> it near by. So it could have been a heat problem.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would like to test the following before giving the computer back:
>>
>>
>>
>> RAM
>>
>> All hardware
>>
>> Look for hardware and program conflicts.
>>
>>
>>
>> Can anyone please suggest the best software for doing the above? Any
> other
>> suggestions would be very much welcomed too. I doubt what I did so far
> fixed
>> the computer. I don't have a lot of time to spend watching the computer
> run.
>> He has been dealing with this freezing problem for a long time and has
>> gotten very aggravated over it. He is now dealing with having cancer and
>> going for chemo treatments so I would like to give the computer back to
> him
>> fixed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you in advance for any and all help!
>>
>>
>>
>> James
>>
>
>
> Ram test:
> http://oca.microsoft.com/en/windiag.asp
>
>
> BTW: How is the CPU temp?
> is the heatsink and fan OK???
>
>

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

Doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results? Why not go
through some diagnostics, first. RAM testing is definitely recommended, but
there's a lot more testing that can be done before you go to that extreme.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"James" <flyerfanno1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:71C586CA-9E9F-465D-B4D8-CF3FA9081D52@microsoft.com...
> Hello Don,
>
> Thank you for your help and your suggestion to re-install Windows 98. I
> will follow the link you gave me and give it a try. I do believe the
> install has been just done in the past year, but it will not hurt to do it
> again.
>
> Thanks again,
> James
>
>
> "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message
> news:ebdoW22uIHA.3484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> "James" <flyerfanno1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:23687248-6C73-43B4-A85A-F3E0624F6A6C@microsoft.com...
>>
>>> I am trying to fix my dad's computer for him. He is running Windows 98
>>> SE
>>> on an IDE WD 80 GB HD. The computer will freeze up on him at all
>>> different
>>> times. It can be on startup, after running for a short while or after a
>> long
>>> while, but does it everyday. Once it starts on that day it does it a
>>> lot.
>>>
>>> Here is what I did so far:
>>> Replaced hard drive- my dad's request.
>>> Replaced cable for hard drive
>>> Replaced cooling fan in power box, original fan made awful noise at
>> startup.
>>> Added extra cooling fan mid tower.
>>>
>>> After replacing the hard drive I ran the Manufacture's diagnostics
>> software
>>> on the old drive, found no errors. I also did a scan disk and defrag
>>> with
>> no
>>> trouble. So I don't believe the hard drive was the problem. The computer
>> ran
>>> for me all night using the old drive with the case open and a fan
>>> blowing
>> on
>>> it near by. So it could have been a heat problem.
>>
>> The post does not say when Win98SE was last reinstalled.
>> Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or
>> two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite before
>> assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably
>> 5 to 10 years old.)
>>
>> 1. Reliable guidance for reinstallation of Windows is at
>> http://home.satx.rr.com/badour/html/w98_restore.html
>>
>> 2. Some manufacturers offer diagnostic downloads for
>> RAM, hard drives etc. But genuine computer repair shops
>> (if you can find one where you live) have test facilities of
>> higher quality and can test components like the motherboard.
>> (E.g. I needed to replace power supply modules 3 times and
>> a cooling fan once in 25 years of running PCs at home.)
>> Since peace of mind is important, you should consider this.
>> A genuine repair shop can advise about overheating problems
>> better than you or I could by guesswork. They will also remind
>> you of little things (e.g. whenever in doubt, and the CMOS
>> battery is two or more years old, replace it just in case, cost $2.)
>>
>> --
>> Don Phillipson
>> Carlsbad Springs
>> (Ottawa, Canada)
>>
>>
>

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

Run the RAM test for a couple of days (yes, days), then post back here with
the results. After that, I think I'd run DXDiag, all tests, to exercise/test
the video card.

While you're at it, answer some questions: How does your Dad use the
computer? What does he do with it? Games? Internet? Email? What programs
does he use (exact names, please.) Look in Help>About for each one and tell
us what versions.

What antivirus does the machine use? What other protective apps (Spyware
scanners, etc.)?

Please run MSINFO32, expand the Software Environment, click on Startup
Programs, click in the right-hand pane, press Ctrl-A, then Ctrl-C. Then open
a new reply to this post (let's keep it separate from the rest, it's messy)
and use Ctrl-V to Paste in the data.

Lastly, stop the RAM test for a while and go to the following address and
follow ALL suggestions there. http://aumha.org/a/quickfix.htm

Hope you can find a good use for that old, good HD. Like as a backup drive.
Not good for serious critical data backup, but if there's nothing like that
involved, it could certainly help your Dad in the future. Once you've got
all this figured out, even if it takes a complete reinstall (possibly with
some different apps), if it starts acting up you can just restore a backup
if your Dad is too impatient for a true diagnosis. (Never mind, my mind's
wandering...)

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com


"James" <flyerfanno1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:23687248-6C73-43B4-A85A-F3E0624F6A6C@microsoft.com...
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I am trying to fix my dad's computer for him. He is running Windows 98 SE
> on an IDE WD 80 GB HD. The computer will freeze up on him at all different
> times. It can be on startup, after running for a short while or after a
> long while, but does it everyday. Once it starts on that day it does it a
> lot.
>
>
>
> Here is what I did so far:
>
>
>
> Replaced hard drive- my dad's request.
>
> Replaced cable for hard drive
>
> Replaced cooling fan in power box, original fan made awful noise at
> startup.
>
> Added extra cooling fan mid tower.
>
>
>
> After replacing the hard drive I ran the Manufacture's diagnostics
> software on the old drive, found no errors. I also did a scan disk and
> defrag with no trouble. So I don't believe the hard drive was the problem.
> The computer ran for me all night using the old drive with the case open
> and a fan blowing on it near by. So it could have been a heat problem.
>
>
>
> I would like to test the following before giving the computer back:
>
>
>
> RAM
>
> All hardware
>
> Look for hardware and program conflicts.
>
>
>
> Can anyone please suggest the best software for doing the above? Any other
> suggestions would be very much welcomed too. I doubt what I did so far
> fixed the computer. I don't have a lot of time to spend watching the
> computer run. He has been dealing with this freezing problem for a long
> time and has gotten very aggravated over it. He is now dealing with having
> cancer and going for chemo treatments so I would like to give the computer
> back to him fixed.
>
>
>
> Thank you in advance for any and all help!
>
>
>
> James
>

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

"Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message
news:ebdoW22uIHA.3484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "James" <flyerfanno1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:23687248-6C73-43B4-A85A-F3E0624F6A6C@microsoft.com...
>
>> I am trying to fix my dad's computer for him. He is running Windows 98
>> SE
>> on an IDE WD 80 GB HD. The computer will freeze up on him at all
>> different
>> times. It can be on startup, after running for a short while or after a
> long
>> while, but does it everyday. Once it starts on that day it does it a lot.
>>
>> Here is what I did so far:
>> Replaced hard drive- my dad's request.
>> Replaced cable for hard drive
>> Replaced cooling fan in power box, original fan made awful noise at
> startup.
>> Added extra cooling fan mid tower.
>>
>> After replacing the hard drive I ran the Manufacture's diagnostics
> software
>> on the old drive, found no errors. I also did a scan disk and defrag with
> no
>> trouble. So I don't believe the hard drive was the problem. The computer
> ran
>> for me all night using the old drive with the case open and a fan blowing
> on
>> it near by. So it could have been a heat problem.
>
> The post does not say when Win98SE was last reinstalled.
> Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or
> two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite before
> assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably
> 5 to 10 years old.)

Pray tell, what "experts" recommend this habitual reinstallation of Win98?
That's a load of pure B.S. And, yes, installing Windows takes ~ 1 hour. But
it can take days to finish the job properly. One very, very long day, at
best.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

 

[J. P. Gilliver]

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message
[]
>> Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or
>> two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite before
>> assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably
>> 5 to 10 years old.)
>
> Pray tell, what "experts" recommend this habitual reinstallation of
> Win98? That's a load of pure B.S. And, yes, installing Windows takes
> ~ 1 hour. But it can take days to finish the job properly. One very,
> very long day, at best.

Hooray! I was going to say more or less the very same thing.

As part of trying to get that microscope working, I used soporific's
autopatcher - yes, you were all right to say be very careful with it: it
broke my PC [freezes during boot]. (Yes, I know it only does patches. All
right, one of them broke it. Same end result.) Probably irretrievable broken
now, due to the tinkering I've done to try to get it back, but I'm very loth
to do a reinstall, as there are signs that my setup is still there
underneath: it (initially) would still boot into Safe Mode, for example.
(Now just gets as far as the background pattern in Safe Mode. Can still get
to command prompt no problem.)

