install printer drivers

April 21, 2008

I'm reinstalling my old win 95 (1st version) that came with my packard bell.

It is not installing my hp laser jet 5L correctly using the original disks

(3).It did not install an uninstall icon either. I tried to install abuilt

in driver like the hp 4L but it does not install either. Anyone remember any

tricks to get the hardware wizard to install a driver? How can I uninstall

the the driver I installed but did not work?

mc

April 21, 2008

Re: install printer drivers

In W98, you uninstall a printer by right-clicking the printer in the

printers 'folder' in My Computer and selecting Delete.

Only the supprting utilities that the vendor sometimes provides will have an

entry in Add/Remove Programs.

--

Jeff Richards

MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)

"mc" <wcwall.awm@verizon.net> wrote in message

news:uDkmWv0oIHA.5836@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> I'm reinstalling my old win 95 (1st version) that came with my packard

> bell. It is not installing my hp laser jet 5L correctly using the original

> disks (3).It did not install an uninstall icon either. I tried to install

> abuilt in driver like the hp 4L but it does not install either. Anyone

> remember any tricks to get the hardware wizard to install a driver? How

> can I uninstall the the driver I installed but did not work?

> mc

>

April 21, 2008

Re: install printer drivers

"Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message

news:ucbmGH5oIHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> In W98, you uninstall a printer by right-clicking the printer in the

> printers 'folder' in My Computer and selecting Delete.

>

> Only the supprting utilities that the vendor sometimes provides will have

an

> entry in Add/Remove Programs.

And the proceedure for win95 would be the same

> Jeff Richards

> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)

> "mc" <wcwall.awm@verizon.net> wrote in message

> news:uDkmWv0oIHA.5836@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> > I'm reinstalling my old win 95 (1st version) that came with my packard

> > bell. It is not installing my hp laser jet 5L correctly using the

original

> > disks (3).It did not install an uninstall icon either. I tried to

install

> > abuilt in driver like the hp 4L but it does not install either. Anyone

> > remember any tricks to get the hardware wizard to install a driver? How

> > can I uninstall the the driver I installed but did not work?

> > mc

> >

>

April 21, 2008

Re: install printer drivers

I'm wondering if that will also remove the status window it created that

sits on the staus bar??

mc

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message

news:%23kH3OSApIHA.672@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>

> "Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message

> news:ucbmGH5oIHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> In W98, you uninstall a printer by right-clicking the printer in the

>> printers 'folder' in My Computer and selecting Delete.

>>

>> Only the supprting utilities that the vendor sometimes provides will have

> an

>> entry in Add/Remove Programs.

>

> And the proceedure for win95 would be the same

>

>> Jeff Richards

>> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)

>> "mc" <wcwall.awm@verizon.net> wrote in message

>> news:uDkmWv0oIHA.5836@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>> > I'm reinstalling my old win 95 (1st version) that came with my packard

>> > bell. It is not installing my hp laser jet 5L correctly using the

> original

>> > disks (3).It did not install an uninstall icon either. I tried to

> install

>> > abuilt in driver like the hp 4L but it does not install either. Anyone

>> > remember any tricks to get the hardware wizard to install a driver? How

>> > can I uninstall the the driver I installed but did not work?

>> > mc

>> >

>>

>

April 22, 2008

Re: install printer drivers

It would indeed ;)

--

Jeff Richards

MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message

news:%23kH3OSApIHA.672@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>

> snip <

>

> And the proceedure for win95 would be the same

>

>> Jeff Richards

>> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)

>> "mc" <wcwall.awm@verizon.net> wrote in message

>> news:uDkmWv0oIHA.5836@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>> > I'm reinstalling my old win 95 (1st version) that came with my packard

>> > bell. It is not installing my hp laser jet 5L correctly using the

> original

>> > disks (3).It did not install an uninstall icon either. I tried to

> install

>> > abuilt in driver like the hp 4L but it does not install either. Anyone

>> > remember any tricks to get the hardware wizard to install a driver? How

>> > can I uninstall the the driver I installed but did not work?

>> > mc

>> >

>>

>

April 24, 2008

Re: install printer drivers

well the right click approach will not let me delete the icon...I wonder if

there was a printer update for the first versions of win 95 A?

mc

April 24, 2008

Re: install printer drivers

What happened when you tried? Is the delete option missing or greyed out,

or is it there but doesn't seem to do anything?

Have you tried selecting the printer and then hitting DEL or choosing File /

Delete?

--

Jeff Richards

MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)

"mc" <wcwall.awm@verizon.net> wrote in message

news:O%23rQXEapIHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> well the right click approach will not let me delete the icon...I wonder

> if there was a printer update for the first versions of win 95 A?

> mc

>

April 24, 2008

Re: install printer drivers

It just does not respond...

mc

"Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message

news:uFWVa7epIHA.6096@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> What happened when you tried? Is the delete option missing or greyed out,

> or is it there but doesn't seem to do anything?

>

> Have you tried selecting the printer and then hitting DEL or choosing File

> / Delete?

> --

> Jeff Richards

> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)

> "mc" <wcwall.awm@verizon.net> wrote in message

> news:O%23rQXEapIHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>> well the right click approach will not let me delete the icon...I wonder

>> if there was a printer update for the first versions of win 95 A?

>> mc

>>

>

July 10, 2008

Re: install printer drivers

thanatoid wrote:

[]

> Since the OP was talking about 95A (and because I get lazy), I

> did not bother getting into 98SE, let alone Lite.

>

> I have been a happy user of 98SE Lite for about 4 years, since I

Nice to meet another fan; lite seems to be viewed somewhat suspiciously in

at least one of the '98 'groups.

[]

> drive on which I installed the aforementioned 98SE Lite. I left

> IE in because it is necessary to read chm files, but that

If those are HTML-style help files, then you don't need the full IE - just

it's "rendering engine" (which I think is a couple of .dll files). I can't

remember the details though, nor where I learnt this.

> machine is not even connected to the internet, so no IE

> "problems" :-)

>

> My internet machine (this one) is a 10.5 year old 166 w/ 96MB

> RAM running highly tweaked 95B. It boots in less than 45 seconds

> and never crashes. Take that, Vista.

My internet machine is a 400MHz laptop w/128M running highly tweaked

98lite - it does most of what I want, fairly reliably - _rarely_ crashes.

The assorted spoilsports keep making things difficult for we '9x fans,

though (mainly by withdrawing support in new versions of things).

--

J. P. Gilliver | Tel. +44 1634 203298

July 11, 2008

95/98 ramblings (was: Re: install printer drivers)

95/98 ramblings (was: Re: install printer drivers)

thanatoid wrote:

> "J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in

> news:4876466c$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:

>

>> thanatoid wrote:

>

> <SNIP>

>

>>> I have been a happy user of 98SE Lite for about 4 years,

>>> since I

>>

>> Nice to meet another fan; lite seems to be viewed somewhat

>> suspiciously in at least one of the '98 'groups.

>

> The one full of venerable MVP's, I would imagine...

Hmm. I hadn't entirely made that connection ... (-:

[]

> going anywhere. I think having IE on an internet-connected

> machine is probably OK as long as you NEVER use it for anything

> BUT chm files :-)

>

> (Of course, I have forgotten its tendencies to "take over all

> internet functions" etc. since the last time I used it for

> internet was probably about 10 years ago.)

Not just all _internet_ fns, AFAICR (I haven't had it on for years either).

[]

>> reliably - _rarely_ crashes. The assorted spoilsports keep

>> making things difficult for we '9x fans, though (mainly by

>> withdrawing support in new versions of things).

>

> Yes, it's very annoying. Like it would KILL them to keep

> providing small simple (AOT Vista or even XP) drivers. Sometimes

> you get lucky - I haven't installed any new hardware for ages,

> but I read recently someone used 2000 drivers for something and

> they worked on 98. I HAVE used software which claims not to run

> on 95 and it works. And the other way around, unfortunately.

Ditto (especially pen drives. And yes, I do know about the "universal" USB

driver - screwed up my machine right royally; conversely, I've recently set

up a machine using soporific's "10th anniversary 1998 UBCD" which included

an XP-like [i. e. universal] USB driver, and so far that has worked with

anything I've tried on it).

>

> The ONLY disadvantage to Lite is that since it uses the 95 shell

> sometimes a program which "runs on 98" will /not/ run on 98 Lite

> because of some stupid hook into the shell driver. Sigh.

Sometimes it's only the install routine. Usually the installer gives you a

crash window saying which routine it couldn't find (often something like,

IIRR, "calloutaddress in explorer.exe"). I've had success with these by one

of 3 (on a 98 system that's been "lite"d) - 1: do a temporary shell swap

using 98lite, run the install, swap back; 2: same thing manually (rename the

two files - which 98lite keeps there, just renames them from .dll and .exe

to .w98) (I think you have to boot in DOS to do this), run the installer,

rename them back; 3: using a hex. editor, hack the installer file so that

where it says "explorer.exe" [near the call to the routine that doesn't

exist], change it to "explorer.w98, then install.

The _only_ thing I _notice_ that I miss by normally using the '95 shell is

that, when doing a copy or move of more than one file, the progress bar

starts again for each file, whereas in the '98 shell it does it for the lot.

(Though I don't know if, when it shows 50%, it's done half the data or just

half the number of files.) But for the greatly increased speed, and what

seems to be increased robustness, I'm willing to live with that little

thing!

>

> I have found over the years that there has been VERY little of

> anything /really/ new and worthwhile released (I am not a gamer

> who needs a graphics card with 512MB of memory, of course, nor

Ditto

> am I a myspace or UTube addict) and that programs written prior

Ditto

> to 2000 are the ones I use most and very happily. There ARE

> exceptions, but a good program should run on ANY 32bit platform.

Agreed. Or, ones that are written _as if_ running on the old OS and

hardware - usually this means keeping the size down; IrfanView goes from

strength to strength, and I've recently been quite taken with the Roadkil

(yes, one L) utilities. Mind you, I still want to know how whoever wrote

"flamer.com" - a DOS prog. that just simulates a fire on screen, and has run

on everything I've ever run it on - managed to get it into 453 bytes!

> Also, I firmly believe that excepting MAJOR technological

> developments, if a program does not have all necessary features

> by ver. 4 or so, the authors are either greedy jerks withholding

> features on purpose or just stupid. Then there is the bloat

Hmm. An interesting hypothesis/proposition/whatever; I see what you mean,

though the version numbers vary a bit depending on what prompted the author

to declare a major number change (I have some v6 and v7 things I've stopped

at).

> thing - which FEW are immune to. It's astouhnding how programs

> which ran just fine when they were 1.5 MB are now 25 MB or more.

And now crawl (even to open).

[]

> [The reason I got the virus in the email is that I turned off

> on-line scanning after having it on for a while and realizing

> that due to my "safe computing" habits it was just a waste of

> resources (my numerous fans may recall we are talking about a

> 166 with 64 (now 96) MB of RAM).]

