Re: Backup software--like GHOST

Bill in Co. · May 30, 2008

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> I'm using NTFS for WinXP (for my system partition), and that's the
>> one I'm talking about. (I also have some FAT32 partitions on the
>> drive for other stuff, however).
>
> And what about the FAT32 partition? Does that behave the same as in
> Win98 with that Mod date?

Yes. The folder's "Date Modified" date does NOT change.

> If so... congratulations to Etal & Chauvin for
> figuring it... though your only cure will be to shape-shift your NTFS
> into a FAT32..

Ummm. Not a good idea (for Windows XP).
I'll have to learn to live with it.

> .. or learn to live with it! Put your head inside the box
> for a triple dose of the irradiation-- & you may forget the problem
> entirely!

.
>
>> PCR wrote:
>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>>>> Anyway, my sieve of a brain DOES recall running into what Bill is
>>>> talking about, but I can't recall the circumstances. That simple. It
>>>> struck me as something certain types of workers might like, but
>>>> danged if I can recall the logic behind that thought.
>>>
>>> Etal brought up a good point... NTFS vrs. FAT32. It remains to be
>>> seen whether you & Colorado are using the same file system when you
>>> have the same observation on the Mod Date. (You know I am
>>> tounge-in-cheek when I rib you on XP-irradiation & 24-hour weariness
>>> & stuff.)
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>> www.grystmill.com
>>>>
>>>> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:%23ADAvZTwIHA.548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>>>>>> In re me, the answer is, "No." You think I didn't quadruple-check?
>>>>>
>>>>> It just seems odd, is all. And I do know you've been extremely busy
>>>>> lately with a 24-hour fix effort for CdLSRN. Good work on that,
>>>>> though.
>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>>>> www.grystmill.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:eqUvx0SwIHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> Rick Chauvin wrote:
>>>>>>>> Thanks, and same courteous sentiments to you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I always skim read the forums here (as well as the other groups
>>>>>>>> I frequented) I don't have the time luxury to post as much as I
>>>>>>>> use to anymore though, but am always around.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good to know you are around. I've had to triple the thickness of
>>>>>>> my tinfoil hat in this WinXP thread-- but still got a few new
>>>>>>> holes in my head! Before I leave it, can you settle the issue
>>>>>>> whether the Modification Date of an XP folder should change (Bill
>>>>>>> of Co. with XP Home Edition) when a file is added/removed/changed
>>>>>>> in that folder or remain the same (Terhune with Professional
>>>>>>> Edition)? Can Terhune have been looking at Creation Date, which
>>>>>>> needs to be added by a tweak, acc. to Brian A.?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rick
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>
> --
> 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

PCR · May 31, 2008

Bill in Co. wrote:
| PCR wrote:
|> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>> I'm using NTFS for WinXP (for my system partition), and that's the
|>> one I'm talking about. (I also have some FAT32 partitions on the
|>> drive for other stuff, however).
|>
|> And what about the FAT32 partition? Does that behave the same as in
|> Win98 with that Mod date?
|
| Yes. The folder's "Date Modified" date does NOT change.

Ah! That's it, then! They were right! Very good.

|> If so... congratulations to Etal & Chauvin for
|> figuring it... though your only cure will be to shape-shift your NTFS
|> into a FAT32..
|
| Ummm. Not a good idea (for Windows XP).
| I'll have to learn to live with it.

Yea. OK. It's been good, really, to hear your complaints about XP-- very
instructive.

|> .. or learn to live with it! Put your head inside the box
|> for a triple dose of the irradiation-- & you may forget the problem
|> entirely!

Bill in Co. · May 31, 2008

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> PCR wrote:
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>> I'm using NTFS for WinXP (for my system partition), and that's the
>>>> one I'm talking about. (I also have some FAT32 partitions on the
>>>> drive for other stuff, however).
>>>
>>> And what about the FAT32 partition? Does that behave the same as in
>>> Win98 with that Mod date?
>>
>> Yes. The folder's "Date Modified" date does NOT change.
>
> Ah! That's it, then! They were right! Very good.
>
>>> If so... congratulations to Etal & Chauvin for
>>> figuring it... though your only cure will be to shape-shift your NTFS
>>> into a FAT32..
>>
>> Ummm. Not a good idea (for Windows XP).
>> I'll have to learn to live with it.

>
> Yea. OK. It's been good, really, to hear your complaints about XP-- very
> instructive.

Well, on the whole though, I'm pretty satisfied with WinXP. I just have a
few, relatively minor issues with it, that's all. (frankly, most of them
aren't earth shaking).

What I really DO appreciate about Win XP is its *robustness* (much more so
than Win98SE - in part due to using NTFS) - AND its capability of running
some programs that I couldn't run on 98SE.

I think I've already said I haven't got a blue screen yet, and that's with
my normal messin around (which usually brought me some, in 98SE

And the built-in, NTFS, transaction-log-based, file recovery methodology is
nice, too (so if something goes wrong while writing some files on the disk,
it's often possible to recover from that).

And of course, there are no limitations anymore with the good ole, 64K,
resource heap problem in Win9x. Now THAT is nice.

And of course the nice built in USB (and USB2) support, which was "just a
bit lacking" in Win98SE.

I think after XP dies (if and when it does for me), it's maybe time to move
to something else, maybe something like Linux.

I've about had it
with MS bloatware. I think XP may be my last ride with MS for the
operating system

>>> .. or learn to live with it! Put your head inside the box
>>> for a triple dose of the irradiation-- & you may forget the problem
>>> entirely!

.
>>>
>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>>>>>> Anyway, my sieve of a brain DOES recall running into what Bill is
>>>>>> talking about, but I can't recall the circumstances. That simple.
>>>>>> It struck me as something certain types of workers might like, but
>>>>>> danged if I can recall the logic behind that thought.
>>>>>
>>>>> Etal brought up a good point... NTFS vrs. FAT32. It remains to be
>>>>> seen whether you & Colorado are using the same file system when you
>>>>> have the same observation on the Mod Date. (You know I am
>>>>> tounge-in-cheek when I rib you on XP-irradiation & 24-hour
>>>>> weariness & stuff.)
>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>>>> www.grystmill.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:%23ADAvZTwIHA.548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>>>>>>>> In re me, the answer is, "No." You think I didn't
>>>>>>>> quadruple-check?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It just seems odd, is all. And I do know you've been extremely
>>>>>>> busy lately with a 24-hour fix effort for CdLSRN. Good work on
>>>>>>> that, though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>>>>>> www.grystmill.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:eqUvx0SwIHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>> Rick Chauvin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, and same courteous sentiments to you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I always skim read the forums here (as well as the other
>>>>>>>>>> groups I frequented) I don't have the time luxury to post as
>>>>>>>>>> much as I use to anymore though, but am always around.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Good to know you are around. I've had to triple the thickness
>>>>>>>>> of my tinfoil hat in this WinXP thread-- but still got a few
>>>>>>>>> new holes in my head! Before I leave it, can you settle the
>>>>>>>>> issue whether the Modification Date of an XP folder should
>>>>>>>>> change (Bill of Co. with XP Home Edition) when a file is
>>>>>>>>> added/removed/changed in that folder or remain the same
>>>>>>>>> (Terhune with Professional Edition)? Can Terhune have been
>>>>>>>>> looking at Creation Date, which needs to be added by a tweak,
>>>>>>>>> acc. to Brian A.?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rick
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>
> --
> 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

PCR · Jun 1, 2008

|>
|> Yea. OK. It's been good, really, to hear your complaints about
|> XP-- very instructive.
|
| Well, on the whole though, I'm pretty satisfied with WinXP. I just
| have a few, relatively minor issues with it, that's all. (frankly,
| most of them aren't earth shaking).

Well, the ones you mentioned, anyway, seemed more like pet peeves--
except perhaps the file search requestor which wasn't finding all files.
However, looks like that was mostly resolved too with a shortcut.

| What I really DO appreciate about Win XP is its *robustness* (much
| more so than Win98SE - in part due to using NTFS) - AND its
| capability of running some programs that I couldn't run on 98SE.
|
| I think I've already said I haven't got a blue screen yet, and that's
| with my normal messin around (which usually brought me some, in 98SE

Alright-- but Terhune did say you hadn't tried hard enough yet to crash
it! Also, I see a new XP thread here where Livingston has warned against
XP SP3! (I know you don't go for those critical updates-- just as you
hardly ever did in Win98.)

A truly unrecoverable crash in my Win98 is covered by my full system
backup, (which I've resorted to some few times already, but nothing any
too recent. It was more frequent early on, when I didn't how to fix
anything otherwise.)

|

.

| And the built-in, NTFS, transaction-log-based, file recovery
| methodology is nice, too (so if something goes wrong while writing
| some files on the disk, it's often possible to recover from that).

Is that like SFC? What does the process involve?

| And of course, there are no limitations anymore with the good ole,
| 64K, resource heap problem in Win9x. Now THAT is nice.

OK. That problem doesn't show up for me, though, in normal, everyday use
of Win98. I think it is involved with the ole "copy of tons of files or
tons of folders full of folders & files" thing after installing IE6--
but I only ever did that for testing purposes!

| And of course the nice built in USB (and USB2) support, which was
| "just a bit lacking" in Win98SE.

I have 2 or 3 USB connectors, but have never plugged anything into them.

| I think after XP dies (if and when it does for me), it's maybe time
| to move to something else, maybe something like Linux.

| I've about had it with MS bloatware. I think XP may be my last
| ride with MS for the operating system

I probably will say the same, if I ever do get to XP myself.

|>>> .. or learn to live with it! Put your head inside the box
|>>> for a triple dose of the irradiation-- & you may forget the problem
|>>> entirely!

Bill in Co. · Jun 1, 2008

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> PCR wrote:
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>> I'm using NTFS for WinXP (for my system partition), and that's the
>>>>>> one I'm talking about. (I also have some FAT32 partitions on
>>>>>> the drive for other stuff, however).
>>>>>
>>>>> And what about the FAT32 partition? Does that behave the same as in
>>>>> Win98 with that Mod date?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. The folder's "Date Modified" date does NOT change.
>>>
>>> Ah! That's it, then! They were right! Very good.
>>>
>>>>> If so... congratulations to Etal & Chauvin for
>>>>> figuring it... though your only cure will be to shape-shift your
>>>>> NTFS into a FAT32..
>>>>
>>>> Ummm. Not a good idea (for Windows XP).
>>>> I'll have to learn to live with it.

>>>
>>> Yea. OK. It's been good, really, to hear your complaints about
>>> XP-- very instructive.
>>
>> Well, on the whole though, I'm pretty satisfied with WinXP. I just
>> have a few, relatively minor issues with it, that's all. (frankly,
>> most of them aren't earth shaking).
>
> Well, the ones you mentioned, anyway, seemed more like pet peeves--
> except perhaps the file search requestor which wasn't finding all files.
> However, looks like that was mostly resolved too with a shortcut.

Or a good alternative third party utility like Agent Ransack or File Locator
Pro (which is even better, and is big brother to Agent Ransack). It's
useful to have this program (even on the Win98SE machine).

>> What I really DO appreciate about Win XP is its *robustness* (much
>> more so than Win98SE - in part due to using NTFS) - AND its
>> capability of running some programs that I couldn't run on 98SE.
>>
>> I think I've already said I haven't got a blue screen yet, and that's
>> with my normal messin around (which usually brought me some, in 98SE
>
> Alright-- but Terhune did say you hadn't tried hard enough yet to crash
> it!

Apparently not!

> Also, I see a new XP thread here where Livingston has warned against
> XP SP3!

That's never going in over here.

> (I know you don't go for those critical updates-- just as you
> hardly ever did in Win98.)

Yup, you got that right. (been around the block too many times on that
one).

> A truly unrecoverable crash in my Win98 is covered by my full system
> backup, (which I've resorted to some few times already, but nothing any
> too recent. It was more frequent early on, when I didn't how to fix
> anything otherwise.)
>
>>

Yup. I routinely do a full system backup to my external USB HD enclosure,
and it takes me about 15-20 minutes to backup the existing 20 GB or so of
system files, programs, and user data. (I have a 40 GB partition for the
C: drive on Win XP - I think that's an ideal size for XP).

>> And the built-in, NTFS, transaction-log-based, file recovery
>> methodology is nice, too (so if something goes wrong while writing
>> some files on the disk, it's often possible to recover from that).
>
> Is that like SFC? What does the process involve?

There is a so-called "transaction log" written out (as I understand it) for
every file operation in NTFS, so that if anything goes wrong or is
incomplete in the disk writes, WinXP (using NTFS) can recover from it,
unlike in Win98SE and FAT32. For example, if something isn't successfully
and completely written out to the hard disk, a flag is set indicating such,
so that it can be, next time (or something to that effect). Which makes it
much more robust! (not saying it's 100% foolproof, nothing probably is)

>> And of course, there are no limitations anymore with the good ole,
>> 64K, resource heap problem in Win9x. Now THAT is nice.

>
> OK. That problem doesn't show up for me, though, in normal, everyday use
> of Win98. I think it is involved with the ole "copy of tons of files or
> tons of folders full of folders & files" thing after installing IE6--
> but I only ever did that for testing purposes!

No, those were two entirely different and unrelated issues.

The resource heap limitation happened if either you had too many apps
running at one time, or had a program that was errant in its handling of the
GDI, System, or User resource heaps (and some did, but they were the
exception, fortunately, and usually got fixed in later versions, unless the
developer moved on and stopped supporting it - that happened on occasion).

The copying or deleting of a large number of files problem in Win98SE (with
IE6+) was linked to the browseui and browselc DLL files changes (from IE5.5
to IE 6+), so I simply retained the IE 5.5 versions of those two DLLs, which
allowed Windows Explorer to *work as it should*, and NOT get hung up! (I
think another "fix" was with another DLL, instead, as an alternative method,
but this one always worked for me, so I left it that way.

>> And of course the nice built in USB (and USB2) support, which was
>> "just a bit lacking" in Win98SE.
>
> I have 2 or 3 USB connectors, but have never plugged anything into them.

There is SO much out there (peripherals) that is now USB based! Even the
printers! (Try to find a printer (or even computer) with a parallel port,
anymore!)

Well, I have to admit, the USB cable to my new printer is MUCH nicer now,
than that old bulky parallel port cable connecting the old printer to the
parallel port. But if you ever get a new printer (likely USB based),
there is a way to use it with Win98SE, IF they supply the right drivers -
otherwise you're screwed.

>> I think after XP dies (if and when it does for me), it's maybe time
>> to move to something else, maybe something like Linux.

>> I've about had it with MS bloatware. I think XP may be my last
>> ride with MS for the operating system

>
> I probably will say the same, if I ever do get to XP myself.

If you're even considering Win XP, time is running out. Like the end of
this month? (unless MS extends it). (Vista is not allowed on my
premises. I have a sign out saying "Access Denied", for it.

>>>>> .. or learn to live with it! Put your head inside the box
>>>>> for a triple dose of the irradiation-- & you may forget the problem
>>>>> entirely!

.
>>>>>
>>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>>>>>>>> Anyway, my sieve of a brain DOES recall running into what Bill
>>>>>>>> is talking about, but I can't recall the circumstances. That
>>>>>>>> simple. It struck me as something certain types of workers
>>>>>>>> might like, but danged if I can recall the logic behind that
>>>>>>>> thought.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Etal brought up a good point... NTFS vrs. FAT32. It remains to be
>>>>>>> seen whether you & Colorado are using the same file system when
>>>>>>> you have the same observation on the Mod Date. (You know I am
>>>>>>> tounge-in-cheek when I rib you on XP-irradiation & 24-hour
>>>>>>> weariness & stuff.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>>>>>> www.grystmill.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:%23ADAvZTwIHA.548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In re me, the answer is, "No." You think I didn't
>>>>>>>>>> quadruple-check?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It just seems odd, is all. And I do know you've been extremely
>>>>>>>>> busy lately with a 24-hour fix effort for CdLSRN. Good work on
>>>>>>>>> that, though.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>>>>>>>> www.grystmill.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:eqUvx0SwIHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>> Rick Chauvin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, and same courteous sentiments to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I always skim read the forums here (as well as the other
>>>>>>>>>>>> groups I frequented) I don't have the time luxury to post as
>>>>>>>>>>>> much as I use to anymore though, but am always around.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Good to know you are around. I've had to triple the thickness
>>>>>>>>>>> of my tinfoil hat in this WinXP thread-- but still got a few
>>>>>>>>>>> new holes in my head! Before I leave it, can you settle the
>>>>>>>>>>> issue whether the Modification Date of an XP folder should
>>>>>>>>>>> change (Bill of Co. with XP Home Edition) when a file is
>>>>>>>>>>> added/removed/changed in that folder or remain the same
>>>>>>>>>>> (Terhune with Professional Edition)? Can Terhune have been
>>>>>>>>>>> looking at Creation Date, which needs to be added by a tweak,
>>>>>>>>>>> acc. to Brian A.?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rick
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>
> --
> 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

PCR · Jun 1, 2008

|>>>
|>>> Yea. OK. It's been good, really, to hear your complaints about
|>>> XP-- very instructive.
|>>
|>> Well, on the whole though, I'm pretty satisfied with WinXP. I
|>> just have a few, relatively minor issues with it, that's all.
|>> (frankly, most of them aren't earth shaking).
|>
|> Well, the ones you mentioned, anyway, seemed more like pet peeves--
|> except perhaps the file search requestor which wasn't finding all
|> files. However, looks like that was mostly resolved too with a
|> shortcut.
|
| Or a good alternative third party utility like Agent Ransack or File
| Locator Pro (which is even better, and is big brother to Agent
| Ransack). It's useful to have this program (even on the Win98SE
| machine).

Thanks for the tip. I may take a look. So far, I am content with Windows
Find & DOS DIR. I know each has certain few limitations. As far as
anything so well hid that those two won't work-- it hasn't hurt me yet,
I don't think. For full system backups, I use BING that copies on a
track level-- nothing can escape that!

|>> What I really DO appreciate about Win XP is its *robustness* (much
|>> more so than Win98SE - in part due to using NTFS) - AND its
|>> capability of running some programs that I couldn't run on 98SE.
|>>
|>> I think I've already said I haven't got a blue screen yet, and
|>> that's with my normal messin around (which usually brought me some,
|>> in 98SE
|>
|> Alright-- but Terhune did say you hadn't tried hard enough yet to
|> crash it!
|
| Apparently not!