Any suggestions (other than not be a silly boy again)?

As if I've not learnt my lesson, I quite like the look of soporific's "98
for 2008" - http://sharethefiles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=104845 -
especially the "re-install the operating system Without deleting old
settings" option however, it seems only to be available via torrent sites,
of which I'm very wary.
--
J. P. Gilliver

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Wed, 21 May 2008 13:02:37 -0400, "James" <flyerfanno1@hotmail.com>
put finger to keyboard and composed:

> I am trying to fix my dad's computer for him. He is running Windows 98 SE
>on an IDE WD 80 GB HD. The computer will freeze up on him at all different
>times. It can be on startup, after running for a short while or after a long
>while, but does it everyday. Once it starts on that day it does it a lot.

Whenever I have problems like this I remove and reseat all cards and
memory modules. Better still, gently wipe the gold fingers of all the
cards with a soft pencil eraser. I also spray the sockets with
electronic cleaning solvent.

Check the motherboard for swollen or leaking capacitors. Also peak
inside the power supply for signs of same.

Run a stand-alone, floppy based, DOS memory diagnostic such as
Memtest:
http://www.memtest.org/

Run a torture test such as Prime95:
http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/385/

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

Strike Two for Auto-Patcher in just a few short days on a dinky NG like this
one. Not good stats, all you AP defenders.

And it does a lot more than "patch", unless you want to use a nice loose
definition that basically says that anything you do to the system is a
"patch". No, I picture Auto-Patcher as a group of guys in white jumpsuits,
running around a room, slapping patches on everything they see, even if
there isn't any dent in the wall there, while another, surly looking bloke
swings a sledge hammer round and round, everyone else ignoring him, even
when the hammer happens to hit a wall or something more important, or even
one of the other patchers. Like Russian Roulette.

And no, I think you've hosed it for good. Start collecting drivers. And this
time pay attention to the apps you install. Make a list, including versions,
etc. As for that last, there is NO SUCH THING as a decent overinstall (a
reinstall without reformatting.) No matter how you do it, it will end up an
unstable knife at the small of your back, just waiting for you to relax.

Auto-Patcher. Bah, Humbug! Another example of death by committee.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com


"J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in message
news:4835af64$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>> "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message
> []
>>> Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or
>>> two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite before
>>> assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably
>>> 5 to 10 years old.)
>>
>> Pray tell, what "experts" recommend this habitual reinstallation of
>> Win98? That's a load of pure B.S. And, yes, installing Windows takes
>> ~ 1 hour. But it can take days to finish the job properly. One very,
>> very long day, at best.
>
> Hooray! I was going to say more or less the very same thing.
>
> As part of trying to get that microscope working, I used soporific's
> autopatcher - yes, you were all right to say be very careful with it: it
> broke my PC [freezes during boot]. (Yes, I know it only does patches. All
> right, one of them broke it. Same end result.) Probably irretrievable
> broken now, due to the tinkering I've done to try to get it back, but I'm
> very loth to do a reinstall, as there are signs that my setup is still
> there underneath: it (initially) would still boot into Safe Mode, for
> example. (Now just gets as far as the background pattern in Safe Mode. Can
> still get to command prompt no problem.)
>
> Any suggestions (other than not be a silly boy again)?
>
> As if I've not learnt my lesson, I quite like the look of soporific's "98
> for 2008" - http://sharethefiles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=104845 -
> especially the "re-install the operating system Without deleting old
> settings" option however, it seems only to be available via torrent
> sites, of which I'm very wary.
> --
> J. P. Gilliver
>

 

[.]

"J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in message
news:4835af64$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> > "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message
> []
> >> Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or
> >> two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite before
> >> assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably
> >> 5 to 10 years old.)
> >
> > Pray tell, what "experts" recommend this habitual reinstallation of
> > Win98? That's a load of pure B.S. And, yes, installing Windows takes
> > ~ 1 hour. But it can take days to finish the job properly. One very,
> > very long day, at best.
>
> Hooray! I was going to say more or less the very same thing.
>
> As part of trying to get that microscope working, I used soporific's
> autopatcher - yes, you were all right to say be very careful with it: it
> broke my PC [freezes during boot]. (Yes, I know it only does patches. All
> right, one of them broke it. Same end result.) Probably irretrievable
broken
> now, due to the tinkering I've done to try to get it back, but I'm very
loth
> to do a reinstall, as there are signs that my setup is still there
> underneath: it (initially) would still boot into Safe Mode, for example.
> (Now just gets as far as the background pattern in Safe Mode. Can still
get
> to command prompt no problem.)
>
> Any suggestions (other than not be a silly boy again)?

Is it any wonder that a user that couldn't or wouldn't verify
the microscope mfg's requirements for the OS also couldn't
or wouldn't bother to follow instructions regarding program
installation and then blames the utility's (AP) packager? ^)

Per the author's instructions, Auto-Patcher is supposed
to be applied to a fresh install of Windows 98 SE. Re:
The correct sequence is:
1. Install Win98se
2. Install Auto-Patcher and use it.
http://soporific.dsleague.com/main/?page_id=7

I've followed that recommendation and despite heavy usage
continue to not have the slightest conceivable issue with Auto-
Patcher, I've in fact had quite the exact opposite experience.

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

Would be nice if the author could bother to put a real front page on that
thing. Would be nice if the people slogging this product in this group,
along with the rest of the author's cohort, could be bothered to provide the
important links regarding it's use. So far, I have a link to MSFN that looks
just like any other product development discussion -- two freakin' years
worth. A new user is supposed to slog through that to find a list of
instructions? A new user, in order to avoid SERIOUS FOUL-UPS, is supposed to
do this?

OK, so I go to soporific.com, expecting there'll be instructions there.
Nope, just list of folders. So it's guessing game time. OK, I'll click on
Main. Hmm.... bunch of political blather... Oh, there it is in the upper
right corner, Ok... Whaddya know, it's the page that you so kindly linked
to, the one nobody else who slogs the app here seems to know about.

Just a long list of 47 "Comments", one of which, by golly, suggests that my
Unofficial Time Zones Update package be included. I assume it wasn't, since
I haven't heard from the author. (Oh, and down around "COMMENT" 26 is your
"Instruction". Sorry, but that doesn't qualify as an "Instruction".

So, maybe the app is useful, and maybe it is even a God Send for IT people.
(But I think people who try to turn Windows 98 into Windows XP have
something missing in their soul.) But it was the HEIGHT of irresponsibility
for anyone in this group to be promoting it, because frankly, it isn't
finished, and/or they don't really know anything about it, and/or if they DO
know anything about it, they don't apparently know the most important
thing -- AP is only to be applied to a fresh install.

And, in the end, I don't believe the author had anything like the proper
amount of time or a sufficient depth of testers to allow, on such a massive
pile of cobbled together "patches", anything like a decent margin of safety.
And while a forum works well when building an app by committee, it does NOT
substitute for a manual of instructions, nor all the other usual items you
see on an app's download page, like Min. Reqs., CAUTIONS, etc. I mean, if
the author KNOWS the app is going to choke and cause problems on anything
but a new installation, why THAT info should be the title of the damned
page, not some note buried in Comment 25.

No, not only is this a dangerous abortion of an app for the casual user, it
fails my own minimum requirements for any app worth a damn. My opinion of
those promoting it here is that they lack any sense of responsibility toward
the innocents who come here looking for advice. I say SHAME ON YOU, one and
all.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"." <.@dot.com> wrote in message news:EppZj.89523$y05.52341@newsfe22.lga...
> "J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in message
> news:4835af64$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>> > "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message
>> []
>> >> Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or
>> >> two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite before
>> >> assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably
>> >> 5 to 10 years old.)
>> >
>> > Pray tell, what "experts" recommend this habitual reinstallation of
>> > Win98? That's a load of pure B.S. And, yes, installing Windows takes
>> > ~ 1 hour. But it can take days to finish the job properly. One very,
>> > very long day, at best.
>>
>> Hooray! I was going to say more or less the very same thing.
>>
>> As part of trying to get that microscope working, I used soporific's
>> autopatcher - yes, you were all right to say be very careful with it: it
>> broke my PC [freezes during boot]. (Yes, I know it only does patches. All
>> right, one of them broke it. Same end result.) Probably irretrievable
> broken
>> now, due to the tinkering I've done to try to get it back, but I'm very
> loth
>> to do a reinstall, as there are signs that my setup is still there
>> underneath: it (initially) would still boot into Safe Mode, for example.
>> (Now just gets as far as the background pattern in Safe Mode. Can still
> get
>> to command prompt no problem.)
>>
>> Any suggestions (other than not be a silly boy again)?
>
> Is it any wonder that a user that couldn't or wouldn't verify
> the microscope mfg's requirements for the OS also couldn't
> or wouldn't bother to follow instructions regarding program
> installation and then blames the utility's (AP) packager? ^)
>
> Per the author's instructions, Auto-Patcher is supposed
> to be applied to a fresh install of Windows 98 SE. Re:
> The correct sequence is:
> 1. Install Win98se
> 2. Install Auto-Patcher and use it.
> http://soporific.dsleague.com/main/?page_id=7
>
> I've followed that recommendation and despite heavy usage
> continue to not have the slightest conceivable issue with Auto-
> Patcher, I've in fact had quite the exact opposite experience.
>
>

 

[.]