The email/news/etc. software I use keeps attachments safe (it even limits

HTML rendering), so that no attachment is dangerous unless saved (and even

then not unless run, though you have to be careful with some that it isn't

obvious are executable - pictures [but IrfanView doesn't use the vulnerable

renderer], Word and other Office documents, etc.), so I don't think I've

ever had email scanning turned on. I think there are other softwares as safe

in this respect as Turnpike, too.

>

> Anyway, one virus or no virus, I think it /is/ reasonable to

> have an A-V program and run it /once in a while/. Now that F-

With you there. You need broadband these days though: both AVG and McAfee's

daily downloads are BIG (McAfee's usually about 30-50 Meg these days!).

[]

--

J. P. Gilliver | Tel. +44 1634 203298

July 12, 2008

Re: 95/98 ramblings

Re: 95/98 ramblings

"J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in

news:48779622$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:

<SNIP

>>> Nice to meet another fan; lite seems to be viewed

>>> somewhat suspiciously in at least one of the '98 'groups.

>>

>> The one full of venerable MVP's, I would imagine...

>

> Hmm. I hadn't entirely made that connection ... (-:

Yes, they get /rather/ miffed when anyone suggests you can run

Windows without IE installed :-) Nothing like being brainwashed,

huh?

> []

>> going anywhere. I think having IE on an internet-connected

>> machine is probably OK as long as you NEVER use it for

>> anything BUT chm files :-)

>>

>> (Of course, I have forgotten its tendencies to "take over

>> all internet functions" etc. since the last time I used it

>> for internet was probably about 10 years ago.)

>

> Not just all _internet_ fns, AFAICR (I haven't had it on

> for years either). []

Yes, regrettably, I tend to exaggerate. But I believe IE still

doesn't /really/ know what Usenet is. Or FTP. Or IRC. Now

/that's/ a jungle I have only ventured into once or twice -

/WHERE/ DO YOU START? I did once manage to DL an extremely rare

still of one of my favorite actresses that I have /never/ seen

anywhere else, but it's just not worth the time it would take to

learn to navigate through the insane maze of servers and

channels.

>>> reliably - _rarely_ crashes. The assorted spoilsports

>>> keep making things difficult for we '9x fans, though

>>> (mainly by withdrawing support in new versions of

>>> things).

>>

>> Yes, it's very annoying. Like it would KILL them to keep

>> providing small simple (AOT Vista or even XP) drivers.

>> Sometimes you get lucky - I haven't installed any new

>> hardware for ages, but I read recently someone used 2000

>> drivers for something and they worked on 98. I HAVE used

>> software which claims not to run on 95 and it works. And

>> the other way around, unfortunately.

>

> Ditto (especially pen drives. And yes, I do know about the

> "universal" USB driver - screwed up my machine right

> royally; conversely, I've recently set up a machine using

> soporific's "10th anniversary 1998 UBCD" which included an

> XP-like [i. e. universal] USB driver, and so far that has

> worked with anything I've tried on it).

BION, I have NEVER tried USB with my 98SE machine (all my

current peripherals are parallel or P/S). I just assume it

works. But I'm glad you mentioned the soporific driver, I'll

look it up and DL it. JUst in case.

(Update:

I have searched, and it seems it (if that's in fact what it is)

is only available as part of a ~220MB DL. Would you mind

terribly posting it in some binaries group - just the "10th

anniv. USB" ? I would really appreciate it.)

A few years ago, during a period of highly increased masochistic

tendencies coupled with too much free time, I did install a twin

USB port PCI card in this 95B machine and DL'd all the stuff

that was supposed to make it work. Unfortunately, I was trying

it with a Wacom graphics tablet I had just semi-coincidentally

bought (no one would lend me a USB peripheral) and wasn't really

familiar with it the first place (so I was dealing with 2

unknowns at the same time - a certain recipe for disaster), and

I couldn't get anything to work. So I returned the tablet, which

I kind of regret now because it was a nice all-white one and

much cheaper than the recent models, and it would most probably

work great on my 98SE machine.

>> The ONLY disadvantage to Lite is that since it uses the 95

>> shell sometimes a program which "runs on 98" will /not/

>> run on 98 Lite because of some stupid hook into the shell

>> driver. Sigh.

>

> Sometimes it's only the install routine. Usually the

> installer gives you a crash window saying which routine it

> couldn't find (often something like, IIRR, "calloutaddress

> in explorer.exe"). I've had success with these by one of 3

> (on a 98 system that's been "lite"d) - 1: do a temporary

> shell swap using 98lite, run the install, swap back; 2:

> same thing manually (rename the two files - which 98lite

> keeps there, just renames them from .dll and .exe to .w98)

> (I think you have to boot in DOS to do this), run the

> installer, rename them back; 3: using a hex. editor, hack

> the installer file so that where it says "explorer.exe"

> [near the call to the routine that doesn't exist], change

> it to "explorer.w98, then install.

Thank you, that's an EXCELLENT suggestion, and not at all hard

to follow (well, I am not enough of a tech guy to alter the

install file, but 1 and 2 are no problem).

The first thing I always install whenever I set up a computer

(admittedly it's been /a/while/) is XTree for DOS, so I am not

afraid of doing things outside of Windows, like renaming, moving

hidden files etc. :-)

> The _only_ thing I _notice_ that I miss by normally using

> the '95 shell is that, when doing a copy or move of more

> than one file, the progress bar starts again for each file,

> whereas in the '98 shell it does it for the lot. (Though I

> don't know if, when it shows 50%, it's done half the data

> or just half the number of files.) But for the greatly

> increased speed, and what seems to be increased robustness,

> I'm willing to live with that little thing!

I'm not sure what you mean because I don't use Windows Explorer.

I find the single pane interface maddening, and running two

instances side by side stupid. Not to mention its functionality

is limited, and I am being kind.

I have purchased and am a happy user of Total Commander 6.55. I

believe you get free updates for life but I didn't like the cute

XP style icons and some other unfortunate interface improvements

he put in the 7.02 version so I went back to 6.55. (I have the

interface very minimal, and all in shades of grey, like all of

Windows - courtesy DisplaySet, PC Magazine). I am STILL learning

something new about that program every week! It's AMAZING what

it can do.

<SNIP>

>> to 2000 are the ones I use most and very happily. There

>> ARE exceptions, but a good program should run on ANY 32bit

>> platform.

>

> Agreed. Or, ones that are written _as if_ running on the

> old OS and hardware - usually this means keeping the size

> down; IrfanView goes from strength to strength, and I've

> recently been quite taken with the Roadkil (yes, one L)

> utilities. Mind you, I still want to know how whoever wrote

> "flamer.com" - a DOS prog. that just simulates a fire on

> screen, and has run on everything I've ever run it on -

> managed to get it into 453 bytes!

I like old programs for too many reasons to mention - I have

seen quite a few instances where it is simply unbelievable that

a program SO tiny can not just run so fast but do so much. Quite

a few of them I have found on the http://www.tinyapps.org site - if

you're N/F I /highly/ recommend it.

I guess the ultimate example of evil bloat and dysfunctionality

is Windows itself. I read somewhere Vista still has code from

the 80's in it - but that may have just been malicious slander.

After all, WHO could ever possibly check it? How many millions

of lines code IS that thing [shudder]?

>> Also, I firmly believe that excepting MAJOR technological

>> developments, if a program does not have all necessary

>> features by ver. 4 or so, the authors are either greedy

>> jerks withholding features on purpose or just stupid. Then

>> there is the bloat

>

> Hmm. An interesting hypothesis/proposition/whatever; I see

> what you mean, though the version numbers vary a bit

> depending on what prompted the author to declare a major

> number change (I have some v6 and v7 things I've stopped

> at).

Of course; I was being very general. But seeing, just as an

example, OmniPage version 12 or 15 is a little ridiculous.

Haven't they heard of going with decimals for minor changes?

Still, IMO it is preferable to using year numbers instead of

version numbers.

ACDSee is another insane bloat example - I still use ver. 2.22

because in the next major revision those lunatics decided to

make the browser and viewer SEPARATE programs which made for a

/really enjoyable/ blank screen flash and delay on this 166MHz.

Plus they committed the ULTIMATE crime - changing some keyboard

shortcuts. Like Adobe did with PageMaker when they bought out

Aldus. Grrrrr. I will NEVER forgive them for that!

Anyway, ACDSee 2.22 is an 824KB exe. I believe the current

version, 12 or something, is over 20 MB and I am almost willing

to bet it does nothing intrinsically useful AFA image

management. When I need a file manager, I use T.C. When I want

to play an mp3, I use STP, a 250KB program from tinyapps. Etc.

When I want to check a few images, I don't want to wait for a 25

MB app with ten 15-line long menus to load!

<SNIP>

> The email/news/etc. software I use keeps attachments safe

> (it even limits HTML rendering), so that no attachment is

> dangerous unless saved (and even then not unless run,

> though you have to be careful with some that it isn't

> obvious are executable - pictures [but IrfanView doesn't

> use the vulnerable renderer],

No, someone with (IMO) a rather wicked sense of humor wrote that

JPG exploit exclusively for the MS dll. :-)

<SNIP>

> You need broadband these days though: both

> AVG and McAfee's daily downloads are BIG (McAfee's usually

> about 30-50 Meg these days!). []

Heh heh. 33.6 modem over here :-) But I only update definitions

once every couple of months - I have an Acronis image in case of

some disaster.

(The NOD32 updates are only about 16MB or so, another plus.)

Regards,

t.

--

There is nothing bad which could not turn into something worse.

- S. I. Witkiewicz

July 14, 2008

Re: 95/98 ramblings

Re: 95/98 ramblings

thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:

>Yes, regrettably, I tend to exaggerate. But I believe IE still

>doesn't /really/ know what Usenet is. Or FTP. Or IRC.

No, IE doesn't know what Usenet is, or what IRC is. IE includes

clients for HTTP, FTP and Gopher (Gopher was hot when IE first

launched, but the WWW eclipsed it in short order). OE was/is a Usenet

client (not necessarily the best one but....). AFAIK, MS never put out

an IRC client.

> Now

>/that's/ a jungle I have only ventured into once or twice -

>/WHERE/ DO YOU START? I did once manage to DL an extremely rare

>still of one of my favorite actresses that I have /never/ seen

>anywhere else, but it's just not worth the time it would take to

>learn to navigate through the insane maze of servers and

>channels.

I assume you're talking about IRC. I wholeheartedly agree. I dabbled

long ago, but I never really figured it out.

>> Ditto (especially pen drives. And yes, I do know about the

>> "universal" USB driver - screwed up my machine right

>> royally; conversely, I've recently set up a machine using

>> soporific's "10th anniversary 1998 UBCD" which included an

>> XP-like [i. e. universal] USB driver, and so far that has

>> worked with anything I've tried on it).

Interesting. The only version of Win95 that had any USB support was

OEM SR2, and that was a first draft. They didn't really get it right

until Win98SE. I've heard of a universal driver for Win98SE, but I'm

amazed you can run such a thing in Win95.