I guess you are being careful, as you always have been.

|> Also, I see a new XP thread here where Livingston has warned against
|> XP SP3!
|
| That's never going in over here.
|
|> (I know you don't go for those critical updates-- just as you
|> hardly ever did in Win98.)
|
| Yup, you got that right. (been around the block too many times on
| that one).

I had a few horrible crashes taking in one/two like DirectX9, but
ultimately got all of the critical updates & many "recommended" ones too
into here. Once they were in &/or the sometimes quick replacements to
some were in-- all seems to be going well. I don't regret it now.

It's a bit humorous that WinXP is going through these critical updates
too & even full SP's. Will no OS ever be safe &/or fully debugged!?

|> A truly unrecoverable crash in my Win98 is covered by my full system
|> backup, (which I've resorted to some few times already, but nothing
|> any too recent. It was more frequent early on, when I didn't how to
|> fix anything otherwise.)
|>
|>>

|
| Yup. I routinely do a full system backup to my external USB HD
| enclosure, and it takes me about 15-20 minutes to backup the existing
| 20 GB or so of system files, programs, and user data. (I have a 40
| GB partition for the C: drive on Win XP - I think that's an ideal
| size for XP).

That's the best thing! I always had that capability, first with Compaq's
QuickRestore & now with BING.

|>> And the built-in, NTFS, transaction-log-based, file recovery
|>> methodology is nice, too (so if something goes wrong while writing
|>> some files on the disk, it's often possible to recover from that).
|>
|> Is that like SFC? What does the process involve?
|
| There is a so-called "transaction log" written out (as I understand
| it) for every file operation in NTFS, so that if anything goes wrong
| or is incomplete in the disk writes, WinXP (using NTFS) can recover
| from it, unlike in Win98SE and FAT32. For example, if something
| isn't successfully and completely written out to the hard disk, a
| flag is set indicating such, so that it can be, next time (or
| something to that effect). Which makes it much more robust! (not
| saying it's 100% foolproof, nothing probably is)

Sounds like that has to do with the integrity of the hard drive &
whether something went wrong in the middle of a write. It doesn't sound
like it has to do with file versions like SFC does. It probably has more
to do with what ScanDisk is supposed to do-- or eliminating the need for
ScanDisk. Has your "transaction log" mentioned any errors yet? Do you
still have to do a Defrag? Do you have anything that does do the work of
SFC to monitor updates-- IF you ever decide to take one?

|>> And of course, there are no limitations anymore with the good ole,
|>> 64K, resource heap problem in Win9x. Now THAT is nice.

|>
|> OK. That problem doesn't show up for me, though, in normal, everyday
|> use of Win98. I think it is involved with the ole "copy of tons of
|> files or tons of folders full of folders & files" thing after
|> installing IE6-- but I only ever did that for testing purposes!
|
| No, those were two entirely different and unrelated issues.
|
| The resource heap limitation happened if either you had too many apps
| running at one time, or had a program that was errant in its handling
| of the GDI, System, or User resource heaps (and some did, but they
| were the exception, fortunately, and usually got fixed in later
| versions, unless the developer moved on and stopped supporting it -
| that happened on occasion).

Yea. That sounds about right. I certainly don't like to have 10 programs
open at once. HOWEVER-- for me, when I test that copy problem, I seem
always to get a requestor warning I've run out of resources & to close
some programs. Sometimes the warning is hidden behind another window. I
do believe the massive copy is fairly quickly done -- & done well -- &
it is Explorer that is struggling to update its display. You could wait
forever for that!

| The copying or deleting of a large number of files problem in Win98SE
| (with IE6+) was linked to the browseui and browselc DLL files changes
| (from IE5.5 to IE 6+), so I simply retained the IE 5.5 versions of
| those two DLLs, which allowed Windows Explorer to *work as it
| should*, and NOT get hung up! (I think another "fix" was with
| another DLL, instead, as an alternative method, but this one always
| worked for me, so I left it that way.

I remember it as you do. And, yea, I recall testing the IE 5.5
BrowseUI.dll & BrowseLC.dll. I believe you were right about them, yea.
But I kept the IE6 versions because I could copy the big stuff I
normally do-- just not the big, big stuff during a test like all of
Program Files. Also, even that much could be done in DOS with no problem
whatever.

|>> And of course the nice built in USB (and USB2) support, which was
|>> "just a bit lacking" in Win98SE.
|>
|> I have 2 or 3 USB connectors, but have never plugged anything into
|> them.
|
| There is SO much out there (peripherals) that is now USB based!
| Even the printers! (Try to find a printer (or even computer) with a
| parallel port, anymore!)

Hmm. Well, my Compaq IJ300 still has its parallel wire. It just has no
ink in its cartridge, is all.

| Well, I have to admit, the USB cable to my new printer is MUCH nicer
| now, than that old bulky parallel port cable connecting the old
| printer to the parallel port. But if you ever get a new printer
| (likely USB based), there is a way to use it with Win98SE, IF they
| supply the right drivers - otherwise you're screwed.

Hmm. OK, got ya. Something to ponder.

|>> I think after XP dies (if and when it does for me), it's maybe time
|>> to move to something else, maybe something like Linux.

|>> I've about had it with MS bloatware. I think XP may be my last
|>> ride with MS for the operating system

|>
|> I probably will say the same, if I ever do get to XP myself.
|
| If you're even considering Win XP, time is running out. Like the
| end of this month? (unless MS extends it). (Vista is not
| allowed on my premises. I have a sign out saying "Access Denied",
| for it.

I agree fully!

|>>>>> .. or learn to live with it! Put your head inside the box
|>>>>> for a triple dose of the irradiation-- & you may forget the
|>>>>> problem entirely!

Bill in Co. · Jun 1, 2008

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> PCR wrote:
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'm using NTFS for WinXP (for my system partition), and that's
>>>>>>>> the one I'm talking about. (I also have some FAT32
>>>>>>>> partitions on the drive for other stuff, however).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what about the FAT32 partition? Does that behave the same as
>>>>>>> in Win98 with that Mod date?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. The folder's "Date Modified" date does NOT change.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah! That's it, then! They were right! Very good.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If so... congratulations to Etal & Chauvin for
>>>>>>> figuring it... though your only cure will be to shape-shift your
>>>>>>> NTFS into a FAT32..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ummm. Not a good idea (for Windows XP).
>>>>>> I'll have to learn to live with it.

>>>>>
>>>>> Yea. OK. It's been good, really, to hear your complaints about
>>>>> XP-- very instructive.
>>>>
>>>> Well, on the whole though, I'm pretty satisfied with WinXP. I
>>>> just have a few, relatively minor issues with it, that's all.
>>>> (frankly, most of them aren't earth shaking).
>>>
>>> Well, the ones you mentioned, anyway, seemed more like pet peeves--
>>> except perhaps the file search requestor which wasn't finding all
>>> files. However, looks like that was mostly resolved too with a
>>> shortcut.
>>
>> Or a good alternative third party utility like Agent Ransack or File
>> Locator Pro (which is even better, and is big brother to Agent
>> Ransack). It's useful to have this program (even on the Win98SE
>> machine).
>
> Thanks for the tip. I may take a look. So far, I am content with Windows
> Find & DOS DIR. I know each has certain few limitations. As far as
> anything so well hid that those two won't work-- it hasn't hurt me yet,
> I don't think. For full system backups, I use BING that copies on a
> track level-- nothing can escape that!

The nice thing about using Acronis True Image (TI) in Win XP to make a
backup image is that you don't have to boot up on a floppy (or a CD) to run
it, like you do with BING. Plus, of course, it's a bit friendlier, since
you're in a windows environment for most of it. (the older versions of TI
can work in 98SE, but not the newer ones)

>>>> What I really DO appreciate about Win XP is its *robustness* (much
>>>> more so than Win98SE - in part due to using NTFS) - AND its
>>>> capability of running some programs that I couldn't run on 98SE.
>>>>
>>>> I think I've already said I haven't got a blue screen yet, and
>>>> that's with my normal messin around (which usually brought me some,
>>>> in 98SE
>>>
>>> Alright-- but Terhune did say you hadn't tried hard enough yet to
>>> crash it!
>>
>> Apparently not!

>
> I guess you are being careful, as you always have been.

I do?? Hmmm. (Not so sure, lol). (I've been known to walk a bit on
the "razor's edge" in windows and in the registry with some registry mods,
etc.

>>> Also, I see a new XP thread here where Livingston has warned against
>>> XP SP3!
>>
>> That's never going in over here.
>>
>>> (I know you don't go for those critical updates-- just as you
>>> hardly ever did in Win98.)
>>
>> Yup, you got that right. (been around the block too many times on
>> that one).
>
> I had a few horrible crashes taking in one/two like DirectX9, but
> ultimately got all of the critical updates & many "recommended" ones too
> into here. Once they were in &/or the sometimes quick replacements to
> some were in-- all seems to be going well. I don't regret it now.
>
> It's a bit humorous that WinXP is going through these critical updates
> too & even full SP's. Will no OS ever be safe &/or fully debugged!?

Nope. True security ONLY "comes from within" - meaning, the operator
usage.

You can't always protect people from themselves and their own screwups, no
matter how hard you try.

>>> A truly unrecoverable crash in my Win98 is covered by my full system
>>> backup, (which I've resorted to some few times already, but nothing
>>> any too recent. It was more frequent early on, when I didn't how to
>>> fix anything otherwise.)
>>>
>>>>

>>
>> Yup. I routinely do a full system backup to my external USB HD
>> enclosure, and it takes me about 15-20 minutes to backup the existing
>> 20 GB or so of system files, programs, and user data. (I have a 40
>> GB partition for the C: drive on Win XP - I think that's an ideal
>> size for XP).
>
> That's the best thing! I always had that capability, first with Compaq's
> QuickRestore & now with BING.
>
>>>> And the built-in, NTFS, transaction-log-based, file recovery
>>>> methodology is nice, too (so if something goes wrong while writing
>>>> some files on the disk, it's often possible to recover from that).
>>>
>>> Is that like SFC? What does the process involve?

No, WinXP also has SFC to check the system files, so this in addition to
that.

And XP also has some WFP (windows file protection) running in the background
to constantly monitor any attempts to change any system files (without
permission).

>> There is a so-called "transaction log" written out (as I understand
>> it) for every file operation in NTFS, so that if anything goes wrong
>> or is incomplete in the disk writes, WinXP (using NTFS) can recover
>> from it, unlike in Win98SE and FAT32. For example, if something
>> isn't successfully and completely written out to the hard disk, a
>> flag is set indicating such, so that it can be, next time (or
>> something to that effect). Which makes it much more robust! (not
>> saying it's 100% foolproof, nothing probably is)
>
> Sounds like that has to do with the integrity of the hard drive &
> whether something went wrong in the middle of a write. It doesn't sound
> like it has to do with file versions like SFC does.

No, as I mentioned above, SFC is different, and just checks the system files
for the proper versions (and can be used to put them back, as needbe, since
the correct ones are stored in a backup "dllcache" on the disk)

> It probably has more
> to do with what ScanDisk is supposed to do-- or eliminating the need for
> ScanDisk. Has your "transaction log" mentioned any errors yet? Do you

I haven't looked at such a log, per se. When I used the term "transaction
log", I meant that the system "logs" or keeps track of what's going on down
there behind the scenes. (Whether or not we can actually see a log
detailing all of these file events, I'm not sure, but we do have an "Event
Viewer", which shows a fair amount of such related stuff (and perhaps that
too).

> still have to do a Defrag? Do you have anything that does do the work of
> SFC to monitor updates-- IF you ever decide to take one?

Yes, there is a Windows Defragger. And as I said, there is also good ole,
SFC (System File Checker).

And - Windows Updates do get recorded (and can even be seen in Add/Remove
programs, IF you select the "show updates" checkbox).

>>>> And of course, there are no limitations anymore with the good ole,
>>>> 64K, resource heap problem in Win9x. Now THAT is nice.

>>>
>>> OK. That problem doesn't show up for me, though, in normal, everyday
>>> use of Win98. I think it is involved with the ole "copy of tons of
>>> files or tons of folders full of folders & files" thing after
>>> installing IE6-- but I only ever did that for testing purposes!
>>
>> No, those were two entirely different and unrelated issues.
>>
>> The resource heap limitation happened if either you had too many apps
>> running at one time, or had a program that was errant in its handling
>> of the GDI, System, or User resource heaps (and some did, but they
>> were the exception, fortunately, and usually got fixed in later
>> versions, unless the developer moved on and stopped supporting it -
>> that happened on occasion).
>
> Yea. That sounds about right. I certainly don't like to have 10 programs
> open at once. HOWEVER-- for me, when I test that copy problem, I seem
> always to get a requestor warning I've run out of resources & too close
> some programs. Sometimes the warning is hidden behind another window. I
> do believe the massive copy is fairly quickly done -- & done well -- &
> it is Explorer that is struggling to update its display. You could wait
> forever for that!
>
>> The copying or deleting of a large number of files problem in Win98SE
>> (with IE6+) was linked to the browseui and browselc DLL files changes
>> (from IE5.5 to IE 6+), so I simply retained the IE 5.5 versions of
>> those two DLLs, which allowed Windows Explorer to *work as it
>> should*, and NOT get hung up! (I think another "fix" was with
>> another DLL, instead, as an alternative method, but this one always
>> worked for me, so I left it that way.
>
> I remember it as you do. And, yea, I recall testing the IE 5.5
> BrowseUI.dll & BrowseLC.dll. I believe you were right about them, yea.
> But I kept the IE6 versions because I could copy the big stuff I
> normally do-- just not the big, big stuff during a test like all of
> Program Files. Also, even that much could be done in DOS with no problem
> whatever.

But it's often easier in Explorer, plus you see all the long filenames
(which you can't in real DOS mode, but you can in the windows shell version,
of course).

>>>> And of course the nice built in USB (and USB2) support, which was
>>>> "just a bit lacking" in Win98SE.
>>>
>>> I have 2 or 3 USB connectors, but have never plugged anything into
>>> them.
>>
>> There is SO much out there (peripherals) that is now USB based!
>> Even the printers! (Try to find a printer (or even computer) with a
>> parallel port, anymore!)
>
> Hmm. Well, my Compaq IJ300 still has its parallel wire. It just has no
> ink in its cartridge, is all.

I only use a black-and-white laser printer, and thus I never have to replace
those blasted cartridges all the time. I can go through up to 3000
sheets! with nothing ever needing to be replaced or changed. And I like
that! The only thing I don't get is color, of course (but I don't need
it).

(If I need photos developed (which is rare), I can take them
to a photo developing place)

>> Well, I have to admit, the USB cable to my new printer is MUCH nicer
>> now, than that old bulky parallel port cable connecting the old
>> printer to the parallel port. But if you ever get a new printer
>> (likely USB based), there is a way to use it with Win98SE, IF they
>> supply the right drivers - otherwise you're screwed.
>
> Hmm. OK, got ya. Something to ponder.
>
>>>> I think after XP dies (if and when it does for me), it's maybe time
>>>> to move to something else, maybe something like Linux.

>>>> I've about had it with MS bloatware. I think XP may be my last
>>>> ride with MS for the operating system

>>>
>>> I probably will say the same, if I ever do get to XP myself.
>>
>> If you're even considering Win XP, time is running out. Like the
>> end of this month? (unless MS extends it). (Vista is not
>> allowed on my premises. I have a sign out saying "Access Denied",
>> for it.

>
> I agree fully!
>
>>>>>>> .. or learn to live with it! Put your head inside the box
>>>>>>> for a triple dose of the irradiation-- & you may forget the
>>>>>>> problem entirely!

.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, my sieve of a brain DOES recall running into what Bill
>>>>>>>>>> is talking about, but I can't recall the circumstances. That
>>>>>>>>>> simple. It struck me as something certain types of workers
>>>>>>>>>> might like, but danged if I can recall the logic behind that
>>>>>>>>>> thought.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Etal brought up a good point... NTFS vrs. FAT32. It remains to
>>>>>>>>> be seen whether you & Colorado are using the same file system
>>>>>>>>> when you have the same observation on the Mod Date. (You know
>>>>>>>>> I am tounge-in-cheek when I rib you on XP-irradiation & 24-hour
>>>>>>>>> weariness & stuff.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>>>>>>>> www.grystmill.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:%23ADAvZTwIHA.548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In re me, the answer is, "No." You think I didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> quadruple-check?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It just seems odd, is all. And I do know you've been
>>>>>>>>>>> extremely busy lately with a 24-hour fix effort for CdLSRN.
>>>>>>>>>>> Good work on that, though.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>>>>>>>>>> www.grystmill.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:eqUvx0SwIHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rick Chauvin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, and same courteous sentiments to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always skim read the forums here (as well as the other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> groups I frequented) I don't have the time luxury to post
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as much as I use to anymore though, but am always around.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good to know you are around. I've had to triple the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thickness of my tinfoil hat in this WinXP thread-- but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> still got a few new holes in my head! Before I leave it,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you settle the issue whether the Modification Date of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an XP folder should change (Bill of Co. with XP Home
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Edition) when a file is added/removed/changed in that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> folder or remain the same (Terhune with Professional
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Edition)? Can Terhune have been looking at Creation Date,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which needs to be added by a tweak, acc. to Brian A.?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>
> --
> 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

PCR · Jun 2, 2008

|>>>>>
|>>>>> Yea. OK. It's been good, really, to hear your complaints about
|>>>>> XP-- very instructive.
|>>>>
|>>>> Well, on the whole though, I'm pretty satisfied with WinXP. I
|>>>> just have a few, relatively minor issues with it, that's all.
|>>>> (frankly, most of them aren't earth shaking).
|>>>
|>>> Well, the ones you mentioned, anyway, seemed more like pet peeves--
|>>> except perhaps the file search requestor which wasn't finding all
|>>> files. However, looks like that was mostly resolved too with a
|>>> shortcut.
|>>
|>> Or a good alternative third party utility like Agent Ransack or File
|>> Locator Pro (which is even better, and is big brother to Agent
|>> Ransack). It's useful to have this program (even on the Win98SE
|>> machine).
|>
|> Thanks for the tip. I may take a look. So far, I am content with
|> Windows Find & DOS DIR. I know each has certain few limitations. As
|> far as anything so well hid that those two won't work-- it hasn't
|> hurt me yet, I don't think. For full system backups, I use BING that
|> copies on a track level-- nothing can escape that!
|
| The nice thing about using Acronis True Image (TI) in Win XP to make a
| backup image is that you don't have to boot up on a floppy (or a CD)
| to run it, like you do with BING. Plus, of course, it's a bit
| friendlier, since you're in a windows environment for most of it.
| (the older versions of TI can work in 98SE, but not the newer ones)

Alright, very good. BING I think might also have that capability to
click a shortcut in Windows to start a backup, even a backup of multiple
partitions. However, you'd have to actually install BING to its own
little partition on the hard drive to use that. I am content to use the
floppy.

|>>>> What I really DO appreciate about Win XP is its *robustness* (much
|>>>> more so than Win98SE - in part due to using NTFS) - AND its
|>>>> capability of running some programs that I couldn't run on 98SE.
|>>>>
|>>>> I think I've already said I haven't got a blue screen yet, and
|>>>> that's with my normal messin around (which usually brought me
|>>>> some, in 98SE
|>>>
|>>> Alright-- but Terhune did say you hadn't tried hard enough yet to
|>>> crash it!
|>>
|>> Apparently not!