Don't like it? Don't use it, simple as that albeit your "review"
is tantamount to an evaluation of a book where the critic has
not only not read the work (let alone perused the Cliff Notes)
but instead haughtily berates those that have relying solely on
snippets and the barbs of others. In any case, to each his own.

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:%23oHcbvOvIHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Would be nice if the author could bother to put a real front page on that
> thing. Would be nice if the people slogging this product in this group,
> along with the rest of the author's cohort, could be bothered to provide
the
> important links regarding it's use. So far, I have a link to MSFN that
looks
> just like any other product development discussion -- two freakin' years
> worth. A new user is supposed to slog through that to find a list of
> instructions? A new user, in order to avoid SERIOUS FOUL-UPS, is supposed
to
> do this?
>
> OK, so I go to soporific.com, expecting there'll be instructions there.
> Nope, just list of folders. So it's guessing game time. OK, I'll click on
> Main. Hmm.... bunch of political blather... Oh, there it is in the upper
> right corner, Ok... Whaddya know, it's the page that you so kindly linked
> to, the one nobody else who slogs the app here seems to know about.
>
> Just a long list of 47 "Comments", one of which, by golly, suggests that
my
> Unofficial Time Zones Update package be included. I assume it wasn't,
since
> I haven't heard from the author. (Oh, and down around "COMMENT" 26 is your
> "Instruction". Sorry, but that doesn't qualify as an "Instruction".
>
> So, maybe the app is useful, and maybe it is even a God Send for IT
people.
> (But I think people who try to turn Windows 98 into Windows XP have
> something missing in their soul.) But it was the HEIGHT of
irresponsibility
> for anyone in this group to be promoting it, because frankly, it isn't
> finished, and/or they don't really know anything about it, and/or if they

DO
> know anything about it, they don't apparently know the most important
> thing -- AP is only to be applied to a fresh install.
>
> And, in the end, I don't believe the author had anything like the proper
> amount of time or a sufficient depth of testers to allow, on such a
massive
> pile of cobbled together "patches", anything like a decent margin of
safety.
> And while a forum works well when building an app by committee, it does
NOT
> substitute for a manual of instructions, nor all the other usual items you
> see on an app's download page, like Min. Reqs., CAUTIONS, etc. I mean, if
> the author KNOWS the app is going to choke and cause problems on anything
> but a new installation, why THAT info should be the title of the damned
> page, not some note buried in Comment 25.
>
> No, not only is this a dangerous abortion of an app for the casual user,
it
> fails my own minimum requirements for any app worth a damn. My opinion of
> those promoting it here is that they lack any sense of responsibility
toward
> the innocents who come here looking for advice. I say SHAME ON YOU, one
and
> all.
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS-MVP Shell/User
> www.grystmill.com
>
> "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message
news:EppZj.89523$y05.52341@newsfe22.lga...
> > "J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in message
> > news:4835af64$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
> >> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> >> > "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message
> >> []
> >> >> Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or
> >> >> two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite before
> >> >> assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably
> >> >> 5 to 10 years old.)
> >> >
> >> > Pray tell, what "experts" recommend this habitual reinstallation of
> >> > Win98? That's a load of pure B.S. And, yes, installing Windows takes
> >> > ~ 1 hour. But it can take days to finish the job properly. One very,
> >> > very long day, at best.
> >>
> >> Hooray! I was going to say more or less the very same thing.
> >>
> >> As part of trying to get that microscope working, I used soporific's
> >> autopatcher - yes, you were all right to say be very careful with it:
it
> >> broke my PC [freezes during boot]. (Yes, I know it only does patches.
All
> >> right, one of them broke it. Same end result.) Probably irretrievable
> > broken
> >> now, due to the tinkering I've done to try to get it back, but I'm very
> > loth
> >> to do a reinstall, as there are signs that my setup is still there
> >> underneath: it (initially) would still boot into Safe Mode, for
example.
> >> (Now just gets as far as the background pattern in Safe Mode. Can still
> > get
> >> to command prompt no problem.)
> >>
> >> Any suggestions (other than not be a silly boy again)?
> >
> > Is it any wonder that a user that couldn't or wouldn't verify
> > the microscope mfg's requirements for the OS also couldn't
> > or wouldn't bother to follow instructions regarding program
> > installation and then blames the utility's (AP) packager? ^)
> >
> > Per the author's instructions, Auto-Patcher is supposed
> > to be applied to a fresh install of Windows 98 SE. Re:
> > The correct sequence is:
> > 1. Install Win98se
> > 2. Install Auto-Patcher and use it.
> > http://soporific.dsleague.com/main/?page_id=7
> >
> > I've followed that recommendation and despite heavy usage
> > continue to not have the slightest conceivable issue with Auto-
> > Patcher, I've in fact had quite the exact opposite experience.

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

LOL! You can't decently defend one accusation I made. Look, just because it
hasn't caused YOU any problems, it HAS caused problems, as you've seen in
this group in just the past couple of days. And, pray tell, who else here
has said anything negative about AP except me? How could I possibly be
"relying solely on snippets and the barbs of others"? My opinions are
entirely my own, you twit.

I CERTAINLY read that page of "instructions" and it isn't anything of the
sort. I CERTAINLY, reviewed the forum to a fair extent, and it was totally
non-informative about the app except to prove that lots of people have
problems with it and they seem to be mostly problems of incompatibility with
other apps and (as seen in this group) hardware. That indicates insufficient
testing. It CERTAINLY caused at least two people in this group grief when
they tried it, with problems you apparently don't know the answer to, and in
one case will apparently require a total rebuild to "fix" it. I CERTAINLY
*have* downloaded it and looked into it, but I don't have a machine I feel
like rebuilding right now, so I'd be stupid to actually run it. And other
than that one "comment", I DON'T see ANYWHERE where it says, "Only run this
on a fresh install of Windows 98." You'd think that was rather an important
thing for the new user to know. But, of course, I've read a lot, everything
available except not ALL of the dozens of pages of MSFN forum, and that's
the only place that little rule is mentioned, so I think YOU are the one
that's off the wall and that a fresh install isn't supposed to be a
requirement at all. Hey, if you really don't know what you're talking about,
you should keep your yap shut.

The whole IDEA of Auto-Patcher is wrong-headed and it's full of potential
problems because of all the unofficial updates and attempts at building 98
patches from XP versions, but even then, it's not ready for distribution.
It's barely reached Beta stage. Responsible people generally do not
recommend Beta products to others.

NOT ONLY WILL I NOT USE Auto-Patcher, I WILL SLAM IT AND BAD MOUTH ANYONE
WHO EVEN RECOMMENDS IT, now and for the foreseeable future. It's a big a
pile of crap as I've seen in a long time. Like something Symantec might
vomit out.

Lastly, quit brown-nosing me and go find someone else to pretend you're the
equal of. You're an ignorant cuss, enamored of a juvenile circle-jerk called
"Auto-Patcher". If you want a metaphor, try Communism, the "peoples' party"
Valhalla that never managed to accomplish anything but evil.

