Please help - Windows 98 SE freeze!

[Gary S. Terhune]

In any case, we're agreed, <s>.

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

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ecrT6yQvIHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> 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.
> | > | >
> | > | >
> | > |
> | >
> | >
> |
>
>

 

[.]

"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?

Your sense of entitlement suggests that perhaps you
should also be supplied with free: reliable transportation,
vehicle and home maintenance, nourishment ... it's all
somewhat reminiscent of the complaint in the old saw
about the terrible food ... and such small portions.


> 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".

Such gall, not providing spoonfeeding and all.


> 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.

Just who does he think he is offering a clearly marked
"use at your own risk" free utility.


> 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.

Anyone in this day and age looking to blindly follow an
anonymous poster on an international newsgroup forum
seeking competely safe, competent and free advice may
well learn a hopefully inexpensive worthwile lesson about
becoming too dependent on that approach.

> --
> 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.

 

[.]

You're always (yes, I've handed you your head before) so
predictably riled, easily fished-in and mercilessly goaded and
given that you're again so deserving and incessantly begging
for it, here's both barrells once more.

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:%23W7tE1PvIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> LOL! You can't decently defend one accusation I made.

Observe what a single paragraph from me elicited from you.

> Look, just because it
> hasn't caused YOU any problems, it HAS caused problems,

Even though in my earliest undergraduate days Thevenin
and Norton Equivalent Circuits, the Fitzgerald Contraction,
Lorentz Transformations, Maxwell's Equations ... all worked
fine for me, I don't necessarily expect that they are ever going
to work for you.

> as you've seen in
> this group in just the past couple of days.

The mantra of a true dilettante troubleshooter: Y issues
exist with X, others have Z problems with X, therefore
the problem MUST be with X.

> And, pray tell, who else here
> has said anything negative about AP except me?

J. P. Gilliver for one, but you can do your own homework
for the rest.

> How could I possibly be
> "relying solely on snippets and the barbs of others"? My opinions are
> entirely my own, you twit.

Well simpleton, given that you never tested it yourself ...
Wasn't it an old Reagan defense, rendering him, by his
own admission, either an incompetent or a liar. See above.

> 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

I read a fair extent and it was totally non-informative - too precious
I read a fair extent of a PDR. Am I now a Pharmacist? I read
a fair extent of movie reviews, and I now a cinematographer?

> 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.

Lots of people have problems with mathematics and physics.
Must be 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.

Maybe they should read, understand and follow the author's
directions and recommendations first. Just a modest proposal.

> I CERTAINLY *have* downloaded it and looked into it, but I don't have a
machine I feel
> like rebuilding right now,

For some, there's never enough time to do it right (the first
time), but there is enough to do it over again (and complain)?

> so I'd be stupid to actually run it.

And more so to out of hand criticize that which you're only,
at best, barely familiar. Q.E.F.

> And other
> than that one "comment", I DON'T see ANYWHERE where it says, "Only run
this
> on a fresh install of Windows 98."

Other than where it says to do so, it doesn't say anywhere
to do so. Beautiful. Except of course that it does, you've
only discovered where it was reiterated for the excessively
slow learners that also missed it on an earlier occasion.

> You'd think that was rather an
important
> thing for the new user to know.

And quite possibly why it was restated for those too busy
to get it right the first time.

> But, of course, I've read a lot,
everything
> available except not ALL

More of the "I've read most (and that being rather open to
interpretation) of the subject matter". Common knowledge
has always suggested that should be more than sufficient.

> of the dozens of pages of MSFN forum,

Which is where the project commenced and later clearly
referenced and recommended on the Soporific page.

> 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

Except of course that autopatching is a tried and proven concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopatcher

> because of all the unofficial updates and attempts at building 98
> patches from XP versions,

As we are all aware, only MS programmers can write and
release updates and patches.

> but even then, it's not ready for distribution.

You mean kind of like every Windows Operating system ever released?

> 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.

And with your opinion and a twenty dollar bill (any overhead
can be used for counterbalancing the former not to mention
your winning personality) you can purchase a cup of coffee.

> It's a big a
> pile of crap as I've seen in a long time. Like something Symantec might
> vomit out.

Symantec too will continue to thrive despite your devasting
yet thoroughly ignored assessment.

> Lastly, quit brown-nosing me

Brown nosing you?!?! No one of my considerable intelligence,
education, knowlegde and experience would begin to consider
shitting on the best part of you.

