Turmoil Continues in XP land

Gary S. Terhune · Jun 4, 2008

Did you ever stop to think that Livingston Secrets has to have something to
sell? That maybe they're a bit biased on the topic?

Automatic Updates has YET to cause me or any of my clients' machines any
problems at all. And if there ever ARE any problems, there's this great
thing called System Restore. Ever heard of it? I will say that I set the
systems to download in the background and only prompt for install, but
that's for practical reasons -- I want to control the timing and prepare the
system for a probable restart.

No, I think very few people who attend this group are of the sort your quote
describes, the sort who would have any actual *need* to do all that reading
and research. They should take the patches and deal with any resulting
issues as they come up. Then be prepared to be surprised by how well it
works.

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

"Smith" <smith@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ecqrEsfxIHA.5288@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in
> news:eJ5qjXdxIHA.576@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:
>
>
>>
>> Pretty ignorant if they think XP requires full-time
>> maintenance, too. That's downright hilarious coming from a
>> 98 user!
>>
>
> See "To auto-update or not to auto-update" http://window
> ssecrets.com/2006/05/25/01-To-auto-update-or-not-to-auto-update
>
> Brian Livingston there states:
>
> . Advanced users (including companies with full-time IT staff)
> should never use Automatic Updates. Professionals should first
> test Microsoft patches - and every other company's patches - on
> isolated machines. Read the free and paid versions of the Windows
> Secrets Newsletter that are published 2 days after Patch Tuesday
> with warnings of problems. Then use patch-management techniques
> to carefully install the needed upgrades to end users.
>
> Reading and paying for all of Livingston's newsletters and
> testing all of M$'s patches on isolated machines sounds like full
> time work to me.
>
> Livingston goes on:
>
> . Novice users, who can't or won't read up on reported patch
> problems before updating their machines, should leave Automatic
> Updates turned on. Beginners have a greater risk of catching a
> virus than they do of encountering a serious patch i
> incompatibility.
>
> He continues:
>
> Supporting Grandma's PC means auto-update
>
> Surely you would not suggest anyone following this group operate
> in that category.

Bill in Co. · Jun 4, 2008

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> PCR wrote:
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>> glee wrote:
>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:%230J9cp4wIHA.4564@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> One thing "added" by SP2 which I did NOT appreciate was the
>>>>>>>>>> removal of the
>>>>>>>>>> routine, automatic compacting of OE folders. (and yes, I
>>>>>>>>>> know "why")
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And that now after compacting. the old uncompacted dbx files
>>>>>>>>>> go to the Recycle Bin, which I then have to delete on a
>>>>>>>>>> routine basis. *I* have to do this now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Poor, poor Bill!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There's always a price to pay when it comes to OE. What's a
>>>>>>>>> bigger PIA, having to remember to compact all OE folders
>>>>>>>>> manually and deleting older BAK
>>>>>>>>> files from the Recycle Bin or losing all of your entire message
>>>>>>>>> store due to corruption and not having any backups in place?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Funny how (in all the years) I never had a problem with that.
>>>>>>>> Damn, I must
>>>>>>>> just be plain lucky, and should count my lucky stars! (Just
>>>>>>>> like I haven't needed all of those so called SECURITY UPDATES,
>>>>>>>> that we just can't
>>>>>>>> live safely without (snort)!.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or wait! Could it be that I was a bit more careful, and, (for
>>>>>>>> example),
>>>>>>>> didn't try to multitask when using OE, and thus have OE crash in
>>>>>>>> the middle
>>>>>>>> of doing something else, like running Office, or playing WOW, or
>>>>>>>> whatever? Nah, can't be.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bill, I'm sorry to say the only thing you got right in your
>>>>>>> reply was the last line..."Nah, can't be".
>>>>>>> Multi-tasking and crashing are and were not an issue. The fact
>>>>>>> is background
>>>>>>> compacting created problems with corrupted message stores for
>>>>>>> many users, as
>>>>>>> did A-V email scanning. That doesn't mean EVERYONE had the
>>>>>>> problem. Because you did not does not mean it doesn't exist, any
>>>>>>> more than the remark I posted recently about smoking while
>>>>>>> fueling a car.....just because you haven't
>>>>>>> caused an explosion yet doesn't mean it's safe!. -)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL. But see, the key difference here is, that unlike so many
>>>>>> others, I'm not smoking, while refueling my car!
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't do that, myself, anymore, either--
>>>>
>>>> But I also quit smoking some time ago too, which helps (but even
>>>> when I did, I didn't do that, at least as I recall now).
>>>
>>> Very good, Bill! The last two times I quit-- I was picking them up
>>> off the street!
>>
>> You should quit. Yeah, I know it's hard. Do it when you get a
>> cold, and it might be a bit easier.

>
> Correct. But I recently smoked my way through my last cold & all of the
> ones before it.

Well, you're supposed to try to STOP when you have the cold - it's easier to
do then!

>> I quit many, many years ago. I think the last time I smoked was
>> when cigarettes were - what - 50 cents a pack? (I can't recall).
>> It was in the late 1980's.
>
> I believe they even were 25¢ a pack when I started in the early 60's!

Me too. A quarter a pack. Yup.

> At least my younger brother who quit remembers that.

And me too.

> Now, they are an incredible price here for regular packs.

That's what I've heard! Like 2-3 dollars a pack, or so? How can anyone
afford it?

> So, I roll my own from Bugler/Top/Zig-Zag.

AHA!

> The mayor has missed putting his incredible tax on those cans.

The Mayor? Did you say what state you were in? Maybe it was NY.
I lived in NY state (Albany) when I was a kid (and love to visit Maine, but
it's been awhile). And occasionally even The City (NYC)!
I see you mention Bloomberg below, so it must be NY. (unless I'm losin it.

> Unfortunately, these make me cough, though-- they always
> did! These are harsh-- just as they were when I used them back in the
> 80's! An alternative is to get cheap packs from Indian reservations made
> of white-man's scalp-- but Bloomberg is monitoring the mails!
>
>>>>> not since the price of gas
>>>>> has quadrupled! But aren't you afraid your perfect record of no XP
>>>>> crash yet is at risk-- if you refuse to do manual compacting?
>>>>
>>>> I *routinely* compact as a matter of habit now (like "housekeeping").
>>>
>>> OK. But I meant (as Bear said) to do it manually while offline-- &
>>> not let your IE7 do it in the background while online & actually
>>> reading/posting at the same time. Apparently, one cannot trust XP to
>>> have solved that!
>>
>> I end up doing it online (w/o doing anything else when I am doing
>> it!), and it only takes perhaps 5 seconds. It is quite FAST on
>> this computer.
>
> That's a lot, lot quicker than it takes for me, sheesh-- but I do have
> 217,127,400 bytes of .dbx!

I just checked. I have 172 MB in there! (not too far off from you)

> But are you also set to have OE synchronize
> its NGs & mail automatically every 5 minutes?

Nope. And I have precious little set to automatic, for the most part.

> Would it suspend that
> while its doing the auto-compact? Better heed the warning if it doesn't!

WHAT auto-compact? It's essentially not there as an option, anymore.
They took that out with the SP2 update.

We HAVE to manually run compact OE ourselves now (or wait for 100 OE
accesses (or something like that), at which point it will run once
automatically, until the next 100)

>>>> I also routinely like to run the Defragger, just like I did in
>>>> Win98SE. (It's kinda fun watching the squares move around on the
>>>> screen, like a dumb version of PacMan.

>>>
>>> Yea.
>>>
>>>>> What is your plan of action to recover from it?
>>>>
>>>> Well, I quite often do a system backup to my external USB HD
>>>> enclosure, so if something went wrong, I could always fall back on
>>>> that. By quite often, I'm talking about weekly, on average.
>>>
>>> Right. So you'd lose a week's posts at least.
>>
>> Yup.
>>
>>>> Actually, believe it or not, using the latest version of True Image,
>>>> I can copy some of the files from the image backup back to the
>>>> source drive in Windows Explorer, if needbe. It's a nice feature
>>>> to have - to be able to see and access files within the backup
>>>> image (and by access, I mean you can look at their properties, and
>>>> make a copy of them, but not write back TO them on the imaged
>>>> drive, of course).
>>>
>>> BING has TBIView to do the same, if you've made an Image. But I have
>>> made a clone of C: to D:. Both are fully visible to me at each boot
>>> & I can copy back/forth. However, I've moved my OE Store to
>>> G

artition. So, it isn't in my clone. But I just use Explorer to
>>> copy it now/then to yet another usable partition! It is 217,061,864
>>> bytes & hasn't triggered that copy/paste problem yet!
>>
>> I should have added, I also ave access to those files IN WINDOWS,
>> using Windows Explorer, so I can see and retain their long file
>> names, etc, which is also helpful if I want to copy some of them
>> (some specific file(s) back to the source drive. So, all of THAT is
>> quite different from what you can do in TBIView right?
>
> I don't have a BING Image of C:-- a single file something like a WinZip

No, my mistake, BING doesn't make image copies as I recall. Just partition
copies. I think I got confused there. More on that below

> file, but with a whole partition in it. That is what TBIView would open
> (takes a while, last I've read) to view in Explorer & then allow the
> uncompressed files to be copied out of the image (but not into it) on an
> individual basis. It would be done in Windows. Yea, I'm sure you'd see
> LFNs.
>
> What I have is a BING Clone-- a copy of C: on D:. That's a lot quicker &
> easier to deal with!

OH. I never used BING to make a CLONE, per se, but only to copy
*partitions* (in the Maintenance Mode, or whatever it was called). In
fact, I didn't even know BING could do that (make "a clone", per se).
Hmmm. Are we confusing the terms here? I mean, are you sure you don't
mean Partition Copy of C: to D:?

Technically, a "partition copy" is (or rather can be) different than a
"clone", as I understand it. I think the distinction is that strictly
speaking, if you CLONE a drive, everything comes over as it is on the source
drive, whereas if you JUST do a partition copy, you ONLY copy that partition
to the destination drive (and the rest of the destination drive is
untouched).