Let me put it more simply -- If people want Windows XP (or Vista), they
should go out and buy them, instead of trying to make Windows 98 into
something it can never decently be.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"." <.@dot.com> wrote in message news:qoCZj.89588$y05.29430@newsfe22.lga...
> Don't like it? Don't use it, simple as that albeit your "review"
> is tantamount to an evaluation of a book where the critic has
> not only not read the work (let alone perused the Cliff Notes)
> but instead haughtily berates those that have relying solely on
> snippets and the barbs of others. In any case, to each his own.
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> news:%23oHcbvOvIHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Would be nice if the author could bother to put a real front page on that
>> thing. Would be nice if the people slogging this product in this group,
>> along with the rest of the author's cohort, could be bothered to provide
> the
>> important links regarding it's use. So far, I have a link to MSFN that
> looks
>> just like any other product development discussion -- two freakin' years
>> worth. A new user is supposed to slog through that to find a list of
>> instructions? A new user, in order to avoid SERIOUS FOUL-UPS, is supposed
> to
>> do this?
>>
>> OK, so I go to soporific.com, expecting there'll be instructions there.
>> Nope, just list of folders. So it's guessing game time. OK, I'll click on
>> Main. Hmm.... bunch of political blather... Oh, there it is in the upper
>> right corner, Ok... Whaddya know, it's the page that you so kindly linked
>> to, the one nobody else who slogs the app here seems to know about.
>>
>> Just a long list of 47 "Comments", one of which, by golly, suggests that
> my
>> Unofficial Time Zones Update package be included. I assume it wasn't,
> since
>> I haven't heard from the author. (Oh, and down around "COMMENT" 26 is
>> your
>> "Instruction". Sorry, but that doesn't qualify as an "Instruction".
>>
>> So, maybe the app is useful, and maybe it is even a God Send for IT
> people.
>> (But I think people who try to turn Windows 98 into Windows XP have
>> something missing in their soul.) But it was the HEIGHT of
> irresponsibility
>> for anyone in this group to be promoting it, because frankly, it isn't
>> finished, and/or they don't really know anything about it, and/or if they
>
> DO
>> know anything about it, they don't apparently know the most important
>> thing -- AP is only to be applied to a fresh install.
>>
>> And, in the end, I don't believe the author had anything like the proper
>> amount of time or a sufficient depth of testers to allow, on such a
> massive
>> pile of cobbled together "patches", anything like a decent margin of
> safety.
>> And while a forum works well when building an app by committee, it does
> NOT
>> substitute for a manual of instructions, nor all the other usual items
>> you
>> see on an app's download page, like Min. Reqs., CAUTIONS, etc. I mean, if
>> the author KNOWS the app is going to choke and cause problems on anything
>> but a new installation, why THAT info should be the title of the damned
>> page, not some note buried in Comment 25.
>>
>> No, not only is this a dangerous abortion of an app for the casual user,
> it
>> fails my own minimum requirements for any app worth a damn. My opinion of
>> those promoting it here is that they lack any sense of responsibility
> toward
>> the innocents who come here looking for advice. I say SHAME ON YOU, one
> and
>> all.
>>
>> --
>> Gary S. Terhune
>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>> www.grystmill.com
>>
>> "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:EppZj.89523$y05.52341@newsfe22.lga...
>> > "J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in message
>> > news:4835af64$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>> >> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>> >> > "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message
>> >> []
>> >> >> Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or
>> >> >> two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite before
>> >> >> assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably
>> >> >> 5 to 10 years old.)
>> >> >
>> >> > Pray tell, what "experts" recommend this habitual reinstallation of
>> >> > Win98? That's a load of pure B.S. And, yes, installing Windows takes
>> >> > ~ 1 hour. But it can take days to finish the job properly. One very,
>> >> > very long day, at best.
>> >>
>> >> Hooray! I was going to say more or less the very same thing.
>> >>
>> >> As part of trying to get that microscope working, I used soporific's
>> >> autopatcher - yes, you were all right to say be very careful with it:
> it
>> >> broke my PC [freezes during boot]. (Yes, I know it only does patches.
> All
>> >> right, one of them broke it. Same end result.) Probably irretrievable
>> > broken
>> >> now, due to the tinkering I've done to try to get it back, but I'm
>> >> very
>> > loth
>> >> to do a reinstall, as there are signs that my setup is still there
>> >> underneath: it (initially) would still boot into Safe Mode, for
> example.
>> >> (Now just gets as far as the background pattern in Safe Mode. Can
>> >> still
>> > get
>> >> to command prompt no problem.)
>> >>
>> >> Any suggestions (other than not be a silly boy again)?
>> >
>> > Is it any wonder that a user that couldn't or wouldn't verify
>> > the microscope mfg's requirements for the OS also couldn't
>> > or wouldn't bother to follow instructions regarding program
>> > installation and then blames the utility's (AP) packager? ^)
>> >
>> > Per the author's instructions, Auto-Patcher is supposed
>> > to be applied to a fresh install of Windows 98 SE. Re:
>> > The correct sequence is:
>> > 1. Install Win98se
>> > 2. Install Auto-Patcher and use it.
>> > http://soporific.dsleague.com/main/?page_id=7
>> >
>> > I've followed that recommendation and despite heavy usage
>> > continue to not have the slightest conceivable issue with Auto-
>> > Patcher, I've in fact had quite the exact opposite experience.
>
>

 

[J. P. Gilliver]

.. wrote:

Bit dotty, this guy! (FWIW, I don't think it's "soporific" himself: I've had
correspondence with him, and although we differ on certain matters, he seems
quite a reasonable guy. And also, AFAICT, he doesn't _sell_ AutoPatcher or
the UBCD - in fact I think he doesn't even use it himself as his main OS.)
[]
> Is it any wonder that a user that couldn't or wouldn't verify
> the microscope mfg's requirements for the OS also couldn't

ThinkGeek's webpage said 98 (I think 98 _and_ 98SE). It still did up to at
least yesterday. As with many distributors, they give neither the maker nor
the model number, so I couldn't check there - though I'm pretty sure I did
as soon as I got it and it was still saying 98 too, but I didn't take a copy
of it at that time. (It doesn't mention 98 now, probably after I
corresponded with them.)

> or wouldn't bother to follow instructions regarding program
> installation and then blames the utility's (AP) packager? ^)
>
> Per the author's instructions, Auto-Patcher is supposed
> to be applied to a fresh install of Windows 98 SE. Re:
> The correct sequence is:
> 1. Install Win98se
> 2. Install Auto-Patcher and use it.
> http://soporific.dsleague.com/main/?page_id=7

As Gary has said, that "supposed"ness is very far from obvious from that
page! (Or the MSFN one, which just looks like a discussion.)
>
> I've followed that recommendation and despite heavy usage
> continue to not have the slightest conceivable issue with Auto-
> Patcher, I've in fact had quite the exact opposite experience.

I'm sure that many do have that experience I suspect that, from a clean
start, people using his UBCD -
http://sharethefiles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=104845&start=0 - sometimes
have no problems either. But trying to use _any_ patch - soporific's (OK,
not his, but YKWIM) or other sourced - on an up and running system, ther
than _possibly_ brand new, is dangerous. Definitely going to ghost my C: (or
at least Windows directory) this time, if I can find something (ideally
free) that will save and can then be restored from DOS 7.
--
J. P. Gilliver

 

[MEB]

Excuse me for butting in, but *I* did supply the warning in the
post/discussion *warning* about installing these things in already updated
systems.
I personally HAVE tested numerous of these compilations, and DO warn
concerning their use when such appears in this group.

I agree, the works are at best "beta tests" as I have repeatedly posted in
this group I also agree that the documentation is slim and poorly
researched and presented.. I also would like to see a more extensive review
of these compilations.

But I also see the potential value, for some, that these might provide.
However, I would also like to see the sites which provide these, to also
provide support forums for these updaters, where those with issues can
address them without scorn. With Summaries and Warnings CLEARLY posted
throughout the sites.
CLEARLY, those who post that these are fail-safe or attempt to direct in
the fashion, are failing to address the differing configurations of the
individual systems. They are also CLEARLY failing to address the differing
applications which might be installed within those *unofficially* updated
systems.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, they also CLEARLY fail to address the additional security
risks and other issues which become part of this un-official updating.
Many of these official updates can be modified to work within 9X, but for
them to work safely [or what is purported as such in Microsoft
environments], they NEED the other functions/services available within the
OS for which they were originally intended.

I have yet to find the sites which have setup proper testing facilities to
test and attack these systems. I have yet to see the file and system error
check reports. I have yet to find the sites which deal with the
inter-relationships of these updates and the ramifications thereby related..
As such, ALL usage of these unofficial updaters should be taken with extreme
caution and skepticism.

Stating that "it works for me" means nothing and produces an air that these
are OKAY for everyone, which they are NOT..