--

Tim Slattery

MS MVP(Shell/User)

Slattery_T@bls.gov

http://members.cox.net/slatteryt

July 16, 2008

Re: 95/98 ramblings

Re: 95/98 ramblings

thanatoid wrote:

> "J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in

> news:48779622$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:

[]

> Yes, they get /rather/ miffed when anyone suggests you can run

> Windows without IE installed :-) Nothing like being brainwashed,

> huh?

(-:

[]

>> Ditto (especially pen drives. And yes, I do know about the

>> "universal" USB driver - screwed up my machine right

>> royally; conversely, I've recently set up a machine using

>> soporific's "10th anniversary 1998 UBCD" which included an

>> XP-like [i. e. universal] USB driver, and so far that has

>> worked with anything I've tried on it).

>

> BION, I have NEVER tried USB with my 98SE machine (all my

> current peripherals are parallel or P/S). I just assume it

> works. But I'm glad you mentioned the soporific driver, I'll

> look it up and DL it. JUst in case.

(I don't know BION.) Well, 98SE seems to handle USB as such moderately

well - though most things need extra drivers, which they come with (or,

these days, you have to download, and they might not exist). I think things

like hubs, keyboards, and mice, it manages OK, but anything like a pen

drive, card reader, printer, scanner, or ADSL Modem/hub, you need a driver.

With the excepion of pen drives, I've not found anything I've not managed to

get working, though.

>

> (Update:

> I have searched, and it seems it (if that's in fact what it is)

> is only available as part of a ~220MB DL. Would you mind

> terribly posting it in some binaries group - just the "10th

> anniv. USB" ? I would really appreciate it.)

Ah, misunderstanding there. What soporific has created is a "tenth

anniversary" version of Windows 98 - see

http://sharethefiles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=104845&start=0 for details.

(This is available in two forms - a few hundred megabyte one that can be

downloaded but only includes freeware, and a 701 megabyte .iso image you'll

have to get into the dark worlds of file sharing to get.) It _includes_ a

universal driver (not sure in which edition); it's also available as part of

his autopatcher, which is a sort of collection of lots of updates, from

Microsoft and elsewhere, with a sort of wrapper front end: I think that's

what you found.

There _is_ (at least one) universal driver - a link on

http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=291927 (some way down) is

the first mention of anything like I find, but

http://www.technical-assistance.co.uk/kb/usbmsd98.php looks more like the

one I've tried before; I don't know if it's the one soporific incorporates

or not. I did try this on one of my 98lite systems, and it screwed up my USB

usage - but that _may_ be because I didn't necessarily follow the

instructions properly (such as removing any existing USB drivers first).

Lots of people seem happy with it; it (the latter one that is) I'm pretty

certain appeared to _install_ OK under '98lite, so may work on your '95.

[]

>>> The ONLY disadvantage to Lite is that since it uses the 95

>>> shell sometimes a program which "runs on 98" will /not/

>>> run on 98 Lite because of some stupid hook into the shell

>>> driver. Sigh.

>>

>> Sometimes it's only the install routine. Usually the

>> installer gives you a crash window saying which routine it

>> couldn't find (often something like, IIRR, "calloutaddress

>> in explorer.exe"). I've had success with these by one of 3

>> (on a 98 system that's been "lite"d) - 1: do a temporary

>> shell swap using 98lite, run the install, swap back; 2:

>> same thing manually (rename the two files - which 98lite

>> keeps there, just renames them from .dll and .exe to .w98)

>> (I think you have to boot in DOS to do this), run the

>> installer, rename them back; 3: using a hex. editor, hack

>> the installer file so that where it says "explorer.exe"

>> [near the call to the routine that doesn't exist], change

>> it to "explorer.w98, then install.

>

> Thank you, that's an EXCELLENT suggestion, and not at all hard

> to follow (well, I am not enough of a tech guy to alter the

> install file, but 1 and 2 are no problem).

It's not hard: I used the edit functions in XTree! the filename -

explorer.exe, shell32.dll or whatever - occurs in plain text somewhere in

the installer, so it's fairly simple to change .exe or .dll or whatever to

..w98. However, method 1 is probably as easy!

>

> The first thing I always install whenever I set up a computer

> (admittedly it's been /a/while/) is XTree for DOS, so I am not

> afraid of doing things outside of Windows, like renaming, moving

> hidden files etc. :-)

Likewise! Pity about the lack of long filenames. I've never invested enough

time to really play with Ztree - have you? (Incidentally, another thing I

don't like about XP: right-clicking on a filename in explorer in '9x, and

looking at properties, will show you what the DOS name - such as

progra~1.xyz - is; this seems to have disappeared from XP. [Maybe only if

under NTFS, I don't know.])

[]

> I'm not sure what you mean because I don't use Windows Explorer.

> I find the single pane interface maddening, and running two

> instances side by side stupid. Not to mention its functionality

> is limited, and I am being kind.

It does for me. I have downloaded a free two-pane variant, but haven't got

round to playing with it much.

[]

> I like old programs for too many reasons to mention - I have

> seen quite a few instances where it is simply unbelievable that

> a program SO tiny can not just run so fast but do so much. Quite

> a few of them I have found on the http://www.tinyapps.org site - if

> you're N/F I /highly/ recommend it.

Did I mention http://www.roadkil.net/downloads.php? Some small ones there

....

[]

> Of course; I was being very general. But seeing, just as an

> example, OmniPage version 12 or 15 is a little ridiculous.

> Haven't they heard of going with decimals for minor changes?

> Still, IMO it is preferable to using year numbers instead of

> version numbers.

Each has its advantages - if you take your eye off one for a little while,

at least you know roughly how old it is, whereas you don't with version 12.

[]

> Anyway, ACDSee 2.22 is an 824KB exe. I believe the current

> version, 12 or something, is over 20 MB and I am almost willing

> to bet it does nothing intrinsically useful AFA image

I can't remember what ACDSee does - if images, I use IrfanView. (The core is

still about the size of a floppy, though the plugins - which you _can_ get

by without - push it up somewhat if you want to handle every aspect of every

image format under the sun).

> management. When I need a file manager, I use T.C. When I want

> to play an mp3, I use STP, a 250KB program from tinyapps. Etc.

WinAmp or IrfanView ...

> When I want to check a few images, I don't want to wait for a 25

> MB app with ten 15-line long menus to load!

Yes, that's what I like about IrfanView - that plus the easy keyboard

navigation.

[]

>> You need broadband these days though: both

>> AVG and McAfee's daily downloads are BIG (McAfee's usually

>> about 30-50 Meg these days!). []

>

> Heh heh. 33.6 modem over here :-) But I only update definitions

> once every couple of months - I have an Acronis image in case of

> some disaster.

It's how you actually _use_ the image if you have to that worries me.

[]

--

J. P. Gilliver | Tel. +44 1634 203298

July 19, 2008

Re: 95/98 ramblings

Re: 95/98 ramblings

"J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in

news:487e3595$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:

>> BION, I have NEVER tried USB with my 98SE machine (all my

>> current peripherals are parallel or P/S). I just assume it

>> works. But I'm glad you mentioned the soporific driver,

>> I'll look it up and DL it. JUst in case.

>

> (I don't know BION.)

Do you mean you don't know that it stands for 'believe it or

not' or that it's not rare for people to have never used USB?

Gotta be the latter!

<SNIP>

> Ah, misunderstanding there.

<SNIP>

> There _is_ (at least one) universal driver - a link on

> http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=291927

> (some way down) is the first mention of anything like I

> find, but

> http://www.technical-assistance.co.uk/kb/usbmsd98.php looks

> more like the one I've tried before (...) it (the

> latter one that is) I'm pretty certain appeared to

> _install_ OK under '98lite, so may work on your '95.

Nah, I still don't have a single USB device nor do I intend to

ever try USB with 95 again, but just in case 98 ever gives me

trouble...

Thanks for the additional links, I'll visit.

[update]

I did, and even though it was only last night, I already forgot

WHERE I actually got it, but I ended up with the "Maximus Decim

Native USB ver.3.3" which I believe covers most of the bases.

Anyway, I still don't have a single USB device, so...

<SNIP>

> Likewise! Pity about the lack of long filenames. I've never

> invested enough time to really play with Ztree - have you?

Well, I don't know about 'really' - but I did use it for a

while. It is very impressive. But it has SO many very advanced

features added to it that I couldn't deal with it. And once I

found it, I decided I prefer Total Commander, ultimately. I

think the functionality is about the same (at the /very least/)

and the ease of use much higher in T.C.

> (Incidentally, another thing I don't like about XP:

> right-clicking on a filename in explorer in '9x, and

> looking at properties, will show you what the DOS name -

> such as progra~1.xyz - is; this seems to have disappeared

> from XP. [Maybe only if under NTFS, I don't know.])

I know nothing about XP and VERY sincerely hope to keep it this

way. I just read a link from another group about how there is

really no more XP support (I never cared about 95 or 98 support,

but with XP you actually appear to HAVE to communicate with MS

to even get it running - or running AGAIN - so it's a different

- and smelly - kettle of fish).

One of the comments on that link page said his daughter just

installed Ubuntu, it does everything XP does and no more MS

nightmares.

(BTW, Total Commander has an option to show you the 8.3 names

right in the 2 panes along with the long names.)

>> I'm not sure what you mean because I don't use Windows

>> Explorer. I find the single pane interface maddening, and

>> running two instances side by side stupid. Not to mention

>> its functionality is limited, and I am being kind.

>

> It does for me. I have downloaded a free two-pane variant,

> but haven't got round to playing with it much.

Didn't know there was one. Forgive me for being prejudiced, but

I'm sure it sucks.

>> I like old programs for too many reasons to mention - I

>> have seen quite a few instances where it is simply

>> unbelievable that a program SO tiny can not just run so

>> fast but do so much. Quite a few of them I have found on

>> the http://www.tinyapps.org site - if you're N/F I /highly/

>> recommend it.

>

> Did I mention http://www.roadkil.net/downloads.php? Some

> small ones there ...

You did mention it but I didn't know what you meant... Will

visit.

(Just did... It seems to be one of the - regrettably - few sites

by a good programmer who believes in freeware... I love that!

Have you tried the data recovery utils? There are almost no free

ones! If his programs are as good as the site

design/functionality, it's a winner! Although the advantage of

tinyapps is that it has a HUGE variety of programs from

everywhere, not just one person's work.)

>> Of course; I was being very general. But seeing, just as

>> an example, OmniPage version 12 or 15 is a little

>> ridiculous. Haven't they heard of going with decimals for

>> minor changes? Still, IMO it is preferable to using year

>> numbers instead of version numbers.