Gary S. Terhune · Jun 4, 2008

I should revise that statement. There are certainly people who read this
group who would fit the category "Advanced users (including companies with
full-time IT staff)", but they certainly aren't here looking for a
discussion of XP SP3 or anything related. They get that information
elsewhere -- in more appropriate forums, for instance.

Otherwise, in these 98 groups it's Luddites, hobbyists and Grandmas.

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

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:uhpCKMgxIHA.516@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Did you ever stop to think that Livingston Secrets has to have something
> to sell? That maybe they're a bit biased on the topic?
>
> Automatic Updates has YET to cause me or any of my clients' machines any
> problems at all. And if there ever ARE any problems, there's this great
> thing called System Restore. Ever heard of it? I will say that I set the
> systems to download in the background and only prompt for install, but
> that's for practical reasons -- I want to control the timing and prepare
> the system for a probable restart.
>
> No, I think very few people who attend this group are of the sort your
> quote describes, the sort who would have any actual *need* to do all that
> reading and research. They should take the patches and deal with any
> resulting issues as they come up. Then be prepared to be surprised by how
> well it works.
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS-MVP Shell/User
> www.grystmill.com
>
> "Smith" <smith@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:ecqrEsfxIHA.5288@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in
>> news:eJ5qjXdxIHA.576@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Pretty ignorant if they think XP requires full-time
>>> maintenance, too. That's downright hilarious coming from a
>>> 98 user!
>>>
>>
>> See "To auto-update or not to auto-update" http://window
>> ssecrets.com/2006/05/25/01-To-auto-update-or-not-to-auto-update
>>
>> Brian Livingston there states:
>>
>> . Advanced users (including companies with full-time IT staff)
>> should never use Automatic Updates. Professionals should first
>> test Microsoft patches - and every other company's patches - on
>> isolated machines. Read the free and paid versions of the Windows
>> Secrets Newsletter that are published 2 days after Patch Tuesday
>> with warnings of problems. Then use patch-management techniques
>> to carefully install the needed upgrades to end users.
>>
>> Reading and paying for all of Livingston's newsletters and
>> testing all of M$'s patches on isolated machines sounds like full
>> time work to me.
>>
>> Livingston goes on:
>>
>> . Novice users, who can't or won't read up on reported patch
>> problems before updating their machines, should leave Automatic
>> Updates turned on. Beginners have a greater risk of catching a
>> virus than they do of encountering a serious patch i
>> incompatibility.
>>
>> He continues:
>>
>> Supporting Grandma's PC means auto-update
>>
>> Surely you would not suggest anyone following this group operate
>> in that category.
>

PCR · Jun 4, 2008

|>
|> Correct. But I recently smoked my way through my last cold & all of
|> the ones before it.
|
| Well, you're supposed to try to STOP when you have the cold - it's
| easier to do then!

That is usually correct, uh-huh.

|>> I quit many, many years ago. I think the last time I smoked was
|>> when cigarettes were - what - 50 cents a pack? (I can't recall).
|>> It was in the late 1980's.
|>
|> I believe they even were 25¢ a pack when I started in the early 60's!
|
| Me too. A quarter a pack. Yup.

I can't quite recall it, myself. But my memory never was good for that
far back.

|> At least my younger brother who quit remembers that.
|
| And me too.

Good memory-- you must have 133's.

|> Now, they are an incredible price here for regular packs.
|
| That's what I've heard! Like 2-3 dollars a pack, or so? How can
| anyone afford it?

They were recently over $6.00 a pack here-- soon to go to $8.50 with the
newest state & city taxes!

|> So, I roll my own from Bugler/Top/Zig-Zag.
|
| AHA!

Uh-hu. One can of those is $15.00 & can make over 20 packs-- but, damn,
they are HARSH even stuffed into filtered tubes!

|> The mayor has missed putting his incredible tax on those cans.
|
| The Mayor? Did you say what state you were in? Maybe it was NY.
| I lived in NY state (Albany) when I was a kid (and love to visit
| Maine, but it's been awhile). And occasionally even The City (NYC)!
| I see you mention Bloomberg below, so it must be NY. (unless I'm
| losin it.

No, you are right, that's the city & state. I visited Albany once as a
kid on my way in a rare family vacation to Canada. Don't remember much,
though. It was fairly cold, is about all-- frigid in Canada especially!

....snip
|>>>> I *routinely* compact as a matter of habit now (like
|>>>> "housekeeping").
|>>>
|>>> OK. But I meant (as Bear said) to do it manually while offline-- &
|>>> not let your IE7 do it in the background while online & actually
|>>> reading/posting at the same time. Apparently, one cannot trust XP
|>>> to have solved that!
|>>
|>> I end up doing it online (w/o doing anything else when I am doing
|>> it!), and it only takes perhaps 5 seconds. It is quite FAST on
|>> this computer.
|>
|> That's a lot, lot quicker than it takes for me, sheesh-- but I do
|> have 217,127,400 bytes of .dbx!
|
| I just checked. I have 172 MB in there! (not too far off from you)

Interesting. Mine takes surely at least 5 MINUTES to compact. When it
gets to the biggest one,...

MYSENT~1 DBX 120,237,632 06-01-08 4:22p My Sent Items.dbx

....I know the Swap File gets to be used. Maybe that's it.

|> But are you also set to have OE synchronize
|> its NGs & mail automatically every 5 minutes?
|
| Nope. And I have precious little set to automatic, for the most
| part.

Well, that may be what avoids the risk for you, then. Even though you
remain online, there can be no interference with the compacting-- if you
are not posting or synchronizing at the same time. Very good.

|> Would it suspend that
|> while its doing the auto-compact? Better heed the warning if it
|> doesn't!
|
| WHAT auto-compact? It's essentially not there as an option,
| anymore. They took that out with the SP2 update.

Oops. That's right. That was your complaint. I guess I got confused with
the OS.

| We HAVE to manually run compact OE ourselves now (or wait for 100 OE
| accesses (or something like that), at which point it will run once
| automatically, until the next 100)

That seems safe, then. But you should have been doing that yourself in
Win98!

....snip
|>> I should have added, I also ave access to those files IN WINDOWS,
|>> using Windows Explorer, so I can see and retain their long file
|>> names, etc, which is also helpful if I want to copy some of them
|>> (some specific file(s) back to the source drive. So, all of THAT
|>> is quite different from what you can do in TBIView right?
|>
|> I don't have a BING Image of C:-- a single file something like a
|> WinZip
|
| No, my mistake, BING doesn't make image copies as I recall. Just
| partition copies. I think I got confused there. More on that
| below

BING will do either, but I have only done copies with it.

|> file, but with a whole partition in it. That is what TBIView would
|> open (takes a while, last I've read) to view in Explorer & then
|> allow the uncompressed files to be copied out of the image (but not
|> into it) on an individual basis. It would be done in Windows. Yea,
|> I'm sure you'd see LFNs.
|>
|> What I have is a BING Clone-- a copy of C: on D:. That's a lot
|> quicker & easier to deal with!
|
| OH. I never used BING to make a CLONE, per se, but only to copy
| *partitions* (in the Maintenance Mode, or whatever it was called).
| In fact, I didn't even know BING could do that (make "a clone", per
| se).
| Hmmm. Are we confusing the terms here? I mean, are you sure you
| don't mean Partition Copy of C: to D:?
|
| Technically, a "partition copy" is (or rather can be) different than a
| "clone", as I understand it. I think the distinction is that
| strictly speaking, if you CLONE a drive, everything comes over as it
| is on the source drive, whereas if you JUST do a partition copy, you
| ONLY copy that partition to the destination drive (and the rest of
| the destination drive is untouched).

I was trying to describe the difference between BING's COPY & IMAGE
buttons. With the COPY button you end up with a duplicate of the
partition you copy. You do get an option to copy only the used space,
but you still end up with the same sized partition. It's bootable.
That's my D

artition!

The IMAGE button (I never used it) gives you a single file (well
multiple, chained files) that contains all the files of a partition kind
of WinZip-ed into it. That's the one TBIView would be useful to view.
And I think that's what your getting with True Image.

--
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 4, 2008

Alright, alright.

.

|>> But SP2 was different - VERY different (it actually offered
|>> something of *real benefit* to the user).
|>>
|>> And I didn't even have a choice on that SP2, as it came
|>> preinstalled.
|>
|> Hmm-- that makes even more sense, then, that you would have it.
|>
|>>

|
| LOL. (Incidentally, there was once a point in time that I went
| searching online (at amazon.com) to see if I could purchase the
| original Win XP Home edition (non-SP version), and they were very
| hard to find. But that's ok. There are some good things (I mean,
| USEFUL) that were added in SP2 (or was it SP1?), like support for
| LARGE HD capacities, and a built in Firewall (not using), and Popup
| blocker.

So, lucky you couldn't find the original version then. Well... who
knows... maybe SP4 or SP5 will be good ones too!

--
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:
>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:%230J9cp4wIHA.4564@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>
> ...snip
>>>>>>>> LOL. But see, the key difference here is, that unlike so many
>>>>>>>> others, I'm not smoking, while refueling my car!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't do that, myself, anymore, either--
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I also quit smoking some time ago too, which helps (but even
>>>>>> when I did, I didn't do that, at least as I recall now).
>>>>>
>>>>> Very good, Bill! The last two times I quit-- I was picking them up
>>>>> off the street!
>>>>
>>>> You should quit. Yeah, I know it's hard. Do it when you get a
>>>> cold, and it might be a bit easier.

>>>
>>> Correct. But I recently smoked my way through my last cold & all of
>>> the ones before it.
>>
>> Well, you're supposed to try to STOP when you have the cold - it's
>> easier to do then!
>
> That is usually correct, uh-huh.
>
>>>> I quit many, many years ago. I think the last time I smoked was
>>>> when cigarettes were - what - 50 cents a pack? (I can't recall).
>>>> It was in the late 1980's.
>>>
>>> I believe they even were 25¢ a pack when I started in the early 60's!
>>
>> Me too. A quarter a pack. Yup.
>
> I can't quite recall it, myself. But my memory never was good for that
> far back.
>
>>> At least my younger brother who quit remembers that.
>>
>> And me too.
>
> Good memory-- you must have 133's.

