Guest Mike M Posted August 23, 2008 Posted August 23, 2008 Re: What is wrong with WinME? Mart, I've just resent my last e-mail which I first sent on 21 August rather than yesterday. Perhaps I confused things by saying I had sent it yesterday. <g> -- Mike Mart <mart(NoSpam)@nospam.nospam> wrote: >> I did reply to your most recent e-mail (21 August, re scanner post). > > No rush Mike - however I didn't get your reply, above. Odd? > > Hmm .. I had been getting a couple of "hanging server" issues (Code 5 > - whatever they mean by that) again earlier in the week. Yahoo seem > to have got yet another rogue server which was playing-up. Just > checked again and there's nothing stuck with my ISP. Definitely not > my end though!!
Guest BobAT286 Posted August 23, 2008 Posted August 23, 2008 Re: What is wrong with WinME? "Pogle S. Wood" wrote: > Yes, well with the backup regime you're pretty well safe and everyone should > back up religiously regardless of which OS they use anyway. I just want to > make the point that *I* used to think XP had this boot file corruption > problem that would require a reinstallation from time to time - but while it > was a fairly regular occurance in the beginning, I haven't seen it for > several years - except where it has been this easily correctable boot.ini > issue. Possibly it always was this boot.ini thing (which is probably much > more rare if you only have one partition - though backing up is that much > more troublesome, so less likely to be done, which is why one big C: will > always be birdbrained!). > > Certainly I once thought XP was far from as trouble-free as they were making > out; now I think it really takes an effort to break it! It *is* the best OS > MS have made. Though they still haven't fixed their Activation procedure. > > P.S. > > I forgot what I was going to say. > > > Mart wrote: > > Thanks S - I appreciate your suggestion which sounds like a d**m good > > idea. (Although in my case it was a failed HDD rather than just a > > missing file) But I suppose I've veered a bit OT and we are in danger > > of highjacking LM's thread. > > > > Mart > > > > > > "Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote in message > > news:%239tlc4RBJHA.4368@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > >>> My own experience of an XP box (catastrophically) failing to boot > >>> was when the HDD died - so can't really blame it on XP. But have to > >>> admit that trying to recover data from an NTFS HDD was "difficult" > >>> - Soon learnt to use a backup regime after that! > >>> > >> > >> > >> The one most people run into like into a brick wall is the failing > >> to boot due to the HCL or autochk or NTDETECT or similar not being > >> found and, usually, in my experience, that is due to an incorrect > >> boot.ini. And apart from the fact you can correct that via booting > >> with a BartPE disc - though that is quite a lot of effort to make in > >> the first place - you can edit boot.ini via BootItNG (unregistered). > >> Burn one to cd (especially since odds are you won't have a floppy > >> drive anymore!) and there is no need to update it. With SATA and > >> RAID (and NT6.x as well as NT5.x) I still use a BING cd from 2006, > >> and it can be a godsend. Of course, if you make a copy of boot.ini > >> and leave it in the root you don't even need to edit, just rename. > >> > >> > >> P. > > >
Guest BobAT286 Posted August 23, 2008 Posted August 23, 2008 Re: What is wrong with WinME? Pogle; Regarding "backups" -- can you recommend a (free) backup program that will run under ME? Can i use msbackup from Win98(NOT)SE? If so, anybody know which CAB file it's in on the 98 CD? --- Thanks! Bob - who still misses DOS "Pogle S. Wood" wrote: > Yes, well with the backup regime you're pretty well safe and everyone should > back up religiously regardless of which OS they use anyway... ...and it can be a godsend. Of course, if you make a copy of boot.ini > >> and leave it in the root you don't even need to edit, just rename. > >> > >> > >> P.
Guest webster72n Posted August 23, 2008 Posted August 23, 2008 Re: What is wrong with WinME? I found 'Acronis True Image' (Free) quite effective and running well under WinME. No idea about msbackup. Harry. "BobAT286" <Bob@NoSpam_Cheeseburger.NoCoke.Pepsi> wrote in message news:59E6A128-3147-42AD-98D7-3E118091FE4D@microsoft.com... > Pogle; > > Regarding "backups" -- can you recommend a (free) backup program that > will run under ME? Can i use msbackup from Win98(NOT)SE? If so, anybody > know which CAB file it's in on the 98 CD? > --- Thanks! > Bob - who still misses DOS > > > "Pogle S. Wood" wrote: > > > Yes, well with the backup regime you're pretty well safe and everyone should > > back up religiously regardless of which OS they use anyway... ...and it can be a godsend. Of course, if you make a copy of boot.ini > > >> and leave it in the root you don't even need to edit, just rename. > > >> > > >> > > >> P. >
Guest Mike M Posted August 23, 2008 Posted August 23, 2008 Re: What is wrong with WinME? The MS Backup program is in the add-ons\msbackup folder on Microsoft Me CDs but unfortunately it appears that not all OEMs have included this folder on the CDs they provide with new PCs. Similarly many of those OEMs who simply provide restore CDs appear also to have omitted this program. The executable needed to install MSBackup that Microsoft distribute on the Win Me CD is msbexp.exe so if you have an OEM CD or a recovery CD you might want to search the CD and see if it was included. See also MS KB 264541 - "Microsoft Backup Tool Is Not Installed by Windows Millennium Edition" (http://support.microsoft.com?kbid=264541). If you upgraded to Win Me from say Win 98 and MSBackup was installed on Win 98 it should have been retained on upgrading to Win Me. . Note that Microsoft have not made MSBackup available for download. -- Mike Maltby mike.maltby@gmail.com BobAT286 <Bob@NoSpam_Cheeseburger.NoCoke.Pepsi> wrote: > Pogle; > > Regarding "backups" -- can you recommend a (free) backup program > that will run under ME? Can i use msbackup from Win98(NOT)SE? If > so, anybody know which CAB file it's in on the 98 CD?