>

> Each has its advantages - if you take your eye off one for

> a little while, at least you know roughly how old it is,

> whereas you don't with version 12. []

Well, you DO have a point there :-)

>> Anyway, ACDSee 2.22 is an 824KB exe. I believe the current

>> version, 12 or something, is over 20 MB and I am almost

>> willing to bet it does nothing intrinsically useful AFA

>> image

>

> I can't remember what ACDSee does - if images, I use

> IrfanView. (The core is still about the size of a floppy,

> though the plugins - which you _can_ get by without - push

> it up somewhat if you want to handle every aspect of every

> image format under the sun).

I have great respect and admiration for IrfanView and the

author's attitude, but when I tried it (admittedly a long time

ago) I found the interface clumsy and ugly, and was already

/very/ used to ACDSee which I'd been using since the early 90's.

I'd try it again, but like I said, I prefer a program to do ONE

thing well than 5 things well (usually it ends up one well, 4

very badly), plus I actually paid for ACDSee so it would be a

little "unpleasant" to switch. I wonder if the interface looks

any better now. (I know that's not the most important thing, but

I am a bit of an aesthete, and for instance, simply could NOT

look at the default icons of ThumbsPlus - otherwise MOST useful

software - so used a program to make my own icons for it. WHAT

an improvement!)

<SNIP>

> It's how you actually _use_ the image if you have to that

> worries me.

Not sure what you mean. By a funny coincidence, the article I

mention above about no XP support actually mentions no support

from Acronis as well. My story is kind of amusing - I have NEVER

heard of disk-imaging programs, but about 5 or so years ago I

bought a copy of PC Answers (a GREAT - then, anyway) British

magazine and it had a full free working version of Acronis T.I.

Deluxe on the CD. (I got a completely free version of AABBY OCR

the same way - incredible!)

It has NEVER failed me - it is simply wonderful. OTOH, I have

read quite a few people complain of problems with later

versions.

Small is beautiful.

WHY can't people just leave well enough alone???

Regards,

t.

--

[from a recent conversation]

thanatoid: So why did you decide you needed broadband?

Neighbor: I wanted to read my e-mail faster.

July 22, 2008

Re: 95/98 ramblings

Re: 95/98 ramblings

thanatoid wrote:

> "J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in

> news:487e3595$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:

>

>>> BION, I have NEVER tried USB with my 98SE machine (all my

>>> current peripherals are parallel or P/S). I just assume it

>>> works. But I'm glad you mentioned the soporific driver,

>>> I'll look it up and DL it. JUst in case.

>>

>> (I don't know BION.)

>

> Do you mean you don't know that it stands for 'believe it or

> not' or that it's not rare for people to have never used USB?

> Gotta be the latter!

No, I hadn't come across BION before (-:.

[]

> Thanks for the additional links, I'll visit.

>

> [update]

> I did, and even though it was only last night, I already forgot

> WHERE I actually got it, but I ended up with the "Maximus Decim

> Native USB ver.3.3" which I believe covers most of the bases.

> Anyway, I still don't have a single USB device, so...

Good luck with it when you do. I find pen drives (or whatever you wish to

call them) somewhat useful, these days.

[]

>> invested enough time to really play with Ztree - have you?

>

> Well, I don't know about 'really' - but I did use it for a

> while. It is very impressive. But it has SO many very advanced

> features added to it that I couldn't deal with it. And once I

> found it, I decided I prefer Total Commander, ultimately. I

> think the functionality is about the same (at the /very least/)

> and the ease of use much higher in T.C.

I like my keyboard shortcuts. (So I still use Xtree quite a bit.)

[]

> I know nothing about XP and VERY sincerely hope to keep it this

Ah, know thine enemy (-:! I have to use it here at work, and for everyday

tasks, it's fine: there are even some of the things I like.

> way. I just read a link from another group about how there is

> really no more XP support (I never cared about 95 or 98 support,

> but with XP you actually appear to HAVE to communicate with MS

> to even get it running - or running AGAIN - so it's a different

> - and smelly - kettle of fish).

Only once, and that can be by MoDem. (Or not at all if you're a big

corporate or institutional installer, though if you're that you probably

will communicate with them regularly anyway.)

>

> One of the comments on that link page said his daughter just

> installed Ubuntu, it does everything XP does and no more MS

> nightmares.

Ah, well, if you open the door a crack enough to let in the Windows/*x wars,

you'll never hear the end of them ...

[]

>>> Explorer. I find the single pane interface maddening, and

>>> running two instances side by side stupid. Not to mention

>>> its functionality is limited, and I am being kind.

>>

>> It does for me. I have downloaded a free two-pane variant,

>> but haven't got round to playing with it much.

>

> Didn't know there was one. Forgive me for being prejudiced, but

> I'm sure it sucks.

What exactly do you mean by single pane - do you mean (you want to be

capable of) seeing two lists of files as once (like F8 in Xtree)? If so,

that's one of the things the freebie included. I think it might have been

http://www.zabkat.com/x2lite.htm (581 kB [he says; the setup is 2,834]). I

think I'll have another play with it.

>

>>> I like old programs for too many reasons to mention - I

>>> have seen quite a few instances where it is simply

>>> unbelievable that a program SO tiny can not just run so

>>> fast but do so much. Quite a few of them I have found on

>>> the http://www.tinyapps.org site - if you're N/F I /highly/

>>> recommend it.

>>

>> Did I mention http://www.roadkil.net/downloads.php? Some

>> small ones there ...

>

> You did mention it but I didn't know what you meant... Will

> visit.

>

> (Just did... It seems to be one of the - regrettably - few sites

> by a good programmer who believes in freeware... I love that!

> Have you tried the data recovery utils? There are almost no free

> ones! If his programs are as good as the site

> design/functionality, it's a winner! Although the advantage of

Yes, now that you mention it, the UI _is_ good, too. I've downloaded quite a

few of them (note that some appear under several of the categories). A

colleague has even been trying his uninterruptable copier for genuine work.

(I found his Sudoku very difficult - but then I've never really understood

how setters "rate" a sudoku puzzle, anyway.)

> tinyapps is that it has a HUGE variety of programs from

> everywhere, not just one person's work.)

I've had a look round there. Excellent site (though not very well

maintained - quite a few of the links went to things that clearly aren't

what they were. But that's life).

[]

>>> Anyway, ACDSee 2.22 is an 824KB exe. I believe the current

>>> version, 12 or something, is over 20 MB and I am almost

>>> willing to bet it does nothing intrinsically useful AFA

>>> image

>>

>> I can't remember what ACDSee does - if images, I use

>> IrfanView. (The core is still about the size of a floppy,

>> though the plugins - which you _can_ get by without - push

>> it up somewhat if you want to handle every aspect of every

>> image format under the sun).

>

> I have great respect and admiration for IrfanView and the

> author's attitude, but when I tried it (admittedly a long time

> ago) I found the interface clumsy and ugly, and was already

> /very/ used to ACDSee which I'd been using since the early 90's.

Still going - new version out today, with lots of things fixed/added that I

hadn't realised I wanted it to do, and (the main prog.) still under a

floppy's worth. A few iterations ago, it added the ability to use toolbars

of your own design, and there are a few available now. I _like_ the

interface - although it's virtually all GUIable too, there's a lot that can

be done from the keybaord.

>

> I'd try it again, but like I said, I prefer a program to do ONE

> thing well than 5 things well (usually it ends up one well, 4

> very badly), plus I actually paid for ACDSee so it would be a

I don't think there's a lot that IV actually does do that it doesn't do well

(well, I wouldn't use it much for sound and video, but those aren't what

it's for!). I've actually paid for it as I like it so much.

[]

>> It's how you actually _use_ the image if you have to that

>> worries me.

>

> Not sure what you mean. By a funny coincidence, the article I

I had to think for a while, since we'd been talking about Image prog.s such

as IrfanView, before I remembered we were talking about disc images. What I

mean is: however wonderful your disc imaging software is: how do you restore

from the image, if for some reason your OS won't boot? The imaging prog.

must have some way of starting a basically dead machine in order to do the

restore - I'd say ideally something that can start from a floppy (or at a

pinch these days CD or bootable USB stick).

[]

--

J. P. Gilliver | Tel. +44 1634 203298

July 24, 2008

Re: 95/98 ramblings

Re: 95/98 ramblings

"J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in

news:48861a63$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:

> I find pen drives (or

> whatever you wish to call them) somewhat useful, these

> days. []

Oh, they are wonderful (although useless to me personally) and

the prices are getting INSANE. I saw an 8GB (!) online for about

$25 after a rebate, or something! 3 or 4 years ago I bought a

256MB (perhaps 512MB, I can't remember) for a Xmas gift for a

friend and paid well over $50!

>>> invested enough time to really play with Ztree - have

>>> you?

<SNIP>

> I like my keyboard shortcuts. (So I still use Xtree quite a

> bit.)

Total Commander has an ASTONISHING mile-long custom shortcut key

assignment menu. The main reason people don't like it is that

most people can not readjust their brain to the double pane

view. But if you are an Xtree fan, you should love it. Explorer-

like tree view is also possible, or course (accidentally found

THAT option a few weeks ago... I hit the wrong F key along with

the Ctl key... I find new stuff ALL the time).

http://www.ghisler.com

(Don't be put off by the godawful screenshot. The interface is

quite configurable.)

I try to use the mouse (I actually have a Logitech Marble

Trackman) as little as possible, but it is unfortunately

unavoidable. (What I really hate is programs that allow for

virtually NO kbd shortcuts.)

Still, nothing is funnier/sadder than a person trying to select

3 words to delete from their text with a mouse, letter by space

by letter... I do it with 2-4 keyboard hits (one optional mouse

click) and they almost faint :-)

>> I know nothing about XP and VERY sincerely hope to keep it

>> this

>

> Ah, know thine enemy (-:! I have to use it here at work,

> and for everyday tasks, it's fine: there are even some of

> the things I like.

Well, purely coincidentally, in the last week or so, I have

actually started thinking of putting it on my 2GHz machine...

(If any other posters who know me read this they WILL have to

have ammonia salts brought to them.)

First I thought of making it a multiboot but it is simply

impractical to backup all the crap on it - as I would have to

do, being the kind of person who follows warnings, and

especially when they are about to mess about with the MBR), but

then I thought, I have 16 partitions, the ONLY stuff on C is the

OS and programs (a few DOS programs aren't even on C), and I

have an Acronis Image of the latest config, so why not just wipe

C and install XP on IT? (see later for more on Acronis).

So I am thinking about it. I am concerned some of the programs I

USE which date from over 10 years ago may not run on XP and I am

not clear on whether there is any DOS/3.1 programs support with

XP - I vaguely recall reading somewhere there was a 10MB (or

something huge anyway) "DOS emulator" in it - I don't know if

it's true or not in it but I just saw it as another reason to

stay clear of it. We'll see.

Another concern is NTFS. The remaining 15 partitions will

obviously remain FAT32, and I am not sure whether the version I

am thinking of installing (a "modified" one, shall we say, MS

isn't selling it anymore and that was THEIR decision) allows for

a choice of NTFS or FAT32. I once read an MVP (!) refer to NTFS

as a "fiasco" so I would prefer to install XP with FAT32 - the

partition it is going on IS formatted in FAT32 so perhaps it

will simply "play along".