You mean 33's, as in LPs? Or what are "133's"?
I still recall 78's, but I didn't grow up with too many of them.

>>> Now, they are an incredible price here for regular packs.
>>
>> That's what I've heard! Like 2-3 dollars a pack, or so? How can
>> anyone afford it?
>
> They were recently over $6.00 a pack here-- soon to go to $8.50 with the
> newest state & city taxes!

WOW!

>>> So, I roll my own from Bugler/Top/Zig-Zag.
>>
>> AHA!
>
> Uh-hu. One can of those is $15.00 & can make over 20 packs-- but, damn,
> they are HARSH even stuffed into filtered tubes!
>
>>> The mayor has missed putting his incredible tax on those cans.
>>
>> The Mayor? Did you say what state you were in? Maybe it was NY.
>> I lived in NY state (Albany) when I was a kid (and love to visit
>> Maine, but it's been awhile). And occasionally even The City (NYC)!
>> I see you mention Bloomberg below, so it must be NY. (unless I'm
>> losin it.

>
> No, you are right, that's the city & state. I visited Albany once as a
> kid on my way in a rare family vacation to Canada. Don't remember much,
> though. It was fairly cold, is about all-- frigid in Canada especially!

Are you actually in Manhattan, or one of the other boroughs (if you care to
share)?
My ex was originally from Staten Island.

It's always fun and exciting visiting the city, but the summer weather can
be a killer, especially downtown walking on the pavement - it's so hot and
humid, oftentimes.

> ...snip
>>>>>> I *routinely* compact as a matter of habit now (like
>>>>>> "housekeeping").
>>>>>
>>>>> OK. But I meant (as Bear said) to do it manually while offline-- &
>>>>> not let your IE7 do it in the background while online & actually
>>>>> reading/posting at the same time. Apparently, one cannot trust XP
>>>>> to have solved that!
>>>>
>>>> I end up doing it online (w/o doing anything else when I am doing
>>>> it!), and it only takes perhaps 5 seconds. It is quite FAST on
>>>> this computer.
>>>
>>> That's a lot, lot quicker than it takes for me, sheesh-- but I do
>>> have 217,127,400 bytes of .dbx!
>>
>> I just checked. I have 172 MB in there! (not too far off from you)
>
> Interesting. Mine takes surely at least 5 MINUTES to compact. When it
> gets to the biggest one,...
>
> MYSENT~1 DBX 120,237,632 06-01-08 4:22p My Sent Items.dbx

For me, it all takes about 5 seconds.

> ...I know the Swap File gets to be used. Maybe that's it.

Maybe. Or - maybe just the speed of your computer. This one is 1.6 GHz.

>>> But are you also set to have OE synchronize
>>> its NGs & mail automatically every 5 minutes?
>>
>> Nope. And I have precious little set to automatic, for the most
>> part.

>
> Well, that may be what avoids the risk for you, then. Even though you
> remain online, there can be no interference with the compacting-- if you
> are not posting or synchronizing at the same time. Very good.

Yup.

>>> Would it suspend that
>>> while its doing the auto-compact? Better heed the warning if it
>>> doesn't!
>>
>> WHAT auto-compact? It's essentially not there as an option,
>> anymore. They took that out with the SP2 update.
>
> Oops. That's right. That was your complaint. I guess I got confused with
> the OS.
>
>> We HAVE to manually run compact OE ourselves now (or wait for 100 OE
>> accesses (or something like that), at which point it will run once
>> automatically, until the next 100)
>
> That seems safe, then. But you should have been doing that yourself in
> Win98!

I didn't have to as it did it for me!

> ...snip
>>>> I should have added, I also ave access to those files IN WINDOWS,
>>>> using Windows Explorer, so I can see and retain their long file
>>>> names, etc, which is also helpful if I want to copy some of them
>>>> (some specific file(s) back to the source drive. So, all of THAT
>>>> is quite different from what you can do in TBIView right?
>>>
>>> I don't have a BING Image of C:-- a single file something like a
>>> WinZip
>>
>> No, my mistake, BING doesn't make image copies as I recall. Just
>> partition copies. I think I got confused there. More on that
>> below
>
> BING will do either, but I have only done copies with it.
>
>>> file, but with a whole partition in it. That is what TBIView would
>>> open (takes a while, last I've read) to view in Explorer & then
>>> allow the uncompressed files to be copied out of the image (but not
>>> into it) on an individual basis. It would be done in Windows. Yea,
>>> I'm sure you'd see LFNs.
>>>
>>> What I have is a BING Clone-- a copy of C: on D:. That's a lot
>>> quicker & easier to deal with!
>>
>> OH. I never used BING to make a CLONE, per se, but only to copy
>> *partitions* (in the Maintenance Mode, or whatever it was called).
>> In fact, I didn't even know BING could do that (make "a clone", per se).
>> Hmmm. Are we confusing the terms here? I mean, are you sure you
>> don't mean Partition Copy of C: to D:?
>>
>> Technically, a "partition copy" is (or rather can be) different than a
>> "clone", as I understand it. I think the distinction is that
>> strictly speaking, if you CLONE a drive, everything comes over as it
>> is on the source drive, whereas if you JUST do a partition copy, you
>> ONLY copy that partition to the destination drive (and the rest of
>> the destination drive is untouched).
>
> I was trying to describe the difference between BING's COPY & IMAGE
> buttons. With the COPY button you end up with a duplicate of the
> partition you copy.

And that's what I used when using BING. Partition Copy and Paste in BING
on the floppy.

> You do get an option to copy only the used space,
> but you still end up with the same sized partition. It's bootable.
> That's my D

artition!

OK.

> The IMAGE button (I never used it) gives you a single file (well
> multiple, chained files) that contains all the files of a partition kind
> of WinZip-ed into it.

OK, I never used that in BING.

> That's the one TBIView would be useful to view.

I see.

> And I think that's what your getting with True Image.

Something like that.

(Well, good, I got this one off too before I take a short trip shortly).

PCR · Jun 4, 2008

RAM chips!

|>
|> No, you are right, that's the city & state. I visited Albany once as
|> a kid on my way in a rare family vacation to Canada. Don't remember
|> much, though. It was fairly cold, is about all-- frigid in Canada
|> especially!
|
| Are you actually in Manhattan, or one of the other boroughs (if you
| care to share)?
| My ex was originally from Staten Island.

| It's always fun and exciting visiting the city, but the summer
| weather can be a killer, especially downtown walking on the pavement
| - it's so hot and humid, oftentimes.

Watch out for falling construction cranes in Manhattan! I won't say
where I am-- but I root for the Yankees! But don't go near that new
stadium until the cranes are gone!

|> ...snip
|>>>>>> I *routinely* compact as a matter of habit now (like
|>>>>>> "housekeeping").
|>>>>>
|>>>>> OK. But I meant (as Bear said) to do it manually while offline--
|>>>>> & not let your IE7 do it in the background while online &
|>>>>> actually reading/posting at the same time. Apparently, one
|>>>>> cannot trust XP to have solved that!
|>>>>
|>>>> I end up doing it online (w/o doing anything else when I am doing
|>>>> it!), and it only takes perhaps 5 seconds. It is quite FAST on
|>>>> this computer.
|>>>
|>>> That's a lot, lot quicker than it takes for me, sheesh-- but I do
|>>> have 217,127,400 bytes of .dbx!
|>>
|>> I just checked. I have 172 MB in there! (not too far off from
|>> you)
|>
|> Interesting. Mine takes surely at least 5 MINUTES to compact. When it
|> gets to the biggest one,...
|>
|> MYSENT~1 DBX 120,237,632 06-01-08 4:22p My Sent Items.dbx
|
| For me, it all takes about 5 seconds.
|
|> ...I know the Swap File gets to be used. Maybe that's it.
|
| Maybe. Or - maybe just the speed of your computer. This one is
| 1.6 GHz.

That's a good possibility. I am 533 MHz. Maybe your IE7 is a tad more
efficient too.

|>>> But are you also set to have OE synchronize
|>>> its NGs & mail automatically every 5 minutes?
|>>
|>> Nope. And I have precious little set to automatic, for the most
|>> part.

|>
|> Well, that may be what avoids the risk for you, then. Even though you
|> remain online, there can be no interference with the compacting-- if
|> you are not posting or synchronizing at the same time. Very good.
|
| Yup.

Yea.

|>>> Would it suspend that
|>>> while its doing the auto-compact? Better heed the warning if it
|>>> doesn't!
|>>
|>> WHAT auto-compact? It's essentially not there as an option,
|>> anymore. They took that out with the SP2 update.
|>
|> Oops. That's right. That was your complaint. I guess I got confused
|> with the OS.
|>
|>> We HAVE to manually run compact OE ourselves now (or wait for 100 OE
|>> accesses (or something like that), at which point it will run once
|>> automatically, until the next 100)
|>
|> That seems safe, then. But you should have been doing that yourself
|> in Win98!
|
| I didn't have to as it did it for me!

Whatever-- it's between you & PA Bear & glee whether you did it right in
Win98 & IE6! Anyhow, you are leaving town & it will be tough for them to
find & claw you or drop a crane on your head.

....snip
|>> OH. I never used BING to make a CLONE, per se, but only to copy
|>> *partitions* (in the Maintenance Mode, or whatever it was called).
|>> In fact, I didn't even know BING could do that (make "a clone", per
|>> se). Hmmm. Are we confusing the terms here? I mean, are you
|>> sure you don't mean Partition Copy of C: to D:?
|>>
|>> Technically, a "partition copy" is (or rather can be) different
|>> than a "clone", as I understand it. I think the distinction is
|>> that
|>> strictly speaking, if you CLONE a drive, everything comes over as it
|>> is on the source drive, whereas if you JUST do a partition copy, you
|>> ONLY copy that partition to the destination drive (and the rest of
|>> the destination drive is untouched).
|>
|> I was trying to describe the difference between BING's COPY & IMAGE
|> buttons. With the COPY button you end up with a duplicate of the
|> partition you copy.
|
| And that's what I used when using BING. Partition Copy and Paste
| in BING on the floppy.