Guest Mart Posted August 23, 2008 Posted August 23, 2008 Re: What is wrong with WinME? Cheers Mike - received your (latest) 'direct' mail ok. Mart
Guest Pogle S. Wood Posted August 23, 2008 Posted August 23, 2008 Re: What is wrong with WinME? I don't know (in the biblical sense) any freeware backup programs, sorry. I've been using PowerQuest DriveImage 2002 for years now (since, well, 2002!). The Acronis Harry mentions is, as far as I know, one that was briefly offered for free but is no longer. MSBackup is not up to the job; it can back up personal files etc but nothing that is in use at the time, so cannot make full backups for a complete restore (I don't think it was able to back up to CD either, although it is a long time since I looked into it. Of course, with XP came NTBackup, which is probably marginally better, assuming it runs in 9x). I presume you mean which cab file on the ME CD? If so, it is in a folder in the root. 'Extras' I think. I customized my CD long ago and deleted the 'Extras' as a waste of space. In the 98 (SE) cabs the various files are in WIN98_24.cab, WIN98_25.cab, WIN98_46.cab and WIN98_49.cab, being msbackup.chm, msbackup.cnt, msbackup.exe and msbackup.hlp respectively. You can, of course, do backups from DOS, such as with Norton Ghost or DriveImage rescue floppies. I used to have the former but ditched it in favour of DriveImage. Seeing as how PowerQuest was brought by Symantec and DI2002 is long dead, if you want a copy of the rescue floppies, I don't mind emailing you one. The only problem with them is that on an old ME box, imaging takes a long time from DOS (it takes long enough from Windows! And there is another reason why a modern computer is a boon - DriveImage runs at about 3 times as fast on my 2200GHz Athlon than it did on my old 850!). P. BobAT286 wrote: > Pogle; > > Regarding "backups" -- can you recommend a (free) backup program > that will run under ME? Can i use msbackup from Win98(NOT)SE? If > so, anybody know which CAB file it's in on the 98 CD? > --- Thanks! > Bob - who still misses DOS > > > "Pogle S. Wood" wrote: > >> Yes, well with the backup regime you're pretty well safe and >> everyone should >> back up religiously regardless of which OS they use anyway... >> ...and it can be a godsend. Of course, if you make a copy of >> boot.ini >>>> and leave it in the root you don't even need to edit, just rename. >>>> >>>> >>>> P.
Guest Pogle S. Wood Posted August 23, 2008 Posted August 23, 2008 Re: What is wrong with WinME? > would not even boot. Drives formatted with that NTFS format are near > helpless once the OS cant be booted. With a FAT partition I can > always boot to dos and save data. Win2000 seems to work ok with a > FAT32 format, but not XP. I hear vista is even worse. I wont trust NTFS is not a problem with a BartPE CD. Meanwhile XP does install on FAT32 - you can even first install Windows 95/98 or ME (with a DOS hack) then delete all but the DOS files, then install XP to that partition and you have a dual boot with MS-DOS 7.10 (or 8.00 if using hacked ME). I finally stopped doing this because with a BART CD and a BING CD (and Partition Magic, which you can use to browse XP from if you have another compatible OS to install it in - and here's the best tip: make a 6142G partition and install XP to that. Then make another, larger partition and install XP to that too. Use the latter on a daily basis and keep the first for booting to access the main one from. Apart from the fact once you have XP set up properly the chances of your being unable to boot it ever again are infinitessimal, but if you can't this is a far superior way to fix it or save stuff - though most worth saving should be on another partition anyway - this is a very good way to scan the main OS for malware, so long as this first drive is hidden, if not actually disabled - i.e. on a seperate IDE channel - great use for an old PATA drive! - in normal use). > my data to an OS that relies on the actual OS having to boot in order > to access data. With Win9x and earlier, it's easy to use a boot > floppy to get the data saved. > No. Used to be, but not anymore. Bart Lagerweij took care of that (despite MS lawyers making it as hard as they could for him). And you can believe me, because I did until recently run XP on FAT32 with a DOS boot option. And before that I ran Win ME with a Real Mode DOS hack (and in fact still have the resultant MS-DOS 8.00 on a bootable USB stick). > What really irks me too, is that everytime a faster computer is > developed, MS slows it down with more of their bloat. Thus we never > get any faster. It's like this: I can go grocery shopping with my old > chevy or I can buy a limosene with all the bells and whistles. Both > will get me to the store and back just as fast, but the limo costs 25 > times more and uses 3 times more gas. I'll still encounter the same > traffic jams, and pay the same for my groceries, and since I'm > driving, I wont be able to enjoy the bells and whistles anyhow. > I agree with you in part. No, in going from an 850 Athlon with 256M RAM to a 2200 Athlon with 1024M RAM, drive imaging is three times as fast as it was. On the old machine twice the RAM would have made a big difference with XP. Vista likes 2G or more. But the RAM is cheaper now, and faster. Your analogy is picturesque, but inaccurate. Modern computers are much faster and much more enjoyable for it. XP on 256M RAM is for most operations faster than any 9x system on the same box. With 1G of RAM XP blows 9x into the weeds. Once you've got it set up properly - which applies to 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista. Though even with default configuration XP is not slowed on a modern machine to the sort of crawl of a 9x machine of 8 + years ago where, if all else is equal, resource handling/stability shows through. Incidently, my XP installations look like 9x. I despise 'Luna'. > MS seems to think we need all this bloat, when in the end, we all see > the same websites, type and print a document the same way, and nothing > else changes, except the new computer will cost more to run for both > purchasing and electric usage, as well as taking more time to use No. Well, possibly. Possibly not. Old components become increasingly inefficient - I mean, apart from the fact of most of this stuff evolving with more efficient design anyway. Use your motor car analogy. As electrical components age they create more heat running, which requires more energy input, right up until the point at which they burn out. Older car engines run richer and create more exhaust pollutants; newer cars are - mostly - much more energy efficient. > because there are too many unneeded functions getting in the way. Not when you've pruned them - which applies to 9x too. P.