> and go find someone else to pretend you're
the
> equal of. You're an ignorant cuss,

You know precisely and exactly nothing of either me or
my background, goofball.

> enamored of a juvenile circle-jerk
called
> "Auto-Patcher".

Misinformation and misrepresentation, that's quite a day's
work. But I'm neither advocate nor critic per se, just passing
along a utility that worked well for me. Though as always,
caveat emptor, don't buy a pig in a poke, don't blindly accept
advice from anonymous strangers and don't let anyone else
do your thinking for you.

> If you want a metaphor, try Communism, the "peoples'
party"
> Valhalla that never managed to accomplish anything but evil.

No doubt one of the clowns that would claim "Communism
is dead" despite the fact that the greatest country the world
has ever known is now and remains Communist.

> Let me put it more simply

We can all trust in the most certain conceivable knowledge
that nothing more than simple, easy and wrong is your first
and last approach.

> 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.

Windows 98 Revolutions is meant to provide some of the
appearance and emulate some of the functionalities of XP
and Vista. Your statement also proves that you don't
comprehend that AP is most assuredly neither designed
as nor proposed to be an attempt at being XP or Vista.

Your posts prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that you're
quite clearly and inarguably mentally disturbed and possessed
of an inferiority complex masquerading (as it so often does) as
superciliousness

> --
> 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" <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.)

From your link listing the sale point it took exacly two mouse
clicks to determine the manufacturers OS requirements.


> > 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

Blindly following ANYONE'S recommendations and
allowing others do your thinking for you are tactics
that are bound to eventually engender consequences.

 

[.]

"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
> --

Sorry but as an attorney(?), I'd think that you would be
well aware that stating "X works for me" hardly constitutes
"it's okay for everyone" to a rational, responsible adult.


> "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.

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

And to teach people this imperative, you deliberately advise them in such
ways as to cause them grief. Such a miserable soul.

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

"." <.@dot.com> wrote in message news:g5HZj.1386$JI2.544@newsfe13.lga...
>
> Blindly following ANYONE'S recommendations and
> allowing others do your thinking for you are tactics
> that are bound to eventually engender consequences.
>
>

 

[PCR]

James wrote:
| 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.

(1) A quick thing might be to try Safe Mode, to see whether it freezes
there. If not, then it is likely something in the Startup Group or a
32-bit Normal Mode driver doing it. Then, there is an MSCONFIG
troubleshooting method for that, explained in "START, Help, Contents,
Troubleshooting, Windows 98 Troubleshooters, Startup & Shutdown
section". Post back for a way to fix the Troubleshooters, if you get
blank pages.

Also...
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kben-us281965
How to Troubleshoot Using the Msconfig Utility with Windows 98
(281965) - This article describes how to use the Microsoft System
Configuration (Msconfig) utility to troubleshoot configuration errors in
Windows 98 and Windows 98 Second Edition.

Careful with that one, though. Don't turn off System.ini or Win.ini,
unless you know how to restore them in DOS.

To get to Safe Mode, hit F5 as you boot. Or hit Ctrl for the Startup
Menu, if not already enabled at "START, Run, MSConfig, Advanced button".

(2) The mouse & keyboard are the ones with moving parts, & they are
"hooked", meaning tasks will run each time you touch one. Therefore,
with the computer off, unplug the mouse & hold by it's tail until it may
stop spinning & squawking. Also, open & clean the ball & rollers. That
is not a design you may see on the rollers-- it is a band of dirt
running round the center! Also, unplug the keyboard, turn it round &
spank it. I did plenty of THAT, when I suffered erratic mouse movements
& ultimate mouse freeze. Unfortunately, I more/more dimly recall, there
were still one/two freezes AFTER the last cleaning. STILL, it is good to
get the gook out of there, I think.

UPDATE: Eventually, I replaced my mouse-- & all of that finally went
away for good!

(3) If disabling your virus checker's auto-"System" scan, using it's
Tray button, leaving the other types on, gives immediate & dramatic
relief, I have further info. This supposedly applies to Scan Engine
4.1.60.

UPDATE: McAfee no longer works for Win98, anyhow. But do as Terhune said
and reveal what you do use. Norton is known to be sometimes problematic
as well.

(4)
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kben-us327551&Product=w98
USB Mouse May Hang When the Computer Is Idle for a Long Time

So, if you have "Find Fast", try disabling that.
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=199787
OFF2000: How to Turn Off the Find Fast Indexer
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kben-us158705
OFF97: How to Disable the Find Fast Indexer
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kben-us135476
OFF95: Office for Windows 95 Find Fast Indexer Overview

(5) For sluggishness in navigating folders: Open Explorer, R-Clk My
Documents in the left pane, & select Properties. How many folders
does it contain? If it is around 100, try moving them out. Reboot. Is
your sluggishness gone?