That's the best thing!

|> You do get an option to copy only the used space,
|> but you still end up with the same sized partition. It's bootable.
|> That's my D

artition!
|
| OK.
|
|> The IMAGE button (I never used it) gives you a single file (well
|> multiple, chained files) that contains all the files of a partition
|> kind of WinZip-ed into it.
|
| OK, I never used that in BING.
|
|> That's the one TBIView would be useful to view.
|
| I see.
|
|> And I think that's what your getting with True Image.
|
| Something like that.

OK. But with all your 250 GB you should be able to have a clone around
too. Wouldn't that be easier to access than an Image? Or do you already
have it in an enclosure? That's right, I think you do-- OK, then. Good.

| (Well, good, I got this one off too before I take a short trip
| shortly).

Enjoy. 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

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> PCR wrote:
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>
> ...snip
>>> Good memory-- you must have 133's.
>>
>> You mean 33's, as in LPs? Or what are "133's"?
>> I still recall 78's, but I didn't grow up with too many of them.

>
> RAM chips!

.

OH. LOL!

>>>>> Now, they are an incredible price here for regular packs.
>>>>
>>>> That's what I've heard! Like 2-3 dollars a pack, or so? How can
>>>> anyone afford it?
>>>
>>> They were recently over $6.00 a pack here-- soon to go to $8.50 with
>>> the newest state & city taxes!
>>
>> WOW!
>
> Yep. But with the ways around it, including Indian reservations, cans of
> loose tobacco & picking them up off the gutter-- I'm still smoking
> fairly well.
>
>>>>> So, I roll my own from Bugler/Top/Zig-Zag.
>>>>
>>>> AHA!
>>>
>>> Uh-hu. One can of those is $15.00 & can make over 20 packs-- but,
>>> damn, they are HARSH even stuffed into filtered tubes!
>>>
>>>>> The mayor has missed putting his incredible tax on those cans.
>>>>
>>>> The Mayor? Did you say what state you were in? Maybe it was NY.
>>>> I lived in NY state (Albany) when I was a kid (and love to visit
>>>> Maine, but it's been awhile). And occasionally even The City
>>>> (NYC)! I see you mention Bloomberg below, so it must be NY.
>>>> (unless I'm losin it.

>>>
>>> No, you are right, that's the city & state. I visited Albany once as
>>> a kid on my way in a rare family vacation to Canada. Don't remember
>>> much, though. It was fairly cold, is about all-- frigid in Canada
>>> especially!
>>
>> Are you actually in Manhattan, or one of the other boroughs (if you
>> care to share)?
>> My ex was originally from Staten Island.

>> It's always fun and exciting visiting the city, but the summer
>> weather can be a killer, especially downtown walking on the pavement
>> - it's so hot and humid, oftentimes.
>
> Watch out for falling construction cranes in Manhattan! I won't say
> where I am-- but I root for the Yankees! But don't go near that new
> stadium until the cranes are gone!

LOL.
I also remember some nice trips to Coney Island, and riding the good ole
Cyclone. However, I have to say, that area was a tad bit seedy. But
still, the rides were fun!

>>> ...snip
>>>>>>>> I *routinely* compact as a matter of habit now (like
>>>>>>>> "housekeeping").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK. But I meant (as Bear said) to do it manually while offline--
>>>>>>> & not let your IE7 do it in the background while online &
>>>>>>> actually reading/posting at the same time. Apparently, one
>>>>>>> cannot trust XP to have solved that!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I end up doing it online (w/o doing anything else when I am doing
>>>>>> it!), and it only takes perhaps 5 seconds. It is quite FAST on
>>>>>> this computer.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a lot, lot quicker than it takes for me, sheesh-- but I do
>>>>> have 217,127,400 bytes of .dbx!
>>>>
>>>> I just checked. I have 172 MB in there! (not too far off from
>>>> you)
>>>
>>> Interesting. Mine takes surely at least 5 MINUTES to compact. When it
>>> gets to the biggest one,...
>>>
>>> MYSENT~1 DBX 120,237,632 06-01-08 4:22p My Sent Items.dbx
>>
>> For me, it all takes about 5 seconds.
>>
>>> ...I know the Swap File gets to be used. Maybe that's it.
>>
>> Maybe. Or - maybe just the speed of your computer. This one is
>> 1.6 GHz.
>
> That's a good possibility. I am 533 MHz. Maybe your IE7 is a tad more
> efficient too.

WHAT IE7??? I don't have IE7 on here! (at least not yet, and maybe
never

I'm still using IE6, thank you.

>>>>> But are you also set to have OE synchronize
>>>>> its NGs & mail automatically every 5 minutes?
>>>>
>>>> Nope. And I have precious little set to automatic, for the most
>>>> part.

>>>
>>> Well, that may be what avoids the risk for you, then. Even though you
>>> remain online, there can be no interference with the compacting-- if
>>> you are not posting or synchronizing at the same time. Very good.
>>
>> Yup.
>
> Yea.
>
>>>>> Would it suspend that
>>>>> while its doing the auto-compact? Better heed the warning if it
>>>>> doesn't!
>>>>
>>>> WHAT auto-compact? It's essentially not there as an option,
>>>> anymore. They took that out with the SP2 update.
>>>
>>> Oops. That's right. That was your complaint. I guess I got confused
>>> with the OS.
>>>
>>>> We HAVE to manually run compact OE ourselves now (or wait for 100 OE
>>>> accesses (or something like that), at which point it will run once
>>>> automatically, until the next 100)
>>>
>>> That seems safe, then. But you should have been doing that yourself
>>> in Win98!
>>
>> I didn't have to as it did it for me!
>
> Whatever-- it's between you & PA Bear & glee whether you did it right in
> Win98 & IE6! Anyhow, you are leaving town & it will be tough for them to
> find & claw you or drop a crane on your head.
>
> ...snip
>>>> OH. I never used BING to make a CLONE, per se, but only to copy
>>>> *partitions* (in the Maintenance Mode, or whatever it was called).
>>>> In fact, I didn't even know BING could do that (make "a clone", per
>>>> se). Hmmm. Are we confusing the terms here? I mean, are you
>>>> sure you don't mean Partition Copy of C: to D:?
>>>>
>>>> Technically, a "partition copy" is (or rather can be) different
>>>> than a "clone", as I understand it. I think the distinction is that
>>>> strictly speaking, if you CLONE a drive, everything comes over as it
>>>> is on the source drive, whereas if you JUST do a partition copy, you
>>>> ONLY copy that partition to the destination drive (and the rest of
>>>> the destination drive is untouched).
>>>
>>> I was trying to describe the difference between BING's COPY & IMAGE
>>> buttons. With the COPY button you end up with a duplicate of the
>>> partition you copy.
>>
>> And that's what I used when using BING. Partition Copy and Paste
>> in BING on the floppy.
>
> That's the best thing!
>
>>> You do get an option to copy only the used space,
>>> but you still end up with the same sized partition. It's bootable.
>>> That's my D

artition!
>>
>> OK.
>>
>>> The IMAGE button (I never used it) gives you a single file (well
>>> multiple, chained files) that contains all the files of a partition
>>> kind of WinZip-ed into it.
>>
>> OK, I never used that in BING.
>>
>>> That's the one TBIView would be useful to view.
>>
>> I see.
>>
>>> And I think that's what your getting with True Image.
>>
>> Something like that.
>
> OK. But with all your 250 GB you should be able to have a clone around
> too. Wouldn't that be easier to access than an Image? Or do you already
> have it in an enclosure? That's right, I think you do-- OK, then. Good.

I have two USB, external, HD enclosures (with IDE, PATA, hard drives inside
of them) one with a 80 GB hard drive inside, and the other with a 40 GB
drive hard drive inside (both removeable, or replaceable, as needed)

>> (Well, good, I got this one off too before I take a short trip shortly).
>
> Enjoy. I'll be here.

OK.

> --
> 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 5, 2008

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

....snip
|> Watch out for falling construction cranes in Manhattan! I won't say
|> where I am-- but I root for the Yankees! But don't go near that new
|> stadium until the cranes are gone!
|
| LOL.
| I also remember some nice trips to Coney Island, and riding the good
| ole Cyclone. However, I have to say, that area was a tad bit seedy.
| But still, the rides were fun!

I was there a few times. You are correct about all that, except that
area & lots of others are being rebuilt or there are plans to rebuild
them with those killer cranes. Stay away from there for a while too.

....snip
| WHAT IE7??? I don't have IE7 on here! (at least not yet, and
| maybe never

| I'm still using IE6, thank you.

I should have known! I guess I was figuring XP came with IE7!

....snip
|> OK. But with all your 250 GB you should be able to have a clone
|> around too. Wouldn't that be easier to access than an Image? Or do
|> you already have it in an enclosure? That's right, I think you do--
|> OK, then. Good.
|
| I have two USB, external, HD enclosures (with IDE, PATA, hard drives
| inside of them) one with a 80 GB hard drive inside, and the other
| with a 40 GB drive hard drive inside (both removeable, or
| replaceable, as needed)

So, you have a BING copy of your system on one of those as well as a
True Image image of it somewhere? That's ultra-safe! Very good.

|>> (Well, good, I got this one off too before I take a short trip
|>> shortly).
|>
|> Enjoy. I'll be here.
|
| OK.

.

--
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

smith · Jun 5, 2008

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:OKx52SiwIHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:

> The point is, SP3 doesn't add anything USEFUL to the system
> (e.g: larger HD support, a pop-up blocker, a Firewall,
> etc, etc - unlike SP2.

What you say is true if you have a SP2 system that has been
updated.

However, if in the context of this group, you are considering
building a new system from the retail CD to upgrade from 98, SP3
adds a lot. If you install SP2 from scratch, you next have to
update it and that means going through the patches and exposing
yourself to the risks of that process. In the SP M$ is supposed
to have gone through the patches, cleaned them up, and tested
the result. That, theoretically, reduces the work of a new
install and is of substantial value.