Guest Pogle S. Wood Posted August 23, 2008 Posted August 23, 2008 Re: What is wrong with WinME? > you have another compatible OS to install it in - and here's the best > tip: make a 6142G partition and install XP to that. Then make I've changed my mind - just 6G or 6144M is sufficient! The second installation probably wouldn't boot more than 6 terabytes into the disk! P.
Guest webster72n Posted August 24, 2008 Posted August 24, 2008 Re: What is wrong with WinME? Pogle: This sounds a bit complicated, if not to say 'confusing', to me. Does it have to be that way? Harry. "Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote in message news:%23eawp7VBJHA.2060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > > would not even boot. Drives formatted with that NTFS format are near > > helpless once the OS cant be booted. With a FAT partition I can > > always boot to dos and save data. Win2000 seems to work ok with a > > FAT32 format, but not XP. I hear vista is even worse. I wont trust > > NTFS is not a problem with a BartPE CD. Meanwhile XP does install on FAT32 - > you can even first install Windows 95/98 or ME (with a DOS hack) then delete > all but the DOS files, then install XP to that partition and you have a dual > boot with MS-DOS 7.10 (or 8.00 if using hacked ME). I finally stopped doing > this because with a BART CD and a BING CD (and Partition Magic, which you > can use to browse XP from if you have another compatible OS to install it > in - and here's the best tip: make a 6142G partition and install XP to that. > Then make another, larger partition and install XP to that too. Use the > latter on a daily basis and keep the first for booting to access the main > one from. Apart from the fact once you have XP set up properly the chances > of your being unable to boot it ever again are infinitessimal, but if you > can't this is a far superior way to fix it or save stuff - though most worth > saving should be on another partition anyway - this is a very good way to > scan the main OS for malware, so long as this first drive is hidden, if not > actually disabled - i.e. on a seperate IDE channel - great use for an old > PATA drive! - in normal use). > > > > my data to an OS that relies on the actual OS having to boot in order > > to access data. With Win9x and earlier, it's easy to use a boot > > floppy to get the data saved. > > > > No. Used to be, but not anymore. Bart Lagerweij took care of that (despite > MS lawyers making it as hard as they could for him). And you can believe me, > because I did until recently run XP on FAT32 with a DOS boot option. And > before that I ran Win ME with a Real Mode DOS hack (and in fact still have > the resultant MS-DOS 8.00 on a bootable USB stick). > > > What really irks me too, is that everytime a faster computer is > > developed, MS slows it down with more of their bloat. Thus we never > > get any faster. It's like this: I can go grocery shopping with my old > > chevy or I can buy a limosene with all the bells and whistles. Both > > will get me to the store and back just as fast, but the limo costs 25 > > times more and uses 3 times more gas. I'll still encounter the same > > traffic jams, and pay the same for my groceries, and since I'm > > driving, I wont be able to enjoy the bells and whistles anyhow. > > > > I agree with you in part. No, in going from an 850 Athlon with 256M RAM to a > 2200 Athlon with 1024M RAM, drive imaging is three times as fast as it was. > On the old machine twice the RAM would have made a big difference with XP. > Vista likes 2G or more. But the RAM is cheaper now, and faster. Your analogy > is picturesque, but inaccurate. Modern computers are much faster and much > more enjoyable for it. XP on 256M RAM is for most operations faster than any > 9x system on the same box. With 1G of RAM XP blows 9x into the weeds. Once > you've got it set up properly - which applies to 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista. > Though even with default configuration XP is not slowed on a modern machine > to the sort of crawl of a 9x machine of 8 + years ago where, if all else is > equal, resource handling/stability shows through. > > Incidently, my XP installations look like 9x. I despise 'Luna'. > > > MS seems to think we need all this bloat, when in the end, we all see > > the same websites, type and print a document the same way, and nothing > > else changes, except the new computer will cost more to run for both > > purchasing and electric usage, as well as taking more time to use > > No. Well, possibly. Possibly not. Old components become increasingly > inefficient - I mean, apart from the fact of most of this stuff evolving > with more efficient design anyway. Use your motor car analogy. As electrical > components age they create more heat running, which requires more energy > input, right up until the point at which they burn out. Older car engines > run richer and create more exhaust pollutants; newer cars are - mostly - > much more energy efficient. > > > because there are too many unneeded functions getting in the way. > > Not when you've pruned them - which applies to 9x too. > > P. > >
Guest webster72n Posted August 24, 2008 Posted August 24, 2008 Re: What is wrong with WinME? How about trying this link: http://www.freedownloadscenter.com/Utilities/Misc__Utilities/Acronis_True_Image.html It says 'free download', but I didn't test it myself. Let us know either way, please. Harry. "Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote in message news:%23oaaiTVBJHA.3496@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > I don't know (in the biblical sense) any freeware backup programs, sorry. > I've been using PowerQuest DriveImage 2002 for years now (since, well, > 2002!). The Acronis Harry mentions is, as far as I know, one that was > briefly offered for free but is no longer. > > MSBackup is not up to the job; it can back up personal files etc but nothing > that is in use at the time, so cannot make full backups for a complete > restore (I don't think it was able to back up to CD either, although it is a > long time since I looked into it. Of course, with XP came NTBackup, which is > probably marginally better, assuming it runs in 9x). > > I presume you mean which cab file on the ME CD? If so, it is in a folder in > the root. 