--
MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:%23W7tE1PvIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
| LOL! You can't decently defend one accusation I made. Look, just because
it
| hasn't caused YOU any problems, it HAS caused problems, as you've seen in
| this group in just the past couple of days. And, pray tell, who else here
| has said anything negative about AP except me? How could I possibly be
| "relying solely on snippets and the barbs of others"? My opinions are
| entirely my own, you twit.
|
| I CERTAINLY read that page of "instructions" and it isn't anything of the
| sort. I CERTAINLY, reviewed the forum to a fair extent, and it was totally
| non-informative about the app except to prove that lots of people have
| problems with it and they seem to be mostly problems of incompatibility
with
| other apps and (as seen in this group) hardware. That indicates
insufficient
| testing. It CERTAINLY caused at least two people in this group grief when
| they tried it, with problems you apparently don't know the answer to, and
in
| one case will apparently require a total rebuild to "fix" it. I CERTAINLY
| *have* downloaded it and looked into it, but I don't have a machine I feel
| like rebuilding right now, so I'd be stupid to actually run it. And other
| than that one "comment", I DON'T see ANYWHERE where it says, "Only run
this
| on a fresh install of Windows 98." You'd think that was rather an
important
| thing for the new user to know. But, of course, I've read a lot,
everything
| available except not ALL of the dozens of pages of MSFN forum, and that's
| the only place that little rule is mentioned, so I think YOU are the one
| that's off the wall and that a fresh install isn't supposed to be a
| requirement at all. Hey, if you really don't know what you're talking
about,
| you should keep your yap shut.
|
| The whole IDEA of Auto-Patcher is wrong-headed and it's full of potential
| problems because of all the unofficial updates and attempts at building 98
| patches from XP versions, but even then, it's not ready for distribution.
| It's barely reached Beta stage. Responsible people generally do not
| recommend Beta products to others.
|
| NOT ONLY WILL I NOT USE Auto-Patcher, I WILL SLAM IT AND BAD MOUTH ANYONE
| WHO EVEN RECOMMENDS IT, now and for the foreseeable future. It's a big a
| pile of crap as I've seen in a long time. Like something Symantec might
| vomit out.
|
| Lastly, quit brown-nosing me and go find someone else to pretend you're
the
| equal of. You're an ignorant cuss, enamored of a juvenile circle-jerk
called
| "Auto-Patcher". If you want a metaphor, try Communism, the "peoples'
party"
| Valhalla that never managed to accomplish anything but evil.
|
| Let me put it more simply -- If people want Windows XP (or Vista), they
| should go out and buy them, instead of trying to make Windows 98 into
| something it can never decently be.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS-MVP Shell/User
| www.grystmill.com
|
| "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message
news:qoCZj.89588$y05.29430@newsfe22.lga...
| > Don't like it? Don't use it, simple as that albeit your "review"
| > is tantamount to an evaluation of a book where the critic has
| > not only not read the work (let alone perused the Cliff Notes)
| > but instead haughtily berates those that have relying solely on
| > snippets and the barbs of others. In any case, to each his own.
| >
| > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > news:%23oHcbvOvIHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| >> Would be nice if the author could bother to put a real front page on
that
| >> thing. Would be nice if the people slogging this product in this group,
| >> along with the rest of the author's cohort, could be bothered to
provide
| > the
| >> important links regarding it's use. So far, I have a link to MSFN that
| > looks
| >> just like any other product development discussion -- two freakin'
years
| >> worth. A new user is supposed to slog through that to find a list of
| >> instructions? A new user, in order to avoid SERIOUS FOUL-UPS, is
supposed
| > to
| >> do this?
| >>
| >> OK, so I go to soporific.com, expecting there'll be instructions there.
| >> Nope, just list of folders. So it's guessing game time. OK, I'll click
on
| >> Main. Hmm.... bunch of political blather... Oh, there it is in the
upper
| >> right corner, Ok... Whaddya know, it's the page that you so kindly
linked
| >> to, the one nobody else who slogs the app here seems to know about.
| >>
| >> Just a long list of 47 "Comments", one of which, by golly, suggests
that
| > my
| >> Unofficial Time Zones Update package be included. I assume it wasn't,
| > since
| >> I haven't heard from the author. (Oh, and down around "COMMENT" 26 is
| >> your
| >> "Instruction". Sorry, but that doesn't qualify as an "Instruction".
| >>
| >> So, maybe the app is useful, and maybe it is even a God Send for IT
| > people.
| >> (But I think people who try to turn Windows 98 into Windows XP have
| >> something missing in their soul.) But it was the HEIGHT of
| > irresponsibility
| >> for anyone in this group to be promoting it, because frankly, it isn't
| >> finished, and/or they don't really know anything about it, and/or if
they
| >
| > DO
| >> know anything about it, they don't apparently know the most important
| >> thing -- AP is only to be applied to a fresh install.
| >>
| >> And, in the end, I don't believe the author had anything like the
proper
| >> amount of time or a sufficient depth of testers to allow, on such a
| > massive
| >> pile of cobbled together "patches", anything like a decent margin of
| > safety.
| >> And while a forum works well when building an app by committee, it does
| > NOT
| >> substitute for a manual of instructions, nor all the other usual items
| >> you
| >> see on an app's download page, like Min. Reqs., CAUTIONS, etc. I mean,
if
| >> the author KNOWS the app is going to choke and cause problems on anythi
ng
| >> but a new installation, why THAT info should be the title of the damned
| >> page, not some note buried in Comment 25.
| >>
| >> No, not only is this a dangerous abortion of an app for the casual
user,
| > it
| >> fails my own minimum requirements for any app worth a damn. My opinion
of
| >> those promoting it here is that they lack any sense of responsibility
| > toward
| >> the innocents who come here looking for advice. I say SHAME ON YOU, one
| > and
| >> all.
| >>
| >> --
| >> Gary S. Terhune
| >> MS-MVP Shell/User
| >> www.grystmill.com
| >>
| >> "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message
| > news:EppZj.89523$y05.52341@newsfe22.lga...
| >> > "J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in message
| >> > news:4835af64$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
| >> >> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
| >> >> > "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message
| >> >> []
| >> >> >> Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or
| >> >> >> two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite before
| >> >> >> assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably
| >> >> >> 5 to 10 years old.)
| >> >> >
| >> >> > Pray tell, what "experts" recommend this habitual reinstallation
of
| >> >> > Win98? That's a load of pure B.S. And, yes, installing Windows
takes
| >> >> > ~ 1 hour. But it can take days to finish the job properly. One
very,
| >> >> > very long day, at best.
| >> >>
| >> >> Hooray! I was going to say more or less the very same thing.
| >> >>
| >> >> As part of trying to get that microscope working, I used soporific's
| >> >> autopatcher - yes, you were all right to say be very careful with
it:
| > it
| >> >> broke my PC [freezes during boot]. (Yes, I know it only does
patches.
| > All
| >> >> right, one of them broke it. Same end result.) Probably
irretrievable
| >> > broken
| >> >> now, due to the tinkering I've done to try to get it back, but I'm
| >> >> very
| >> > loth
| >> >> to do a reinstall, as there are signs that my setup is still there
| >> >> underneath: it (initially) would still boot into Safe Mode, for
| > example.
| >> >> (Now just gets as far as the background pattern in Safe Mode. Can
| >> >> still
| >> > get
| >> >> to command prompt no problem.)
| >> >>
| >> >> Any suggestions (other than not be a silly boy again)?
| >> >
| >> > Is it any wonder that a user that couldn't or wouldn't verify
| >> > the microscope mfg's requirements for the OS also couldn't
| >> > or wouldn't bother to follow instructions regarding program
| >> > installation and then blames the utility's (AP) packager? ^)
| >> >
| >> > Per the author's instructions, Auto-Patcher is supposed
| >> > to be applied to a fresh install of Windows 98 SE. Re:
| >> > The correct sequence is:
| >> > 1. Install Win98se
| >> > 2. Install Auto-Patcher and use it.
| >> > http://soporific.dsleague.com/main/?page_id=7
| >> >
| >> > I've followed that recommendation and despite heavy usage
| >> > continue to not have the slightest conceivable issue with Auto-
| >> > Patcher, I've in fact had quite the exact opposite experience.
| >
| >
|

 

[MEB]