I was trying to be complimentary as best I could.

| You can't always protect people from themselves and their own
| screwups, no matter how hard you try.

I guess. But I've got a 92 KB IUHist.xml, & the only reason it has
stopped growing is because MS has become lazy with Win98 criticals! It's
pretty sloppy in that file too with duplicates, failures (although later
attempts completed) & mis-sorted entries!

|>>> A truly unrecoverable crash in my Win98 is covered by my full
|>>> system backup, (which I've resorted to some few times already, but
|>>> nothing any too recent. It was more frequent early on, when I
|>>> didn't how to fix anything otherwise.)
|>>>
|>>>>

|>>
|>> Yup. I routinely do a full system backup to my external USB HD
|>> enclosure, and it takes me about 15-20 minutes to backup the
|>> existing 20 GB or so of system files, programs, and user data.
|>> (I have a 40 GB partition for the C: drive on Win XP - I think
|>> that's an ideal size for XP).
|>
|> That's the best thing! I always had that capability, first with
|> Compaq's QuickRestore & now with BING.
|>
|>>>> And the built-in, NTFS, transaction-log-based, file recovery
|>>>> methodology is nice, too (so if something goes wrong while writing
|>>>> some files on the disk, it's often possible to recover from that).
|>>>
|>>> Is that like SFC? What does the process involve?
|
| No, WinXP also has SFC to check the system files, so this in addition
| to that.
|
| And XP also has some WFP (windows file protection) running in the
| background to constantly monitor any attempts to change any system
| files (without permission).

That's interesting. But I guess you still need a virus detector. Even if
you are asked, you still might not know who is doing the asking!

|>> There is a so-called "transaction log" written out (as I understand
|>> it) for every file operation in NTFS, so that if anything goes wrong
|>> or is incomplete in the disk writes, WinXP (using NTFS) can recover
|>> from it, unlike in Win98SE and FAT32. For example, if something
|>> isn't successfully and completely written out to the hard disk, a
|>> flag is set indicating such, so that it can be, next time (or
|>> something to that effect). Which makes it much more robust! (not
|>> saying it's 100% foolproof, nothing probably is)
|>
|> Sounds like that has to do with the integrity of the hard drive &
|> whether something went wrong in the middle of a write. It doesn't
|> sound like it has to do with file versions like SFC does.
|
| No, as I mentioned above, SFC is different, and just checks the
| system files for the proper versions (and can be used to put them
| back, as needbe, since the correct ones are stored in a backup
| "dllcache" on the disk)

Does XP update its dllcache? If a file is updated twice, but you need to
revert to the first update-- will XP's SFC offer it or only offer the
original file? It's tough to get 98's SFC to do that trick, you know--
normally it goes to the installation .cab's for its files, (but it will
take whatever is loose in C:\Windows\Option\Cabs first, instead of going
into the .cab's.)

|> It probably has more
|> to do with what ScanDisk is supposed to do-- or eliminating the need
|> for ScanDisk. Has your "transaction log" mentioned any errors yet?
|> Do you
|
| I haven't looked at such a log, per se. When I used the term
| "transaction log", I meant that the system "logs" or keeps track of
| what's going on down there behind the scenes. (Whether or not we
| can actually see a log detailing all of these file events, I'm not
| sure, but we do have an "Event Viewer", which shows a fair amount of
| such related stuff (and perhaps that too).

Can you post a piece of the Event Viewer, especially a summary at the
bottom? I want to determine whether anything humanly meaningful can be
seen in it. Is there anything in its menus that can be set to sound an
alarm?

|> still have to do a Defrag? Do you have anything that does do the
|> work of SFC to monitor updates-- IF you ever decide to take one?
|
| Yes, there is a Windows Defragger. And as I said, there is also
| good ole, SFC (System File Checker).

How large is your hard drive? How long does it take to Defrag? Does it
look the same & show you those cluster boxes moving?

| And - Windows Updates do get recorded (and can even be seen in
| Add/Remove programs, IF you select the "show updates" checkbox).

Another extra checkbox for you-- ha, ha, ha!

|>>>> And of course, there are no limitations anymore with the good ole,
|>>>> 64K, resource heap problem in Win9x. Now THAT is nice.

|>>>
|>>> OK. That problem doesn't show up for me, though, in normal,
|>>> everyday use of Win98. I think it is involved with the ole "copy
|>>> of tons of files or tons of folders full of folders & files" thing
|>>> after installing IE6-- but I only ever did that for testing
|>>> purposes!
|>>
|>> No, those were two entirely different and unrelated issues.
|>>
|>> The resource heap limitation happened if either you had too many
|>> apps running at one time, or had a program that was errant in its
|>> handling of the GDI, System, or User resource heaps (and some did,
|>> but they were the exception, fortunately, and usually got fixed in
|>> later versions, unless the developer moved on and stopped
|>> supporting it - that happened on occasion).
|>
|> Yea. That sounds about right. I certainly don't like to have 10
|> programs open at once. HOWEVER-- for me, when I test that copy
|> problem, I seem always to get a requestor warning I've run out of
|> resources & too close some programs. Sometimes the warning is hidden
|> behind another window. I do believe the massive copy is fairly
|> quickly done -- & done well -- & it is Explorer that is struggling
|> to update its display. You could wait forever for that!
|>
|>> The copying or deleting of a large number of files problem in
|>> Win98SE (with IE6+) was linked to the browseui and browselc DLL
|>> files changes (from IE5.5 to IE 6+), so I simply retained the IE
|>> 5.5 versions of those two DLLs, which allowed Windows Explorer to
|>> *work as it should*, and NOT get hung up! (I think another "fix"
|>> was with another DLL, instead, as an alternative method, but this
|>> one always worked for me, so I left it that way.
|>
|> I remember it as you do. And, yea, I recall testing the IE 5.5
|> BrowseUI.dll & BrowseLC.dll. I believe you were right about them,
|> yea. But I kept the IE6 versions because I could copy the big stuff I
|> normally do-- just not the big, big stuff during a test like all of
|> Program Files. Also, even that much could be done in DOS with no
|> problem whatever.
|
| But it's often easier in Explorer, plus you see all the long filenames
| (which you can't in real DOS mode, but you can in the windows shell
| version, of course).

Absolutely you must use the Windows DOS Shell for that or lose the LFNs!

|>>>> And of course the nice built in USB (and USB2) support, which was
|>>>> "just a bit lacking" in Win98SE.
|>>>
|>>> I have 2 or 3 USB connectors, but have never plugged anything into
|>>> them.
|>>
|>> There is SO much out there (peripherals) that is now USB based!
|>> Even the printers! (Try to find a printer (or even computer) with
|>> a parallel port, anymore!)
|>
|> Hmm. Well, my Compaq IJ300 still has its parallel wire. It just has
|> no ink in its cartridge, is all.
|
| I only use a black-and-white laser printer, and thus I never have to
| replace those blasted cartridges all the time. I can go through up
| to 3000 sheets! with nothing ever needing to be replaced or changed.
| And I like that! The only thing I don't get is color, of course
| (but I don't need it).

(If I need photos developed (which
| is rare), I can take them to a photo developing place)

Yea. The printer itself was only $100.00-- little did I know cartridges
would run out quick & cost... is it $50.00 apiece? That or $30.00-- but
either is horrible!

|>> Well, I have to admit, the USB cable to my new printer is MUCH nicer
|>> now, than that old bulky parallel port cable connecting the old
|>> printer to the parallel port. But if you ever get a new printer
|>> (likely USB based), there is a way to use it with Win98SE, IF they
|>> supply the right drivers - otherwise you're screwed.
|>
|> Hmm. OK, got ya. Something to ponder.
|>
|>>>> I think after XP dies (if and when it does for me), it's maybe
|>>>> time to move to something else, maybe something like Linux.

|>>>> I've about had it with MS bloatware. I think XP may be my last
|>>>> ride with MS for the operating system

.
|>>>>>>>

....snip
--
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

Bill in Co. · Jun 3, 2008

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> PCR wrote:
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I'm using NTFS for WinXP (for my system partition), and that's
>>>>>>>>>> the one I'm talking about. (I also have some FAT32
>>>>>>>>>> partitions on the drive for other stuff, however).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And what about the FAT32 partition? Does that behave the same
>>>>>>>>> as in Win98 with that Mod date?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes. The folder's "Date Modified" date does NOT change.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah! That's it, then! They were right! Very good.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If so... congratulations to Etal & Chauvin for
>>>>>>>>> figuring it... though your only cure will be to shape-shift
>>>>>>>>> your NTFS into a FAT32..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ummm. Not a good idea (for Windows XP).
>>>>>>>> I'll have to learn to live with it.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yea. OK. It's been good, really, to hear your complaints about
>>>>>>> XP-- very instructive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, on the whole though, I'm pretty satisfied with WinXP. I
>>>>>> just have a few, relatively minor issues with it, that's all.
>>>>>> (frankly, most of them aren't earth shaking).
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, the ones you mentioned, anyway, seemed more like pet peeves--
>>>>> except perhaps the file search requestor which wasn't finding all
>>>>> files. However, looks like that was mostly resolved too with a
>>>>> shortcut.
>>>>
>>>> Or a good alternative third party utility like Agent Ransack or File
>>>> Locator Pro (which is even better, and is big brother to Agent
>>>> Ransack). It's useful to have this program (even on the Win98SE
>>>> machine).
>>>
>>> Thanks for the tip. I may take a look. So far, I am content with
>>> Windows Find & DOS DIR. I know each has certain few limitations. As
>>> far as anything so well hid that those two won't work-- it hasn't
>>> hurt me yet, I don't think. For full system backups, I use BING that
>>> copies on a track level-- nothing can escape that!
>>
>> The nice thing about using Acronis True Image (TI) in Win XP to make a
>> backup image is that you don't have to boot up on a floppy (or a CD)
>> to run it, like you do with BING. Plus, of course, it's a bit
>> friendlier, since you're in a windows environment for most of it.
>> (the older versions of TI can work in 98SE, but not the newer ones)
>
> Alright, very good. BING I think might also have that capability to
> click a shortcut in Windows to start a backup, even a backup of multiple
> partitions. However, you'd have to actually install BING to its own
> little partition on the hard drive to use that. I am content to use the
> floppy.

Well, and actually True Image is fully running in Windows too (with lots of
options and selections being able to be clearly shown as a result). It
makes the BING screen look primitive.

Of course, if you ever decide to restore an image backup of the system back
to the source drive, TI only runs in windows to a point, and then it reboots
and does the rest outside of windows (which it has to), just like BING.

>>>>>> What I really DO appreciate about Win XP is its *robustness* (much
>>>>>> more so than Win98SE - in part due to using NTFS) - AND its
>>>>>> capability of running some programs that I couldn't run on 98SE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think I've already said I haven't got a blue screen yet, and
>>>>>> that's with my normal messin around (which usually brought me
>>>>>> some, in 98SE
>>>>>
>>>>> Alright-- but Terhune did say you hadn't tried hard enough yet to
>>>>> crash it!
>>>>
>>>> Apparently not!

>>>
>>> I guess you are being careful, as you always have been.
>>
>> I do?? Hmmm. (Not so sure, lol). (I've been known to walk a
>> bit on the "razor's edge" in windows and in the registry with some
>> registry mods, etc.

>
> I was trying to be complimentary as best I could.

.

LOL. That's ok, you don't have to worry about that.

>>>>> Also, I see a new XP thread here where Livingston has warned
>>>>> against XP SP3!
>>>>
>>>> That's never going in over here.
>>>>
>>>>> (I know you don't go for those critical updates-- just as you
>>>>> hardly ever did in Win98.)
>>>>
>>>> Yup, you got that right. (been around the block too many times on
>>>> that one).
>>>
>>> I had a few horrible crashes taking in one/two like DirectX9, but
>>> ultimately got all of the critical updates & many "recommended" ones
>>> too into here. Once they were in &/or the sometimes quick
>>> replacements to some were in-- all seems to be going well. I don't
>>> regret it now.
>>>
>>> It's a bit humorous that WinXP is going through these critical
>>> updates too & even full SP's. Will no OS ever be safe &/or fully
>>> debugged!?
>>
>> Nope. True security ONLY "comes from within" - meaning, the operator
>> usage.

>> You can't always protect people from themselves and their own
>> screwups, no matter how hard you try.
>
> I guess. But I've got a 92 KB IUHist.xml, & the only reason it has
> stopped growing is because MS has become lazy with Win98 criticals!

I'd be surprised if there are ANY more at this point in time. But then
again, I never really missed them.

> It's pretty sloppy in that file too with duplicates, failures (although
> later
> attempts completed) & mis-sorted entries!
>
>>>>> A truly unrecoverable crash in my Win98 is covered by my full
>>>>> system backup, (which I've resorted to some few times already, but
>>>>> nothing any too recent. It was more frequent early on, when I
>>>>> didn't how to fix anything otherwise.)
>>>>>
>>>>>>

>>>>
>>>> Yup. I routinely do a full system backup to my external USB HD
>>>> enclosure, and it takes me about 15-20 minutes to backup the
>>>> existing 20 GB or so of system files, programs, and user data.
>>>> (I have a 40 GB partition for the C: drive on Win XP - I think
>>>> that's an ideal size for XP).
>>>
>>> That's the best thing! I always had that capability, first with
>>> Compaq's QuickRestore & now with BING.
>>>
>>>>>> And the built-in, NTFS, transaction-log-based, file recovery
>>>>>> methodology is nice, too (so if something goes wrong while writing
>>>>>> some files on the disk, it's often possible to recover from that).
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that like SFC? What does the process involve?
>>
>> No, WinXP also has SFC to check the system files, so this in addition
>> to that.
>>
>> And XP also has some WFP (windows file protection) running in the
>> background to constantly monitor any attempts to change any system
>> files (without permission).
>
> That's interesting. But I guess you still need a virus detector. Even if
> you are asked, you still might not know who is doing the asking!

I have an older version of AVG Free, namely AVG 7.0. And I stopped
updating it some time ago.

>>>> There is a so-called "transaction log" written out (as I understand
>>>> it) for every file operation in NTFS, so that if anything goes wrong
>>>> or is incomplete in the disk writes, WinXP (using NTFS) can recover
>>>> from it, unlike in Win98SE and FAT32. For example, if something
>>>> isn't successfully and completely written out to the hard disk, a
>>>> flag is set indicating such, so that it can be, next time (or
>>>> something to that effect). Which makes it much more robust! (not
>>>> saying it's 100% foolproof, nothing probably is)
>>>
>>> Sounds like that has to do with the integrity of the hard drive &
>>> whether something went wrong in the middle of a write. It doesn't
>>> sound like it has to do with file versions like SFC does.
>>
>> No, as I mentioned above, SFC is different, and just checks the
>> system files for the proper versions (and can be used to put them
>> back, as needbe, since the correct ones are stored in a backup
>> "dllcache" on the disk)
>
> Does XP update its dllcache? If a file is updated twice, but you need to
> revert to the first update-- will XP's SFC offer it or only offer the
> original file? It's tough to get 98's SFC to do that trick, you know--
> normally it goes to the installation .cab's for its files, (but it will
> take whatever is loose in C:\Windows\Option\Cabs first, instead of going
> into the .cab's.)

XP keeps "properly recorded" copies of most of the system DLLs in the
dllcache subfolder. By "properly recorded", I mean these cached system
files don't change, UNLESS you install an official IE update, which then
updates it (at least as I recall - there may be some other exceptions or
contingencies).

>>> It probably has more
>>> to do with what ScanDisk is supposed to do-- or eliminating the need
>>> for ScanDisk. Has your "transaction log" mentioned any errors yet?
>>> Do you
>>
>> I haven't looked at such a log, per se. When I used the term
>> "transaction log", I meant that the system "logs" or keeps track of
>> what's going on down there behind the scenes. (Whether or not we
>> can actually see a log detailing all of these file events, I'm not
>> sure, but we do have an "Event Viewer", which shows a fair amount of
>> such related stuff (and perhaps that too).
>
> Can you post a piece of the Event Viewer, especially a summary at the
> bottom? I want to determine whether anything humanly meaningful can be
> seen in it.

Well, I'll tell you, it ain't easy looking at it (or posting it). It's a
bit "cumbersome" and tedious to go through it all (you have to use the arrow
keys to scroll through them)! So, I don't know how I can easily do that.
It is a bit more complex than just looking at a simple SFC log in Win98SE
(and THAT part I really MISS).

What it lists is all the so-called system "Events" that occur (basically the
system events going on in time, with their "categorizations" and so-called
"Event Codes", (like such an such a "service" just opened or closed, or
started or stopped, or entered the running state, or whatever). (For the
most part, I haven't found it all that useful for me just yet).