Bill in Co. · Jun 10, 2008

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> PCR wrote:
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>
> ...snip
>>> Watch out for falling construction cranes in Manhattan! I won't say
>>> where I am-- but I root for the Yankees! But don't go near that new
>>> stadium until the cranes are gone!
>>
>> LOL.
>> I also remember some nice trips to Coney Island, and riding the good
>> ole Cyclone. However, I have to say, that area was a tad bit seedy.
>> But still, the rides were fun!
>
> I was there a few times. You are correct about all that, except that
> area & lots of others are being rebuilt or there are plans to rebuild
> them with those killer cranes. Stay away from there for a while too.

You mean you can't go down there anymore for the rides?? Did they close
Coney Island off to visitors? Maybe they're cleaning up the place?
LOL, seems hard to imagine that.

I mean, somebody has got to sell
those T-shirts down there!

> ...snip
>> WHAT IE7??? I don't have IE7 on here! (at least not yet, and
>> maybe never

>> I'm still using IE6, thank you.

>
> I should have known! I guess I was figuring XP came with IE7!

Nope.

> ...snip
>>> OK. But with all your 250 GB you should be able to have a clone
>>> around too. Wouldn't that be easier to access than an Image? Or do
>>> you already have it in an enclosure? That's right, I think you do--
>>> OK, then. Good.
>>
>> I have two USB, external, HD enclosures (with IDE, PATA, hard drives
>> inside of them) one with a 80 GB hard drive inside, and the other
>> with a 40 GB drive hard drive inside (both removeable, or
>> replaceable, as needed)
>
> So, you have a BING copy of your system on one of those as well as a
> True Image image of it somewhere? That's ultra-safe! Very good.

I only have BING on the floppy or flash drive, and use it in Maintenance
Mode (this again almost exclusively for the Win98SE computer). Why install
it on the HD? (unless I did it once to create the floppy - can't recall
now).

Whenever I use it to do some partition operation (which isn't all that often
now), I always boot up on the floppy or the flash disk.

Maybe I've missed something that I really need for it to be installed and
run on the HD, but I don't know what it is. (Keep in mind I also have
Acronis True Image AND Norton Partition Magic for the new computer, which is
what I normally use).

>>>> (Well, good, I got this one off too before I take a short trip
>>>> shortly).
>>>
>>> Enjoy. I'll be here.
>>
>> OK.

>
>

.

PCR · Jun 10, 2008

Bill in Co. wrote:
| PCR wrote:

....snip
|>> LOL.
|>> I also remember some nice trips to Coney Island, and riding the good
|>> ole Cyclone. However, I have to say, that area was a tad bit
|>> seedy. But still, the rides were fun!
|>
|> I was there a few times. You are correct about all that, except that
|> area & lots of others are being rebuilt or there are plans to rebuild
|> them with those killer cranes. Stay away from there for a while too.
|
| You mean you can't go down there anymore for the rides?? Did they
| close Coney Island off to visitors? Maybe they're cleaning up the
| place?
| LOL, seems hard to imagine that.

I mean, somebody has got
| to sell those T-shirts down there!

I'm sure some of it is still functioning, but I never was there much &
certainly not recently. Oh, there were recent newspaper stories of
lawsuits over the Cyclone. That's right-- it can break your neck & back
even without falling cranes! Coney Island used to be much bigger with
competing parks, or so I've seen in the documentaries. Now, all kinds of
construction is either going on or planned to go on, but they may end up
with more residential dwelling than amusement park.

|> ...snip
|>> WHAT IE7??? I don't have IE7 on here! (at least not yet, and
|>> maybe never

|>> I'm still using IE6, thank you.

|>
|> I should have known! I guess I was figuring XP came with IE7!
|
| Nope.

OK.

|> ...snip
|>>> OK. But with all your 250 GB you should be able to have a clone
|>>> around too. Wouldn't that be easier to access than an Image? Or do
|>>> you already have it in an enclosure? That's right, I think you do--
|>>> OK, then. Good.
|>>
|>> I have two USB, external, HD enclosures (with IDE, PATA, hard drives
|>> inside of them) one with a 80 GB hard drive inside, and the other
|>> with a 40 GB drive hard drive inside (both removeable, or
|>> replaceable, as needed)
|>
|> So, you have a BING copy of your system on one of those as well as a
|> True Image image of it somewhere? That's ultra-safe! Very good.
|
| I only have BING on the floppy or flash drive, and use it in
| Maintenance Mode (this again almost exclusively for the Win98SE
| computer). Why install it on the HD? (unless I did it once to
| create the floppy - can't recall now).

I've only used it the way you have. No, it doesn't need to be installed
to create the floppy. You take & unpack the download & click
BOOTITNG.EXE to create the Maintenance Floppy. After booting the floppy,
you are given the choice to install it to the hard drive. Click CANCEL &
you are in Maintenance Mode running off the floppy. The main reason to
install it would be to multiboot. You might consider that, if you think
Win98 could possibly run on the new machine.

| Whenever I use it to do some partition operation (which isn't all
| that often now), I always boot up on the floppy or the flash disk.

Right. Me too. Some day I should install so that I might boot my clone
on D

artition, though-- but it would only be for fun.

| Maybe I've missed something that I really need for it to be installed
| and run on the HD, but I don't know what it is. (Keep in mind I
| also have Acronis True Image AND Norton Partition Magic for the new
| computer, which is what I normally use).

It sounds like you've got everything you need, except if you should ever
want to multiboot. BING does that as well as partitioning & backing up.

|>>>> (Well, good, I got this one off too before I take a short trip
|>>>> shortly).
|>>>
|>>> Enjoy. I'll be here.
|>>
|>> OK.

|>
|>

.

--
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 11, 2008

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> PCR wrote:
>
> ...snip
>>>> LOL.
>>>> I also remember some nice trips to Coney Island, and riding the good
>>>> ole Cyclone. However, I have to say, that area was a tad bit
>>>> seedy. But still, the rides were fun!
>>>
>>> I was there a few times. You are correct about all that, except that
>>> area & lots of others are being rebuilt or there are plans to rebuild
>>> them with those killer cranes. Stay away from there for a while too.
>>
>> You mean you can't go down there anymore for the rides?? Did they
>> close Coney Island off to visitors? Maybe they're cleaning up the
>> place?
>> LOL, seems hard to imagine that.

I mean, somebody has got
>> to sell those T-shirts down there!
>
> I'm sure some of it is still functioning, but I never was there much &
> certainly not recently. Oh, there were recent newspaper stories of
> lawsuits over the Cyclone.

Oh boy. The "suing" generation..... (Yet another) sign of the new age
times..

> That's right-- it can break your neck & back
> even without falling cranes! Coney Island used to be much bigger with
> competing parks, or so I've seen in the documentaries. Now, all kinds of
> construction is either going on or planned to go on, but they may end up
> with more residential dwelling than amusement park.

Wow. I'm not sure that's necessarily a good thing, though.

>>> ...snip
>>>> WHAT IE7??? I don't have IE7 on here! (at least not yet, and
>>>> maybe never

>>>> I'm still using IE6, thank you.

>>>
>>> I should have known! I guess I was figuring XP came with IE7!
>>
>> Nope.
>
> OK.
>
>>> ...snip
>>>>> OK. But with all your 250 GB you should be able to have a clone
>>>>> around too. Wouldn't that be easier to access than an Image? Or do
>>>>> you already have it in an enclosure? That's right, I think you do--
>>>>> OK, then. Good.
>>>>
>>>> I have two USB, external, HD enclosures (with IDE, PATA, hard drives
>>>> inside of them) one with a 80 GB hard drive inside, and the other
>>>> with a 40 GB drive hard drive inside (both removeable, or
>>>> replaceable, as needed)
>>>
>>> So, you have a BING copy of your system on one of those as well as a
>>> True Image image of it somewhere? That's ultra-safe! Very good.
>>
>> I only have BING on the floppy or flash drive, and use it in
>> Maintenance Mode (this again almost exclusively for the Win98SE
>> computer). Why install it on the HD? (unless I did it once to
>> create the floppy - can't recall now).
>
> I've only used it the way you have. No, it doesn't need to be installed
> to create the floppy. You take & unpack the download & click
> BOOTITNG.EXE to create the Maintenance Floppy. After booting the floppy,
> you are given the choice to install it to the hard drive. Click CANCEL &
> you are in Maintenance Mode running off the floppy. The main reason to
> install it would be to multiboot.

Yeah, ok. Haven't had a need for that.

> You might consider that, if you think Win98 could possibly run on the new
> machine.

Perhaps someday, but so far, I don't need to.

One can also install Microsoft's Virtual PC, which allegedly allows you to
run Win98SE (or some other operating systems) virtually (i.e., running under
the auspices of WinXP in a window, as I understand it), but I have never
tried it, and don't know much about it. Some people seem to recommend that
approach, however - maybe its considered less invasive, and (I guess) you
wouldn't need a boot manager - you'd simply choose to run it when you wanted
after booting up into XP (at least as I understand it).

>> Whenever I use it to do some partition operation (which isn't all
>> that often now), I always boot up on the floppy or the flash disk.
>
> Right. Me too. Some day I should install so that I might boot my clone
> on D

artition, though-- but it would only be for fun.

I don't know if you can do this, but if you can use a Flash drive, it sure
beats the hell out of using a floppy. Not sure how well that will work in
a 98SE computer, with its limited USB support, especially at the BIOS
level - I think you'd need the BIOS capability to be able to boot up to a
USB Flash drive to be able to do this (just like you do with a floppy).

>> Maybe I've missed something that I really need for it to be installed
>> and run on the HD, but I don't know what it is. (Keep in mind I
>> also have Acronis True Image AND Norton Partition Magic for the new
>> computer, which is what I normally use).
>
> It sounds like you've got everything you need, except if you should ever
> want to multiboot. BING does that as well as partitioning & backing up.

I see. And there are various other boot managers out there, or so I've
heard.

>>>>>> (Well, good, I got this one off too before I take a short trip
>>>>>> shortly).
>>>>>
>>>>> Enjoy. I'll be here.
>>>>
>>>> OK.