'Extras' I think. I customized my CD long ago and deleted the > 'Extras' as a waste of space. In the 98 (SE) cabs the various files are in > WIN98_24.cab, WIN98_25.cab, WIN98_46.cab and WIN98_49.cab, being > msbackup.chm, msbackup.cnt, msbackup.exe and msbackup.hlp respectively. > > You can, of course, do backups from DOS, such as with Norton Ghost or > DriveImage rescue floppies. I used to have the former but ditched it in > favour of DriveImage. Seeing as how PowerQuest was brought by Symantec and > DI2002 is long dead, if you want a copy of the rescue floppies, I don't mind > emailing you one. The only problem with them is that on an old ME box, > imaging takes a long time from DOS (it takes long enough from Windows! And > there is another reason why a modern computer is a boon - DriveImage runs at > about 3 times as fast on my 2200GHz Athlon than it did on my old 850!). > > P. > > > > BobAT286 wrote: > > Pogle; > > > > Regarding "backups" -- can you recommend a (free) backup program > > that will run under ME? Can i use msbackup from Win98(NOT)SE? If > > so, anybody know which CAB file it's in on the 98 CD? > > --- Thanks! > > Bob - who still misses DOS > > > > > > "Pogle S. Wood" wrote: > > > >> Yes, well with the backup regime you're pretty well safe and > >> everyone should > >> back up religiously regardless of which OS they use anyway... > >> ...and it can be a godsend. Of course, if you make a copy of > >> boot.ini > >>>> and leave it in the root you don't even need to edit, just rename. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> P. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Guest Pogle S. Wood Posted August 24, 2008 Posted August 24, 2008 Re: What is wrong with WinME? webster72n wrote: > How about trying this link: > > http://www.freedownloadscenter.com/Utilities/Misc__Utilities/Acronis_True_Image.html > > It says 'free download', but I didn't test it myself. > Let us know either way, please. > It says "Shareware / $49.50" P.
Guest Pogle S. Wood Posted August 24, 2008 Posted August 24, 2008 Re: What is wrong with WinME? webster72n wrote: > Pogle: > > This sounds a bit complicated, if not to say 'confusing', to me. > Does it have to be that way? > No doubt it is a little confusing in that I did not finish a sentence, and recommended making a 6T (which is a pre-unit Thunderbird) partition. But probably what I was going to add is obvious - if by the time you get to the end of the diversion-in-parentheses you can remember how it started! I am not a great communicator, though I can signal my disdain quite well if I do say so myself. And as I do say so myself it doesn't really count. Otherwise I am basically responding to what M. Letterman has to say and much of what I mean requires a knowledge of computers consistent with making value-judgement comparisons of operating systems and isn't meant to be accessible to all (which is not to say that it is deliberately meant to be opaque). Having said that - and I have, so I'll continue - if you could be more specific, i.e. *what* sounds a bit complicated and confusing and does *what* have to be that way (if I haven't already addressed this above?) P. > > > > "Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote in message > news:%23eawp7VBJHA.2060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>> would not even boot. Drives formatted with that NTFS format are >>> near helpless once the OS cant be booted. With a FAT partition I >>> can always boot to dos and save data. Win2000 seems to work ok >>> with a FAT32 format, but not XP. I hear vista is even worse. I >>> wont trust >> >> NTFS is not a problem with a BartPE CD. Meanwhile XP does install on >> FAT32 - you can even first install Windows 95/98 or ME (with a DOS >> hack) then delete all but the DOS files, then install XP to that >> partition and you have a dual boot with MS-DOS 7.10 (or 8.00 if >> using hacked ME). I finally stopped doing this because with a BART >> CD and a BING CD (and Partition Magic, which you can use to browse >> XP from if you have another compatible OS to install it in - and >> here's the best tip: make a 6142G partition and install XP to that. >> Then make another, larger partition and install XP to that too. Use >> the latter on a daily basis and keep the first for booting to access >> the main one from. Apart from the fact once you have XP set up >> properly the chances of your being unable to boot it ever again are >> infinitessimal, but if you can't this is a far superior way to fix >> it or save stuff - though most worth saving should be on another >> partition anyway - this is a very good way to scan the main OS for >> malware, so long as this first drive is hidden, if not actually >> disabled - i.e. on a seperate IDE channel - great use for an old >> PATA drive! - in normal use). >> >> >>> my data to an OS that relies on the actual OS having to boot in >>> order to access data. With Win9x and earlier, it's easy to use a >>> boot floppy to get the data saved. >>> >> >> No. Used to be, but not anymore. Bart Lagerweij took care of that >> (despite MS lawyers making it as hard as they could for him). And >> you can believe me, because I did until recently run XP on FAT32 >> with a DOS boot option. And before that I ran Win ME with a Real >> Mode DOS hack (and in fact still have the resultant MS-DOS 8.00 on a >> bootable USB stick). >> >>> What really irks me too, is that everytime a faster computer is >>> developed, MS slows it down with more of their bloat. Thus we never >>> get any faster. It's like this: I can go grocery shopping with my >>> old chevy or I can buy a limosene with all the bells and whistles. >>> Both will get me to the store and back just as fast, but the limo >>> costs 25 times more and uses 3 times more gas. I'll still >>> encounter the same traffic jams, and pay the same for my groceries, >>> and since I'm driving, I wont be able to enjoy the bells and >>> whistles anyhow. >>> >> >> I agree with you in part. No, in going from an 850 Athlon with 256M >> RAM to a 2200 Athlon with 1024M RAM, drive imaging is three times as >> fast as it was. On the old machine twice the RAM would have made a >> big difference with XP. Vista likes 2G or more. But the RAM is >> cheaper now, and faster. Your analogy is picturesque, but >> inaccurate. Modern computers are much faster and much more enjoyable >> for it. XP on 256M RAM is for most operations faster than any 9x >> system on the same box. With 1G of RAM XP blows 9x into the weeds. >> Once you've got it set up properly - which applies to 95, 98, ME, >> XP, Vista. Though even with default configuration XP is not slowed >> on a modern machine to the sort of crawl of a 9x machine of 8 + >> years ago where, if all else is equal, resource handling/stability >> shows through. >> >> Incidently, my XP installations look like 9x. I despise 'Luna'. >> >>> MS seems to think we need all this bloat, when in the end, we all >>> see the same websites, type and print a document the same way, and >>> nothing else changes, except the new computer will cost more to run >>> for both purchasing and electric usage, as well as taking more time >>> to use >> >> No. Well, possibly. Possibly not. Old components become increasingly >> inefficient - I mean, apart from the fact of most of this stuff >> evolving with more efficient design anyway. Use your motor car >> analogy. As electrical components age they create more heat running, >> which requires more energy input, right up until the point at which >> they burn out. Older car engines run richer and create more exhaust >> pollutants; newer cars are - mostly - much more energy efficient. >> >>> because there are too many unneeded functions getting in the way. >> >> Not when you've pruned them - which applies to 9x too. >> >> P.