> Is there anything in its menus that can be set to sound an alarm?

Maybe - don't know.

>>> still have to do a Defrag? Do you have anything that does do the
>>> work of SFC to monitor updates-- IF you ever decide to take one?
>>
>> Yes, there is a Windows Defragger. And as I said, there is also
>> good ole, SFC (System File Checker).
>
> How large is your hard drive? How long does it take to Defrag? Does it
> look the same & show you those cluster boxes moving?

I have a 250 GB drive (it came from Dell that way as the smallest size at
the time).

It has a 40 GB NTFS partition for XP and my programs and data (except for my
music and video files, which are each on some other 40 GB, FAT 32
partitions). Of that 40 GB, about half is in use now, and the rest is
still free. If someone were going to install XP, I'd say they should use
a 40 GB partition for it (and the programs and data). 20 GB would be a
bit marginal - not leaving much room to install a whole bunch of stuff. I
mean, you could do it, but I wouldn't. I've got quite a bit on here and
I'm using about 20 GB now.

I used FAT 32 for those partitions, since they came over from my Win98SE
machine, and it was just easier to leave them that way (I copied those
partitions from the Win98SE computer to the new XP computer).

So I still have tons of disk space left.

>> And - Windows Updates do get recorded (and can even be seen in
>> Add/Remove programs, IF you select the "show updates" checkbox).
>
> Another extra checkbox for you-- ha, ha, ha!

Yeah, I know.

>>>>>> And of course, there are no limitations anymore with the good ole,
>>>>>> 64K, resource heap problem in Win9x. Now THAT is nice.

>>>>>
>>>>> OK. That problem doesn't show up for me, though, in normal,
>>>>> everyday use of Win98. I think it is involved with the ole "copy
>>>>> of tons of files or tons of folders full of folders & files" thing
>>>>> after installing IE6-- but I only ever did that for testing
>>>>> purposes!
>>>>
>>>> No, those were two entirely different and unrelated issues.
>>>>
>>>> The resource heap limitation happened if either you had too many
>>>> apps running at one time, or had a program that was errant in its
>>>> handling of the GDI, System, or User resource heaps (and some did,
>>>> but they were the exception, fortunately, and usually got fixed in
>>>> later versions, unless the developer moved on and stopped
>>>> supporting it - that happened on occasion).
>>>
>>> Yea. That sounds about right. I certainly don't like to have 10
>>> programs open at once. HOWEVER-- for me, when I test that copy
>>> problem, I seem always to get a requestor warning I've run out of
>>> resources & too close some programs. Sometimes the warning is hidden
>>> behind another window. I do believe the massive copy is fairly
>>> quickly done -- & done well -- & it is Explorer that is struggling
>>> to update its display. You could wait forever for that!
>>>
>>>> The copying or deleting of a large number of files problem in
>>>> Win98SE (with IE6+) was linked to the browseui and browselc DLL
>>>> files changes (from IE5.5 to IE 6+), so I simply retained the IE
>>>> 5.5 versions of those two DLLs, which allowed Windows Explorer to
>>>> *work as it should*, and NOT get hung up! (I think another "fix"
>>>> was with another DLL, instead, as an alternative method, but this
>>>> one always worked for me, so I left it that way.
>>>
>>> I remember it as you do. And, yea, I recall testing the IE 5.5
>>> BrowseUI.dll & BrowseLC.dll. I believe you were right about them,
>>> yea. But I kept the IE6 versions because I could copy the big stuff I
>>> normally do-- just not the big, big stuff during a test like all of
>>> Program Files. Also, even that much could be done in DOS with no
>>> problem whatever.
>>
>> But it's often easier in Explorer, plus you see all the long filenames
>> (which you can't in real DOS mode, but you can in the windows dos shell,
>> of course).
>
> Absolutely you must use the Windows DOS Shell for that or lose the LFNs!

Right.

>>>>>> And of course the nice built in USB (and USB2) support, which was
>>>>>> "just a bit lacking" in Win98SE.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have 2 or 3 USB connectors, but have never plugged anything into
>>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> There is SO much out there (peripherals) that is now USB based!
>>>> Even the printers! (Try to find a printer (or even computer) with
>>>> a parallel port, anymore!)
>>>
>>> Hmm. Well, my Compaq IJ300 still has its parallel wire. It just has
>>> no ink in its cartridge, is all.
>>
>> I only use a black-and-white laser printer, and thus I never have to
>> replace those blasted cartridges all the time. I can go through up
>> to 3000 sheets! with nothing ever needing to be replaced or changed.
>> And I like that! The only thing I don't get is color, of course
>> (but I don't need it).

(If I need photos developed (which
>> is rare), I can take them to a photo developing place)
>
> Yea. The printer itself was only $100.00

Same here.

> -- little did I know cartridges
> would run out quick & cost... is it $50.00 apiece? That or $30.00-- but
> either is horrible!

Yup!

>>>> Well, I have to admit, the USB cable to my new printer is MUCH nicer
>>>> now, than that old bulky parallel port cable connecting the old
>>>> printer to the parallel port. But if you ever get a new printer
>>>> (likely USB based), there is a way to use it with Win98SE, IF they
>>>> supply the right drivers - otherwise you're screwed.
>>>
>>> Hmm. OK, got ya. Something to ponder.
>>>
>>>>>> I think after XP dies (if and when it does for me), it's maybe
>>>>>> time to move to something else, maybe something like Linux.

>>>>>> I've about had it with MS bloatware. I think XP may be my last
>>>>>> ride with MS for the operating system

>>>>>
>>>>> I probably will say the same, if I ever do get to XP myself.
>>>>
>>>> If you're even considering Win XP, time is running out. Like the
>>>> end of this month? (unless MS extends it). (Vista is not
>>>> allowed on my premises. I have a sign out saying "Access Denied",
>>>> for it.

>>>
>>> I agree fully!
>>>
>>>>>>>>> .. or learn to live with it! Put your head inside the box
>>>>>>>>> for a triple dose of the irradiation-- & you may forget the
>>>>>>>>> problem entirely!

.
>>>>>>>>>
>
> ...snip
> --
> 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

PCR · Jun 3, 2008

|>>>>>>>
|>>>>>>> Yea. OK. It's been good, really, to hear your complaints
|>>>>>>> about XP-- very instructive.
|>>>>>>
|>>>>>> Well, on the whole though, I'm pretty satisfied with WinXP. I
|>>>>>> just have a few, relatively minor issues with it, that's all.
|>>>>>> (frankly, most of them aren't earth shaking).
|>>>>>
|>>>>> Well, the ones you mentioned, anyway, seemed more like pet
|>>>>> peeves-- except perhaps the file search requestor which wasn't
|>>>>> finding all files. However, looks like that was mostly resolved
|>>>>> too with a shortcut.
|>>>>
|>>>> Or a good alternative third party utility like Agent Ransack or
|>>>> File Locator Pro (which is even better, and is big brother to
|>>>> Agent Ransack). It's useful to have this program (even on the
|>>>> Win98SE machine).
|>>>
|>>> Thanks for the tip. I may take a look. So far, I am content with
|>>> Windows Find & DOS DIR. I know each has certain few limitations. As
|>>> far as anything so well hid that those two won't work-- it hasn't
|>>> hurt me yet, I don't think. For full system backups, I use BING
|>>> that copies on a track level-- nothing can escape that!
|>>
|>> The nice thing about using Acronis True Image (TI) in Win XP to
|>> make a backup image is that you don't have to boot up on a floppy
|>> (or a CD)
|>> to run it, like you do with BING. Plus, of course, it's a bit
|>> friendlier, since you're in a windows environment for most of it.
|>> (the older versions of TI can work in 98SE, but not the newer ones)
|>
|> Alright, very good. BING I think might also have that capability to
|> click a shortcut in Windows to start a backup, even a backup of
|> multiple partitions. However, you'd have to actually install BING to
|> its own little partition on the hard drive to use that. I am content
|> to use the floppy.
|
| Well, and actually True Image is fully running in Windows too (with
| lots of options and selections being able to be clearly shown as a
| result). It makes the BING screen look primitive.

Alright. But I hope you don't mean True Image will resize & move
partitions on the fly just before doing its backup. With BING you have
to do those things separately-- which I think is far more safe! And all
of it can be done from a little floppy!

| Of course, if you ever decide to restore an image backup of the
| system back to the source drive, TI only runs in windows to a point,
| and then it reboots and does the rest outside of windows (which it
| has to), just like BING.

Yea. BING can run from a floppy, from its own little partition (an
EMBRM), or from the partition that has the OS (if it is a FAT32).
However, I think in any case you are right that even BING must do its
big stuff out of Windows.

|>>>>>> What I really DO appreciate about Win XP is its *robustness*
|>>>>>> (much more so than Win98SE - in part due to using NTFS) - AND
|>>>>>> its capability of running some programs that I couldn't run on
|>>>>>> 98SE.
|>>>>>>
|>>>>>> I think I've already said I haven't got a blue screen yet, and
|>>>>>> that's with my normal messin around (which usually brought me
|>>>>>> some, in 98SE
|>>>>>
|>>>>> Alright-- but Terhune did say you hadn't tried hard enough yet to
|>>>>> crash it!
|>>>>
|>>>> Apparently not!

|>
|> I was trying to be complimentary as best I could.

|>> You can't always protect people from themselves and their own
|>> screwups, no matter how hard you try.
|>
|> I guess. But I've got a 92 KB IUHist.xml, & the only reason it has
|> stopped growing is because MS has become lazy with Win98 criticals!
|
| I'd be surprised if there are ANY more at this point in time. But
| then again, I never really missed them.

I know. There aren't any new ones, but you know the old ones are still
there. But you have to go look with the Win98 machine to see the ones
for Win98, you know.

|> It's pretty sloppy in that file too with duplicates, failures
|> (although later
|> attempts completed) & mis-sorted entries!
|>
|>>>>> A truly unrecoverable crash in my Win98 is covered by my full
|>>>>> system backup, (which I've resorted to some few times already,
|>>>>> but nothing any too recent. It was more frequent early on, when I
|>>>>> didn't how to fix anything otherwise.)
|>>>>>
|>>>>>>

That's risky, isn't it!? XP/Vista has drawn all the fire of the
virus-writers away from Win98!

|>>>> There is a so-called "transaction log" written out (as I
|>>>> understand it) for every file operation in NTFS, so that if
|>>>> anything goes wrong or is incomplete in the disk writes, WinXP
|>>>> (using NTFS) can recover from it, unlike in Win98SE and FAT32.
|>>>> For example, if something isn't successfully and completely
|>>>> written out to the hard disk, a flag is set indicating such, so
|>>>> that it can be, next time (or something to that effect). Which
|>>>> makes it much more robust! (not saying it's 100% foolproof,
|>>>> nothing probably is)
|>>>
|>>> Sounds like that has to do with the integrity of the hard drive &
|>>> whether something went wrong in the middle of a write. It doesn't
|>>> sound like it has to do with file versions like SFC does.
|>>
|>> No, as I mentioned above, SFC is different, and just checks the
|>> system files for the proper versions (and can be used to put them
|>> back, as needbe, since the correct ones are stored in a backup
|>> "dllcache" on the disk)
|>
|> Does XP update its dllcache? If a file is updated twice, but you
|> need to revert to the first update-- will XP's SFC offer it or only
|> offer the original file? It's tough to get 98's SFC to do that
|> trick, you know-- normally it goes to the installation .cab's for
|> its files, (but it will take whatever is loose in
|> C:\Windows\Option\Cabs first, instead of going into the .cab's.)
|
| XP keeps "properly recorded" copies of most of the system DLLs in the
| dllcache subfolder. By "properly recorded", I mean these cached
| system files don't change, UNLESS you install an official IE update,
| which then updates it (at least as I recall - there may be some other
| exceptions or contingencies).

It sounds like they might have it covered, then, if they keep that cache
updated. It will revert to the previous updated file, instead of the
original, if you run SFC after a second update goes bad. That's tough to
do with Win98's SFC.

It sounds pretty good for preventing a virus infection too, I guess, if
it only let's official updates mess with the cache. But that only
involves system files? I suppose you can install non-system programs
that still could be a virus, whether they go into the cache or not.

|>>> It probably has more
|>>> to do with what ScanDisk is supposed to do-- or eliminating the
|>>> need for ScanDisk. Has your "transaction log" mentioned any errors
|>>> yet? Do you
|>>
|>> I haven't looked at such a log, per se. When I used the term
|>> "transaction log", I meant that the system "logs" or keeps track of
|>> what's going on down there behind the scenes. (Whether or not we
|>> can actually see a log detailing all of these file events, I'm not
|>> sure, but we do have an "Event Viewer", which shows a fair amount of
|>> such related stuff (and perhaps that too).
|>
|> Can you post a piece of the Event Viewer, especially a summary at the
|> bottom? I want to determine whether anything humanly meaningful can
|> be seen in it.
|
| Well, I'll tell you, it ain't easy looking at it (or posting it).
| It's a bit "cumbersome" and tedious to go through it all (you have to
| use the arrow keys to scroll through them)! So, I don't know how I
| can easily do that. It is a bit more complex than just looking at a
| simple SFC log in Win98SE (and THAT part I really MISS).

Yuck! Arrow keys! I hope all the .logs in XP aren't that tough to deal
with! And this one sounds important! Sheesh! They should have made it
possible to copy/paste from it-- so users could could post bits of it
for examination & discussion! Yuck!

| What it lists is all the so-called system "Events" that occur
| (basically the system events going on in time, with their
| "categorizations" and so-called "Event Codes", (like such an such a
| "service" just opened or closed, or started or stopped, or entered
| the running state, or whatever). (For the most part, I haven't
| found it all that useful for me just yet).

Well, it would have been nice for them to make the mouse & copy/paste wo
rk for it nonetheless! What good is a listing that you have to memorize
to talk about!

|> Is there anything in its menus that can be set to sound an alarm?
|
| Maybe - don't know.

I was thinking it might be monitoring the integrity of the hard drive,
but now I see it is something else. It's monitoring the doings of the
OS, sounds like. But keep looking for an alarm & report back if you find
one! There's got to be some use for the thing!

|>>> still have to do a Defrag? Do you have anything that does do the
|>>> work of SFC to monitor updates-- IF you ever decide to take one?
|>>
|>> Yes, there is a Windows Defragger. And as I said, there is also
|>> good ole, SFC (System File Checker).
|>
|> How large is your hard drive? How long does it take to Defrag? Does
|> it look the same & show you those cluster boxes moving?
|
| I have a 250 GB drive (it came from Dell that way as the smallest
| size at the time).

Yow. I have a 40 & a 20-- & I had to add that 40!

| It has a 40 GB NTFS partition for XP and my programs and data (except
| for my music and video files, which are each on some other 40 GB, FAT
| 32 partitions). Of that 40 GB, about half is in use now, and the
| rest is still free. If someone were going to install XP, I'd say
| they should use a 40 GB partition for it (and the programs and data).
| 20 GB would be a bit marginal - not leaving much room to install a
| whole bunch of stuff. I mean, you could do it, but I wouldn't.
| I've got quite a bit on here and I'm using about 20 GB now.

You created these partitions? Sounds like good advice. Finally, on this
98, I did a lot of that myself. I does make backups a bit more work to
do, but I don't regret it.

| I used FAT 32 for those partitions, since they came over from my
| Win98SE machine, and it was just easier to leave them that way (I
| copied those partitions from the Win98SE computer to the new XP
| computer).
|
| So I still have tons of disk space left.

You had tons to start with. Can you post something like this, from
MSInfo32 & FDISK /Status...?...

Windows-managed swap file on drive C (6659MB free)
Available space on drive C: 6659MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
Available space on drive D: 6683MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
Available space on drive E: 7286MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
Available space on drive F: 7492MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
Available space on drive G: 7766MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
Available space on drive H: 7792MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
Available space on drive I: 5967MB of 6174MB (FAT32)

Fixed Disk Drive Status
Disk Drv Mbytes Free Usage
1 19092 100%
C: 7996
E: 7996
2 38169 100%
D: 7996
F: 7996
G: 7996
H: 7996
I: 6187

|>> And - Windows Updates do get recorded (and can even be seen in
|>> Add/Remove programs, IF you select the "show updates" checkbox).
|>
|> Another extra checkbox for you-- ha, ha, ha!
|
| Yeah, I know.

|
|>>>>>> And of course, there are no limitations anymore with the good
|>>>>>> ole, 64K, resource heap problem in Win9x. Now THAT is nice.
|>>>>>>

|>>>>>
|>>>>> OK. That problem doesn't show up for me, though, in normal,
|>>>>> everyday use of Win98. I think it is involved with the ole "copy
|>>>>> of tons of files or tons of folders full of folders & files"
|>>>>> thing after installing IE6-- but I only ever did that for testing
|>>>>> purposes!
|>>>>
|>>>> No, those were two entirely different and unrelated issues.
|>>>>
|>>>> The resource heap limitation happened if either you had too many
|>>>> apps running at one time, or had a program that was errant in its
|>>>> handling of the GDI, System, or User resource heaps (and some did,
|>>>> but they were the exception, fortunately, and usually got fixed in
|>>>> later versions, unless the developer moved on and stopped
|>>>> supporting it - that happened on occasion).
|>>>
|>>> Yea. That sounds about right. I certainly don't like to have 10
|>>> programs open at once. HOWEVER-- for me, when I test that copy
|>>> problem, I seem always to get a requestor warning I've run out of
|>>> resources & too close some programs. Sometimes the warning is
|>>> hidden behind another window. I do believe the massive copy is
|>>> fairly quickly done -- & done well -- & it is Explorer that is
|>>> struggling to update its display. You could wait forever for that!
|>>>
|>>>> The copying or deleting of a large number of files problem in
|>>>> Win98SE (with IE6+) was linked to the browseui and browselc DLL
|>>>> files changes (from IE5.5 to IE 6+), so I simply retained the IE
|>>>> 5.5 versions of those two DLLs, which allowed Windows Explorer to
|>>>> *work as it should*, and NOT get hung up! (I think another
|>>>> "fix" was with another DLL, instead, as an alternative method,
|>>>> but this one always worked for me, so I left it that way.
|>>>
|>>> I remember it as you do. And, yea, I recall testing the IE 5.5
|>>> BrowseUI.dll & BrowseLC.dll. I believe you were right about them,
|>>> yea. But I kept the IE6 versions because I could copy the big
|>>> stuff I normally do-- just not the big, big stuff during a test
|>>> like all of Program Files. Also, even that much could be done in
|>>> DOS with no problem whatever.
|>>
|>> But it's often easier in Explorer, plus you see all the long
|>> filenames (which you can't in real DOS mode, but you can in the
|>> windows dos shell, of course).
|>
|> Absolutely you must use the Windows DOS Shell for that or lose the
|> LFNs!
|
| Right.
|
|>>>>>> And of course the nice built in USB (and USB2) support, which
|>>>>>> was "just a bit lacking" in Win98SE.
|>>>>>
|>>>>> I have 2 or 3 USB connectors, but have never plugged anything
|>>>>> into them.
|>>>>
|>>>> There is SO much out there (peripherals) that is now USB based!
|>>>> Even the printers! (Try to find a printer (or even computer)
|>>>> with a parallel port, anymore!)
|>>>
|>>> Hmm. Well, my Compaq IJ300 still has its parallel wire. It just has
|>>> no ink in its cartridge, is all.
|>>
|>> I only use a black-and-white laser printer, and thus I never have to
|>> replace those blasted cartridges all the time. I can go through
|>> up to 3000 sheets! with nothing ever needing to be replaced or
|>> changed. And I like that! The only thing I don't get is color,
|>> of course (but I don't need it).