The bigger concern is (I lack the deeper knowledge of these

things) is whether the stuff on the other partitions in FAT32

will interact properly with XP /should it/ install with NTFS. I

would /think/ the actual file structure system is irrelevant to

what the end-user and the OS "see" and work with, but I don't

know for sure. In any case, should everything go to hell, I have

my trusty Acronis CD-R.

I am not really sure why I am even thinking of it - there are NO

XP-only programs I want to run, but I am just SO SICK of having

watched almost the same screen for 12+ years (I have a wallpaper

changer and LOTS of various wallpapers most of which I made

myself but most of the icons are the ones I had 10 years ago or

almost equivalent), that I hope having a new interface and an

assortment of new annoyances (there are BOUND to be SOME if not

/many/ - although it almost seems that when MS stops "improving"

and "supporting" an OS, THEN is the time to start using it :-)

may give my mind something new to think about as well as inspire

me to try some of the programs I have had for years and never

"got around to". I just have to do a major cleanup-prune-archive

job of all the things I will never look at again anyway (well -

at least I am aware that it is nothing but my pedantry that is

forcing me to perform unnecessary time-consuming actions - like

saving emails from 10 years ago).

<SNIP>

> Ah, well, if you open the door a crack enough to let in the

> Windows/*x wars, you'll never hear the end of them ...

So I have noticed :-)

<SNIP>

> What exactly do you mean by single pane - do you mean (you

> want to be capable of) seeing two lists of files as once

> (like F8 in Xtree)?

Exactly. And Total Commander and about half of the other

"alternatives" to Windows Explorer have that as the basic

feature. As you know, among hundreds (thousands?) of other

things, the 2 panes allow you to use one key to copy or move

file(s) - once you select them of course... I have only used my

advanced file rename utility ONCE, I think, since I got Total

Commander - it includes an EXCELLENT multiple file renamer.

<SNIP>

> (I found his Sudoku very difficult - but then I've never

> really understood how setters "rate" a sudoku puzzle,

> anyway.)

I once spent about 15 seconds trying to comprehend the principle

behind Sudoku and what pleasure can be gained from engaging in

it, but my patience for such things is extremely low. Still, to

me it's just another sign that humans may be descended from

aliens and that if so, the Japanese are the closest relatives...

>> tinyapps is that it has a HUGE variety of programs from

>> everywhere, not just one person's work.)

>

> I've had a look round there. Excellent site (though not

> very well maintained - quite a few of the links went to

> things that clearly aren't what they were. But that's

> life).

Feel free to write to the site owner if you feel it's worth your

time.

(I wrote to him once about a program he has on there that I had

a horrible problem with and he actually answered me!)

I haven't DL'd anything from there in quite a while, but I am

almost sure it is the only place on the web to get STP - a tiny

mp3 player (written by some young Russian guy before he got

drafted and basically disappeared) which is just fantastic. I

learned about quite a few other nice apps there as well.

Understandably, especially when this 166 was my only computer, I

was really into small apps. I still am. For instance, I use the

program from http://www.goldenhawk.com (under 1.5 MB DL) for CD

burning. IMO it is better and faster than all the well-known

ones - there are a few even smaller ones but they either burn

too many coasters, or have about 3 options instead of 6 or 7

complete and /very/ comprehensive modules, or just don't do

anything - I've tried quite a few after deciding the people who

wrote Nero were just sadists.

<SNIP>

> What I mean is: however

> wonderful your disc imaging software is: how do you restore

> from the image, if for some reason your OS won't boot? The

> imaging prog. must have some way of starting a basically

> dead machine in order to do the restore - I'd say ideally

> something that can start from a floppy (or at a pinch these

> days CD or bootable USB stick).

I don't understand HOW it does it, since it even does it on my

11.5 yr old 95B machine, but all you do is put the Acronis CD in

the drive and reboot the machine. It's simply miraculous. The

fact it was free (on-line reg. was all that was req'd) STILL

blows my mind. I would not at all be surprised if the new

versions offered a USB stick boot option.

--

[from a recent conversation]

thanatoid: So why did you decide you needed broadband?

Neighbor: I wanted to read my e-mail faster.

August 12, 2008

Re: 95/98 ramblings

Re: 95/98 ramblings

thanatoid wrote:

> "J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in

> news:48861a63$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:

>

>> I find pen drives (or

>> whatever you wish to call them) somewhat useful, these

>> days. []

>

> Oh, they are wonderful (although useless to me personally) and

> the prices are getting INSANE. I saw an 8GB (!) online for about

> $25 after a rebate, or something! 3 or 4 years ago I bought a

> 256MB (perhaps 512MB, I can't remember) for a Xmas gift for a

> friend and paid well over $50!

Yes - I recently wanted to get something so that a non-computer-savvy friend

could back things up in case of emergency (she's an accountant, so not dim -

just not computerate), and a pen drive seemed the easiest way (her accounts

package offers to back up wherever you say, whenever you quit it - and I've

checked that the restore onto a new PC is easy too); my local supermarket

was selling them. I think they go up to 32G these days ...

[]

> Total Commander has an ASTONISHING mile-long custom shortcut key

> assignment menu. The main reason people don't like it is that

> most people can not readjust their brain to the double pane

I thought (as you say below) that was - initially - the point!

[]

> http://www.ghisler.com

>

> (Don't be put off by the godawful screenshot. The interface is

If you mean http://www.ghisler.com/picture.htm, then the one for xplorer2

(http://www.zabkat.com/index.htm), at http://www.zabkat.com/tour1.htm, is

probably worse.

> quite configurable.)

>

> I try to use the mouse (I actually have a Logitech Marble

> Trackman) as little as possible, but it is unfortunately

> unavoidable. (What I really hate is programs that allow for

> virtually NO kbd shortcuts.)

Indeed. As well as personal preference (and productivity - I think most

things _can_ be done faster from the keyboard, _though not all_ [some things

_are_ quicker with the mouse]), I have another interest: computing for the

blind. For them, keyboard shortcuts are virtually essential: OK, a good

"screenreader" (the name for the interface software; of course, it does a

lot more than just read the screen these days) can make _most_ things usable

to some extent (other than image manipulation which they won't be using

anyway), but things are a lot easier to use if the designer has put them in.

>

> Still, nothing is funnier/sadder than a person trying to select

> 3 words to delete from their text with a mouse, letter by space

> by letter... I do it with 2-4 keyboard hits (one optional mouse

> click) and they almost faint :-)

Or watching them fill in a form - type, mouse, type, mouse - rather than

using the tab key. (Mind you, in a few cases the order the tab key taked you

round the boxes is, at the least, invigorating - the more obscure corners of

IrfanView's configuration screens are a good example; I presume it's how

whichever software it is has developed). And closing down: Win, u, e (with a

few Alt-space, X [and enter to save if necessary] if anything needs closing

first). In XP, incidentally, it's Win, U, U to close - in many cases (can

depend on configuration).

[XP]

> Well, purely coincidentally, in the last week or so, I have

> actually started thinking of putting it on my 2GHz machine...

[]

> So I am thinking about it. I am concerned some of the programs I

> USE which date from over 10 years ago may not run on XP and I am

> not clear on whether there is any DOS/3.1 programs support with

> XP - I vaguely recall reading somewhere there was a 10MB (or

> something huge anyway) "DOS emulator" in it - I don't know if

> it's true or not in it but I just saw it as another reason to

> stay clear of it. We'll see.

I _think_ I don't have anything that works in the DOS box in '9x that

doesn't in XP; there might have been the odd one where the built-in XP

function was sufficiently acceptable (or, heresy to say, better) than my old

utility so I either didn't worry that it didn't work or didn't try, but not

many.

>

> Another concern is NTFS. The remaining 15 partitions will

> obviously remain FAT32, and I am not sure whether the version I

> am thinking of installing (a "modified" one, shall we say, MS

> isn't selling it anymore and that was THEIR decision) allows for

> a choice of NTFS or FAT32. I once read an MVP (!) refer to NTFS

> as a "fiasco" so I would prefer to install XP with FAT32 - the

I agree with your "(!)"; most MVPs definitely toe the party line on that!

> partition it is going on IS formatted in FAT32 so perhaps it

> will simply "play along".

From what I remember (I have installed XP a few times, but not enough to say

I'm familiar with the process), if it finds an already-existant FAT

partition, it will offer to convert it to NTFS, but not oblige you to do so.

This may depend on which version of XP you try, and/or what choices (e. g.

default or custom) you choose, I don't know, though. (I nearly always choose

custom on any install that offers it, on the basis that the defaults under

custom are usually the same as the default, so any setting I don't

understand I leave anyway.)

>

> The bigger concern is (I lack the deeper knowledge of these

> things) is whether the stuff on the other partitions in FAT32

> will interact properly with XP /should it/ install with NTFS. I

> would /think/ the actual file structure system is irrelevant to

> what the end-user and the OS "see" and work with, but I don't

I'm pretty sure XP will see and use any FS regardless of what the one it's

installed on is. (This even, I think, applies to an HD you put into an

external box and connect to the USB port [or use a USB-to-IDE cable - I'v

used this, though so far only with a FAT one].) It still reads/writes

floppies (though there's something about 720k ones - can't remember if it's

no altogether, or just it can't write or maybe format them).

> know for sure. In any case, should everything go to hell, I have

> my trusty Acronis CD-R.

>

> I am not really sure why I am even thinking of it - there are NO

> XP-only programs I want to run, but I am just SO SICK of having

Unfortunately, it is getting increasingly hard to get new hardware to run

under '9x - a lot of it just won't, and even that which does, I have the

feeling that I'm having to spend more time fighting it than I used to. (That

_could_ just be compared to XP, where I'm afraid to say a lot of it just

_works_, often without having to install _anything_. I recenty bought a

microscope, for example.)

> watched almost the same screen for 12+ years (I have a wallpaper

> changer and LOTS of various wallpapers most of which I made

Panorama? (Works under XP by the way.)

> myself but most of the icons are the ones I had 10 years ago or

> almost equivalent), that I hope having a new interface and an

Well, the initial default interface (complete with what in UK is often

referred to as the "Teletubbies" wallpaper, from its resemblance to a

children's TV series) will sicken you: with each new iteration, it seems to

me they make for more pastel colours, and bigger icons - with the result

that though you may have a higher-resolution display, you still can only get

the same number of icons on it. Fortunately, you can switch both the start

menu and taskbar, and the appearance of windows in general, to a "classic"

view (e. g. with square corners). (Mind you, some of the normal things -

like altering the colours of various parts of a window - are now hidden

behind an "Advanced" button! What that says about what they think of their

target audience ...)

> assortment of new annoyances (there are BOUND to be SOME if not

> /many/ - although it almost seems that when MS stops "improving"

To be fair, after the initial familiarisation (and the feeling of loss of

control, due in large part to NTFS which I won't use if I go XP), not a lot.