Free? Try Partition Saving.
http://www.partition-saving.com

--
MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________

"J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in message
news:483705d4$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
| . wrote:
|
| Bit dotty, this guy! (FWIW, I don't think it's "soporific" himself: I've
had
| correspondence with him, and although we differ on certain matters, he
seems
| quite a reasonable guy. And also, AFAICT, he doesn't _sell_ AutoPatcher or
| the UBCD - in fact I think he doesn't even use it himself as his main OS.)
| []
| > Is it any wonder that a user that couldn't or wouldn't verify
| > the microscope mfg's requirements for the OS also couldn't
|
| ThinkGeek's webpage said 98 (I think 98 _and_ 98SE). It still did up to at
| least yesterday. As with many distributors, they give neither the maker
nor
| the model number, so I couldn't check there - though I'm pretty sure I did
| as soon as I got it and it was still saying 98 too, but I didn't take a
copy
| of it at that time. (It doesn't mention 98 now, probably after I
| corresponded with them.)
|
| > or wouldn't bother to follow instructions regarding program
| > installation and then blames the utility's (AP) packager? ^)
| >
| > Per the author's instructions, Auto-Patcher is supposed
| > to be applied to a fresh install of Windows 98 SE. Re:
| > The correct sequence is:
| > 1. Install Win98se
| > 2. Install Auto-Patcher and use it.
| > http://soporific.dsleague.com/main/?page_id=7
|
| As Gary has said, that "supposed"ness is very far from obvious from that
| page! (Or the MSFN one, which just looks like a discussion.)
| >
| > I've followed that recommendation and despite heavy usage
| > continue to not have the slightest conceivable issue with Auto-
| > Patcher, I've in fact had quite the exact opposite experience.
|
| I'm sure that many do have that experience I suspect that, from a clean
| start, people using his UBCD -
| http://sharethefiles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=104845&start=0 - sometimes
| have no problems either. But trying to use _any_ patch - soporific's (OK,
| not his, but YKWIM) or other sourced - on an up and running system, ther
| than _possibly_ brand new, is dangerous. Definitely going to ghost my C:
(or
| at least Windows directory) this time, if I can find something (ideally
| free) that will save and can then be restored from DOS 7.
| --
| J. P. Gilliver
|
|

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

Only cite from you (recently) that I could find is a one-paragraph, very
general comment, certainly not a WARNING! But I'll keep looking, <s>.

I looked into that thing, even ran it in simple Search mode, and the most
minimal "Critical" module (or whatever it's exact title is) contains a TON
of stuff that I wouldn't want to install en masse, or at all on many if not
most machines. And, of course, I wouldn't trust any claims of
uninstallability, period, without running a full analysis, and I don't think
this warrants the effort.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com


"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23AXjBMQvIHA.5584@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Excuse me for butting in, but *I* did supply the warning in the
> post/discussion *warning* about installing these things in already updated
> systems.
> I personally HAVE tested numerous of these compilations, and DO warn
> concerning their use when such appears in this group.
>
> I agree, the works are at best "beta tests" as I have repeatedly posted in
> this group I also agree that the documentation is slim and poorly
> researched and presented.. I also would like to see a more extensive
> review
> of these compilations.
>
> But I also see the potential value, for some, that these might provide.
> However, I would also like to see the sites which provide these, to also
> provide support forums for these updaters, where those with issues can
> address them without scorn. With Summaries and Warnings CLEARLY posted
> throughout the sites.
> CLEARLY, those who post that these are fail-safe or attempt to direct in
> the fashion, are failing to address the differing configurations of the
> individual systems. They are also CLEARLY failing to address the differing
> applications which might be installed within those *unofficially* updated
> systems.
> MOST IMPORTANTLY, they also CLEARLY fail to address the additional
> security
> risks and other issues which become part of this un-official updating.
> Many of these official updates can be modified to work within 9X, but for
> them to work safely [or what is purported as such in Microsoft
> environments], they NEED the other functions/services available within the
> OS for which they were originally intended.
>
> I have yet to find the sites which have setup proper testing facilities to
> test and attack these systems. I have yet to see the file and system error
> check reports. I have yet to find the sites which deal with the
> inter-relationships of these updates and the ramifications thereby
> related..
> As such, ALL usage of these unofficial updaters should be taken with
> extreme
> caution and skepticism.
>
> Stating that "it works for me" means nothing and produces an air that
> these
> are OKAY for everyone, which they are NOT..
>
> --
> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> --
> _________
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> news:%23W7tE1PvIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> | LOL! You can't decently defend one accusation I made. Look, just because
> it
> | hasn't caused YOU any problems, it HAS caused problems, as you've seen
> in
> | this group in just the past couple of days. And, pray tell, who else
> here
> | has said anything negative about AP except me? How could I possibly be
> | "relying solely on snippets and the barbs of others"? My opinions are
> | entirely my own, you twit.
> |
> | I CERTAINLY read that page of "instructions" and it isn't anything of
> the
> | sort. I CERTAINLY, reviewed the forum to a fair extent, and it was
> totally
> | non-informative about the app except to prove that lots of people have
> | problems with it and they seem to be mostly problems of incompatibility
> with
> | other apps and (as seen in this group) hardware. That indicates
> insufficient
> | testing. It CERTAINLY caused at least two people in this group grief
> when
> | they tried it, with problems you apparently don't know the answer to,
> and
> in
> | one case will apparently require a total rebuild to "fix" it. I
> CERTAINLY
> | *have* downloaded it and looked into it, but I don't have a machine I
> feel
> | like rebuilding right now, so I'd be stupid to actually run it. And
> other
> | than that one "comment", I DON'T see ANYWHERE where it says, "Only run
> this
> | on a fresh install of Windows 98." You'd think that was rather an
> important
> | thing for the new user to know. But, of course, I've read a lot,
> everything
> | available except not ALL of the dozens of pages of MSFN forum, and
> that's
> | the only place that little rule is mentioned, so I think YOU are the one
> | that's off the wall and that a fresh install isn't supposed to be a
> | requirement at all. Hey, if you really don't know what you're talking
> about,
> | you should keep your yap shut.
> |
> | The whole IDEA of Auto-Patcher is wrong-headed and it's full of
> potential
> | problems because of all the unofficial updates and attempts at building
> 98