>>>
>>>

.

PCR · Jun 11, 2008

I mean, somebody has got
|>> to sell those T-shirts down there!
|>
|> I'm sure some of it is still functioning, but I never was there much
|> & certainly not recently. Oh, there were recent newspaper stories of
|> lawsuits over the Cyclone.
|
| Oh boy. The "suing" generation..... (Yet another) sign of the
| new age times..

I hate it when the city gets sued-- as if the taxpayer is at fault! I
would rather see some city employee or official who hired him personally
fired or sued! Or, sue for a policy change-- but not for my taxpayer
money!

|> That's right-- it can break your neck & back
|> even without falling cranes! Coney Island used to be much bigger with
|> competing parks, or so I've seen in the documentaries. Now, all
|> kinds of construction is either going on or planned to go on, but
|> they may end up with more residential dwelling than amusement park.
|
| Wow. I'm not sure that's necessarily a good thing, though.

I don't know.

....snip
|>> I only have BING on the floppy or flash drive, and use it in
|>> Maintenance Mode (this again almost exclusively for the Win98SE
|>> computer). Why install it on the HD? (unless I did it once to
|>> create the floppy - can't recall now).
|>
|> I've only used it the way you have. No, it doesn't need to be
|> installed to create the floppy. You take & unpack the download &
|> click BOOTITNG.EXE to create the Maintenance Floppy. After booting
|> the floppy, you are given the choice to install it to the hard
|> drive. Click CANCEL & you are in Maintenance Mode running off the
|> floppy. The main reason to install it would be to multiboot.
|
| Yeah, ok. Haven't had a need for that.
|
|> You might consider that, if you think Win98 could possibly run on
|> the new machine.
|
| Perhaps someday, but so far, I don't need to.
|
| One can also install Microsoft's Virtual PC, which allegedly allows
| you to run Win98SE (or some other operating systems) virtually (i.e.,
| running under the auspices of WinXP in a window, as I understand it),
| but I have never tried it, and don't know much about it. Some people
| seem to recommend that approach, however - maybe its considered less
| invasive, and (I guess) you wouldn't need a boot manager - you'd
| simply choose to run it when you wanted after booting up into XP (at
| least as I understand it).

It sounds like a viable alternative-- but can it really be the same?

|>> Whenever I use it to do some partition operation (which isn't all
|>> that often now), I always boot up on the floppy or the flash disk.
|>
|> Right. Me too. Some day I should install so that I might boot my
|> clone on D

artition, though-- but it would only be for fun.
|
| I don't know if you can do this, but if you can use a Flash drive, it
| sure beats the hell out of using a floppy. Not sure how well that
| will work in a 98SE computer, with its limited USB support,
| especially at the BIOS
| level - I think you'd need the BIOS capability to be able to boot up
| to a USB Flash drive to be able to do this (just like you do with a
| floppy).

I don't really know. I believe I've read over at the Terabyte site that
is possible to boot off a flash drive or some of them. I'm content with
my floppy & CD-ROM.

|>> Maybe I've missed something that I really need for it to be
|>> installed and run on the HD, but I don't know what it is. (Keep
|>> in mind I also have Acronis True Image AND Norton Partition Magic
|>> for the new computer, which is what I normally use).
|>
|> It sounds like you've got everything you need, except if you should
|> ever want to multiboot. BING does that as well as partitioning &
|> backing up.
|
| I see. And there are various other boot managers out there, or so
| I've heard.

Yea. Even WinXP I think is supposed to be one.

....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 12, 2008

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> PCR wrote:
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>
>>> ...snip
>>>>>> LOL.
>>>>>> I also remember some nice trips to Coney Island, and riding the
>>>>>> good ole Cyclone. However, I have to say, that area was a tad
>>>>>> bit seedy. But still, the rides were fun!
>>>>>
>>>>> I was there a few times. You are correct about all that, except
>>>>> that area & lots of others are being rebuilt or there are plans to
>>>>> rebuild them with those killer cranes. Stay away from there for a
>>>>> while too.
>>>>
>>>> You mean you can't go down there anymore for the rides?? Did they
>>>> close Coney Island off to visitors? Maybe they're cleaning up the
>>>> place?
>>>> LOL, seems hard to imagine that.

I mean, somebody has got
>>>> to sell those T-shirts down there!
>>>
>>> I'm sure some of it is still functioning, but I never was there much
>>> & certainly not recently. Oh, there were recent newspaper stories of
>>> lawsuits over the Cyclone.
>>
>> Oh boy. The "suing" generation..... (Yet another) sign of the
>> new age times..
>
> I hate it when the city gets sued-- as if the taxpayer is at fault! I
> would rather see some city employee or official who hired him personally
> fired or sued! Or, sue for a policy change-- but not for my taxpayer
> money!
>
>>> That's right-- it can break your neck & back
>>> even without falling cranes! Coney Island used to be much bigger with
>>> competing parks, or so I've seen in the documentaries. Now, all
>>> kinds of construction is either going on or planned to go on, but
>>> they may end up with more residential dwelling than amusement park.
>>
>> Wow. I'm not sure that's necessarily a good thing, though.
>
> I don't know.
>
> ...snip
>>>> I only have BING on the floppy or flash drive, and use it in
>>>> Maintenance Mode (this again almost exclusively for the Win98SE
>>>> computer). Why install it on the HD? (unless I did it once to
>>>> create the floppy - can't recall now).
>>>
>>> I've only used it the way you have. No, it doesn't need to be
>>> installed to create the floppy. You take & unpack the download &
>>> click BOOTITNG.EXE to create the Maintenance Floppy. After booting
>>> the floppy, you are given the choice to install it to the hard
>>> drive. Click CANCEL & you are in Maintenance Mode running off the
>>> floppy. The main reason to install it would be to multiboot.
>>
>> Yeah, ok. Haven't had a need for that.
>>
>>> You might consider that, if you think Win98 could possibly run on
>>> the new machine.
>>
>> Perhaps someday, but so far, I don't need to.
>>
>> One can also install Microsoft's Virtual PC, which allegedly allows
>> you to run Win98SE (or some other operating systems) virtually (i.e.,
>> running under the auspices of WinXP in a window, as I understand it),
>> but I have never tried it, and don't know much about it. Some people
>> seem to recommend that approach, however - maybe its considered less
>> invasive, and (I guess) you wouldn't need a boot manager - you'd
>> simply choose to run it when you wanted after booting up into XP (at
>> least as I understand it).
>
> It sounds like a viable alternative-- but can it really be the same?

I don't know. Never tried it. I expect there must be SOME differences,
however.

>>>> Whenever I use it to do some partition operation (which isn't all
>>>> that often now), I always boot up on the floppy or the flash disk.
>>>
>>> Right. Me too. Some day I should install so that I might boot my
>>> clone on D

artition, though-- but it would only be for fun.
>>
>> I don't know if you can do this, but if you can use a Flash drive, it
>> sure beats the hell out of using a floppy. Not sure how well that
>> will work in a 98SE computer, with its limited USB support,
>> especially at the BIOS
>> level - I think you'd need the BIOS capability to be able to boot up
>> to a USB Flash drive to be able to do this (just like you do with a
>> floppy).
>
> I don't really know. I believe I've read over at the Terabyte site that
> is possible to boot off a flash drive or some of them.

That might be worth checking into.

> I'm content with my floppy & CD-ROM.

Once you use a Flash Drive, you get spoiled - fast. It's near
instantaneous, and it's nothing like having to use (or burn) a CD or DVD
each time you make a change!

>>>> Maybe I've missed something that I really need for it to be
>>>> installed and run on the HD, but I don't know what it is. (Keep
>>>> in mind I also have Acronis True Image AND Norton Partition Magic
>>>> for the new computer, which is what I normally use).
>>>
>>> It sounds like you've got everything you need, except if you should
>>> ever want to multiboot. BING does that as well as partitioning &
>>> backing up.
>>
>> I see. And there are various other boot managers out there, or so
>> I've heard.
>
> Yea. Even WinXP I think is supposed to be one.

I think so, but haven't looked into 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

PCR · Jun 12, 2008

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

....snip
|>> One can also install Microsoft's Virtual PC, which allegedly allows
|>> you to run Win98SE (or some other operating systems) virtually
|>> (i.e., running under the auspices of WinXP in a window, as I
|>> understand it), but I have never tried it, and don't know much
|>> about it. Some people seem to recommend that approach, however -
|>> maybe its considered less invasive, and (I guess) you wouldn't need
|>> a boot manager - you'd simply choose to run it when you wanted
|>> after booting up into XP (at least as I understand it).
|>
|> It sounds like a viable alternative-- but can it really be the same?
|
| I don't know. Never tried it. I expect there must be SOME
| differences, however.

I see a recent thread about it. Looks like it will be hard to see system
settings. even the FAT32 you see in System Information-- may not be a
FAT32! Sheesh!

|>>>> Whenever I use it to do some partition operation (which isn't all
|>>>> that often now), I always boot up on the floppy or the flash disk.
|>>>
|>>> Right. Me too. Some day I should install so that I might boot my
|>>> clone on D

artition, though-- but it would only be for fun.
|>>
|>> I don't know if you can do this, but if you can use a Flash drive,
|>> it sure beats the hell out of using a floppy. Not sure how well
|>> that will work in a 98SE computer, with its limited USB support,
|>> especially at the BIOS
|>> level - I think you'd need the BIOS capability to be able to boot up
|>> to a USB Flash drive to be able to do this (just like you do with a
|>> floppy).
|>
|> I don't really know. I believe I've read over at the Terabyte site
|> that is possible to boot off a flash drive or some of them.
|
| That might be worth checking into.
|
|> I'm content with my floppy & CD-ROM.
|
| Once you use a Flash Drive, you get spoiled - fast. It's near
| instantaneous, and it's nothing like having to use (or burn) a CD or
| DVD each time you make a change!