A lot of it does just work.

> and "supporting" an OS, THEN is the time to start using it :-)

Are you me (-:?!?

[]

> <SNIP>

(Sorry, that's what my "[]" mean.)

[]

> advanced file rename utility ONCE, I think, since I got Total

> Commander - it includes an EXCELLENT multiple file renamer.

As does IrfanView (including the ability to rename files based on their EXIF

data, so the first thing I usually do when taking .jpg files from my

camera's card is rename them from pic001 or whatever to 2008-08-12 9-51-18

or whatever).

[]

> I once spent about 15 seconds trying to comprehend the principle

> behind Sudoku and what pleasure can be gained from engaging in

> it, but my patience for such things is extremely low. Still, to

There _is_ a satisfaction in doing it, especially when you get moderately

familiar with some of the ways. Still, I'd say it's pretty unproductive -

slightly more so than doing cryptic crosswords, which at least teaches you

(very occasionally) new words/facts.

> me it's just another sign that humans may be descended from

> aliens and that if so, the Japanese are the closest relatives...

Naughty!

>

>>> tinyapps is that it has a HUGE variety of programs from

[]

> Feel free to write to the site owner if you feel it's worth your

> time.

> (I wrote to him once about a program he has on there that I had

> a horrible problem with and he actually answered me!)

I really should, since he's gone to all the trouble of creating the site. It

wasn't any of his own, I think - some of his links to other sites no longer

are.

[]

> program from http://www.goldenhawk.com (under 1.5 MB DL) for CD

> burning. IMO it is better and faster than all the well-known

> ones - there are a few even smaller ones but they either burn

> too many coasters, or have about 3 options instead of 6 or 7

> complete and /very/ comprehensive modules, or just don't do

> anything - I've tried quite a few after deciding the people who

> wrote Nero were just sadists.

Ah, I've got burn4free, and another even smaller one; burn4free (if I've

remembered it's name right) seems to work very well, and also doesn't need

new drivers to match new drives (including DVD ones), unlike "Easy" CD

Creator, which is Adaptec/Roxio's competitor to Nero. I will admit I tend to

_use_ ECDC, simply because I got it with a drive and have got used to its

UI.

[]

> I don't understand HOW it does it, since it even does it on my

> 11.5 yr old 95B machine, but all you do is put the Acronis CD in

> the drive and reboot the machine. It's simply miraculous. The

Does imply a BIOS that can boot from CD.

> fact it was free (on-line reg. was all that was req'd) STILL

Hmm. Sadly, doesn't seem to be any more, at a quick glance, unless I've

missed the part of the web page (I could understand if it's just hidden -

any pointers?); the excellent http://www.oldversion.com/ (you do know it, I

take it? not oldversionS) doesn't seem to know it. (I've tried a couple of

others too - http://www.oldapps.com/.) Do you know the Last Freeware version

site, as well (http://www.321download.com/)? That links, but only to the

paid version. (Googling for acronis and free finds lots of links, mostly

mentioning V7; I'll have to look into them.)

> blows my mind. I would not at all be surprised if the new

> versions offered a USB stick boot option.

Nor would I.

Do you know ERD/ERU (on the W95 CD under misc\other, or other\misc, or

something like that - but not copied over by default, for reasons I've never

been sure of; it's tiny)? Though not a full backup by any means, it backs up

about a dozen files by default (including the two that form the registry)

[you can choose which, and also change its list with a bit of tweaking,

though I haven't], into a directory of your choice, along with a

DOS-runnable executable that restores it? It has got me (and others) out of

a hole many times. It works under '98 fine (though I'm not sure it's on the

'98 CD). And, someone's written a version - called ERUNT, google for it -

that works under XP (and, as you'd guess, NT; I think now Vista too). I'll

certainly be installing that (not that it needs "installing") if I go XP.

--

J. P. Gilliver | Tel. +44 1634 203298

August 17, 2008

Re: 95/98 ramblings

Re: 95/98 ramblings

"J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in

news:48a14ffa$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:

> thanatoid wrote:

<SNIP>

>> Total Commander has an ASTONISHING mile-long custom

>> shortcut key assignment menu. The main reason people don't

>> like it is that most people can not readjust their brain

>> to the double pane

>

> I thought (as you say below) that was - initially - the

> point! []

If you mean the pane, well, for /me/ it is, I can not function

with one pane, but it seems many people are so "accustomed" to

what comes with Windows (I don't know how long it's been since

File Manager was dropped, but even though it was included in W95

and maybe even W98 or 2000, hardly anyone used it) that maybe

the two pane thing is just too difficult for some. After all, "I

have one computer, [usually] one partition [another subject,

sigh...] so WHY would there be /two/ panes?"

Or did you mean something else?

>> (Don't be put off by the godawful screenshot. The

>> interface is

>

> If you mean http://www.ghisler.com/picture.htm, then the

> one for xplorer2 (http://www.zabkat.com/index.htm), at

> http://www.zabkat.com/tour1.htm, is probably worse.

It is only worse in that the unbelievable screen clutter it

shows would instantly eliminate it as anything I would even want

to try. Albeit I find the red pointers to what is what helpful.

(I admit I have not read any of the text - the clutter may be

from cramming ALL the functions into one screen to prove what it

can do - nor have I enlarged the image - if it's possible.)

The current Ghisler screen shot is OK, but it suffers from the

same clutter - although it IS about 1/10 of the clutter in

zabkat. I guess Ghisler wants to show most options visible,

whereas even if you've never used a 2-paner before, shortcuts

become automatic very quickly. Also, he is even showing the FTP

connection (IMHO one of the very few unnecessary extras the

program has - there are SO many free FTP programs), and a bunch

of other things which just clutter it up. Not to mention the

godawful XP style box.

(The good thing is he has just released 7.04a as a successor to

7.02a - which I had installed and went back to 6.55 because he

gave it too much of an XP look: just the mere icons for the

drives were bugging me. The latest version seems to compromise

between the old simple rectangular drive icon and the new

horror, IOW /may/ be very slightly rounded but they are smaller

and the color is less offensive. Also, there actually ARE 2 or 3

new features that are worthwhile. [Of course, I still have not

learned of all the original features. Astounding program.])

FWIW, all I have on /my/ TC screen are the drive boxes (which I

should probably take out since I have them all shortcutted

anyway, along with the most important directories) and one line

above each pane which tells me the used/free space on that

partition. I /do/ have the status bar on at the bottom - it is

quite essential to everyday operations (shows # of files or dirs

selected, their sizes, etc.)

This is /not/ the picture I was referring to, in any case.

Several years ago he had a different screenshot on the main

page, which was about the size of zabkat's screenshot, and also

showed most options enabled, but also had an absolutely /horrid/

color scheme.

After playing with colors for quite a few years when I was a wee

lad (said desktop color schemes often eliciting exclamations of

astonishment from co-workers, who did not even know it was

possible to change the colors, or that File Manager existed in

95, for that matter) , I have now gone to an all-grey scheme.

Much nicer.

I used PC Magazine's "DisplaySet" to achieve this, since it is

/considerably/ more comprehensive than the built-in Windows

color schemer, to put it mildly.

>> I try to use the mouse (I actually have a Logitech Marble

>> Trackman) as little as possible, but it is unfortunately

>> unavoidable. (What I really hate is programs that allow

>> for virtually NO kbd shortcuts.)

>

> Indeed. As well as personal preference (and productivity -

> I think most things _can_ be done faster from the keyboard,

> _though not all_ [some things _are_ quicker with the

> mouse]

Definitely true, but not many. But of course there are things

that can ONLY be done with a mouse no matter how much you'd like

to use the keyboard (although there ARE utilities to replace the

mouse with the arrow keys, they are an even bigger drag (DRAG!

HAAAAR!) than the mouse itself. And tablets are nice for image

retouching etc. I have a really old one.

> I have another interest: computing for the blind.

Hearing that kind of thing makes me feel I am a totally useless

space-wasting creature. But let's not get into personal problems

and lifestyles...

I would assume you have heard of Ray Kurzweil, a true genius,

responsible for a fantastic music synthesizer (since bought by

Kawaii - I believe - as Kurzweil moved on to other interests)

who also made the first ever book-reading machine for the blind.

I have no idea how much it cost, but I know that Stevie Wonder

had one. That was in the late 70's IIRC.

<SNIP>

>> Still, nothing is funnier/sadder than a person trying to

>> select 3 words to delete from their text with a mouse,

>> letter by space by letter... I do it with 2-4 keyboard

>> hits (one optional mouse click) and they almost faint :-)

>

> Or watching them fill in a form - type, mouse, type, mouse

> - rather than using the tab key.

I still remember the astonishment and bewilderment as my co-

workers saw me use the alt-tab combination... "I did not know

whether to laugh or to cry..."

<SNIP>

>> So I am thinking about it. I am concerned some of the

>> programs I USE which date from over 10 years ago may not

>> run on XP and I am not clear on whether there is any

>> DOS/3.1 programs support with XP - I vaguely recall

>> reading somewhere there was a 10MB (or something huge

>> anyway) "DOS emulator" in it - I don't know if it's true

>> or not in it but I just saw it as another reason to stay

>> clear of it. We'll see.

>

> I _think_ I don't have anything that works in the DOS box

> in '9x that doesn't in XP; there might have been the odd

> one where the built-in XP function was sufficiently

> acceptable (or, heresy to say, better) than my old utility

> so I either didn't worry that it didn't work or didn't try,

> but not many.

I asked and was told in another group - they were VERY helpful -

that XP allows you to install it ALONG with another Win OS,

usually 98 or ME. /And/ it appears XP does /not/ have to be on

C:, where the previous OS obviously resides. And it /appears/

the two can coexist. Once I clean out my other machine's drive,

I may find out. I am still not sure whether it is just temporary

insanity or what.

<SNIP>

> From what I remember (I have installed XP a few times, but

> not enough to say I'm familiar with the process), if it

> finds an already-existant FAT partition, it will offer to

> convert it to NTFS, but not oblige you to do so. This may

> depend on which version of XP you try, and/or what choices

> (e. g. default or custom) you choose, I don't know, though.

> (I nearly always choose custom on any install that offers

> it, on the basis that the defaults under custom are usually

> the same as the default, so any setting I don't understand

> I leave anyway.)

Same here. And thanks for the add'l info about XP.

<SNIP>

You mean a microscope whose image is shown on the screen, and it

works with XP out of the box? Surely you MUST have installed

SOME drivers!

(Just read your recent post in the 98 group. Didn't you say it

worked perfectly well in the post I'm replying to? BTW, booting

in "safe mode" and adding drivers 1 by 1 is a nightmare. Just my

opinion. Hope you figure out another way.)

> Unfortunately, it is getting increasingly hard to get new

hardware to run under '9x - a lot of it just won't, and even

that which does, I have the feeling that I'm having to spend

more time fighting it than I used to.