> | patches from XP versions, but even then, it's not ready for
> distribution.
> | It's barely reached Beta stage. Responsible people generally do not
> | recommend Beta products to others.
> |
> | NOT ONLY WILL I NOT USE Auto-Patcher, I WILL SLAM IT AND BAD MOUTH
> ANYONE
> | WHO EVEN RECOMMENDS IT, now and for the foreseeable future. It's a big a
> | pile of crap as I've seen in a long time. Like something Symantec might
> | vomit out.
> |
> | Lastly, quit brown-nosing me and go find someone else to pretend you're
> the
> | equal of. You're an ignorant cuss, enamored of a juvenile circle-jerk
> called
> | "Auto-Patcher". If you want a metaphor, try Communism, the "peoples'
> party"
> | Valhalla that never managed to accomplish anything but evil.
> |
> | Let me put it more simply -- If people want Windows XP (or Vista), they
> | should go out and buy them, instead of trying to make Windows 98 into
> | something it can never decently be.
> |
> | --
> | Gary S. Terhune
> | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | www.grystmill.com
> |
> | "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:qoCZj.89588$y05.29430@newsfe22.lga...
> | > Don't like it? Don't use it, simple as that albeit your "review"
> | > is tantamount to an evaluation of a book where the critic has
> | > not only not read the work (let alone perused the Cliff Notes)
> | > but instead haughtily berates those that have relying solely on
> | > snippets and the barbs of others. In any case, to each his own.
> | >
> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> | > news:%23oHcbvOvIHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> | >> Would be nice if the author could bother to put a real front page on
> that
> | >> thing. Would be nice if the people slogging this product in this
> group,
> | >> along with the rest of the author's cohort, could be bothered to
> provide
> | > the
> | >> important links regarding it's use. So far, I have a link to MSFN
> that
> | > looks
> | >> just like any other product development discussion -- two freakin'
> years
> | >> worth. A new user is supposed to slog through that to find a list of
> | >> instructions? A new user, in order to avoid SERIOUS FOUL-UPS, is
> supposed
> | > to
> | >> do this?
> | >>
> | >> OK, so I go to soporific.com, expecting there'll be instructions
> there.
> | >> Nope, just list of folders. So it's guessing game time. OK, I'll
> click
> on
> | >> Main. Hmm.... bunch of political blather... Oh, there it is in the
> upper
> | >> right corner, Ok... Whaddya know, it's the page that you so kindly
> linked
> | >> to, the one nobody else who slogs the app here seems to know about.
> | >>
> | >> Just a long list of 47 "Comments", one of which, by golly, suggests
> that
> | > my
> | >> Unofficial Time Zones Update package be included. I assume it wasn't,
> | > since
> | >> I haven't heard from the author. (Oh, and down around "COMMENT" 26 is
> | >> your
> | >> "Instruction". Sorry, but that doesn't qualify as an "Instruction".
> | >>
> | >> So, maybe the app is useful, and maybe it is even a God Send for IT
> | > people.
> | >> (But I think people who try to turn Windows 98 into Windows XP have
> | >> something missing in their soul.) But it was the HEIGHT of
> | > irresponsibility
> | >> for anyone in this group to be promoting it, because frankly, it
> isn't
> | >> finished, and/or they don't really know anything about it, and/or if
> they
> | >
> | > DO
> | >> know anything about it, they don't apparently know the most important
> | >> thing -- AP is only to be applied to a fresh install.
> | >>
> | >> And, in the end, I don't believe the author had anything like the
> proper
> | >> amount of time or a sufficient depth of testers to allow, on such a
> | > massive
> | >> pile of cobbled together "patches", anything like a decent margin of
> | > safety.
> | >> And while a forum works well when building an app by committee, it
> does
> | > NOT
> | >> substitute for a manual of instructions, nor all the other usual
> items
> | >> you
> | >> see on an app's download page, like Min. Reqs., CAUTIONS, etc. I
> mean,
> if
> | >> the author KNOWS the app is going to choke and cause problems on
> anythi
> ng
> | >> but a new installation, why THAT info should be the title of the
> damned
> | >> page, not some note buried in Comment 25.
> | >>
> | >> No, not only is this a dangerous abortion of an app for the casual
> user,
> | > it
> | >> fails my own minimum requirements for any app worth a damn. My
> opinion
> of
> | >> those promoting it here is that they lack any sense of responsibility
> | > toward
> | >> the innocents who come here looking for advice. I say SHAME ON YOU,
> one
> | > and
> | >> all.
> | >>
> | >> --
> | >> Gary S. Terhune
> | >> MS-MVP Shell/User
> | >> www.grystmill.com
> | >>
> | >> "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message
> | > news:EppZj.89523$y05.52341@newsfe22.lga...
> | >> > "J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in message
> | >> > news:4835af64$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
> | >> >> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> | >> >> > "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message
> | >> >> []
> | >> >> >> Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or
> | >> >> >> two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite
> before
> | >> >> >> assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably
> | >> >> >> 5 to 10 years old.)
> | >> >> >
> | >> >> > Pray tell, what "experts" recommend this habitual reinstallation
> of
> | >> >> > Win98? That's a load of pure B.S. And, yes, installing Windows
> takes
> | >> >> > ~ 1 hour. But it can take days to finish the job properly. One
> very,
> | >> >> > very long day, at best.
> | >> >>
> | >> >> Hooray! I was going to say more or less the very same thing.
> | >> >>
> | >> >> As part of trying to get that microscope working, I used
> soporific's
> | >> >> autopatcher - yes, you were all right to say be very careful with
> it:
> | > it
> | >> >> broke my PC [freezes during boot]. (Yes, I know it only does
> patches.
> | > All
> | >> >> right, one of them broke it. Same end result.) Probably
> irretrievable
> | >> > broken
> | >> >> now, due to the tinkering I've done to try to get it back, but I'm
> | >> >> very
> | >> > loth
> | >> >> to do a reinstall, as there are signs that my setup is still there
> | >> >> underneath: it (initially) would still boot into Safe Mode, for
> | > example.
> | >> >> (Now just gets as far as the background pattern in Safe Mode. Can
> | >> >> still
> | >> > get
> | >> >> to command prompt no problem.)
> | >> >>
> | >> >> Any suggestions (other than not be a silly boy again)?
> | >> >
> | >> > Is it any wonder that a user that couldn't or wouldn't verify
> | >> > the microscope mfg's requirements for the OS also couldn't
> | >> > or wouldn't bother to follow instructions regarding program
> | >> > installation and then blames the utility's (AP) packager? ^)
> | >> >
> | >> > Per the author's instructions, Auto-Patcher is supposed
> | >> > to be applied to a fresh install of Windows 98 SE. Re:
> | >> > The correct sequence is:
> | >> > 1. Install Win98se
> | >> > 2. Install Auto-Patcher and use it.
> | >> > http://soporific.dsleague.com/main/?page_id=7
> | >> >
> | >> > I've followed that recommendation and despite heavy usage
> | >> > continue to not have the slightest conceivable issue with Auto-
> | >> > Patcher, I've in fact had quite the exact opposite experience.
> | >
> | >
> |
>
>