(6) Update definitions & check for viruses, and...
http://aumha.org/a/parasite.htm
http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/unwanted.htm
http://www.mvps.org/inetexplorer/Darnit.htm#tshoot
http://patrick.kolla.de/spybotsd.html SpyBot- Search & Destroy. SpyBot
is gabby in it's "Checks" & "Fixes" logs. Turn them off in "Settings".
http://www.lavasoftusa.com/ AdAware
http://www.lavasoftusa.de/ Also AdAware
http://www.merijn.org/cwschronicles.html CoolWebSearch Chronicles
http://www.merijn.org/files/cwshredder.zip & CWShredder
http://www.merijn.org/files/hijackthis.zip Finally, Hijack This
http://aumha.org/a/hjttutor.htm
Hijack This Logs Tutorial-- MUST read!
....may find something. (Actually, they certainly will.)
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/jrmc137/hjttutorial/tutorial.htm
Another one worthy of serious study!

| Here is what I did so far:
|
| Replaced hard drive- my dad's request.

Huh? After that, did you do a fresh install or restore a full system
backup? Which hard drive is in there now-- the new one or the old one?

| 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.

Well-- after the Scandisk & Defrag, you would have to run again to see
whether that cured him. It has a chance of working to some extent,
especially if optimization is enabled during the Defrag.

| 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.

Are you saying it ran well (without freezes) after doing the
Scandisk/Defrag? Then, that problem seems to be solved?

| I would like to test the following before giving the computer back:
|
|
|
| RAM
|
| All hardware

Here are some others have posted...
http://www.simmtester.com/PAGE/products/doc/docinfo.asp RAM tester
http://www.memtest86.com/ RAM tester
http://oca.microsoft.com/en/windiag.asp RAM tester

| Look for hardware and program conflicts.

"Start button, Run, MSInfo32, Components, Problem Devices"

Does anything show up there? Use the Edit menu to copy, & post it.

| 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.

It it freezes again, switch mice with him to see whether that is the
quickest fix. Next, switch away from McAfee (if he still could somehow
be running that) or Norton to...

http://www.avast.com/eng/avast_4_home.html
The home edition of avast! is free. It has a few peccadilloes, but
generally works just fine. I am very pleased with it. The only brief
freeze I detect is just after it has done an auto update of definitions
& it is about to post its Summary.txt file. Until it posts that little
file, you will have a busy mouse pointer.

| Thank you in advance for any and all help!

You are welcome. I wish him well.

| James

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

[.]

Just more of your pathetically feeble attempts at
"misinformation and misrepresentation". The astute
observer will note how you conveniently and cowardly
excised the vast majority of my germane remarks, which
also included: "But I'm neither advocate nor critic per se,
just passing along a utility that worked well for me. Though
as always, caveat emptor, don't buy a pig in a poke, don't
blindly accept advice from anonymous strangers and don't
let anyone else do your thinking for you."

As others have already paraphrased and would doubtlessly
concur, you, in fact, are quite evidently and conspicuously
an imbalanced, wretched and 'miserable soul' indeed.


"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:%23E$LzKTvIHA.5472@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> And to teach people this imperative, you deliberately advise them in such
> ways as to cause them grief. Such a miserable soul.
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS-MVP Shell/User
> www.grystmill.com
>
> "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message news:g5HZj.1386$JI2.544@newsfe13.lga...
> >
> > Blindly following ANYONE'S recommendations and
> > allowing others do your thinking for you are tactics
> > that are bound to eventually engender consequences.

 

[MEB]

"." <.@dot.com> wrote in message news:88HZj.1387$JI2.412@newsfe13.lga...
| "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
| > --
|
| Sorry but as an attorney(?), I'd think that you would be
| well aware that stating "X works for me" hardly constitutes
| "it's okay for everyone" to a rational, responsible adult.


And where in society do you find those illusive rational, responsible
adults??? Are they on the endangered list, perhaps hidden in some dark cave
in some human preserve somewhere...

If you bother to look at this world, with its UTUBE, MYSPACE, pundits,
dating services, and all those other apparent schizophrenic activities,
fostering unbased impressions and myth, just where do you think people find
their sensibilities to become responsible, rational adults... is it your
contention that somehow this growing majority of people will, at some time,
get off their pharmaceuticals long enough to actually become such?