I've about had it with MS bloatware. I think XP may be
|>>>>>> my last ride with MS for the operating system

|>>>>>
|>>>>> I probably will say the same, if I ever do get to XP myself.
|>>>>
|>>>> If you're even considering Win XP, time is running out. Like the
|>>>> end of this month? (unless MS extends it). (Vista is not
|>>>> allowed on my premises. I have a sign out saying "Access Denied",
|>>>> for it.

.
|>>>>>>>>>
|>
|> ...snip
|> --
|> 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

--
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

Bill in Co. · Jun 3, 2008

You can do it (but I'll do a minor snip at the end). Sounds good.

More below..

PCR wrote:
> Feel free to do some snipping! If you don't I will next time!
>
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> PCR wrote:
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm using NTFS for WinXP (for my system partition), and
>>>>>>>>>>>> that's the one I'm talking about. (I also have some
>>>>>>>>>>>> FAT32 partitions on the drive for other stuff, however).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And what about the FAT32 partition? Does that behave the same
>>>>>>>>>>> as in Win98 with that Mod date?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes. The folder's "Date Modified" date does NOT change.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ah! That's it, then! They were right! Very good.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If so... congratulations to Etal & Chauvin for
>>>>>>>>>>> figuring it... though your only cure will be to shape-shift
>>>>>>>>>>> your NTFS into a FAT32..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ummm. Not a good idea (for Windows XP).
>>>>>>>>>> I'll have to learn to live with it.

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yea. OK. It's been good, really, to hear your complaints
>>>>>>>>> about XP-- very instructive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, on the whole though, I'm pretty satisfied with WinXP. I
>>>>>>>> just have a few, relatively minor issues with it, that's all.
>>>>>>>> (frankly, most of them aren't earth shaking).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, the ones you mentioned, anyway, seemed more like pet
>>>>>>> peeves-- except perhaps the file search requestor which wasn't
>>>>>>> finding all files. However, looks like that was mostly resolved
>>>>>>> too with a shortcut.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or a good alternative third party utility like Agent Ransack or
>>>>>> File Locator Pro (which is even better, and is big brother to
>>>>>> Agent Ransack). It's useful to have this program (even on the
>>>>>> Win98SE machine).
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the tip. I may take a look. So far, I am content with
>>>>> Windows Find & DOS DIR. I know each has certain few limitations. As
>>>>> far as anything so well hid that those two won't work-- it hasn't
>>>>> hurt me yet, I don't think. For full system backups, I use BING
>>>>> that copies on a track level-- nothing can escape that!
>>>>
>>>> The nice thing about using Acronis True Image (TI) in Win XP to
>>>> make a backup image is that you don't have to boot up on a floppy
>>>> (or a CD)
>>>> to run it, like you do with BING. Plus, of course, it's a bit
>>>> friendlier, since you're in a windows environment for most of it.
>>>> (the older versions of TI can work in 98SE, but not the newer ones)
>>>
>>> Alright, very good. BING I think might also have that capability to
>>> click a shortcut in Windows to start a backup, even a backup of
>>> multiple partitions. However, you'd have to actually install BING to
>>> its own little partition on the hard drive to use that. I am content
>>> to use the floppy.
>>
>> Well, and actually True Image is fully running in Windows too (with
>> lots of options and selections being able to be clearly shown as a
>> result). It makes the BING screen look primitive.

>
> Alright. But I hope you don't mean True Image will resize & move
> partitions on the fly just before doing its backup.

No. (AFAIK). You just can make your selections (and there's a nice
configurable and often scrollable list of them), and THEN finally say, Go Do
It!

> With BING you have
> to do those things separately-- which I think is far more safe! And all
> of it can be done from a little floppy!
>
>> Of course, if you ever decide to restore an image backup of the
>> system back to the source drive, TI only runs in windows to a point,
>> and then it reboots and does the rest outside of windows (which it
>> has to), just like BING.
>
> Yea. BING can run from a floppy, from its own little partition (an
> EMBRM), or from the partition that has the OS (if it is a FAT32).
> However, I think in any case you are right that even BING must do its
> big stuff out of Windows.

BTW, with this new computer I'm finding that I'm using a Flash USB Drive in
place of a Floppy for almost everything, now.

See, when you boot up, you can choose to boot to the USB Flash Drive, if you
want, by pressing a function key (briefly shown on the screen as it boots
up).

And a USB Flash Drive is SO much nicer than a floppy it's infinitely
faster, for one thing, and there are no moving parts (or disk errors, as the
floppy gets old).
I have three of them (each are 1 GB, and they are cheap these days)

>>>>>>>> What I really DO appreciate about Win XP is its *robustness*
>>>>>>>> (much more so than Win98SE - in part due to using NTFS) - AND
>>>>>>>> its capability of running some programs that I couldn't run on
>>>>>>>> 98SE.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think I've already said I haven't got a blue screen yet, and
>>>>>>>> that's with my normal messin around (which usually brought me
>>>>>>>> some, in 98SE
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alright-- but Terhune did say you hadn't tried hard enough yet to
>>>>>>> crash it!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apparently not!

>>>>>
>>>>> I guess you are being careful, as you always have been.
>>>>
>>>> I do?? Hmmm. (Not so sure, lol). (I've been known to walk a
>>>> bit on the "razor's edge" in windows and in the registry with some
>>>> registry mods, etc.

>>>
>>> I was trying to be complimentary as best I could.

.
>>
>> LOL. That's ok, you don't have to worry about that.
>
> Alright. But I'm still thinking hard for a compliment for you! I won't
> give up, Colorado!

LOL. Yeah, I know, I'm a bit ornery, or so I've been told. Or "surly".

>>>>>>> Also, I see a new XP thread here where Livingston has warned
>>>>>>> against XP SP3!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's never going in over here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (I know you don't go for those critical updates-- just as you
>>>>>>> hardly ever did in Win98.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yup, you got that right. (been around the block too many times
>>>>>> on that one).
>>>>>
>>>>> I had a few horrible crashes taking in one/two like DirectX9, but
>>>>> ultimately got all of the critical updates & many "recommended"
>>>>> ones too into here. Once they were in &/or the sometimes quick
>>>>> replacements to some were in-- all seems to be going well. I don't
>>>>> regret it now.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a bit humorous that WinXP is going through these critical
>>>>> updates too & even full SP's. Will no OS ever be safe &/or fully
>>>>> debugged!?
>>>>
>>>> Nope. True security ONLY "comes from within" - meaning, the
>>>> operator usage.

>>>> You can't always protect people from themselves and their own
>>>> screwups, no matter how hard you try.
>>>
>>> I guess. But I've got a 92 KB IUHist.xml, & the only reason it has
>>> stopped growing is because MS has become lazy with Win98 criticals!
>>
>> I'd be surprised if there are ANY more at this point in time. But
>> then again, I never really missed them.

>
> I know. There aren't any new ones, but you know the old ones are still
> there. But you have to go look with the Win98 machine to see the ones
> for Win98, you know.

I ain't lookin! Thanks, but no thanks, don't need them, don't want them
(even on my okl W98 computer) (well, except for a couple of older ones that
I once downloaded).

>>> It's pretty sloppy in that file too with duplicates, failures
>>> (although later attempts completed) & mis-sorted entries!
>>>
>>>>>>> A truly unrecoverable crash in my Win98 is covered by my full
>>>>>>> system backup, (which I've resorted to some few times already,
>>>>>>> but nothing any too recent. It was more frequent early on, when I
>>>>>>> didn't how to fix anything otherwise.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yup. I routinely do a full system backup to my external USB HD
>>>>>> enclosure, and it takes me about 15-20 minutes to backup the
>>>>>> existing 20 GB or so of system files, programs, and user data.
>>>>>> (I have a 40 GB partition for the C: drive on Win XP - I think
>>>>>> that's an ideal size for XP).
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the best thing! I always had that capability, first with
>>>>> Compaq's QuickRestore & now with BING.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And the built-in, NTFS, transaction-log-based, file recovery
>>>>>>>> methodology is nice, too (so if something goes wrong while
>>>>>>>> writing some files on the disk, it's often possible to recover
>>>>>>>> from that).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is that like SFC? What does the process involve?
>>>>
>>>> No, WinXP also has SFC to check the system files, so this in
>>>> addition to that.
>>>>
>>>> And XP also has some WFP (windows file protection) running in the
>>>> background to constantly monitor any attempts to change any system
>>>> files (without permission).
>>>
>>> That's interesting. But I guess you still need a virus detector.
>>> Even if you are asked, you still might not know who is doing the
>>> asking!
>>
>> I have an older version of AVG Free, namely AVG 7.0. And I stopped
>> updating it some time ago.

>
> That's risky, isn't it!? XP/Vista has drawn all the fire of the
> virus-writers away from Win98!

I trust myself and my surfing practices, so I don't think it's too risky, as
I don't go to bad sites (normally) or all that many suspicious sites,
anyway.
AND I'm on dialup, so I'm ONLY connected online when *I* choose to connect
online.

>>>>>> There is a so-called "transaction log" written out (as I
>>>>>> understand it) for every file operation in NTFS, so that if
>>>>>> anything goes wrong or is incomplete in the disk writes, WinXP
>>>>>> (using NTFS) can recover from it, unlike in Win98SE and FAT32.
>>>>>> For example, if something isn't successfully and completely
>>>>>> written out to the hard disk, a flag is set indicating such, so
>>>>>> that it can be, next time (or something to that effect). Which
>>>>>> makes it much more robust! (not saying it's 100% foolproof,
>>>>>> nothing probably is)
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like that has to do with the integrity of the hard drive &
>>>>> whether something went wrong in the middle of a write. It doesn't
>>>>> sound like it has to do with file versions like SFC does.
>>>>
>>>> No, as I mentioned above, SFC is different, and just checks the
>>>> system files for the proper versions (and can be used to put them
>>>> back, as needbe, since the correct ones are stored in a backup
>>>> "dllcache" on the disk)
>>>
>>> Does XP update its dllcache? If a file is updated twice, but you
>>> need to revert to the first update-- will XP's SFC offer it or only
>>> offer the original file? It's tough to get 98's SFC to do that
>>> trick, you know-- normally it goes to the installation .cab's for
>>> its files, (but it will take whatever is loose in
>>> C:\Windows\Option\Cabs first, instead of going into the .cab's.)
>>
>> XP keeps "properly recorded" copies of most of the system DLLs in the
>> dllcache subfolder. By "properly recorded", I mean these cached
>> system files don't change, UNLESS you install an official IE update,
>> which then updates it (at least as I recall - there may be some other
>> exceptions or contingencies).
>
> It sounds like they might have it covered, then, if they keep that cache
> updated. It will revert to the previous updated file, instead of the
> original, if you run SFC after a second update goes bad.

Presumably. I haven't had that happen yet.

> That's tough to do with Win98's SFC.
>
> It sounds pretty good for preventing a virus infection too, I guess, if
> it only let's official updates mess with the cache. But that only
> involves system files?

I think so (and perhaps also those updated from some "authorized" program
installs).
It contains system DLL's, EXE's, AX's, SYS', OCX's, NLS's files.
I see about *3,000* files in there! Isn't that enough?

> I suppose you can install non-system programs
> that still could be a virus, whether they go into the cache or not.
>
>>>>> It probably has more
>>>>> to do with what ScanDisk is supposed to do-- or eliminating the
>>>>> need for ScanDisk. Has your "transaction log" mentioned any errors
>>>>> yet? Do you
>>>>
>>>> I haven't looked at such a log, per se. When I used the term
>>>> "transaction log", I meant that the system "logs" or keeps track of
>>>> what's going on down there behind the scenes. (Whether or not we
>>>> can actually see a log detailing all of these file events, I'm not
>>>> sure, but we do have an "Event Viewer", which shows a fair amount of
>>>> such related stuff (and perhaps that too).
>>>
>>> Can you post a piece of the Event Viewer, especially a summary at the
>>> bottom? I want to determine whether anything humanly meaningful can
>>> be seen in it.
>>
>> Well, I'll tell you, it ain't easy looking at it (or posting it).
>> It's a bit "cumbersome" and tedious to go through it all (you have to
>> use the arrow keys to scroll through them)! So, I don't know how I
>> can easily do that. It is a bit more complex than just looking at a
>> simple SFC log in Win98SE (and THAT part I really MISS).
>
> Yuck! Arrow keys! I hope all the .logs in XP aren't that tough to deal
> with! And this one sounds important! Sheesh! They should have made it
> possible to copy/paste from it-- so users could could post bits of it
> for examination & discussion! Yuck!

I'm not saying it's impossible, but it may be a bit challenging. If you
really want to know, I'm sure there are some examples showing some of it
somewhere on the net.

>> What it lists is all the so-called system "Events" that occur
>> (basically the system events going on in time, with their
>> "categorizations" and so-called "Event Codes", (like such an such a
>> "service" just opened or closed, or started or stopped, or entered
>> the running state, or whatever). (For the most part, I haven't
>> found it all that useful for me just yet).
>
> Well, it would have been nice for them to make the mouse & copy/paste wo
> rk for it nonetheless!

I could do them one by one, but that's a pain.

> What good is a listing that you have to memorize to talk about!
>
>>> Is there anything in its menus that can be set to sound an alarm?
>>
>> Maybe - don't know.
>
> I was thinking it might be monitoring the integrity of the hard drive,
> but now I see it is something else. It's monitoring the doings of the
> OS, sounds like. But keep looking for an alarm & report back if you find
> one! There's got to be some use for the thing!
>
>>>>> still have to do a Defrag? Do you have anything that does do the
>>>>> work of SFC to monitor updates-- IF you ever decide to take one?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there is a Windows Defragger. And as I said, there is also
>>>> good ole, SFC (System File Checker).
>>>
>>> How large is your hard drive? How long does it take to Defrag? Does
>>> it look the same & show you those cluster boxes moving?
>>
>> I have a 250 GB drive (it came from Dell that way as the smallest
>> size at the time).
>
> Yow. I have a 40 & a 20-- & I had to add that 40!

WOW. Well yeah, I guess you could outgrow 20 GB if that's all you had.

But then again, I was quite comfortable with a 20 GB C: partition for my
Win98SE drive (for system, programs, and most user data), since Win98SE
itself is so small. (I'm guessing that just Win98SE itself was somewhere
around 200 MB(?) or so, so that left plenty of room! WinXP Home is more
like 5 GB (give or take).
But JUST having 20 GB would have been way too confining!

>> It has a 40 GB NTFS partition for XP and my programs and data (except
>> for my music and video files, which are each on some other 40 GB, FAT32
>> partitions). Of that 40 GB, about half is in use now, and the
>> rest is still free. If someone were going to install XP, I'd say
>> they should use a 40 GB partition for it (and the programs and data).
>> 20 GB would be a bit marginal - not leaving much room to install a
>> whole bunch of stuff. I mean, you could do it, but I wouldn't.
>> I've got quite a bit on here and I'm using about 20 GB now.
>
> You created these partitions?

I did.

> Sounds like good advice. Finally, on this
> 98, I did a lot of that myself. I does make backups a bit more work to
> do, but I don't regret it.
>
>> I used FAT 32 for those partitions, since they came over from my
>> Win98SE machine, and it was just easier to leave them that way (I
>> copied those partitions from the Win98SE computer to the new XP
>> computer).
>>
>> So I still have tons of disk space left.
>
> You had tons to start with. Can you post something like this, from
> MSInfo32 & FDISK /Status...?...

I probably could, but I'm kinda tired now, and too lazy. Suffice it to
say I have this arrangement:

C: 40 GB, NTFS (my system, programs, and data drive, currently half used)
D: 20 GB, FAT32, miscellaneous archived stuff, kind of a hodgepodge at this
pt
E: 40 GB, FAT32, for music files and audio work (restoring old mp3s, etc)
F: 40 GB, FAT32, for video files (like working on DVDs, etc)

> Windows-managed swap file on drive C (6659MB free)
> Available space on drive C: 6659MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
> Available space on drive D: 6683MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
> Available space on drive E: 7286MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
> Available space on drive F: 7492MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
> Available space on drive G: 7766MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
> Available space on drive H: 7792MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
> Available space on drive I: 5967MB of 6174MB (FAT32)

You sure have a LOT of partitions (mostly on your second HD! Geeesh!
I only have ONE large HD in this computer at this point.

(But two smaller ones in the older Win98SE Dell - and no, I didn't worry
excessively about the "ideal cluster size" for those FAT 32 partitions in
there

PCR · Jun 4, 2008

Bill in Co. wrote:
| You can do it (but I'll do a minor snip at the end). Sounds good.
|

|>
|> Alright. But I hope you don't mean True Image will resize & move
|> partitions on the fly just before doing its backup.
|
| No. (AFAIK). You just can make your selections (and there's a nice
| configurable and often scrollable list of them), and THEN finally
| say, Go Do It!