Yea. I might. But right now I do have everything backed up to a 2nd hard
drive, which probably is sufficient.

|>>>> Maybe I've missed something that I really need for it to be
|>>>> installed and run on the HD, but I don't know what it is. (Keep
|>>>> in mind I also have Acronis True Image AND Norton Partition Magic
|>>>> for the new computer, which is what I normally use).
|>>>
|>>> It sounds like you've got everything you need, except if you should
|>>> ever want to multiboot. BING does that as well as partitioning &
|>>> backing up.
|>>
|>> I see. And there are various other boot managers out there, or so
|>> I've heard.
|>
|> Yea. Even WinXP I think is supposed to be one.
|
| I think so, but haven't looked into it.

Win98 might not function on your new machine or with its peripherals.
You might have to limit RAM too, if you've got over 500 MB (or is that 1
GB?).

--
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 12, 2008

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> PCR wrote:
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>
> ...snip
>>>> One can also install Microsoft's Virtual PC, which allegedly allows
>>>> you to run Win98SE (or some other operating systems) virtually
>>>> (i.e., running under the auspices of WinXP in a window, as I
>>>> understand it), but I have never tried it, and don't know much
>>>> about it. Some people seem to recommend that approach, however -
>>>> maybe its considered less invasive, and (I guess) you wouldn't need
>>>> a boot manager - you'd simply choose to run it when you wanted
>>>> after booting up into XP (at least as I understand it).
>>>
>>> It sounds like a viable alternative-- but can it really be the same?
>>
>> I don't know. Never tried it. I expect there must be SOME
>> differences, however.
>
> I see a recent thread about it. Looks like it will be hard to see system
> settings. even the FAT32 you see in System Information-- may not be a
> FAT32! Sheesh!

May not be. (Don't know).

>>>>>> Whenever I use it to do some partition operation (which isn't all
>>>>>> that often now), I always boot up on the floppy or the flash disk.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right. Me too. Some day I should install so that I might boot my
>>>>> clone on D

artition, though-- but it would only be for fun.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if you can do this, but if you can use a Flash drive,
>>>> it sure beats the hell out of using a floppy. Not sure how well
>>>> that will work in a 98SE computer, with its limited USB support,
>>>> especially at the BIOS
>>>> level - I think you'd need the BIOS capability to be able to boot up
>>>> to a USB Flash drive to be able to do this (just like you do with a
>>>> floppy).
>>>
>>> I don't really know. I believe I've read over at the Terabyte site
>>> that is possible to boot off a flash drive or some of them.
>>
>> That might be worth checking into.
>>
>>> I'm content with my floppy & CD-ROM.
>>
>> Once you use a Flash Drive, you get spoiled - fast. It's near
>> instantaneous, and it's nothing like having to use (or burn) a CD or
>> DVD each time you make a change!
>
> Yea. I might. But right now I do have everything backed up to a 2nd hard
> drive, which probably is sufficient.

But I was talking about booting up on a flash "disk" (say like for BING),
instead of a floppy. It is SO MUCH nicer and FASTER (the flash drive is
about as small as a book of matches, and just plugs into any USB port, and I
have 4 of those on the front of my computer).

I even made a "Flash DOS" "disk"! (boots up into real DOS).

Keep in mind these flash drives are (typically) 1 *GB* (or more) in size -
and that is a LOT of space. And they only cost around 10 dollars, or so.
Whereas a floppy is about 1.4 *MB*, and it is SLOW, SLOW, SLOW, and SLOW.
And those stupid things eventually get disk errors.

>>>>>> Maybe I've missed something that I really need for it to be
>>>>>> installed and run on the HD, but I don't know what it is. (Keep
>>>>>> in mind I also have Acronis True Image AND Norton Partition Magic
>>>>>> for the new computer, which is what I normally use).
>>>>>
>>>>> It sounds like you've got everything you need, except if you should
>>>>> ever want to multiboot. BING does that as well as partitioning &
>>>>> backing up.
>>>>
>>>> I see. And there are various other boot managers out there, or so
>>>> I've heard.
>>>
>>> Yea. Even WinXP I think is supposed to be one.
>>
>> I think so, but haven't looked into it.
>
> Win98 might not function on your new machine or with its peripherals.

It likely would IF I had all the drivers it needs for my new hardware (and
there probably would be a few issues there), unless I ran it in or under VPC
(Virtual PC). Haven't had the need or desire yet.

> You might have to limit RAM too, if you've got over 500 MB (or is that 1
> GB?).

I have 1 GB of RAM. IF I ran VPC (Virtual PC) to use it, I'd set aside
half of that RAM to run W98SE, but, again, I haven't had any need or desire
to do any of this yet. XP is working out just fine.

>
> --
> 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 13, 2008

Bill in Co. wrote:
| PCR wrote:
|> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>> PCR wrote:
|>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>
|> ...snip
|>>>> One can also install Microsoft's Virtual PC, which allegedly
|>>>> allows you to run Win98SE (or some other operating systems)
|>>>> virtually (i.e., running under the auspices of WinXP in a window,
|>>>> as I understand it), but I have never tried it, and don't know
|>>>> much about it. Some people seem to recommend that approach,
|>>>> however - maybe its considered less invasive, and (I guess) you
|>>>> wouldn't need a boot manager - you'd simply choose to run it when
|>>>> you wanted after booting up into XP (at least as I understand it).
|>>>
|>>> It sounds like a viable alternative-- but can it really be the
|>>> same?
|>>
|>> I don't know. Never tried it. I expect there must be SOME
|>> differences, however.
|>
|> I see a recent thread about it. Looks like it will be hard to see
|> system settings. even the FAT32 you see in System Information-- may
|> not be a FAT32! Sheesh!
|
| May not be. (Don't know).

I think the partition would be fake-- just a simulation! You'd never be
able to do normal maintenance on it, like a scandisk & defrag-- I don't
think! Probably, lots of system settings would look weird-- if you could
even find them!

|>>>>>> Whenever I use it to do some partition operation (which isn't
|>>>>>> all that often now), I always boot up on the floppy or the
|>>>>>> flash disk.
|>>>>>
|>>>>> Right. Me too. Some day I should install so that I might boot my
|>>>>> clone on D

artition, though-- but it would only be for fun.
|>>>>
|>>>> I don't know if you can do this, but if you can use a Flash drive,
|>>>> it sure beats the hell out of using a floppy. Not sure how well
|>>>> that will work in a 98SE computer, with its limited USB support,
|>>>> especially at the BIOS
|>>>> level - I think you'd need the BIOS capability to be able to boot
|>>>> up to a USB Flash drive to be able to do this (just like you do
|>>>> with a floppy).
|>>>
|>>> I don't really know. I believe I've read over at the Terabyte site
|>>> that is possible to boot off a flash drive or some of them.
|>>
|>> That might be worth checking into.
|>>
|>>> I'm content with my floppy & CD-ROM.
|>>
|>> Once you use a Flash Drive, you get spoiled - fast. It's near
|>> instantaneous, and it's nothing like having to use (or burn) a CD or
|>> DVD each time you make a change!
|>
|> Yea. I might. But right now I do have everything backed up to a 2nd
|> hard drive, which probably is sufficient.
|
| But I was talking about booting up on a flash "disk" (say like for
| BING), instead of a floppy. It is SO MUCH nicer and FASTER (the
| flash drive is about as small as a book of matches, and just plugs
| into any USB port, and I have 4 of those on the front of my computer).

I think I've seen one of those. A friend plugged one in to his computer
to transfer files to a relative's XP-machine. It was impressive, but he
never tried to boot it.

| I even made a "Flash DOS" "disk"! (boots up into real DOS).

On the XP-machine or on the 98?

| Keep in mind these flash drives are (typically) 1 *GB* (or more) in
| size - and that is a LOT of space. And they only cost around 10
| dollars, or so. Whereas a floppy is about 1.4 *MB*, and it is SLOW,
| SLOW, SLOW, and SLOW. And those stupid things eventually get disk
| errors.

The price is certainly right. I may go shopping for it, sure. I've got
the ports.

|>>>>>> Maybe I've missed something that I really need for it to be
|>>>>>> installed and run on the HD, but I don't know what it is.
|>>>>>> (Keep in mind I also have Acronis True Image AND Norton
|>>>>>> Partition Magic for the new computer, which is what I normally
|>>>>>> use).
|>>>>>
|>>>>> It sounds like you've got everything you need, except if you
|>>>>> should ever want to multiboot. BING does that as well as
|>>>>> partitioning & backing up.
|>>>>
|>>>> I see. And there are various other boot managers out there, or so
|>>>> I've heard.
|>>>
|>>> Yea. Even WinXP I think is supposed to be one.
|>>
|>> I think so, but haven't looked into it.
|>
|> Win98 might not function on your new machine or with its peripherals.
|
| It likely would IF I had all the drivers it needs for my new hardware
| (and there probably would be a few issues there), unless I ran it in
| or under VPC (Virtual PC). Haven't had the need or desire yet.

If not too great a problem getting drivers & controlling the RAM &
keeping XP's mitts off a real Win98 partition-- I'd want to dual boot a
real Win98.

|> You might have to limit RAM too, if you've got over 500 MB (or is
|> that 1 GB?).
|
| I have 1 GB of RAM. IF I ran VPC (Virtual PC) to use it, I'd set
| aside half of that RAM to run W98SE, but, again, I haven't had any
| need or desire to do any of this yet. XP is working out just fine.

Alright. Could be a lot of trouble getting it working, anyhow.

|

.

|>
|> --
|> 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 13, 2008

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> PCR wrote:
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>
>>> ...snip
>>>>>> One can also install Microsoft's Virtual PC, which allegedly
>>>>>> allows you to run Win98SE (or some other operating systems)
>>>>>> virtually (i.e., running under the auspices of WinXP in a window,
>>>>>> as I understand it), but I have never tried it, and don't know
>>>>>> much about it. Some people seem to recommend that approach,
>>>>>> however - maybe its considered less invasive, and (I guess) you
>>>>>> wouldn't need a boot manager - you'd simply choose to run it when
>>>>>> you wanted after booting up into XP (at least as I understand it).
>>>>>
>>>>> It sounds like a viable alternative-- but can it really be the
>>>>> same?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know. Never tried it. I expect there must be SOME
>>>> differences, however.
>>>
>>> I see a recent thread about it. Looks like it will be hard to see
>>> system settings. even the FAT32 you see in System Information-- may
>>> not be a FAT32! Sheesh!
>>
>> May not be. (Don't know).
>
> I think the partition would be fake-- just a simulation! You'd never be
> able to do normal maintenance on it, like a scandisk & defrag-- I don't
> think!