 

[MEB]

Well, if this group had edit capabilities I would put a capitalized WARNING
there and in the previous postings which also indicated the problems
associated with installing in previously updated systems.

As for instability, the un-officially updated systems that I have tested
and extensively monitored, ALL come dangerously close to failures, even
though appearing to be *stable*. As these ARE XP and other files, they
contain references and calls to non-existent files, services, and functions
CONSTANTLY bordering upon complete failure. The modifications that have been
applied might limit the impact, but the issues remain for the most part.
That's why I would love to see these testing results and other, posted on
the Internet [and I have no intention of doing so, let the propounders of
use do their own work].

--
MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:O1Y0XbQvIHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| Only cite from you (recently) that I could find is a one-paragraph, very
| general comment, certainly not a WARNING! But I'll keep looking, <s>.
|
| I looked into that thing, even ran it in simple Search mode, and the most
| minimal "Critical" module (or whatever it's exact title is) contains a TON
| of stuff that I wouldn't want to install en masse, or at all on many if
not
| most machines. And, of course, I wouldn't trust any claims of
| uninstallability, period, without running a full analysis, and I don't
think
| this warrants the effort.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS-MVP Shell/User
| www.grystmill.com
|
|
| "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:%23AXjBMQvIHA.5584@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| > Excuse me for butting in, but *I* did supply the warning in the
| > post/discussion *warning* about installing these things in already
updated
| > systems.
| > I personally HAVE tested numerous of these compilations, and DO warn
| > concerning their use when such appears in this group.
| >
| > I agree, the works are at best "beta tests" as I have repeatedly posted
in
| > this group I also agree that the documentation is slim and poorly
| > researched and presented.. I also would like to see a more extensive
| > review
| > of these compilations.
| >
| > But I also see the potential value, for some, that these might provide.
| > However, I would also like to see the sites which provide these, to also
| > provide support forums for these updaters, where those with issues can
| > address them without scorn. With Summaries and Warnings CLEARLY posted
| > throughout the sites.
| > CLEARLY, those who post that these are fail-safe or attempt to direct in
| > the fashion, are failing to address the differing configurations of the
| > individual systems. They are also CLEARLY failing to address the
differing
| > applications which might be installed within those *unofficially*
updated
| > systems.
| > MOST IMPORTANTLY, they also CLEARLY fail to address the additional
| > security
| > risks and other issues which become part of this un-official updating.
| > Many of these official updates can be modified to work within 9X, but
for
| > them to work safely [or what is purported as such in Microsoft
| > environments], they NEED the other functions/services available within
the
| > OS for which they were originally intended.
| >
| > I have yet to find the sites which have setup proper testing facilities
to
| > test and attack these systems. I have yet to see the file and system
error
| > check reports. I have yet to find the sites which deal with the
| > inter-relationships of these updates and the ramifications thereby
| > related..
| > As such, ALL usage of these unofficial updaters should be taken with
| > extreme
| > caution and skepticism.
| >
| > Stating that "it works for me" means nothing and produces an air that
| > these
| > are OKAY for everyone, which they are NOT..
| >
| > --
| > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > --
| > _________
| >
| > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > news:%23W7tE1PvIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
| > | LOL! You can't decently defend one accusation I made. Look, just
because
| > it
| > | hasn't caused YOU any problems, it HAS caused problems, as you've seen
| > in
| > | this group in just the past couple of days. And, pray tell, who else
| > here
| > | has said anything negative about AP except me? How could I possibly be
| > | "relying solely on snippets and the barbs of others"? My opinions are
| > | entirely my own, you twit.
| > |
| > | I CERTAINLY read that page of "instructions" and it isn't anything of
| > the
| > | sort. I CERTAINLY, reviewed the forum to a fair extent, and it was
| > totally
| > | non-informative about the app except to prove that lots of people have
| > | problems with it and they seem to be mostly problems of
incompatibility
| > with
| > | other apps and (as seen in this group) hardware. That indicates
| > insufficient
| > | testing. It CERTAINLY caused at least two people in this group grief
| > when
| > | they tried it, with problems you apparently don't know the answer to,
| > and
| > in
| > | one case will apparently require a total rebuild to "fix" it. I
| > CERTAINLY
| > | *have* downloaded it and looked into it, but I don't have a machine I
| > feel
| > | like rebuilding right now, so I'd be stupid to actually run it. And
| > other
| > | than that one "comment", I DON'T see ANYWHERE where it says, "Only run
| > this
| > | on a fresh install of Windows 98." You'd think that was rather an
| > important
| > | thing for the new user to know. But, of course, I've read a lot,
| > everything
| > | available except not ALL of the dozens of pages of MSFN forum, and
| > that's
| > | the only place that little rule is mentioned, so I think YOU are the
one
| > | that's off the wall and that a fresh install isn't supposed to be a
| > | requirement at all. Hey, if you really don't know what you're talking
| > about,
| > | you should keep your yap shut.
| > |
| > | The whole IDEA of Auto-Patcher is wrong-headed and it's full of
| > potential
| > | problems because of all the unofficial updates and attempts at
building
| > 98
| > | patches from XP versions, but even then, it's not ready for
| > distribution.
| > | It's barely reached Beta stage. Responsible people generally do not
| > | recommend Beta products to others.
| > |
| > | NOT ONLY WILL I NOT USE Auto-Patcher, I WILL SLAM IT AND BAD MOUTH
| > ANYONE
| > | WHO EVEN RECOMMENDS IT, now and for the foreseeable future. It's a big
a
| > | pile of crap as I've seen in a long time. Like something Symantec
might
| > | vomit out.
| > |
| > | Lastly, quit brown-nosing me and go find someone else to pretend
you're
| > the
| > | equal of. You're an ignorant cuss, enamored of a juvenile circle-jerk
| > called
| > | "Auto-Patcher". If you want a metaphor, try Communism, the "peoples'
| > party"
| > | Valhalla that never managed to accomplish anything but evil.
| > |
| > | Let me put it more simply -- If people want Windows XP (or Vista),
they
| > | should go out and buy them, instead of trying to make Windows 98 into
| > | something it can never decently be.
| > |
| > | --
| > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| > | www.grystmill.com
| > |
| > | "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message
| > news:qoCZj.89588$y05.29430@newsfe22.lga...
| > | > Don't like it? Don't use it, simple as that albeit your "review"
| > | > is tantamount to an evaluation of a book where the critic has
| > | > not only not read the work (let alone perused the Cliff Notes)
| > | > but instead haughtily berates those that have relying solely on
| > | > snippets and the barbs of others. In any case, to each his own.
| > | >
| > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > | > news:%23oHcbvOvIHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| > | >> Would be nice if the author could bother to put a real front page
on
| > that
| > | >> thing. Would be nice if the people slogging this product in this
| > group,
| > | >> along with the rest of the author's cohort, could be bothered to
| > provide
| > | > the
| > | >> important links regarding it's use. So far, I have a link to MSFN
| > that
| > | > looks
| > | >> just like any other product development discussion -- two freakin'
| > years
| > | >> worth. A new user is supposed to slog through that to find a list
of
| > | >> instructions? A new user, in order to avoid SERIOUS FOUL-UPS, is
| > supposed
| > | > to
| > | >> do this?
| > | >>
| > | >> OK, so I go to soporific.com, expecting there'll be instructions
| > there.
| > | >> Nope, just list of folders. So it's guessing game time. OK, I'll
| > click
| > on
| > | >> Main. Hmm.... bunch of political blather... Oh, there it is in the
| > upper
| > | >> right corner, Ok... Whaddya know, it's the page that you so kindly
| > linked
| > | >> to, the one nobody else who slogs the app here seems to know about.
| > | >>
| > | >> Just a long list of 47 "Comments", one of which, by golly, suggests
| > that
| > | > my
| > | >> Unofficial Time Zones Update package be included. I assume it
wasn't,
| > | > since
| > | >> I haven't heard from the author. (Oh, and down around "COMMENT" 26
is
| > | >> your
| > | >> "Instruction". Sorry, but that doesn't qualify as an "Instruction".
| > | >>
| > | >> So, maybe the app is useful, and maybe it is even a God Send for IT
| > | > people.
| > | >> (But I think people who try to turn Windows 98 into Windows XP have
| > | >> something missing in their soul.) But it was the HEIGHT of
| > | > irresponsibility
| > | >> for anyone in this group to be promoting it, because frankly, it
| > isn't
| > | >> finished, and/or they don't really know anything about it, and/or
if
| > they
| > | >
| > | > DO
| > | >> know anything about it, they don't apparently know the most
important
| > | >> thing -- AP is only to be applied to a fresh install.
| > | >>
| > | >> And, in the end, I don't believe the author had anything like the
| > proper
| > | >> amount of time or a sufficient depth of testers to allow, on such a
| > | > massive
| > | >> pile of cobbled together "patches", anything like a decent margin
of
| > | > safety.
| > | >> And while a forum works well when building an app by committee, it
| > does
| > | > NOT
| > | >> substitute for a manual of instructions, nor all the other usual
| > items
| > | >> you
| > | >> see on an app's download page, like Min. Reqs., CAUTIONS, etc. I
| > mean,
| > if
| > | >> the author KNOWS the app is going to choke and cause problems on
| > anythi
| > ng
| > | >> but a new installation, why THAT info should be the title of the
| > damned
| > | >> page, not some note buried in Comment 25.
| > | >>
| > | >> No, not only is this a dangerous abortion of an app for the casual
| > user,
| > | > it
| > | >> fails my own minimum requirements for any app worth a damn. My
| > opinion
| > of
| > | >> those promoting it here is that they lack any sense of
responsibility
| > | > toward
| > | >> the innocents who come here looking for advice. I say SHAME ON YOU,
| > one
| > | > and
| > | >> all.
| > | >>
| > | >> --
| > | >> Gary S. Terhune
| > | >> MS-MVP Shell/User
| > | >> www.grystmill.com
| > | >>
| > | >> "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:EppZj.89523$y05.52341@newsfe22.lga...
| > | >> > "J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in message
| > | >> > news:4835af64$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
| > | >> >> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
| > | >> >> > "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message
| > | >> >> []
| > | >> >> >> Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or
| > | >> >> >> two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite
| > before
| > | >> >> >> assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably
| > | >> >> >> 5 to 10 years old.)
| > | >> >> >
| > | >> >> > Pray tell, what "experts" recommend this habitual
reinstallation
| > of
| > | >> >> > Win98? That's a load of pure B.S. And, yes, installing Windows
| > takes
| > | >> >> > ~ 1 hour. But it can take days to finish the job properly. One
| > very,
| > | >> >> > very long day, at best.
| > | >> >>
| > | >> >> Hooray! I was going to say more or less the very same thing.
| > | >> >>
| > | >> >> As part of trying to get that microscope working, I used
| > soporific's
| > | >> >> autopatcher - yes, you were all right to say be very careful
with
| > it:
| > | > it
| > | >> >> broke my PC [freezes during boot]. (Yes, I know it only does
| > patches.
| > | > All
| > | >> >> right, one of them broke it. Same end result.) Probably
| > irretrievable
| > | >> > broken
| > | >> >> now, due to the tinkering I've done to try to get it back, but
I'm
| > | >> >> very
| > | >> > loth
| > | >> >> to do a reinstall, as there are signs that my setup is still
there
| > | >> >> underneath: it (initially) would still boot into Safe Mode, for
| > | > example.
| > | >> >> (Now just gets as far as the background pattern in Safe Mode.
Can
| > | >> >> still
| > | >> > get
| > | >> >> to command prompt no problem.)
| > | >> >>
| > | >> >> Any suggestions (other than not be a silly boy again)?
| > | >> >
| > | >> > Is it any wonder that a user that couldn't or wouldn't verify
| > | >> > the microscope mfg's requirements for the OS also couldn't
| > | >> > or wouldn't bother to follow instructions regarding program
| > | >> > installation and then blames the utility's (AP) packager? ^)
| > | >> >
| > | >> > Per the author's instructions, Auto-Patcher is supposed
| > | >> > to be applied to a fresh install of Windows 98 SE. Re:
| > | >> > The correct sequence is:
| > | >> > 1. Install Win98se
| > | >> > 2. Install Auto-Patcher and use it.
| > | >> > http://soporific.dsleague.com/main/?page_id=7
| > | >> >
| > | >> > I've followed that recommendation and despite heavy usage
| > | >> > continue to not have the slightest conceivable issue with Auto-
| > | >> > Patcher, I've in fact had quite the exact opposite experience.
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| >
| >
|