OK. That beats BING for GUI-ishness. I am content with BING's floppy.
And I think it's best to keep such a powerful thing away from the OS,
anyhow!

....snip
| BTW, with this new computer I'm finding that I'm using a Flash USB
| Drive in place of a Floppy for almost everything, now.
|
| See, when you boot up, you can choose to boot to the USB Flash Drive,
| if you want, by pressing a function key (briefly shown on the screen
| as it boots up).
|
| And a USB Flash Drive is SO much nicer than a floppy it's infinitely
| faster, for one thing, and there are no moving parts (or disk errors,
| as the floppy gets old).
| I have three of them (each are 1 GB, and they are cheap these days)

I saw a friend plug one into his Win98SE. It was impressive. Win98
couldn't boot from it without 3rd-party assistance. I might get one. But
I have so many partitions now, I'm not sure I really need a removable
one. But it was impressive, yea!

....snip
|>>>>> I guess you are being careful, as you always have been.
|>>>>
|>>>> I do?? Hmmm. (Not so sure, lol). (I've been known to walk a
|>>>> bit on the "razor's edge" in windows and in the registry with some
|>>>> registry mods, etc.

|>>>
|>>> I was trying to be complimentary as best I could.

You were a lot worse in days of old, IIRC. And you never were as ornery
as Terhune or even MEB can be or many of the others like Candlin used to
be or Harper or Martell or even Brian A. & PA Bear can be! I think it
was Bear who one day upset (Bicycle) Rob enough to quit this NG! You're
just middling ornery these days, Colorado-- that's a big improvement!

....snip
|>>> I guess. But I've got a 92 KB IUHist.xml, & the only reason it has
|>>> stopped growing is because MS has become lazy with Win98 criticals!
|>>
|>> I'd be surprised if there are ANY more at this point in time. But
|>> then again, I never really missed them.

|>
|> I know. There aren't any new ones, but you know the old ones are
|> still there. But you have to go look with the Win98 machine to see
|> the ones for Win98, you know.
|
| I ain't lookin! Thanks, but no thanks, don't need them, don't want
| them (even on my okl W98 computer) (well, except for a couple of
| older ones that I once downloaded).

Alright-- alright! Your position is so well known that even the
orneriest of MVPs hardly bother berating you on it much anymore. Well,
Bear caught you doing that OE auto-compacting, though-- recently!

....snip
|>> I have an older version of AVG Free, namely AVG 7.0. And I
|>> stopped updating it some time ago.

|>
|> That's risky, isn't it!? XP/Vista has drawn all the fire of the
|> virus-writers away from Win98!
|
| I trust myself and my surfing practices, so I don't think it's too
| risky, as I don't go to bad sites (normally) or all that many
| suspicious sites, anyway.
| AND I'm on dialup, so I'm ONLY connected online when *I* choose to
| connect online.

Me too. Still, the longer I stay online, the more likely Kerio will
flash a warning that some site wants to connect to some open port. Of
course, I deny it!

....snip
|>> XP keeps "properly recorded" copies of most of the system DLLs in
|>> the dllcache subfolder. By "properly recorded", I mean these
|>> cached system files don't change, UNLESS you install an official IE
|>> update, which then updates it (at least as I recall - there may be
|>> some other exceptions or contingencies).
|>
|> It sounds like they might have it covered, then, if they keep that
|> cache updated. It will revert to the previous updated file, instead
|> of the original, if you run SFC after a second update goes bad.
|
| Presumably. I haven't had that happen yet.

Alright. It would be something of an improvement, if that is done w/o a
bunch of extra work.

|> That's tough to do with Win98's SFC.
|>
|> It sounds pretty good for preventing a virus infection too, I guess,
|> if it only let's official updates mess with the cache. But that only
|> involves system files?
|
| I think so (and perhaps also those updated from some "authorized"
| program installs).
| It contains system DLL's, EXE's, AX's, SYS', OCX's, NLS's files.
| I see about *3,000* files in there! Isn't that enough?

I guess. Sounds like enough to me. Still, Win98's SFC (you know) goes
into the .cab's-- that's every original system file!

....snip
|>>> Can you post a piece of the Event Viewer, especially a summary at
|>>> the bottom? I want to determine whether anything humanly
|>>> meaningful can be seen in it.
|>>
|>> Well, I'll tell you, it ain't easy looking at it (or posting it).
|>> It's a bit "cumbersome" and tedious to go through it all (you have
|>> to use the arrow keys to scroll through them)! So, I don't know
|>> how I can easily do that. It is a bit more complex than just
|>> looking at a simple SFC log in Win98SE (and THAT part I really
|>> MISS).
|>
|> Yuck! Arrow keys! I hope all the .logs in XP aren't that tough to
|> deal with! And this one sounds important! Sheesh! They should have
|> made it possible to copy/paste from it-- so users could could post
|> bits of it for examination & discussion! Yuck!
|
| I'm not saying it's impossible, but it may be a bit challenging. If
| you really want to know, I'm sure there are some examples showing
| some of it somewhere on the net.

I'm just mildly interested, & I think I've heard enough about that
thing.

|>> What it lists is all the so-called system "Events" that occur
|>> (basically the system events going on in time, with their
|>> "categorizations" and so-called "Event Codes", (like such an such a
|>> "service" just opened or closed, or started or stopped, or entered
|>> the running state, or whatever). (For the most part, I haven't
|>> found it all that useful for me just yet).
|>
|> Well, it would have been nice for them to make the mouse &
|> copy/paste wo rk for it nonetheless!
|
| I could do them one by one, but that's a pain.

No, I think I get the picture. It's saying what the system calls were.
Check again whether it has something useful like an alarm, is all. No
one will make sense of the listing.

|> What good is a listing that you have to memorize to talk about!
|>
|>>> Is there anything in its menus that can be set to sound an alarm?
|>>
|>> Maybe - don't know.
|>
|> I was thinking it might be monitoring the integrity of the hard
|> drive, but now I see it is something else. It's monitoring the
|> doings of the OS, sounds like. But keep looking for an alarm &
|> report back if you find one! There's got to be some use for the
|> thing!

....snip
|>> I have a 250 GB drive (it came from Dell that way as the smallest
|>> size at the time).
|>
|> Yow. I have a 40 & a 20-- & I had to add that 40!
|
| WOW. Well yeah, I guess you could outgrow 20 GB if that's all you
| had.

Not me...!...

Available space on drive C: 6659MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
....The original OS minus the following
Available space on drive E: 7286MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
....My Documents, My Downloads, the Win98SE .cabs, & WU.
Available space on drive G: 7763MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
....OE Store & TIFs.

That is everything I've got, which now is split onto 3 near-empty
partitions. All my other partitions are back-ups more/less, D: being a
BING clone of C:. The others I just drag/drop using Explorer to
partitions on the other HDD.

| But then again, I was quite comfortable with a 20 GB C: partition for
| my Win98SE drive (for system, programs, and most user data), since
| Win98SE itself is so small. (I'm guessing that just Win98SE itself
| was somewhere around 200 MB(?) or so, so that left plenty of room!
| WinXP Home is more like 5 GB (give or take).
| But JUST having 20 GB would have been way too confining!

It's become a monster! It must be 10x harder to understand & control XP!

|>> It has a 40 GB NTFS partition for XP and my programs and data
|>> (except for my music and video files, which are each on some other
|>> 40 GB, FAT32 partitions). Of that 40 GB, about half is in use
|>> now, and the
|>> rest is still free. If someone were going to install XP, I'd say
|>> they should use a 40 GB partition for it (and the programs and
|>> data). 20 GB would be a bit marginal - not leaving much room to
|>> install a whole bunch of stuff. I mean, you could do it, but I
|>> wouldn't.
|>> I've got quite a bit on here and I'm using about 20 GB now.
|>
|> You created these partitions?
|
| I did.
|
|> Sounds like good advice. Finally, on this
|> 98, I did a lot of that myself. I does make backups a bit more work
|> to do, but I don't regret it.
|>
|>> I used FAT 32 for those partitions, since they came over from my
|>> Win98SE machine, and it was just easier to leave them that way (I
|>> copied those partitions from the Win98SE computer to the new XP
|>> computer).
|>>
|>> So I still have tons of disk space left.
|>
|> You had tons to start with. Can you post something like this, from
|> MSInfo32 & FDISK /Status...?...
|
| I probably could, but I'm kinda tired now, and too lazy. Suffice
| it to say I have this arrangement:
|
| C: 40 GB, NTFS (my system, programs, and data drive, currently half
| used) D: 20 GB, FAT32, miscellaneous archived stuff, kind of a
| hodgepodge at this pt
| E: 40 GB, FAT32, for music files and audio work (restoring old mp3s,
| etc) F: 40 GB, FAT32, for video files (like working on DVDs, etc)
|
|> Windows-managed swap file on drive C (6659MB free)
|> Available space on drive C: 6659MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
|> Available space on drive D: 6683MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
|> Available space on drive E: 7286MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
|> Available space on drive F: 7492MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
|> Available space on drive G: 7766MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
|> Available space on drive H: 7792MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
|> Available space on drive I: 5967MB of 6174MB (FAT32)
|
| You sure have a LOT of partitions (mostly on your second HD!
| Geeesh!
| I only have ONE large HD in this computer at this point.
|
| (But two smaller ones in the older Win98SE Dell - and no, I didn't
| worry excessively about the "ideal cluster size" for those FAT 32
| partitions in there

That's why I have so many. I wanted the 4K cluster size in each one.

--
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

Bill in Co. · Jun 4, 2008

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> You can do it (but I'll do a minor snip at the end). Sounds good.
>>

More below..
>
> OK. Soon, I'm sure this thread segment will run out of room too, though.
> We'll have to post higher in the segment then &/or run out of
> conversation.

Go ahead and feel free to snip away..

>> PCR wrote:
>>> Feel free to do some snipping! If you don't I will next time!
>>>
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>
> ...snip
>>>>> Alright, very good. BING I think might also have that capability to
>>>>> click a shortcut in Windows to start a backup, even a backup of
>>>>> multiple partitions. However, you'd have to actually install BING
>>>>> to its own little partition on the hard drive to use that. I am
>>>>> content to use the floppy.
>>>>
>>>> Well, and actually True Image is fully running in Windows too (with
>>>> lots of options and selections being able to be clearly shown as a
>>>> result). It makes the BING screen look primitive.

>>>
>>> Alright. But I hope you don't mean True Image will resize & move
>>> partitions on the fly just before doing its backup.
>>
>> No. (AFAIK). You just can make your selections (and there's a nice
>> configurable and often scrollable list of them), and THEN finally
>> say, Go Do It!
>
> OK. That beats BING for GUI-ishness. I am content with BING's floppy.
> And I think it's best to keep such a powerful thing away from the OS,
> anyhow!
>
> ...snip
>> BTW, with this new computer I'm finding that I'm using a Flash USB
>> Drive in place of a Floppy for almost everything, now.
>>
>> See, when you boot up, you can choose to boot to the USB Flash Drive,
>> if you want, by pressing a function key (briefly shown on the screen
>> as it boots up).
>>
>> And a USB Flash Drive is SO much nicer than a floppy it's infinitely
>> faster, for one thing, and there are no moving parts (or disk errors,
>> as the floppy gets old).
>> I have three of them (each are 1 GB, and they are cheap these days)
>
> I saw a friend plug one into his Win98SE. It was impressive. Win98
> couldn't boot from it without 3rd-party assistance. I might get one. But
> I have so many partitions now, I'm not sure I really need a removable
> one. But it was impressive, yea!

It really is nice using these flash drives. It's lovely.

> ...snip
>>>>>>> I guess you are being careful, as you always have been.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do?? Hmmm. (Not so sure, lol). (I've been known to walk a
>>>>>> bit on the "razor's edge" in windows and in the registry with some
>>>>>> registry mods, etc.

>>>>>
>>>>> I was trying to be complimentary as best I could.

.
>>>>
>>>> LOL. That's ok, you don't have to worry about that.
>>>
>>> Alright. But I'm still thinking hard for a compliment for you! I
>>> won't give up, Colorado!
>>
>> LOL. Yeah, I know, I'm a bit ornery, or so I've been told. Or
>> "surly".

>
> You were a lot worse in days of old, IIRC.

Really? That's hard to imagine for me now.

> And you never were as ornery
> as Terhune or even MEB can be or many of the others like Candlin used to
> be or Harper or Martell or even Brian A. & PA Bear can be! I think it
> was Bear who one day upset (Bicycle) Rob enough to quit this NG!

That was some time ago. Yeah, he just disappeared. Or something happened
to him.

> You're just middling ornery these days, Colorado-- that's a big
> improvement!
>
> ...snip
>>>>> I guess. But I've got a 92 KB IUHist.xml, & the only reason it has
>>>>> stopped growing is because MS has become lazy with Win98 criticals!
>>>>
>>>> I'd be surprised if there are ANY more at this point in time. But
>>>> then again, I never really missed them.

>>>
>>> I know. There aren't any new ones, but you know the old ones are
>>> still there. But you have to go look with the Win98 machine to see
>>> the ones for Win98, you know.
>>
>> I ain't lookin! Thanks, but no thanks, don't need them, don't want
>> them (even on my okl W98 computer) (well, except for a couple of
>> older ones that I once downloaded).
>
> Alright-- alright! Your position is so well known that even the
> orneriest of MVPs hardly bother berating you on it much anymore.

They better not!

> Well, Bear caught you doing that OE auto-compacting, though-- recently!

No, I manually do it - there (for all intents and purposes) is no
auto-compacting in XP (with SP2), (except as I mentioned, with that every
100 accesses or whatever it is, thing).

> ...snip
>>>> I have an older version of AVG Free, namely AVG 7.0. And I
>>>> stopped updating it some time ago.

>>>
>>> That's risky, isn't it!? XP/Vista has drawn all the fire of the
>>> virus-writers away from Win98!
>>
>> I trust myself and my surfing practices, so I don't think it's too
>> risky, as I don't go to bad sites (normally) or all that many
>> suspicious sites, anyway.
>> AND I'm on dialup, so I'm ONLY connected online when *I* choose to
>> connect online.
>
> Me too. Still, the longer I stay online, the more likely Kerio will
> flash a warning that some site wants to connect to some open port. Of
> course, I deny it!

I haven't seen anything like that, but then again, I don't have anything
installed or running that would be telling me, anyways! It would probably
be too upsetting to worry about all the accesses coming in.

I think I tried one out a long time ago, and found it confusing in seeing
the log entries going on and on all the time, and knowing which ones to
allow or block, but I might be misremembering this.

> ...snip
>>>> XP keeps "properly recorded" copies of most of the system DLLs in
>>>> the dllcache subfolder. By "properly recorded", I mean these
>>>> cached system files don't change, UNLESS you install an official IE
>>>> update, which then updates it (at least as I recall - there may be
>>>> some other exceptions or contingencies).
>>>
>>> It sounds like they might have it covered, then, if they keep that
>>> cache updated. It will revert to the previous updated file, instead
>>> of the original, if you run SFC after a second update goes bad.
>>
>> Presumably. I haven't had that happen yet.
>
> Alright. It would be something of an improvement, if that is done w/o a
> bunch of extra work.
>
>>> That's tough to do with Win98's SFC.
>>>
>>> It sounds pretty good for preventing a virus infection too, I guess,
>>> if it only let's official updates mess with the cache. But that only
>>> involves system files?
>>
>> I think so (and perhaps also those updated from some "authorized"
>> program installs).
>> It contains system DLL's, EXE's, AX's, SYS', OCX's, NLS's files.
>> I see about *3,000* files in there! Isn't that enough?

>
> I guess. Sounds like enough to me. Still, Win98's SFC (you know) goes
> into the .cab's-- that's every original system file!

And don't forget that XP also has System Restore. I have used that on
occasion.

And I've also used ERUNT, on occasion.
ERUNT is used like scanreg and scanreg /restore, to save or restore just the
registry), whereas "System Restore" saves and restores a whole lot more
(including the files it monitors).

> ...snip
>>>>> Can you post a piece of the Event Viewer, especially a summary at
>>>>> the bottom? I want to determine whether anything humanly
>>>>> meaningful can be seen in it.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I'll tell you, it ain't easy looking at it (or posting it).
>>>> It's a bit "cumbersome" and tedious to go through it all (you have
>>>> to use the arrow keys to scroll through them)! So, I don't know
>>>> how I can easily do that. It is a bit more complex than just
>>>> looking at a simple SFC log in Win98SE (and THAT part I really
>>>> MISS).
>>>
>>> Yuck! Arrow keys! I hope all the .logs in XP aren't that tough to
>>> deal with! And this one sounds important! Sheesh! They should have
>>> made it possible to copy/paste from it-- so users could could post
>>> bits of it for examination & discussion! Yuck!
>>
>> I'm not saying it's impossible, but it may be a bit challenging. If
>> you really want to know, I'm sure there are some examples showing
>> some of it somewhere on the net.
>
> I'm just mildly interested, & I think I've heard enough about that thing.

Or it might be shown somewhere in one of Microsoft's WinXP pages, for that
matter.

>>>> What it lists is all the so-called system "Events" that occur
>>>> (basically the system events going on in time, with their
>>>> "categorizations" and so-called "Event Codes", (like such an such a
>>>> "service" just opened or closed, or started or stopped, or entered
>>>> the running state, or whatever). (For the most part, I haven't
>>>> found it all that useful for me just yet).
>>>
>>> Well, it would have been nice for them to make the mouse &
>>> copy/paste wo rk for it nonetheless!
>>
>> I could do them one by one, but that's a pain.