Guest Pogle S. Wood Posted August 24, 2008 Posted August 24, 2008 Re: What is wrong with WinME? I just had "system32\ntoskrnl.exe not found". This is because I made another attempt to install Win2K, the way I do everything else, i.e. so that my boot manager can then add it and the new OS successfully boot that way. This time I tried adding Win2K by deleting XP then reinstalling it - and the boot manager - after Win2K was set up. But it did not work, again, so I deleted it, again, and restored XP - and the OS next to it, which I had also deleted. Only this time the 2nd OS got the ID 'partition(1'), which XP had been before. However that happened I do not know but this is a regular problem in restoring, multibooting - or disk management where you want the SATA disk listed before the PATA disk: the way the bios enumerates them is not the same as the way XP does, i.e. the bios (probably dependent on the make I suppose) lists them in the order they were created, while XP lists them in the order they are physically allocated. XP was 'partition(1)' and the other OS was 'partition(2)', but following the restore those were reversed in the bios, but not in the restored boot.ini, so I had to edit it to read 'partition(2)' instead of 'partition(1)'. Restarted and it booted right away no problem. The NT6.x partition booted from the off, despite also being reversed. btw Mart, I feel this is a legitimate offshoot of the original thread, since the OP states a good deal about XP being terrible and a reason to stick with 9x, apparently based on misunderstood first impressions or perhaps 'Common Sense' - which is usually shorthand for 'Completely Wrong On Account Of Believing What It Takes To Believe To Shore Up One's Comforting Delusions Rather Than What Can Be Seen Clear As Day When You Don't Make An Effort To Avoid Doing So'. It is easy to see why the shorthand is preferred - unfortunately the original meaning has been lost in the mists of living in the past. P. Mart wrote: > Thanks S - I appreciate your suggestion which sounds like a d**m good > idea. (Although in my case it was a failed HDD rather than just a > missing file) But I suppose I've veered a bit OT and we are in danger > of highjacking LM's thread. > > Mart > > > "Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote in message > news:%239tlc4RBJHA.4368@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>> My own experience of an XP box (catastrophically) failing to boot >>> was when the HDD died - so can't really blame it on XP. But have to >>> admit that trying to recover data from an NTFS HDD was "difficult" >>> - Soon learnt to use a backup regime after that! >>> >> >> >> The one most people run into like into a brick wall is the failing >> to boot due to the HCL or autochk or NTDETECT or similar not being >> found and, usually, in my experience, that is due to an incorrect >> boot.ini. And apart from the fact you can correct that via booting >> with a BartPE disc - though that is quite a lot of effort to make in >> the first place - you can edit boot.ini via BootItNG (unregistered). >> Burn one to cd (especially since odds are you won't have a floppy >> drive anymore!) and there is no need to update it. With SATA and >> RAID (and NT6.x as well as NT5.x) I still use a BING cd from 2006, >> and it can be a godsend. Of course, if you make a copy of boot.ini >> and leave it in the root you don't even need to edit, just rename. >> >> >> P.
Guest Pogle S. Wood Posted August 24, 2008 Posted August 24, 2008 Re: What is wrong with WinME? >> MS seems to think we need all this bloat, when in the end, we all see >> the same websites, type and print a document the same way, and >> nothing else changes, except the new computer will cost more to run >> for both purchasing and electric usage, as well as taking more time >> to use > Also, new computers are far, far cheaper to purchase than they were. My 850 Athlon WinME box cost over £1000 in 2000. My 2200 Athlon XP Pro box cost about £300 a bit more than a year ago. Now for the same price you can get one with Vista Home Premium and 2G of RAM. The processors we're talking here are likely to be 64-bit and/or dual core into the bargain. The downside is they're made in China. P.
Guest Pogle S. Wood Posted August 24, 2008 Posted August 24, 2008 Re: What is wrong with WinME? Pogle S. Wood wrote: > webster72n wrote: >> How about trying this link: >> >> http://www.freedownloadscenter.com/Utilities/Misc__Utilities/Acronis_True_Image.html >> >> It says 'free download', but I didn't test it myself. >> Let us know either way, please. >> > > It says "Shareware / $49.50" > > Sorry, $49.99 (it makes such a difference!). P.