Would that really be necessary, considering you're only running a session of
it for a limited time, which ends when you quit VPC? And maybe it uses
something called a virtual disk (I forgot the correct term), which
disappears when you quit VPC.

> Probably, lots of system settings would look weird-- if you could even
> find them!
>
>>>>>>>> Whenever I use it to do some partition operation (which isn't
>>>>>>>> all that often now), I always boot up on the floppy or the
>>>>>>>> flash disk.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right. Me too. Some day I should install so that I might boot my
>>>>>>> clone on D

artition, though-- but it would only be for fun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know if you can do this, but if you can use a Flash drive,
>>>>>> it sure beats the hell out of using a floppy. Not sure how well
>>>>>> that will work in a 98SE computer, with its limited USB support,
>>>>>> especially at the BIOS
>>>>>> level - I think you'd need the BIOS capability to be able to boot
>>>>>> up to a USB Flash drive to be able to do this (just like you do
>>>>>> with a floppy).
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't really know. I believe I've read over at the Terabyte site
>>>>> that is possible to boot off a flash drive or some of them.
>>>>
>>>> That might be worth checking into.
>>>>
>>>>> I'm content with my floppy & CD-ROM.
>>>>
>>>> Once you use a Flash Drive, you get spoiled - fast. It's near
>>>> instantaneous, and it's nothing like having to use (or burn) a CD or
>>>> DVD each time you make a change!
>>>
>>> Yea. I might. But right now I do have everything backed up to a 2nd
>>> hard drive, which probably is sufficient.
>>
>> But I was talking about booting up on a flash "disk" (say like for
>> BING), instead of a floppy. It is SO MUCH nicer and FASTER (the
>> flash drive is about as small as a book of matches, and just plugs
>> into any USB port, and I have 4 of those on the front of my computer).
>
> I think I've seen one of those. A friend plugged one in to his computer
> to transfer files to a relative's XP-machine. It was impressive, but he
> never tried to boot it.

It is really neat, and so easy to plug in and unplug.
You can boot to it IF your BIOS is new enough to support it. How old is
"new enough"? Not sure, but I'd guess within the past few years.

>> I even made a "Flash DOS" "disk"! (boots up into real DOS).
>
> On the XP-machine or on the 98?

Either. On the Win98SE computer I installed that univeral USB storage
driver, so I can access the flash disk there too! Before I did that, I
had to rely on the flash disk coming with its own driver, or I was out of
luck. Some of them (and probably most of them) do NOT have a Win98SE
driver, so when you plugged it in, nada.

>> Keep in mind these flash drives are (typically) 1 *GB* (or more) in
>> size - and that is a LOT of space. And they only cost around 10
>> dollars, or so. Whereas a floppy is about 1.4 *MB*, and it is SLOW,
>> SLOW, SLOW, and SLOW. And those stupid things eventually get disk
>> errors.
>
> The price is certainly right. I may go shopping for it, sure. I've got the
> ports.
>
>>>>>>>> Maybe I've missed something that I really need for it to be
>>>>>>>> installed and run on the HD, but I don't know what it is.
>>>>>>>> (Keep in mind I also have Acronis True Image AND Norton
>>>>>>>> Partition Magic for the new computer, which is what I normally
>>>>>>>> use).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It sounds like you've got everything you need, except if you
>>>>>>> should ever want to multiboot. BING does that as well as
>>>>>>> partitioning & backing up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see. And there are various other boot managers out there, or so
>>>>>> I've heard.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yea. Even WinXP I think is supposed to be one.
>>>>
>>>> I think so, but haven't looked into it.
>>>
>>> Win98 might not function on your new machine or with its peripherals.
>>
>> It likely would IF I had all the drivers it needs for my new hardware
>> (and there probably would be a few issues there), unless I ran it in
>> or under VPC (Virtual PC). Haven't had the need or desire yet.
>
> If not too great a problem getting drivers & controlling the RAM &
> keeping XP's mitts off a real Win98 partition-- I'd want to dual boot a
> real Win98.

Could do that too. But I have to say, after using WinXP (and FINALLY
getting it customized to my liking and removing all the BS, etc, all of
which took me several months), I haven't felt much, if any, need for my
slower and less robust Win98SE computer. But it's nice having it as a
backup. Although maybe someday I'll throw it out (I almost did when I had
to replace the MB due to that power supply swap, but I went ahead and
rescued it).

Of course if you want to boot in real DOS mode, it has an advantage, but
then again, how often do we do that anymore? (well, except for running
scanreg /restore

>>> You might have to limit RAM too, if you've got over 500 MB (or is
>>> that 1 GB?).
>>
>> I have 1 GB of RAM. IF I ran VPC (Virtual PC) to use it, I'd set
>> aside half of that RAM to run W98SE, but, again, I haven't had any
>> need or desire to do any of this yet. XP is working out just fine.
>
> Alright. Could be a lot of trouble getting it working, anyhow.
>
>>

>
>

.

The whole thing is too much trouble, that's why I'm pretty much just using
the faster and considerably more *robust* WinXP computer these days (i.e. no
crashes, etc, etc). And I still haven't got a blue screen yet!! (but I'm
sure I will some day)

I'm tellin ya, it's hard to kill this "minibeast". (I say minibeast,
because it's a lot larger than Win98SE, but the real beast (aka: albatross)
is VISTA - which is not allowed on these premises).

PCR · Jun 13, 2008

artition, though-- but it would only be for fun.
|>>>>>>
|>>>>>> I don't know if you can do this, but if you can use a Flash
|>>>>>> drive, it sure beats the hell out of using a floppy. Not
|>>>>>> sure how well that will work in a 98SE computer, with its
|>>>>>> limited USB support, especially at the BIOS
|>>>>>> level - I think you'd need the BIOS capability to be able to
|>>>>>> boot up to a USB Flash drive to be able to do this (just like
|>>>>>> you do with a floppy).
|>>>>>
|>>>>> I don't really know. I believe I've read over at the Terabyte
|>>>>> site that is possible to boot off a flash drive or some of them.
|>>>>
|>>>> That might be worth checking into.
|>>>>
|>>>>> I'm content with my floppy & CD-ROM.
|>>>>
|>>>> Once you use a Flash Drive, you get spoiled - fast. It's near
|>>>> instantaneous, and it's nothing like having to use (or burn) a CD
|>>>> or DVD each time you make a change!
|>>>
|>>> Yea. I might. But right now I do have everything backed up to a 2nd
|>>> hard drive, which probably is sufficient.
|>>
|>> But I was talking about booting up on a flash "disk" (say like for
|>> BING), instead of a floppy. It is SO MUCH nicer and FASTER (the
|>> flash drive is about as small as a book of matches, and just plugs
|>> into any USB port, and I have 4 of those on the front of my
|>> computer).
|>
|> I think I've seen one of those. A friend plugged one in to his
|> computer to transfer files to a relative's XP-machine. It was
|> impressive, but he never tried to boot it.
|
| It is really neat, and so easy to plug in and unplug.
| You can boot to it IF your BIOS is new enough to support it. How
| old is "new enough"? Not sure, but I'd guess within the past few
| years.

This one was bought in '00, IIRC. I'm fairly sure my BIOS won't do it by
itself.

|>> I even made a "Flash DOS" "disk"! (boots up into real DOS).
|>
|> On the XP-machine or on the 98?
|
| Either. On the Win98SE computer I installed that univeral USB
| storage driver, so I can access the flash disk there too! Before I
| did that, I had to rely on the flash disk coming with its own driver,
| or I was out of luck. Some of them (and probably most of them) do
| NOT have a Win98SE driver, so when you plugged it in, nada.

Hmm. Good work. So, it might not work right off the bat, then, like on
my friends machine. Hmm.

....snip
|>>> Win98 might not function on your new machine or with its
|>>> peripherals.
|>>
|>> It likely would IF I had all the drivers it needs for my new
|>> hardware (and there probably would be a few issues there), unless I
|>> ran it in or under VPC (Virtual PC). Haven't had the need or
|>> desire yet.
|>
|> If not too great a problem getting drivers & controlling the RAM &
|> keeping XP's mitts off a real Win98 partition-- I'd want to dual
|> boot a real Win98.
|
| Could do that too. But I have to say, after using WinXP (and
| FINALLY getting it customized to my liking and removing all the BS,
| etc, all of which took me several months), I haven't felt much, if
| any, need for my slower and less robust Win98SE computer. But it's
| nice having it as a backup. Although maybe someday I'll throw it
| out (I almost did when I had to replace the MB due to that power
| supply swap, but I went ahead and rescued it).

That was good going too. I remember that thread.

| Of course if you want to boot in real DOS mode, it has an advantage,
| but then again, how often do we do that anymore? (well, except for
| running scanreg /restore

|>
|>

.
|
| The whole thing is too much trouble, that's why I'm pretty much just
| using the faster and considerably more *robust* WinXP computer these
| days (i.e. no crashes, etc, etc). And I still haven't got a blue
| screen yet!! (but I'm sure I will some day)

In truth, I likely will be that way too & drop Win98 if/when I get XP.
Well, this machine will have irreparably died at that time, anyhow.

| I'm tellin ya, it's hard to kill this "minibeast". (I say minibeast,
| because it's a lot larger than Win98SE, but the real beast (aka:
| albatross) is VISTA - which is not allowed on these premises).

I believe those cautions about Vista.

.

--
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

Turmoil Continues in XP land

Gary S. Terhune

Bill in Co.

Gary S. Terhune

PCR

PCR

Bill in Co.

PCR

Bill in Co.

PCR

smith

Bill in Co.

PCR

Bill in Co.

PCR

Bill in Co.

PCR

Bill in Co.

PCR

Bill in Co.

PCR

Similar threads