>
> No, I think I get the picture. It's saying what the system calls were.
> Check again whether it has something useful like an alarm, is all. No
> one will make sense of the listing.
>
>>> What good is a listing that you have to memorize to talk about!
>>>
>>>>> Is there anything in its menus that can be set to sound an alarm?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe - don't know.
>>>
>>> I was thinking it might be monitoring the integrity of the hard
>>> drive, but now I see it is something else. It's monitoring the
>>> doings of the OS, sounds like. But keep looking for an alarm &
>>> report back if you find one! There's got to be some use for the
>>> thing!
>
> ...snip
>>>> I have a 250 GB drive (it came from Dell that way as the smallest
>>>> size at the time).
>>>
>>> Yow. I have a 40 & a 20-- & I had to add that 40!
>>
>> WOW. Well yeah, I guess you could outgrow 20 GB if that's all you
>> had.
>
> Not me...!...
>
> Available space on drive C: 6659MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
> ...The original OS minus the following
> Available space on drive E: 7286MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
> ...My Documents, My Downloads, the Win98SE .cabs, & WU.
> Available space on drive G: 7763MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
> ...OE Store & TIFs.
>
> That is everything I've got, which now is split onto 3 near-empty
> partitions. All my other partitions are back-ups more/less, D: being a
> BING clone of C:. The others I just drag/drop using Explorer to
> partitions on the other HDD.

Well, but you don't have a ton of music and video files there either, I
expect, like I do.

If it weren't for that (and those are in separate partitions), I could
probably get by with about 20 GB or so for the Win98SE computer, and about
40 GB or so for the Windows XP computer for almost everything (system,
programs, and user data).

>> But then again, I was quite comfortable with a 20 GB C: partition for
>> my Win98SE drive (for system, programs, and most user data), since
>> Win98SE itself is so small. (I'm guessing that just Win98SE itself
>> was somewhere around 200 MB(?) or so, so that left plenty of room!
>> WinXP Home is more like 5 GB (give or take).
>> But JUST having 20 GB would have been way too confining!
>
> It's become a monster! It must be 10x harder to understand & control XP!

It's a bit harder, and you do have less control over some things (i.e., most
is done for you by the operating system), but it's nothing like VISTA
(egads!), from what I've heard. VISTA is the True Behometh. The KING
of albatrosses.

>>>> It has a 40 GB NTFS partition for XP and my programs and data
>>>> (except for my music and video files, which are each on some other
>>>> 40 GB, FAT32 partitions). Of that 40 GB, about half is in use
>>>> now, and the
>>>> rest is still free. If someone were going to install XP, I'd say
>>>> they should use a 40 GB partition for it (and the programs and
>>>> data). 20 GB would be a bit marginal - not leaving much room to
>>>> install a whole bunch of stuff. I mean, you could do it, but I
>>>> wouldn't.
>>>> I've got quite a bit on here and I'm using about 20 GB now.
>>>
>>> You created these partitions?
>>
>> I did.
>>
>>> Sounds like good advice. Finally, on this
>>> 98, I did a lot of that myself. I does make backups a bit more work
>>> to do, but I don't regret it.
>>>
>>>> I used FAT 32 for those partitions, since they came over from my
>>>> Win98SE machine, and it was just easier to leave them that way (I
>>>> copied those partitions from the Win98SE computer to the new XP
>>>> computer).
>>>>
>>>> So I still have tons of disk space left.
>>>
>>> You had tons to start with. Can you post something like this, from
>>> MSInfo32 & FDISK /Status...?...
>>
>> I probably could, but I'm kinda tired now, and too lazy. Suffice
>> it to say I have this arrangement:
>>
>> C: 40 GB, NTFS (my system, programs, and data drive, currently half
>> used) D: 20 GB, FAT32, miscellaneous archived stuff, kind of a
>> hodgepodge at this pt
>> E: 40 GB, FAT32, for music files and audio work (restoring old mp3s,
>> etc) F: 40 GB, FAT32, for video files (like working on DVDs, etc)
>>
>>> Windows-managed swap file on drive C (6659MB free)
>>> Available space on drive C: 6659MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
>>> Available space on drive D: 6683MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
>>> Available space on drive E: 7286MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
>>> Available space on drive F: 7492MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
>>> Available space on drive G: 7766MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
>>> Available space on drive H: 7792MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
>>> Available space on drive I: 5967MB of 6174MB (FAT32)
>>
>> You sure have a LOT of partitions (mostly on your second HD!
>> Geeesh!
>> I only have ONE large HD in this computer at this point.
>>
>> (But two smaller ones in the older Win98SE Dell - and no, I didn't
>> worry excessively about the "ideal cluster size" for those FAT 32
>> partitions in there

>
> That's why I have so many. I wanted the 4K cluster size in each one.

Well, I think that's a bit overkill, but each to his own. For me, "Less Is
More" (meaning, I prefer FEWER partitions). Having C:, D:, E:, and F: is
ENOUGH.

PCR · Jun 4, 2008

Bill in Co. wrote:
| PCR wrote:
|> Bill in Co. wrote:

....snip
|>> I trust myself and my surfing practices, so I don't think it's too
|>> risky, as I don't go to bad sites (normally) or all that many
|>> suspicious sites, anyway.
|>> AND I'm on dialup, so I'm ONLY connected online when *I* choose to
|>> connect online.
|>
|> Me too. Still, the longer I stay online, the more likely Kerio will
|> flash a warning that some site wants to connect to some open port. Of
|> course, I deny it!
|
| I haven't seen anything like that, but then again, I don't have
| anything installed or running that would be telling me, anyways!
| It would probably be too upsetting to worry about all the accesses
| coming in.
|
| I think I tried one out a long time ago, and found it confusing in
| seeing the log entries going on and on all the time, and knowing
| which ones to allow or block, but I might be misremembering this.

No. That sounds about right. Some day I'll have one final try to get
Kerio set to my satisfaction. But I guess it's doing fairly well as is!

....snip
| And don't forget that XP also has System Restore. I have used that
| on occasion.

That restores a whole partition? Then, isn't your True Image a bit
redundant?

| And I've also used ERUNT, on occasion.
| ERUNT is used like scanreg and scanreg /restore, to save or restore
| just the registry), whereas "System Restore" saves and restores a
| whole lot more (including the files it monitors).

But not the whole partition?

....snip
|> ...snip
|>>>> I have a 250 GB drive (it came from Dell that way as the smallest
|>>>> size at the time).
|>>>
|>>> Yow. I have a 40 & a 20-- & I had to add that 40!
|>>
|>> WOW. Well yeah, I guess you could outgrow 20 GB if that's all
|>> you had.
|>
|> Not me...!...
|>
|> Available space on drive C: 6659MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
|> ...The original OS minus the following
|> Available space on drive E: 7286MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
|> ...My Documents, My Downloads, the Win98SE .cabs, & WU.
|> Available space on drive G: 7763MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
|> ...OE Store & TIFs.
|>
|> That is everything I've got, which now is split onto 3 near-empty
|> partitions. All my other partitions are back-ups more/less, D: being
|> a BING clone of C:. The others I just drag/drop using Explorer to
|> partitions on the other HDD.
|
| Well, but you don't have a ton of music and video files there either,
| I expect, like I do.

Correct.

| If it weren't for that (and those are in separate partitions), I could
| probably get by with about 20 GB or so for the Win98SE computer, and
| about 40 GB or so for the Windows XP computer for almost everything
| (system, programs, and user data).
|
|>> But then again, I was quite comfortable with a 20 GB C: partition
|>> for my Win98SE drive (for system, programs, and most user data),
|>> since Win98SE itself is so small. (I'm guessing that just Win98SE
|>> itself was somewhere around 200 MB(?) or so, so that left plenty of
|>> room! WinXP Home is more like 5 GB (give or take).
|>> But JUST having 20 GB would have been way too confining!
|>
|> It's become a monster! It must be 10x harder to understand & control
|> XP!
|
| It's a bit harder, and you do have less control over some things
| (i.e., most is done for you by the operating system), but it's
| nothing like VISTA (egads!), from what I've heard. VISTA is the
| True Behometh. The KING of albatrosses.

Alright.

....snip
|>> You sure have a LOT of partitions (mostly on your second HD!
|>> Geeesh!
|>> I only have ONE large HD in this computer at this point.
|>>
|>> (But two smaller ones in the older Win98SE Dell - and no, I didn't
|>> worry excessively about the "ideal cluster size" for those FAT 32
|>> partitions in there

|>
|> That's why I have so many. I wanted the 4K cluster size in each one.
|
| Well, I think that's a bit overkill, but each to his own. For me,
| "Less Is More" (meaning, I prefer FEWER partitions). Having C:, D:,
| E:, and F: is ENOUGH.

You could be right about that. Still, in Win98 it is best to have the 4K
clusters. I don't regret that. And everything I've got can easily fit
into just one of my 8 GB partitions. I really don't need any to be
larger!

--
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

Bill in Co. · Jun 4, 2008

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> PCR wrote:
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>
> ...snip
>>>> I trust myself and my surfing practices, so I don't think it's too
>>>> risky, as I don't go to bad sites (normally) or all that many
>>>> suspicious sites, anyway.
>>>> AND I'm on dialup, so I'm ONLY connected online when *I* choose to
>>>> connect online.
>>>
>>> Me too. Still, the longer I stay online, the more likely Kerio will
>>> flash a warning that some site wants to connect to some open port. Of
>>> course, I deny it!
>>
>> I haven't seen anything like that, but then again, I don't have
>> anything installed or running that would be telling me, anyways!
>> It would probably be too upsetting to worry about all the accesses
>> coming in.
>>
>> I think I tried one out a long time ago, and found it confusing in
>> seeing the log entries going on and on all the time, and knowing
>> which ones to allow or block, but I might be misremembering this.
>
> No. That sounds about right.

OK then. I think I'll leave well enough alone, and NOT install it. I
don't need that additional aggravation.

> Some day I'll have one final try to get
> Kerio set to my satisfaction. But I guess it's doing fairly well as is!
>
> ...snip
>> And don't forget that XP also has System Restore. I have used that
>> on occasion.
>
> That restores a whole partition?

No. It's like "scanreg /restore", but it also can restore some other files
that were changed (files it monitors that it considers are significant, like
exe files that changed, etc, since the last restore point)

> Then, isn't your True Image a bit redundant?

No - totally different. (Sorry if I misled you here by mixing this all up
in my reply).

>> And I've also used ERUNT, on occasion.
>> ERUNT is used like scanreg and scanreg /restore, to save or restore
>> just the registry), whereas "System Restore" saves and restores a
>> whole lot more (including the files it monitors).
>
> But not the whole partition?

No (see above). System Restore is like a superset of "scanreg /restore",
additionally monitoring a select group of file types in certain locations,
that's all.

System Restore is NOT a partition restoration - it works only at the file
level, like scanreg /restore. But is more enhanced, in that it monitors
other changes in files since the previous restore point, and can put them
back, if needbe. So it's more than a registry restore, which is useful,
sometimes.

You know that "scanreg /restore" is good in what it can do, but it can't
undo everything, and so System Restore is a bit closer to that ideal.

But the best (most assured) way is to restore a backup image, if something
really goes astray (but sometimes that is a bit overkill, too).

I'll be out for a few days, but I wanted to at least get this response in.

<snip>

PCR · Jun 4, 2008

Well, I like Kerio Personal Firewall a lot-- enough to swear I will make
a final attempt some day to get its rules perfect &/or to fully
understand them. Until then, I remain fairly pleased with the hodgepodge
of rules I've imported & customized from the experts.

|> Some day I'll have one final try to get
|> Kerio set to my satisfaction. But I guess it's doing fairly well as
|> is!
|>
|> ...snip
|>> And don't forget that XP also has System Restore. I have used that
|>> on occasion.
|>
|> That restores a whole partition?
|
| No. It's like "scanreg /restore", but it also can restore some
| other files that were changed (files it monitors that it considers
| are significant, like exe files that changed, etc, since the last
| restore point)

I see. You may know Win98 can add files too using ScanReg.ini, & they
would end up with the Registry, System.ini & Wini,ini in those ScanReg
..cabs...

Additional system files to backup into cab as follows:
Filenames are separated by ','
dir code can be:
10 : windir (ex. c:\windows)
11 : system dir (ex. c:\windows\system)
30 : boot dir (ex. c:\)
31 : boot host dir (ex. c:\)

Files=[dir code,]file1,file2,file3
Files=[dir code,]file1,file2,file3

I've never done it, though-- haven't ever decided which to choose!
Somewhere, I've got cquirke's suggestions. Which do XP save
automatically? A lot or just a few? I suppose it is done on a daily
basis at each boot like in Win98. That is why it is a good practice to
reboot after making major changes even if not told.

|> Then, isn't your True Image a bit redundant?
|
| No - totally different. (Sorry if I misled you here by mixing this
| all up in my reply).

OK. System restore has a big sound to it.

|>> And I've also used ERUNT, on occasion.
|>> ERUNT is used like scanreg and scanreg /restore, to save or restore
|>> just the registry), whereas "System Restore" saves and restores a
|>> whole lot more (including the files it monitors).
|>
|> But not the whole partition?
|
| No (see above). System Restore is like a superset of "scanreg
| /restore", additionally monitoring a select group of file types in
| certain locations, that's all.
|
| System Restore is NOT a partition restoration - it works only at the
| file level, like scanreg /restore. But is more enhanced, in that
| it monitors other changes in files since the previous restore point,
| and can put them back, if needbe. So it's more than a registry
| restore, which is useful, sometimes.
|
| You know that "scanreg /restore" is good in what it can do, but it
| can't undo everything, and so System Restore is a bit closer to that
| ideal.

I understand now. But see the questions above.

| But the best (most assured) way is to restore a backup image, if
| something really goes astray (but sometimes that is a bit overkill,
| too).

Yea. But I think our BING clones are better than any Image which is
tougher to deal with.

| I'll be out for a few days, but I wanted to at least get this
| response in.

OK. I'll be here.

--
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

Bill in Co. · Jun 4, 2008

I'll get to this one too, and maybe one more, time will tell.

More below..

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> PCR wrote:
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>
>>> ...snip
>>>>>> I trust myself and my surfing practices, so I don't think it's too
>>>>>> risky, as I don't go to bad sites (normally) or all that many
>>>>>> suspicious sites, anyway.
>>>>>> AND I'm on dialup, so I'm ONLY connected online when *I* choose to
>>>>>> connect online.
>>>>>
>>>>> Me too. Still, the longer I stay online, the more likely Kerio will
>>>>> flash a warning that some site wants to connect to some open port.
>>>>> Of course, I deny it!
>>>>
>>>> I haven't seen anything like that, but then again, I don't have
>>>> anything installed or running that would be telling me, anyways!
>>>> It would probably be too upsetting to worry about all the accesses
>>>> coming in.
>>>>
>>>> I think I tried one out a long time ago, and found it confusing in
>>>> seeing the log entries going on and on all the time, and knowing
>>>> which ones to allow or block, but I might be misremembering this.
>>>
>>> No. That sounds about right.
>>
>> OK then. I think I'll leave well enough alone, and NOT install it.
>> I don't need that additional aggravation.

>
> Well, I like Kerio Personal Firewall a lot-- enough to swear I will make
> a final attempt some day to get its rules perfect &/or to fully
> understand them. Until then, I remain fairly pleased with the hodgepodge
> of rules I've imported & customized from the experts.

I'm gonna pass on this whole idea..

>>> Some day I'll have one final try to get
>>> Kerio set to my satisfaction. But I guess it's doing fairly well as is!
>>>
>>> ...snip
>>>> And don't forget that XP also has System Restore. I have used that
>>>> on occasion.
>>>
>>> That restores a whole partition?
>>
>> No. It's like "scanreg /restore", but it also can restore some
>> other files that were changed (files it monitors that it considers
>> are significant, like exe files that changed, etc, since the last
>> restore point)
>
> I see. You may know Win98 can add files too using ScanReg.ini, & they

Yup. But see below..

> would end up with the Registry, System.ini & Wini,ini in those ScanReg
> .cabs...
>
> Additional system files to backup into cab as follows:
> Filenames are separated by ','
> dir code can be:
> 10 : windir (ex. c:\windows)
> 11 : system dir (ex. c:\windows\system)
> 30 : boot dir (ex. c:\)
> 31 : boot host dir (ex. c:\)
>
> Files=[dir code,]file1,file2,file3
> Files=[dir code,]file1,file2,file3

Yes. But even this is limited, compared to what System Restore can do.
For one thing, you'd have to spell everything out, which you don't have to
do with System Restore! More below..

> I've never done it, though-- haven't ever decided which to choose!
> Somewhere, I've got cquirke's suggestions. Which do XP save
> automatically? A lot or just a few?

A LOT. An awful lot. All the ones it thinks might be problematic, and
should be monitored. (Which are most of the ones you might expect, plus
some.

There is an article somewhere on the MS web site somewhere covering "System
Restore", and what files and directories it monitors, and backups, etc, etc.

> I suppose it is done on a daily basis at each boot like in Win98.

More or less it's daily, or after 24 hours of use (can't recall), if you
don't choose to make a Restore Point manually yourself within that time
frame.

And there's a fixed amount of space on the HD reserved for it. (If you
exceed that, the oldest ones are automatically deleted to make room. You
can set the space as large or small as you want).

> That is why it is a good practice to
> reboot after making major changes even if not told.

Indeed. For that, and other reasons.

>>> Then, isn't your True Image a bit redundant?
>>
>> No - totally different. (Sorry if I misled you here by mixing this
>> all up in my reply).
>
> OK. System restore has a big sound to it.

Yes, and (also) just to give you some idea, the System Restore saved
checkpoints are often around 60 MB or so in size (which is perhaps 10 times
that of a typical scanreg cab file). But then again, it's saving a LOT
more (than just the registry). And is kinda like a saved snapshot of the
system, in time.

So it's useful if you need to roll back to a previous time (and is more
effective that way than scanreg /restore, since it is much more complete -
it monitors files added since the last checkpoint, etc, and can put back the
previous ones, if there were any changes. (Of course, it doesn't monitor
things like, say, a text file, or what have you, as those aren't needed for
any system restorations).