Guest Mart Posted August 24, 2008 Posted August 24, 2008 Re: What is wrong with WinME? Regarding mulibooting, I've never ventured in that direction (except for a bad experience with Ubuntu) - although I did once try (not too successfully) to run VM on XP Home. (Its incompatible!). Nor do I have SATA/RAID, so can't really comment on those aspects. > btw Mart, I feel this is a legitimate offshoot of the original thread, Perhaps Shane, perhaps not. My view was even with the first of only three posts by the OP in this thread, LM had come in 'rant' rather than 'reason' mode. And judging by the amount of flack he's left behind him, I was probably right. (Seems he's doing similar things in the Win98 groups) I guess your final paragraph sums it all up. Even your expression 'Common Sense' was applied in a not too dissimilar context elsewhere. Mart "Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote in message news:%23o799vdBJHA.1228@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >I just had "system32\ntoskrnl.exe not found". This is because I made >another attempt to install Win2K, the way I do everything else, i.e. so >that my boot manager can then add it and the new OS successfully boot that >way. > > This time I tried adding Win2K by deleting XP then reinstalling it - and > the boot manager - after Win2K was set up. But it did not work, again, so > I deleted it, again, and restored XP - and the OS next to it, which I had > also deleted. > > Only this time the 2nd OS got the ID 'partition(1'), which XP had been > before. However that happened I do not know but this is a regular problem > in restoring, multibooting - or disk management where you want the SATA > disk listed before the PATA disk: the way the bios enumerates them is not > the same as the way XP does, i.e. the bios (probably dependent on the make > I suppose) lists them in the order they were created, while XP lists them > in the order they are physically allocated. > > XP was 'partition(1)' and the other OS was 'partition(2)', but following > the restore those were reversed in the bios, but not in the restored > boot.ini, so I had to edit it to read 'partition(2)' instead of > 'partition(1)'. Restarted and it booted right away no problem. > > The NT6.x partition booted from the off, despite also being reversed. > > btw Mart, I feel this is a legitimate offshoot of the original thread, > since the OP states a good deal about XP being terrible and a reason to > stick with 9x, apparently based on misunderstood first impressions or > perhaps 'Common Sense' - which is usually shorthand for 'Completely Wrong > On Account Of Believing What It Takes To Believe To Shore Up One's > Comforting Delusions Rather Than What Can Be Seen Clear As Day When You > Don't Make An Effort To Avoid Doing So'. It is easy to see why the > shorthand is preferred - unfortunately the original meaning has been lost > in the mists of living in the past. > > P. > > Mart wrote: >> Thanks S - I appreciate your suggestion which sounds like a d**m good >> idea. (Although in my case it was a failed HDD rather than just a >> missing file) But I suppose I've veered a bit OT and we are in danger >> of highjacking LM's thread. >> >> Mart >> >> >> "Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote in message >> news:%239tlc4RBJHA.4368@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>>> My own experience of an XP box (catastrophically) failing to boot >>>> was when the HDD died - so can't really blame it on XP. But have to >>>> admit that trying to recover data from an NTFS HDD was "difficult" >>>> - Soon learnt to use a backup regime after that! >>>> >>> >>> >>> The one most people run into like into a brick wall is the failing >>> to boot due to the HCL or autochk or NTDETECT or similar not being >>> found and, usually, in my experience, that is due to an incorrect >>> boot.ini. And apart from the fact you can correct that via booting >>> with a BartPE disc - though that is quite a lot of effort to make in >>> the first place - you can edit boot.ini via BootItNG (unregistered). >>> Burn one to cd (especially since odds are you won't have a floppy >>> drive anymore!) and there is no need to update it. With SATA and >>> RAID (and NT6.x as well as NT5.x) I still use a BING cd from 2006, >>> and it can be a godsend. Of course, if you make a copy of boot.ini >>> and leave it in the root you don't even need to edit, just rename. >>> >>> >>> P. > >
Guest Pogle S. Wood Posted August 24, 2008 Posted August 24, 2008 Re: What is wrong with WinME? Mart wrote: > Regarding mulibooting, I've never ventured in that direction (except > for a bad experience with Ubuntu) - although I did once try (not too > successfully) to run VM on XP Home. (Its incompatible!). Nor do I > have SATA/RAID, so can't really comment on those aspects. I don't recall how widely I publicised this before but over the years I've been periodically trialing Linux distros, culminating in last summer when I ran something like 8 simultaneously. I have concluded that the only one that seriously challenges Windows is SUSE/openSUSE. Yet it too had too many errors or too serious a bug and I deleted 10.3. This May's openSUSE 11.0 was a great improvement - but it is still hampered by the boot management/partition management that they all are. I just deleted it last weekend. Because I'm sick of it insisting a Primary partition is an Extended, Logical partition - and changing it to such if you don't stop it - and proposing - entirely unnecessarily - to resize an actual Logical partition that whether FAT32 or NTFS, is in use and I have already set up where and how large I want and do not want resized! And if you allow it to auto-install, it *will* resize that partition without consulting you. Because like a true Linux type it knows best and cannot even comprehend that, well, just *maybe* it does not? Even this, the best of the distros is a pita to install - or to restore from a backup - to a multiboot system to co-exist with Windows. Microsoft systems are good at this; Linux is awful at it - yet the vast army of Linux apologists think Windows is the problem. Anyway - if you want to try Linux again, try openSUSE. Possibly it is better for being produced these days by Novell, who as we know have been in the business a long time and not as amateurs. They are derided for the deal made with MS - possibly rightly so. But the problem with the Linux apologists is what matters to them is drowning out criticism. Debian and it's derivatives (notably *buntu) are the worse at installing on a multiboot system. Fedora and Mandriva are lots better, but Mandriva still has too many bugs though certainly no more than *buntu (all the distros have lists of bugs in the 'latest release' that run into thousands). *buntu and Fedora limit far too much what you can do; Fedora because it is derived from a server system (Red Hat) and *buntu because it is aimed at the inexpert user, so they are no good for a 'power user' - in the same way that XP Pro is more suited than XP Home. > >> btw Mart, I feel this is a legitimate offshoot of the original >> thread, > > Perhaps Shane, perhaps not. My view was even with the first of only > three posts by the OP in this thread, LM had come in 'rant' rather > than 'reason' mode. And judging by the amount of flack he's left > behind him, I was probably right. (Seems he's doing similar things in > the Win98 groups) Oh, really. Well, I do feel such ill-informed diatribes need to be corrected for the sake of others who have heard something like it and would possibly take it as the reinforcement that finally tips their scales. > I guess your final paragraph sums it all up. Even your expression > 'Common Sense' was applied in a not too dissimilar context elsewhere. I'm well used to the notion of 'Common Sense' being more of an effort to defend long-held misconceptions than to arrive at any sort of truth. It is something of a hobbyhorse. Probably began when reading Quantum Physics and dropping acid. P.