--
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.
|
|

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

The acute observer would notice that I'm right. You're a weasel. The proof
lies in your contributions of today.

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

"." <.@dot.com> wrote in message news:shKZj.3$BK1.2@newsfe17.phx...
> Just more of your pathetically feeble attempts at
> "misinformation and misrepresentation". The astute
> observer will note how you conveniently and cowardly
> excised the vast majority of my germane remarks, which
> also included: "But I'm neither advocate nor critic per se,
> just passing along a utility that worked well for me. Though
> as always, caveat emptor, don't buy a pig in a poke, don't
> blindly accept advice from anonymous strangers and don't
> let anyone else do your thinking for you."
>
> As others have already paraphrased and would doubtlessly
> concur, you, in fact, are quite evidently and conspicuously
> an imbalanced, wretched and 'miserable soul' indeed.
>
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> news:%23E$LzKTvIHA.5472@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> And to teach people this imperative, you deliberately advise them in such
>> ways as to cause them grief. Such a miserable soul.
>>
>> --
>> Gary S. Terhune
>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>> www.grystmill.com
>>
>> "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message news:g5HZj.1386$JI2.544@newsfe13.lga...
>> >
>> > Blindly following ANYONE'S recommendations and
>> > allowing others do your thinking for you are tactics
>> > that are bound to eventually engender consequences.
>
>

 

[.]

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eDLvhEUvIHA.1768@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message news:88HZj.1387$JI2.412@newsfe13.lga...
> | "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
> | > --
> |
> | Sorry but as an attorney(?), I'd think that you would be
> | well aware that stating "X works for me" hardly constitutes
> | "it's okay for everyone" to a rational, responsible adult.
>
>
> And where in society do you find those illusive rational, responsible
> adults??? Are they on the endangered list, perhaps hidden in some dark
cave
> in some human preserve somewhere...
>
> If you bother to look at this world, with its UTUBE, MYSPACE, pundits,
> dating services, and all those other apparent schizophrenic activities,
> fostering unbased impressions and myth, just where do you think people
find
> their sensibilities to become responsible, rational adults... is it your
> contention that somehow this growing majority of people will, at some
time,
> get off their pharmaceuticals long enough to actually become such?
>
> --
> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

Society's ills can't justifiably be placed at my doorstep.
Please agan peruse what I've scribed and inform me, if
you would, where it is that I've acted irresponsibly. But
kindly don't confuse my truly commendable, volunteer,
humanitarian and helpful efforts at purging vermin and
other highly undesirables found in usenet newsgroups ^)


> --
> _________
> |
> |
> | > "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.

 

[.]

How might a mere mortal possibly contest such a devastatingly
delineated, fact filled, well referenced and reasoned rebuttal?

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:%238FKBrUvIHA.1688@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> The acute observer would notice that I'm right. You're a weasel. The proof
> lies in your contributions of today.
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS-MVP Shell/User
> www.grystmill.com
>
> "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message news:shKZj.3$BK1.2@newsfe17.phx...
> > Just more of your pathetically feeble attempts at
> > "misinformation and misrepresentation". The astute
> > observer will note how you conveniently and cowardly
> > excised the vast majority of my germane remarks, which
> > also included: "But I'm neither advocate nor critic per se,
> > just passing along a utility that worked well for me. Though
> > as always, caveat emptor, don't buy a pig in a poke, don't
> > blindly accept advice from anonymous strangers and don't
> > let anyone else do your thinking for you."
> >
> > As others have already paraphrased and would doubtlessly
> > concur, you, in fact, are quite evidently and conspicuously
> > an imbalanced, wretched and 'miserable soul' indeed.
> >
> >
> > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> > news:%23E$LzKTvIHA.5472@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >> And to teach people this imperative, you deliberately advise them in
such
> >> ways as to cause them grief. Such a miserable soul.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Gary S. Terhune
> >> MS-MVP Shell/User
> >> www.grystmill.com
> >>
> >> "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message
news:g5HZj.1386$JI2.544@newsfe13.lga...
> >> >
> >> > Blindly following ANYONE'S recommendations and
> >> > allowing others do your thinking for you are tactics
> >> > that are bound to eventually engender consequences.

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

Hey, the term "weasel", as applied to persons in a derogatory manner, is
actually quite well-delineated, well-referenced meanings. I was simply being
concise.