>>>> And I've also used ERUNT, on occasion.
>>>> ERUNT is used like scanreg and scanreg /restore, to save or restore
>>>> just the registry), whereas "System Restore" saves and restores a
>>>> whole lot more (including the files it monitors).
>>>
>>> But not the whole partition?
>>
>> No (see above). System Restore is like a superset of "scanreg
>> /restore", additionally monitoring a select group of file types in
>> certain locations, that's all.
>>
>> System Restore is NOT a partition restoration - it works only at the
>> file level, like scanreg /restore. But is more enhanced, in that
>> it monitors other changes in files since the previous restore point,
>> and can put them back, if needbe. So it's more than a registry
>> restore, which is useful, sometimes.
>>
>> You know that "scanreg /restore" is good in what it can do, but it
>> can't undo everything, and so System Restore is a bit closer to that
>> ideal.
>
> I understand now. But see the questions above.

Answered now.

>> But the best (most assured) way is to restore a backup image, if
>> something really goes astray (but sometimes that is a bit overkill,
>> too).
>
> Yea. But I think our BING clones are better than any Image which is
> tougher to deal with.

I'll take either one. Or rather, I'd like to have the option of using
either one.

>> I'll be out for a few days, but I wanted to at least get this
>> response in.

>
> OK. I'll be here.

OK.

PCR · Jun 5, 2008

Bill in Co. wrote:
| I'll get to this one too, and maybe one more, time will tell.

| More below..

OK.

....snip
|>> OK then. I think I'll leave well enough alone, and NOT install it.
|>> I don't need that additional aggravation.

|>
|> Well, I like Kerio Personal Firewall a lot-- enough to swear I will
|> make a final attempt some day to get its rules perfect &/or to fully
|> understand them. Until then, I remain fairly pleased with the
|> hodgepodge of rules I've imported & customized from the experts.
|
| I'm gonna pass on this whole idea..

| There is an article somewhere on the MS web site somewhere covering
| "System Restore", and what files and directories it monitors, and
| backups, etc, etc.

Alright. That sounds like too much.

|> I suppose it is done on a daily basis at each boot like in Win98.
|
| More or less it's daily, or after 24 hours of use (can't recall), if
| you don't choose to make a Restore Point manually yourself within
| that time frame.
|
| And there's a fixed amount of space on the HD reserved for it. (If
| you exceed that, the oldest ones are automatically deleted to make
| room. You can set the space as large or small as you want).

Oh. Interesting. Sounds like you might not need to reboot for this,
unlike Win98's registry backups, if it's done on a timer basis. Well,
you could probably set that up in Win98 too by putting ScanReg into Task
Scheduler. But I like shutting down on a nightly basis, anyhow.

|> That is why it is a good practice to
|> reboot after making major changes even if not told.
|
| Indeed. For that, and other reasons.

Yea. Other reasons too.

|>>> Then, isn't your True Image a bit redundant?
|>>
|>> No - totally different. (Sorry if I misled you here by mixing this
|>> all up in my reply).
|>
|> OK. System restore has a big sound to it.
|
| Yes, and (also) just to give you some idea, the System Restore saved
| checkpoints are often around 60 MB or so in size (which is perhaps 10
| times that of a typical scanreg cab file). But then again, it's
| saving a LOT more (than just the registry). And is kinda like a
| saved snapshot of the system, in time.

That's a damn lot! I hope the hard drives can take it! If so, it seems
like a good idea, I guess. But all 6 of my .cabs together are less than
1/6 of that...!...

C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP>dir rb???.cab /od
Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP
RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p rbbad.cab
RB003 CAB 1,601,406 05-31-08 6:45p rb003.cab
RB004 CAB 1,601,383 06-01-08 3:44p rb004.cab
RB005 CAB 1,601,587 06-02-08 6:50p rb005.cab
RB000 CAB 1,600,604 06-03-08 7:07p rb000.cab
RB001 CAB 1,601,242 06-04-08 8:01p rb001.cab
6 file(s) 9,581,886 bytes

| So it's useful if you need to roll back to a previous time (and is
| more effective that way than scanreg /restore, since it is much more
| complete - it monitors files added since the last checkpoint, etc,
| and can put back the previous ones, if there were any changes. (Of
| course, it doesn't monitor things like, say, a text file, or what
| have you, as those aren't needed for any system restorations).

It does sound to be more thorough than a ScanReg /Restore. You say you
did it & you did ERUNT too on occasion? What were the occasions? How do
you choose between the two?

|>>>> And I've also used ERUNT, on occasion.
|>>>> ERUNT is used like scanreg and scanreg /restore, to save or
|>>>> restore just the registry), whereas "System Restore" saves and
|>>>> restores a whole lot more (including the files it monitors).

....snip
|>> But the best (most assured) way is to restore a backup image, if
|>> something really goes astray (but sometimes that is a bit overkill,
|>> too).
|>
|> Yea. But I think our BING clones are better than any Image which is
|> tougher to deal with.
|
| I'll take either one. Or rather, I'd like to have the option of
| using either one.

Alright. I can see this is still needed despite you have System Restore.

--
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

Bill in Co. · Jun 10, 2008

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> I'll get to this one too, and maybe one more, time will tell.

>> More below..
>
> OK.
>
> ...snip
>>>> OK then. I think I'll leave well enough alone, and NOT install it.
>>>> I don't need that additional aggravation.

>>>
>>> Well, I like Kerio Personal Firewall a lot-- enough to swear I will
>>> make a final attempt some day to get its rules perfect &/or to fully
>>> understand them. Until then, I remain fairly pleased with the
>>> hodgepodge of rules I've imported & customized from the experts.
>>
>> I'm gonna pass on this whole idea..

>
> Very well. I'm not quite ready to revisit it, anyhow-- it is mentally
> taxing!
>
> ...snip
>>>>>> And don't forget that XP also has System Restore. I have used
>>>>>> that on occasion.
>>>>>
>>>>> That restores a whole partition?
>>>>
>>>> No. It's like "scanreg /restore", but it also can restore some
>>>> other files that were changed (files it monitors that it considers
>>>> are significant, like exe files that changed, etc, since the last
>>>> restore point)
>>>
>>> I see. You may know Win98 can add files too using ScanReg.ini, & they
>>
>> Yup. But see below..
>>
>>> would end up with the Registry, System.ini & Wini,ini in those
>>> ScanReg .cabs...
>>>
>>> Additional system files to backup into cab as follows:
>>> Filenames are separated by ','
>>> dir code can be:
>>> 10 : windir (ex. c:\windows)
>>> 11 : system dir (ex. c:\windows\system)
>>> 30 : boot dir (ex. c:\)
>>> 31 : boot host dir (ex. c:\)
>>>
>>> Files=[dir code,]file1,file2,file3
>>> Files=[dir code,]file1,file2,file3
>>
>> Yes. But even this is limited, compared to what System Restore can
>> do. For one thing, you'd have to spell everything out, which you
>> don't have to do with System Restore! More below..
>>
>>> I've never done it, though-- haven't ever decided which to choose!
>>> Somewhere, I've got cquirke's suggestions. Which do XP save
>>> automatically? A lot or just a few?
>>
>> A LOT. An awful lot. All the ones it thinks might be problematic,
>> and should be monitored. (Which are most of the ones you might
>> expect, plus some.

>> There is an article somewhere on the MS web site somewhere covering
>> "System Restore", and what files and directories it monitors, and
>> backups, etc, etc.
>
> Alright. That sounds like too much.

Nah. (But in the bloatware albatross named VISTA, it sure may be.

>>> I suppose it is done on a daily basis at each boot like in Win98.
>>
>> More or less it's daily, or after 24 hours of use (can't recall), if
>> you don't choose to make a Restore Point manually yourself within
>> that time frame.
>>
>> And there's a fixed amount of space on the HD reserved for it. (If
>> you exceed that, the oldest ones are automatically deleted to make
>> room. You can set the space as large or small as you want).
>
> Oh. Interesting. Sounds like you might not need to reboot for this,
> unlike Win98's registry backups, if it's done on a timer basis. Well,
> you could probably set that up in Win98 too by putting ScanReg into Task
> Scheduler. But I like shutting down on a nightly basis, anyhow.

No need to reboot. (When you run System Restore to create a restore point,
I mean). Obviously if you want to roll back to a restore point, it will
end up rebooting.

>>> That is why it is a good practice to
>>> reboot after making major changes even if not told.
>>
>> Indeed. For that, and other reasons.
>
> Yea. Other reasons too.
>
>>>>> Then, isn't your True Image a bit redundant?
>>>>
>>>> No - totally different. (Sorry if I misled you here by mixing this
>>>> all up in my reply).
>>>
>>> OK. System restore has a big sound to it.
>>
>> Yes, and (also) just to give you some idea, the System Restore saved
>> checkpoints are often around 60 MB or so in size (which is perhaps 10
>> times that of a typical scanreg cab file). But then again, it's
>> saving a LOT more (than just the registry). And is kinda like a
>> saved snapshot of the system, in time.
>
> That's a damn lot! I hope the hard drives can take it! If so, it seems
> like a good idea, I guess. But all 6 of my .cabs together are less than
> 1/6 of that...!...
>
> C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP>dir rb???.cab /od
> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP
> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p rbbad.cab
> RB003 CAB 1,601,406 05-31-08 6:45p rb003.cab
> RB004 CAB 1,601,383 06-01-08 3:44p rb004.cab
> RB005 CAB 1,601,587 06-02-08 6:50p rb005.cab
> RB000 CAB 1,600,604 06-03-08 7:07p rb000.cab
> RB001 CAB 1,601,242 06-04-08 8:01p rb001.cab
> 6 file(s) 9,581,886 bytes

Interesting. Well, my CABs were closer to 4 MB, which is about a tenth
the size of the restore points in XP. (but of course, they are more
limited in what they can correct in 98SE, since less is in there)

>> So it's useful if you need to roll back to a previous time (and is
>> more effective that way than scanreg /restore, since it is much more
>> complete - it monitors files added since the last checkpoint, etc,
>> and can put back the previous ones, if there were any changes. (Of
>> course, it doesn't monitor things like, say, a text file, or what
>> have you, as those aren't needed for any system restorations).
>
> It does sound to be more thorough than a ScanReg /Restore.

MUCH more so. No comparsion. Scanreg /restore ONLY restores the
registry, and nothing more. That is considerably more limited (albeit
useful, on some occasions - more on that below).

> You say you
> did it & you did ERUNT too on occasion? What were the occasions? How do
> you choose between the two?

The right tool for the right job. Maybe a somewhat oversimplified
explanation would be as follows:

If I knew the changes were pretty minimal, ERUNT would be sufficient, and it
is quickest. ERUNT is directly analogous to using scanreg and scanreg
/restore. It ONLY saves and restores the registry (normally, without
additional customizations)

If the changes were relatively large, I'd (normally) use System Restore.
(one (slightly annoying) thing about System Restore is it monitors lots of
files or file types that it thinks could have been problematic, so you need
to be sure to save some recently downloaded EXE, DLL, etc files (or
whatever, in that vein), in the properly designated place, typically under
Documents and Settings, which is NOT monitored - but other than that, it's
no big deal).

If the changes were *really extensive*, I wouldn't rely on either, and I'd
restore a Backup from the backup drive. (A clear cut case of this would
be with something like Office or a Service Pack - say going back to a prior
version, or whatever in that case, the only safe and assured way to get the
system back (guaranteed) AS IT WAS, would be to do a backup drive
restoration)

>>>>>> And I've also used ERUNT, on occasion.
>>>>>> ERUNT is used like scanreg and scanreg /restore, to save or
>>>>>> restore just the registry), whereas "System Restore" saves and
>>>>>> restores a whole lot more (including the files it monitors).
>
> ...snip
>>>> But the best (most assured) way is to restore a backup image, if
>>>> something really goes astray (but sometimes that is a bit overkill,
>>>> too).
>>>
>>> Yea. But I think our BING clones are better than any Image which is
>>> tougher to deal with.
>>
>> I'll take either one. Or rather, I'd like to have the option of
>> using either one.

>
> Alright. I can see this is still needed despite you have System Restore.

Well again, it's nice to have a SET of tools, and to use the best tool for
the most appropriate occasion.

PCR · Jun 10, 2008

|>> There is an article somewhere on the MS web site somewhere covering
|>> "System Restore", and what files and directories it monitors, and
|>> backups, etc, etc.
|>
|> Alright. That sounds like too much.
|
| Nah. (But in the bloatware albatross named VISTA, it sure may be.
|

OK.

. I believe you about Vista!

|>>> I suppose it is done on a daily basis at each boot like in Win98.
|>>
|>> More or less it's daily, or after 24 hours of use (can't recall), if
|>> you don't choose to make a Restore Point manually yourself within
|>> that time frame.
|>>
|>> And there's a fixed amount of space on the HD reserved for it. (If
|>> you exceed that, the oldest ones are automatically deleted to make
|>> room. You can set the space as large or small as you want).
|>
|> Oh. Interesting. Sounds like you might not need to reboot for this,
|> unlike Win98's registry backups, if it's done on a timer basis. Well,
|> you could probably set that up in Win98 too by putting ScanReg into
|> Task Scheduler. But I like shutting down on a nightly basis, anyhow.
|
| No need to reboot. (When you run System Restore to create a restore
| point, I mean). Obviously if you want to roll back to a restore
| point, it will end up rebooting.

Uhuh. Very good.

|>>> That is why it is a good practice to
|>>> reboot after making major changes even if not told.
|>>
|>> Indeed. For that, and other reasons.
|>
|> Yea. Other reasons too.
|>
|>>>>> Then, isn't your True Image a bit redundant?
|>>>>
|>>>> No - totally different. (Sorry if I misled you here by mixing
|>>>> this all up in my reply).
|>>>
|>>> OK. System restore has a big sound to it.
|>>
|>> Yes, and (also) just to give you some idea, the System Restore saved
|>> checkpoints are often around 60 MB or so in size (which is perhaps
|>> 10 times that of a typical scanreg cab file). But then again, it's
|>> saving a LOT more (than just the registry). And is kinda like a
|>> saved snapshot of the system, in time.
|>
|> That's a damn lot! I hope the hard drives can take it! If so, it
|> seems like a good idea, I guess. But all 6 of my .cabs together are
|> less than 1/6 of that...!...
|>
|> C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP>dir rb???.cab /od
|> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP
|> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p rbbad.cab
|> RB003 CAB 1,601,406 05-31-08 6:45p rb003.cab
|> RB004 CAB 1,601,383 06-01-08 3:44p rb004.cab
|> RB005 CAB 1,601,587 06-02-08 6:50p rb005.cab
|> RB000 CAB 1,600,604 06-03-08 7:07p rb000.cab
|> RB001 CAB 1,601,242 06-04-08 8:01p rb001.cab
|> 6 file(s) 9,581,886 bytes
|
| Interesting. Well, my CABs were closer to 4 MB, which is about a
| tenth the size of the restore points in XP. (but of course, they
| are more limited in what they can correct in 98SE, since less is in
| there)

You may have had huge apps installed like maybe Office. I only have MS
Works. Also, playing with User Profiles can bloat a registry, if you've
ever done that.

|>> So it's useful if you need to roll back to a previous time (and is
|>> more effective that way than scanreg /restore, since it is much more
|>> complete - it monitors files added since the last checkpoint, etc,
|>> and can put back the previous ones, if there were any changes. (Of
|>> course, it doesn't monitor things like, say, a text file, or what
|>> have you, as those aren't needed for any system restorations).
|>
|> It does sound to be more thorough than a ScanReg /Restore.
|
| MUCH more so. No comparsion. Scanreg /restore ONLY restores the
| registry, and nothing more. That is considerably more limited
| (albeit useful, on some occasions - more on that below).

Yep. On the minus side, I'm sure it gives the hard drive a much more
rigorous usage each day.

|> You say you
|> did it & you did ERUNT too on occasion? What were the occasions? How
|> do you choose between the two?
|
| The right tool for the right job. Maybe a somewhat oversimplified
| explanation would be as follows:
|
| If I knew the changes were pretty minimal, ERUNT would be sufficient,
| and it is quickest. ERUNT is directly analogous to using scanreg
| and scanreg /restore. It ONLY saves and restores the registry
| (normally, without additional customizations)

That sounds about right. Can you do an ERUNT & easily undo it? That's a
tad tricky to do with ScanReg. In fact, I'd have to experiment AGAIN to
be sure what to do for that! After my 1st round of experimentation a
while ago, I came to believe ScanReg /Restore will put the current
Registry into... RB(next avail number).reg. SO... you'd have to remember
what that was, if you wanted it back!

| If the changes were relatively large, I'd (normally) use System
| Restore. (one (slightly annoying) thing about System Restore is it
| monitors lots of files or file types that it thinks could have been
| problematic, so you need to be sure to save some recently downloaded
| EXE, DLL, etc files (or whatever, in that vein), in the properly
| designated place, typically under Documents and Settings, which is
| NOT monitored - but other than that, it's no big deal).

What is this about? You have to keep an eye on what it does? Does it
produce a report? It is difficult to undo?

| If the changes were *really extensive*, I wouldn't rely on either,
| and I'd restore a Backup from the backup drive. (A clear cut case
| of this would be with something like Office or a Service Pack - say
| going back to a prior version, or whatever in that case, the only
| safe and assured way to get the system back (guaranteed) AS IT WAS,
| would be to do a backup drive restoration)

Very good.

|>>>>>> And I've also used ERUNT, on occasion.
|>>>>>> ERUNT is used like scanreg and scanreg /restore, to save or
|>>>>>> restore just the registry), whereas "System Restore" saves
|>>>>>> and restores a whole lot more (including the files it monitors).
|>
|> ...snip
|>>>> But the best (most assured) way is to restore a backup image, if
|>>>> something really goes astray (but sometimes that is a bit
|>>>> overkill, too).
|>>>
|>>> Yea. But I think our BING clones are better than any Image which is
|>>> tougher to deal with.
|>>
|>> I'll take either one. Or rather, I'd like to have the option of
|>> using either one.

|>
|> Alright. I can see this is still needed despite you have System
|> Restore.
|
| Well again, it's nice to have a SET of tools, and to use the best
| tool for the most appropriate occasion.

Uhuh.

--
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

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

Bill in Co.

PCR

Bill in Co.

PCR

Bill in Co.

PCR

Bill in Co.

PCR

Bill in Co.

PCR

Bill in Co.

PCR

Bill in Co.

PCR

Bill in Co.

PCR

Bill in Co.

PCR

Bill in Co.

PCR

Similar threads