Guest Joan Archer Posted August 24, 2008 Posted August 24, 2008 Re: What is wrong with WinME? I did <g> if you remember I put XP on that WinME machine I have and was multibooting quite happily for quite a while. The only reason it didn't last is that I don't like anyone touching my machine so wanted one all to myself <g> I can't help being selfish <g> It's a good job as John is very good at screwing up the machines so at least he can't do it to mine <g> I kept that XP machine going for years without problems or nasties getting in John has it a couple of weeks and gets hit with Antivirus 2008, just after that conversation Mike where he said he was working on it, do you remember <vbg> -- Joan Archer http://www.freewebs.com/crossstitcher http://lachsoft.com/photogallery "Mart" <mart(NoSpam)@nospam.nospam> wrote in message news:uVewHfeBJHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Regarding mulibooting, I've never ventured in that direction (except for a > bad experience with Ubuntu) - although I did once try (not too > successfully) to run VM on XP Home. (Its incompatible!). Nor do I have > SATA/RAID, so can't really comment on those aspects. >
Guest Claudehl@aol.com Posted August 24, 2008 Posted August 24, 2008 Re: What is wrong with WinME? On Aug 22, 2:20�am, letter...@invalid.com wrote: > I have been running Win98SE since 1998. �I have a WinME Cd. �I tried > it in a spare harddrive. �I saw no problems with it, but I only played > around with the OS. �Never ran any real applications. �I have > considered upgrading to WinME many times. �I strongly dislike Win2000, > and XP. �Not to mention that my computer is likely too slow to run XP. > I am fully satisfied with Win98, so I see no reason to upgrade. > However, I know that ME has better USB support and a few other > improvements. �Yet, I have had many people tell me to avoid WinME.. > They say it's buggy. > > What is really wrong with ME? �Where are the bugs? > > Thanks No Real-DOS mode, if you need it. But I think there are patches for that. Claude
Guest webster72n Posted August 24, 2008 Posted August 24, 2008 Re: What is wrong with WinME? It just may sound complicated or confusing only to me and my remark was aimed at a simpler solution, that's all. As you explained, your given details were meant for advanced or expert users and I am neither one of those. Therefore I shall respectfully resign. Hopefully letterman encountered the information needed to solve his problem. Harry. "Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote in message news:e5bPoxbBJHA.5316@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > webster72n wrote: > > Pogle: > > > > This sounds a bit complicated, if not to say 'confusing', to me. > > Does it have to be that way? > > > > No doubt it is a little confusing in that I did not finish a sentence, and > recommended making a 6T (which is a pre-unit Thunderbird) partition. But > probably what I was going to add is obvious - if by the time you get to the > end of the diversion-in-parentheses you can remember how it started! I am > not a great communicator, though I can signal my disdain quite well if I do > say so myself. And as I do say so myself it doesn't really count. > > Otherwise I am basically responding to what M. Letterman has to say and much > of what I mean requires a knowledge of computers consistent with making > value-judgement comparisons of operating systems and isn't meant to be > accessible to all (which is not to say that it is deliberately meant to be > opaque). > > Having said that - and I have, so I'll continue - if you could be more > specific, i.e. *what* sounds a bit complicated and confusing and does *what* > have to be that way (if I haven't already addressed this above?) > > P. > > > > > > > > > > "Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote in message > > news:%23eawp7VBJHA.2060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > >>> would not even boot. Drives formatted with that NTFS format are > >>> near helpless once the OS cant be booted. With a FAT partition I > >>> can always boot to dos and save data. Win2000 seems to work ok > >>> with a FAT32 format, but not XP. I hear vista is even worse. I > >>> wont trust > >> > >> NTFS is not a problem with a BartPE CD. Meanwhile XP does install on > >> FAT32 - you can even first install Windows 95/98 or ME (with a DOS > >> hack) then delete all but the DOS files, then install XP to that > >> partition and you have a dual boot with MS-DOS 7.10 (or 8.00 if > >> using hacked ME). I finally stopped doing this because with a BART > >> CD and a BING CD (and Partition Magic, which you can use to browse > >> XP from if you have another compatible OS to install it in - and > >> here's the best tip: make a 6142G partition and install XP to that. > >> Then make another, larger partition and install XP to that too. Use > >> the latter on a daily basis and keep the first for booting to access > >> the main one from. Apart from the fact once you have XP set up > >> properly the chances of your being unable to boot it ever again are > >> infinitessimal, but if you can't this is a far superior way to fix > >> it or save stuff - though most worth saving should be on another > >> partition anyway - this is a very good way to scan the main OS for > >> malware, so long as this first drive is hidden, if not actually > >> disabled - i.e. on a seperate IDE channel - great use for an old > >> PATA drive! - in normal use). > >> > >> > >>> my data to an OS that relies on the actual OS having to boot in > >>> order to access data. With Win9x and earlier, it's easy to use a > >>> boot floppy to get the data saved. > >>> > >> > >> No. Used to be, but not anymore. Bart Lagerweij took care of that > >> (despite MS lawyers making it as hard as they could for him). And > >> you can believe me, because I did until recently run XP on FAT32 > >> with a DOS boot option. And before that I ran Win ME with a Real > >> Mode DOS hack (and in fact still have the resultant MS-DOS 8.00 on a > >> bootable USB stick). > >> > >>> What really irks me too, is that everytime a faster computer is > >>> developed, MS slows it down with more of their bloat. Thus we never > >>> get any faster. It's like this: I can go grocery shopping with my > >>> old chevy or I can buy a limosene with all