Well, so far I have been forced to just junk them. But there has

really been VERY little really innovative written since the

90's, IMO. The old programs are smaller, run faster, have no

bloat, and their authors should be suing the people who are re-

writing them with new names and 30 MB of eye candy and

/occasionally/ some (mostly useless) add'l "features".

Of course, I am just a home user. I'm sure it's a different

story with scientists etc.

>> watched almost the same screen for 12+ years (I have a

>> wallpaper changer and LOTS of various wallpapers most of

>> which I made

>

> Panorama? (Works under XP by the way.)

Huh? I just use Micrografx Picture Publisher (I don't do pre-

press for $250 coffee-table books so I don't need Photoshop, and

MPP had multiple undo and other great features YEARS before

Photoshop did).

>> myself but most of the icons are the ones I had 10 years

>> ago or almost equivalent), that I hope having a new

>> interface and an

>

> Well, the initial default interface (complete with what in

> UK is often referred to as the "Teletubbies" wallpaper,

> from its resemblance to a children's TV series) will sicken

> you:

It already did when I saw shots of it on web pages. Ugh.

I never made the Teletubs connection, but you are /so/ correct.

I saw a few moments of a TT episode once, and it /really/

creeped me out. I don't know WHAT the future generations will be

like, and I don't WANT to know.

> with each new iteration, it seems to me they make for

> more pastel colours, and bigger icons - with the result

> that though you may have a higher-resolution display, you

> still can only get the same number of icons on it.

> Fortunately, you can switch both the start menu and

> taskbar, and the appearance of windows in general, to a

> "classic" view (e. g. with square corners). (Mind you, some

> of the normal things - like altering the colours of various

> parts of a window - are now hidden behind an "Advanced"

> button! What that says about what they think of their

> target audience ...)

Well, you MUST have heard this famous quote:

"Let's face it, the average computer user has the brain of a

Spider Monkey." - Bill Gates, about his customers.

>> assortment of new annoyances (there are BOUND to be SOME

>> if not /many/ - although it almost seems that when MS

>> stops "improving"

>

> To be fair, after the initial familiarisation (and the

> feeling of loss of control, due in large part to NTFS which

> I won't use if I go XP), not a lot. A lot of it does just

> work.

So I hear, and so as long as I can make it not look like a 5

year old's (Spider Monkey's?) playroom and /hopefully/ use

Display Set to further customize it (who knows, maybe the

functions ARE in XP already - hidden, as you say), it may not be

so bad. My biggest concern was that some of my main programs

would not run on XP - but if I can keep 98SE, there is obviously

no problem.

>> and "supporting" an OS, THEN is the time to start using it

>> :-)

>

> Are you me (-:?!?

Heh heh.

> []

>> <SNIP>

>

> (Sorry, that's what my "[]" mean.)

I took me a few minutes but I figured it out. I MUST admit it is

a LOT faster than typing <SNIP>.

(Just added it to my Short Keys list. WHY didn't I do that years

ago?????)

<SNIP>

ahhh...

>> advanced file rename utility ONCE, I think, since I got

>> Total Commander - it includes an EXCELLENT multiple file

>> renamer.

>

> As does IrfanView (including the ability to rename files

> based on their EXIF data, so the first thing I usually do

> when taking .jpg files from my camera's card is rename them

> from pic001 or whatever to 2008-08-12 9-51-18 or whatever).

I doubt I will ever own a digital camera. I did a lot of 35mm

photography when I was in my late teens and 20's, but the last

time I took any photos and enjoyed doing it was about 20 years

ago. I have two 35mm cameras (a $10 Vivitar and a used East-

German Practica SLR with a Japanese 'Takumar' lens which is not

bad at all), but I can not even remember when I last used either

one.

>> I once spent about 15 seconds trying to comprehend the

>> principle behind Sudoku and what pleasure can be gained

>> from engaging in it, but my patience for such things is

>> extremely low. Still, to

>

> There _is_ a satisfaction in doing it, especially when you

> get moderately familiar with some of the ways. Still, I'd

> say it's pretty unproductive - slightly more so than doing

> cryptic crosswords, which at least teaches you (very

> occasionally) new words/facts.

I hate crosswords. I can't even do the National Enquirer ones! I

tried the NYT (or Harper's, or something) crossword once and I

decided my IQ tests results (which have been consistent over the

years and fairly respectable) must be a hallucination.

(Out of curiosity, tried to do one from the Chicago Tribune

yesterday. What a nightmare. It's official - I have become a

moron.)

>> me it's just another sign that humans may be descended

>> from aliens and that if so, the Japanese are the closest

>> relatives...

>

> Naughty!

Oh no, I like aliens, but you MUST admit the Japanese culture,

aside from regaling the civilization with the Trinitron and

geishas, has also contributed things like sumo wrestling and

Transformers. On sushi I can go either way depending on the

slime factor :-)

<SNIP>

>> I don't understand HOW it does it, since it even does it

>> on my 11.5 yr old 95B machine, but all you do is put the

>> Acronis CD in the drive and reboot the machine. It's

>> simply miraculous. The

>

> Does imply a BIOS that can boot from CD.

I think all BIOS's from 95-96 or so onwards can boot from "any"

source, but there's more to it than that. I have my current

image on the HD as well as on CD-R's with all the older ones and

if you reboot from Acronis it will restore the image from the HD

as well - never even entering into DOS - I /assume/ it passes

through the BIOS.

> Hmm. Sadly, doesn't seem to be any more, at a quick glance,

> unless I've missed the part of the web page (I could

> understand if it's just hidden - any pointers?); the

> excellent http://www.oldversion.com/ (you do know it, I

> take it?

Yes, it's come in handy a few times.

> (I've tried a couple of others too - http://www.oldapps.com/

That one was only introduced to me a few months ago and I was

quite disappointed. I find places like Garbo etc. infinitely

richer in nice old stuff.

> Do

> you know the Last Freeware version site, as well

> (http://www.321download.com/)?

Yes. I have links to a bunch of software collection sites (there

are way too many!) but what REALLY annoys me is that they always

have the latest version ONLY, and quite often when it's an older

program, often the DL link is to the author's web site, which in

many cases no longer exists. INFURIATING. But then again, WHO

could keep up?

Here's a nice one if you're not familiar with it:

http://freeware.intrastar.net

> That links, but only to the

> paid version. (Googling for acronis and free finds lots of

> links, mostly mentioning V7; I'll have to look into them.)

I am pretty sure all versions work with 95 (except maybe the

latest) and I am also pretty sure ver 6 and 7 were still

relatively unbloated.

> And, someone's written a version - called

> ERUNT, google for it - that works under XP (and, as you'd

> guess, NT; I think now Vista too). I'll certainly be

> installing that (not that it needs "installing") if I go

> XP.

I have looked at ERUNT and it was a little confusing, and I

think unnecessary...

What I like about Acronis is that ALL the programs I had to have

to make sure I could salvage my machine when it "went boom" have

gone into retirement.

Anyway, I looked for drive imaging freeware that would run on

any system and here's one I found that looks fairly good. (There

were several free ones but they only run on 2000 and up, VERY

annoying.)

http://www.miray.de/products/sat.hdclone.html

There is also an apparently /fantastic/ freeware image burner

called imgburn. It is not a "disc imager" but I think it could

work as one. I believe it will create bootable discs as many

other CD/DVD burners will do - and with the most enthusiastic

reviews I have /ever/ seen ("THE best freeware program I've ever

used" etc.) this one sounds like it actually works (I tried

about 10 various CD burner programs - most didn't work or were

VERY buggy - and ended up buying the one from

http://www.goldenhawk.com - it is excellent, but it is $40).

I checked the Acronis site and it is as bloated now as the

latest versions. I was going to offer to post the zip of my

version along with the serial in some binaries group for you,

but there are a few "problems" associated with doing this. I

wrote to Acronis to see if they'll give me another license

number "for a friend" so we'll see what they say.

--

[from a recent conversation]

thanatoid: So why did you decide you needed broadband?

Neighbor: I wanted to read my e-mail faster.

August 17, 2008

Re: 95/98 ramblings

Re: 95/98 ramblings

(I think I chose a good name for this thread - I suspect it will run and

run, even if mostly with the two of us!)

In message <Xns9AFDC7C32F77thanexit@66.250.146.158>, thanatoid

<waiting@the.exit.invalid> writes

[]

>File Manager was dropped, but even though it was included in W95

>and maybe even W98 or 2000, hardly anyone used it) that maybe

I _think_ it was still stuck with 8.3 filenames. (Which reminds me: at

least the file load/save window in 3.x was a bit more intuitive. The

file load and save windows, in '9x and beyond, present "where you are"

in a way that's _so_ different from how Explorer does [and how I

visualise things], that I have considerable trouble with at least two

friends who are new to computing [well, several years now actually], in

explaining how to navigate these windows, whereas he's just about

understanding Explorer.)

>the two pane thing is just too difficult for some. After all, "I

>have one computer, [usually] one partition [another subject,

>sigh...] so WHY would there be /two/ panes?"

I use several partitions, too (I assume that's what you are signing

about) ...

[]

>It is only worse in that the unbelievable screen clutter it

>shows would instantly eliminate it as anything I would even want

>to try. Albeit I find the red pointers to what is what helpful.

Agreed on that last point.

[much about TC]

>This is /not/ the picture I was referring to, in any case.

>Several years ago he had a different screenshot on the main

>page, which was about the size of zabkat's screenshot, and also

>showed most options enabled, but also had an absolutely /horrid/

>color scheme.

I fear I soldier on with Explorer (sometimes two instances). I'm sure

both TC and explorer2 or whatever zabkat's one is called (and which I

already have) are much better; it's just a matter of the time needed to

learn any new prog., versus the time that will be saved by using it

after I've done so. (And, you and I may - almost certainly do - do

different things.)

>

>After playing with colors for quite a few years when I was a wee

>lad (said desktop color schemes often eliciting exclamations of

>astonishment from co-workers, who did not even know it was

I think I have the defaults, other than cyan instead of white for

backgrounds; this does elicit some comments, though I don't think any

for a couple of years.

[]

>> I have another interest: computing for the blind.

>

>Hearing that kind of thing makes me feel I am a totally useless

>space-wasting creature. But let's not get into personal problems

>and lifestyles...

Oh, I don't actually _produce_ anything, I'm just interested in the

subject. I do have a blind couple (in their fifties, but very young at

heart, as is often the case I've found) who are friends, and I observe

with interest their experiences; I've helped them out a lot, but not

written any of the software they use (in fact I've done very little

programming for decades [other than VHDL which is a very different

matter, and that not for a few years]); my help has been in building,

installing, and so on, and also describing.

>

>I would assume you have heard of Ray Kurzweil, a true genius,

>responsible for a fantastic music synthesizer (since bought by

>Kawaii - I believe - as Kurzweil moved on to other interests)

>who also made the first ever book-reading machine for the blind.