In not one post of yours over the last two months is there ANY mention of
what you describe below. Not even close, not until you were called out about
the POS you're slogging. Then you started back-peddling. Unless you want to
claim the posts of some other writer here? Perhaps your more normal alias?
Up to you, but "Insignificant Speck", aka ".", is a lying weasel, and the
proof is now well documented.

You're a miserable, malicious Sophist. Disgusting creature.

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

"." <.@dot.com> wrote in message news:2KWZj.31$d41.1@newsfe16.phx...
> How might a mere mortal possibly contest such a devastatingly
> delineated, fact filled, well referenced and reasoned rebuttal?
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> news:%238FKBrUvIHA.1688@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> The acute observer would notice that I'm right. You're a weasel. The
>> proof
>> lies in your contributions of today.
>>
>> --
>> Gary S. Terhune
>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>> www.grystmill.com
>>
>> "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message news:shKZj.3$BK1.2@newsfe17.phx...
>> > Just more of your pathetically feeble attempts at
>> > "misinformation and misrepresentation". The astute
>> > observer will note how you conveniently and cowardly
>> > excised the vast majority of my germane remarks, which
>> > also included: "But I'm neither advocate nor critic per se,
>> > just passing along a utility that worked well for me. Though
>> > as always, caveat emptor, don't buy a pig in a poke, don't
>> > blindly accept advice from anonymous strangers and don't
>> > let anyone else do your thinking for you."
>> >
>> > As others have already paraphrased and would doubtlessly
>> > concur, you, in fact, are quite evidently and conspicuously
>> > an imbalanced, wretched and 'miserable soul' indeed.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
>> > news:%23E$LzKTvIHA.5472@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> >> And to teach people this imperative, you deliberately advise them in
> such
>> >> ways as to cause them grief. Such a miserable soul.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Gary S. Terhune
>> >> MS-MVP Shell/User
>> >> www.grystmill.com
>> >>
>> >> "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:g5HZj.1386$JI2.544@newsfe13.lga...
>> >> >
>> >> > Blindly following ANYONE'S recommendations and
>> >> > allowing others do your thinking for you are tactics
>> >> > that are bound to eventually engender consequences.
>
>

 

[MEB]

"." <.@dot.com> wrote in message news:hIWZj.30$d41.22@newsfe16.phx...
| "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:eDLvhEUvIHA.1768@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| >
| > "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message news:88HZj.1387$JI2.412@newsfe13.lga...
| > | "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
| > | > --
| > |
| > | Sorry but as an attorney(?), I'd think that you would be
| > | well aware that stating "X works for me" hardly constitutes
| > | "it's okay for everyone" to a rational, responsible adult.
| >
| >
| > And where in society do you find those illusive rational, responsible
| > adults??? Are they on the endangered list, perhaps hidden in some dark
| cave
| > in some human preserve somewhere...
| >
| > If you bother to look at this world, with its UTUBE, MYSPACE, pundits,
| > dating services, and all those other apparent schizophrenic activities,
| > fostering unbased impressions and myth, just where do you think people
| find
| > their sensibilities to become responsible, rational adults... is it your
| > contention that somehow this growing majority of people will, at some
| time,
| > get off their pharmaceuticals long enough to actually become such?
| >
| > --
| > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
|
| Society's ills can't justifiably be placed at my doorstep.
| Please agan peruse what I've scribed and inform me, if
| you would, where it is that I've acted irresponsibly. But
| kindly don't confuse my truly commendable, volunteer,
| humanitarian and helpful efforts at purging vermin and
| other highly undesirables found in usenet newsgroups ^)
|
|
| > --
| > _________

Societies ills ARE the responsibility of those responsible, rational adults
you mentioned. If you claim to be one of those, then any attempt to disclaim
that responsibility, is an apparent admission that you are NOT one of those
parties as you suggest.

Attempting to purge such parties requires you revert to the same activities
you are supposedly attempting to dissuade. No matter how well worded or how
carefully one attempts to bring those parties activities to the forefront,
one still assumes and accepts the demeanor of this unsocial behavior.

Moreover, when one touts their own posts as examples of superior quality,
they distinctly attempt to build their own self-worth and esteem. In
contrast, one can suggest a review, but placing one's own "ranking" tends to
suggest issues related to delusions of grandaur. Other's will place those
either mentally or will at some point do so for the author.

I'm not suggesting that personal attacks go unanswered, but to continue
much beyond the initial response does cause others to question the ntegrity
of the party.

Think about it...

--
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.
|
|