the bells and whistles. > >>> Both will get me to the store and back just as fast, but the limo > >>> costs 25 times more and uses 3 times more gas. I'll still > >>> encounter the same traffic jams, and pay the same for my groceries, > >>> and since I'm driving, I wont be able to enjoy the bells and > >>> whistles anyhow. > >>> > >> > >> I agree with you in part. No, in going from an 850 Athlon with 256M > >> RAM to a 2200 Athlon with 1024M RAM, drive imaging is three times as > >> fast as it was. On the old machine twice the RAM would have made a > >> big difference with XP. Vista likes 2G or more. But the RAM is > >> cheaper now, and faster. Your analogy is picturesque, but > >> inaccurate. Modern computers are much faster and much more enjoyable > >> for it. XP on 256M RAM is for most operations faster than any 9x > >> system on the same box. With 1G of RAM XP blows 9x into the weeds. > >> Once you've got it set up properly - which applies to 95, 98, ME, > >> XP, Vista. Though even with default configuration XP is not slowed > >> on a modern machine to the sort of crawl of a 9x machine of 8 + > >> years ago where, if all else is equal, resource handling/stability > >> shows through. > >> > >> Incidently, my XP installations look like 9x. I despise 'Luna'. > >> > >>> MS seems to think we need all this bloat, when in the end, we all > >>> see the same websites, type and print a document the same way, and > >>> nothing else changes, except the new computer will cost more to run > >>> for both purchasing and electric usage, as well as taking more time > >>> to use > >> > >> No. Well, possibly. Possibly not. Old components become increasingly > >> inefficient - I mean, apart from the fact of most of this stuff > >> evolving with more efficient design anyway. Use your motor car > >> analogy. As electrical components age they create more heat running, > >> which requires more energy input, right up until the point at which > >> they burn out. Older car engines run richer and create more exhaust > >> pollutants; newer cars are - mostly - much more energy efficient. > >> > >>> because there are too many unneeded functions getting in the way. > >> > >> Not when you've pruned them - which applies to 9x too. > >> > >> P. > >
Guest webster72n Posted August 25, 2008 Posted August 25, 2008 Re: What is wrong with WinME? Should have known, sorry about that, Pogle. Harry. "Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote in message news:ulJW4ubBJHA.3496@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > webster72n wrote: > > How about trying this link: > > > > http://www.freedownloadscenter.com/Utilities/Misc__Utilities/Acronis_True_Image.html > > > > It says 'free download', but I didn't test it myself. > > Let us know either way, please. > > > > It says "Shareware / $49.50" > > > P. > >
Guest Pogle S. Wood Posted August 25, 2008 Posted August 25, 2008 Re: What is wrong with WinME? webster72n wrote: > It just may sound complicated or confusing only to me and my remark > was aimed at a simpler solution, that's all. But what I want to know is 'a simpler solution' to what? What is it you want to do? > As you explained, your given details were meant for advanced or > expert users and I am neither one of those. Rather it was meant for the person who was making claims verging on the wildly inaccurate. To be so comprehensively wrong after seven years in which to learn some facts, does not auger at all well for the chances of getting an informed dialogue. > Therefore I shall respectfully resign. > Hopefully letterman encountered the information needed to solve his > problem. > Well, as I understood it, he wanted to know what was wrong with WinME, if anything. Then he made a series of statements about XP and Vista and modern computers, whose only virtue that I could see was an impressive level of intolerance. But my response was, as I tend to respond to posts that imply that if proven wrong the author will take another chance on whatever it is he or she has been rubbishing, tending towards tips and suggestions - in this case for running XP. P.
Guest webster72n Posted August 25, 2008 Posted August 25, 2008 Re: What is wrong with WinME? "Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote in message news:uOwUMLlBJHA.1228@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > webster72n wrote: > > It just may sound complicated or confusing only to me and my remark > > was aimed at a simpler solution, that's all. > > But what I want to know is 'a simpler solution' to what? What is it you want > to do? I was referring to your layout and the actions involved. This guy doesn't want to do anything too complicated on his machine. I like it the way it's running and whenever changes have to be made, they must be plausible to me - and safe. Along the way I'm always trying to learn. Otherwise: no hard feelings. <H>. > > > As you explained, your given details were meant for advanced or > > expert users and I am neither one of those. > > Rather it was meant for the person who was making claims verging on the > wildly inaccurate. To be so comprehensively wrong after seven years in which > to learn some facts, does not auger at all well for the chances of getting > an informed dialogue. > > > Therefore I shall respectfully resign. > > Hopefully letterman encountered the information needed to solve his > > problem. > > > Well, as I understood it, he wanted to know what was wrong with WinME, if > anything. Then he made a series of statements about XP and Vista and modern > computers, whose only virtue that I could see was an impressive level of > intolerance. But my response was, as I tend to respond to posts that imply > that if proven wrong the author will take another chance on whatever it is > he or she has been rubbishing, tending towards tips and suggestions - in > this case for running XP. > > > P. > >
Guest Pogle S. Wood Posted August 25, 2008 Posted August 25, 2008 Re: What is wrong with WinME? BobAT286 wrote: > Pogle; > > Regarding "backups" -- can you recommend a (free) backup program > that will run under ME? Can i use msbackup from Win98(NOT)SE? If > so, anybody know which CAB file it's in on the 98 CD? > --- Thanks! > Bob - who still misses DOS > If you want a copy of DriveImage that runs from DOS, email me. P.
Recommended Posts