>I have no idea how much it cost, but I know that Stevie Wonder

>had one. That was in the late 70's IIRC.

I didn't know the Ray part, or in fact that it was an individual, or the

music bit; I was aware of the concept of "a Kurzweill machine", as a

stand-alone scanner/speech synthesizer, which apparently was in some

public libraries (very few in this country, I think). Of course now

scanning and OCR are functions of most PCs, and in fact the OCR that

comes free with scanners these days really isn't bad (though the ability

to read light-text-on-dark arrived quite late in the day, and may still

not be in some of the free ones); having attended a few exhibitions with

my friends, I know that stand-alone scanners still exist (not everybody

can use or even wants to a computer), though these days they tend to be

about the size of a large A4 flatbed scanner only (though somewhat

deeper), rather than the big-photocopier-like thing I saw telly coverage

of when I first became aware of the Kurzweills.

[]

>I still remember the astonishment and bewilderment as my co-

>workers saw me use the alt-tab combination... "I did not know

>whether to laugh or to cry..."

I must admit that there's an add-on to Alt-Tab in XP (Microsoft produced

but not official - bit like TweakUI, in fact I think it is called a

powertoy) which I like, which gives you a miniaturised screenshot of the

tasks you're switching through rather than just an icon - useful if

you've got more than one instance of the same thing running. (The Vista

alt-tab is way over the top - a sort of 3d thing a bit like a

pharmacist's rolling cupboard ...)

[]

>I asked and was told in another group - they were VERY helpful -

>that XP allows you to install it ALONG with another Win OS,

>usually 98 or ME. /And/ it appears XP does /not/ have to be on

That is my understanding too. However (and this may depend on the

version of XP, and/or what you answer at various points), if you just

try to install it, it _does_ take over; I'm not sure what you have to do

to force it to be (a) boot-menuable (b) on other than C: - if you find

out, please share.

[]

>You mean a microscope whose image is shown on the screen, and it

>works with XP out of the box? Surely you MUST have installed

>SOME drivers!

No - if you think about it, a microscope is just a camera as far as the

OS is concerned - at least a cheap one like this one is, there's no

software control of magnification, focusing, or lighting, those are all

just switches/knobs on the body. XP has basic interfacing with

(web)cameras built in. I can't remember if it just popped up a preview

screen after connection or if I had to start from a TWAIN-compliant app.

(in my case IrfanView but I lent it to a colleague who just used the

built-in - and not bad - image software).

>

>(Just read your recent post in the 98 group. Didn't you say it

>worked perfectly well in the post I'm replying to? BTW, booting

The microscope worked fine under XP; is it the microscope you're

referring to?

>in "safe mode" and adding drivers 1 by 1 is a nightmare. Just my

>opinion. Hope you figure out another way.)

Yes, especially since I don't think it is the driver as such that is at

fault.

>

>> Unfortunately, it is getting increasingly hard to get new

>hardware to run under '9x - a lot of it just won't, and even

>that which does, I have the feeling that I'm having to spend

>more time fighting it than I used to.

>

>Well, so far I have been forced to just junk them. But there has

What, you've bought hardware and chucked it?

>really been VERY little really innovative written since the

>90's, IMO. The old programs are smaller, run faster, have no

>bloat, and their authors should be suing the people who are re-

>writing them with new names and 30 MB of eye candy and

>/occasionally/ some (mostly useless) add'l "features".

Well, things to do with video _are_ better, I think.

>

>Of course, I am just a home user. I'm sure it's a different

>story with scientists etc.

If you mean those who use computers as part of their work (for other

than general "office" tasks), I don't know that a lot of them use

Windows at all, other than in some cases as a front end.

>

>>> watched almost the same screen for 12+ years (I have a

>>> wallpaper changer and LOTS of various wallpapers most of

>>> which I made

>>

>> Panorama? (Works under XP by the way.)

>

>Huh? I just use Micrografx Picture Publisher (I don't do pre-

>press for $250 coffee-table books so I don't need Photoshop, and

>MPP had multiple undo and other great features YEARS before

>Photoshop did).

I just meant that the wallpaper-changer I use is Panorama 32

(http://www.ivory.org/oldwebsite/panorama.html).

[]

>I never made the Teletubs connection, but you are /so/ correct.

>I saw a few moments of a TT episode once, and it /really/

>creeped me out. I don't know WHAT the future generations will be

>like, and I don't WANT to know.

British children's TV has a long history of being surreal, and

(allegedly - though I think unintentionally) subversive. From the

flowerpot men, through the Magic Roundabout (a French or Belgian puppet

series, perfectly ordinary in the original; however, the chap who put

English words to it didn't speak that language, so made up his own

storylines, which were a bit - other. Eric Thompson, father of actress

Emma).

[]

>Well, you MUST have heard this famous quote:

>"Let's face it, the average computer user has the brain of a

>Spider Monkey." - Bill Gates, about his customers.

To be fair, he's probably right. I think he gets a bad press: I'm fairly

sure he was a good software engineer in the early days - my first

computer (which I built myself, really built with a soldering iron),

with its 8K of memory, had a Microsoft BASIC, as did many other home

computers of that period. I think a lot of what Bill himself gets

accused of is largely due to what Microsoft has become - plus, he has

handed over control for a lot of things (I don't just mean to do with

his recent "retirement"), in a way with which I can sympathise as I get

older. He's made some fine howlers too of course (the 640K one is

oft-quoted, though usually out of context) - but haven't we all?

[]

>So I hear, and so as long as I can make it not look like a 5

>year old's (Spider Monkey's?) playroom and /hopefully/ use

>Display Set to further customize it (who knows, maybe the

>functions ARE in XP already - hidden, as you say), it may not be

>so bad. My biggest concern was that some of my main programs

>would not run on XP - but if I can keep 98SE, there is obviously

>no problem.

Well, I don't think they can co-exist to _that_ extent - I think it's a

boot choice, i. e. you're running one or the other. But as I said in an

earlier post, _I_ haven't found anything that I still actually want to

use that won't run under XP (even Xtree, in as much as it ran under '9x

[i. e. no long filenames], which even works with external drives like

pen drives and so on).

[]

><SNIP>

>ahhh...

>

>>> advanced file rename utility ONCE, I think, since I got

>>> Total Commander - it includes an EXCELLENT multiple file

>>> renamer.

>>

>> As does IrfanView (including the ability to rename files

>> based on their EXIF data, so the first thing I usually do

>> when taking .jpg files from my camera's card is rename them

>> from pic001 or whatever to 2008-08-12 9-51-18 or whatever).

>

>I doubt I will ever own a digital camera. I did a lot of 35mm

>photography when I was in my late teens and 20's, but the last

>time I took any photos and enjoyed doing it was about 20 years

Do get a cheap one and play a bit - the enjoyment comes back, enhanced

by (a) instant review (within the limits of the display) and (b) no

worries about the cost of film. Oh, and unless you're going to print

things out on A4, don't use maximum resolution all the time! I still use

my old - and first, really - Fuji 0.8 megapixel one, and most of the

time don't feel the need for anything else. (After all, how many

megapixels does my graphics card produce, and that's where I'll look at

them most of the time.)

>ago. I have two 35mm cameras (a $10 Vivitar and a used East-

>German Practica SLR with a Japanese 'Takumar' lens which is not

>bad at all), but I can not even remember when I last used either

>one.

Ah, the old M42 screw thread lenses - you could get excellent ones for a

song, because everyone wanted bayonet fittings. I still have my old

Zenit [Russian, I think; very heavy!], though like you haven't used it

in anger for years. (I do use the digital - it's just a point-and-shoot,

no zoom or anything [and IGNORE digital zoom] - a fair bit, though.)

>

>>> I once spent about 15 seconds trying to comprehend the

>>> principle behind Sudoku and what pleasure can be gained

[]

>I hate crosswords. I can't even do the National Enquirer ones! I

I take it that's general knowledge rather than cryptic.

[]

>(Out of curiosity, tried to do one from the Chicago Tribune

>yesterday. What a nightmare. It's official - I have become a

>moron.)

No, you just have better things to do with your mind/time (-:!

[Acronis etc.]

>> Does imply a BIOS that can boot from CD.

>

>I think all BIOS's from 95-96 or so onwards can boot from "any"

>source, but there's more to it than that. I have my current

Hmm, I thought it was a bit later than that that it became universal

(for example, I'm pretty sure the '98 CD isn't self-booting), but you

could be right.

>image on the HD as well as on CD-R's with all the older ones and

>if you reboot from Acronis it will restore the image from the HD

>as well - never even entering into DOS - I /assume/ it passes

>through the BIOS.

Ah, can it make a floppy version of itself (to use an HD backup)?

Realistically, unless it uses some fiendish compression/encryption

algorithm (for which I can see no justification), it doesn't actually

[]

>> Do

>> you know the Last Freeware version site, as well

>> (http://www.321download.com/)?

>

>Yes. I have links to a bunch of software collection sites (there

>are way too many!) but what REALLY annoys me is that they always

>have the latest version ONLY, and quite often when it's an older

Indeed. That's why I like oldversion and LastFreewareVersion.

(Incidentally, I have somewhere copies of Windows 1 and 2, though I've

never played with them, and Netscape 0.9, which I remember actually

using. Oh, and an early Word, too [i normally use Word 97 Burgundy].)

>program, often the DL link is to the author's web site, which in

>many cases no longer exists. INFURIATING. But then again, WHO

>could keep up?

Indeed.

>

>Here's a nice one if you're not familiar with it:

>http://freeware.intrastar.net

Hmm. Your post pinned as "keep".

[]

>I am pretty sure all versions work with 95 (except maybe the

>latest) and I am also pretty sure ver 6 and 7 were still

>relatively unbloated.

(Acronis)

>

>> And, someone's written a version - called

>> ERUNT, google for it - that works under XP (and, as you'd

>> guess, NT; I think now Vista too). I'll certainly be

>> installing that (not that it needs "installing") if I go

>> XP.

>

>I have looked at ERUNT and it was a little confusing, and I

>think unnecessary...

Hmm - you've probably never used ERU/ERD, then. Although not a full

backup by any means, it _does_ backup about a dozen files - including

the registry - and is much quicker to restore from than any full backup

could be, since it only restores those files; I've quite often used it

to restore machines that wouldn't even go into Windows, or did so but

with some infuriating quirk, including an endless rebooting loop.

Basically, you just run it from a working system, tell it where to put

the saved files (it asks; if I was doing it now on this machine, I'd

specify C:\ERD\20080817.000 - keeping to 8.3 filenames of course, though

it doesn't force you to). If I then wanted to restore to how it is now,

I'd start up in DOS, navigate to that directory, and type erd, and it

would restore things. (It puts a little executable with the saved

files.) If you haven't used it, try it, it won't break anything

(assuming you've got a '95 disc - I'm not sure it's on the '98 one).

>

>What I like about Acronis is that ALL the programs I had to have

>to make sure I could salvage my machine when it "went boom" have

>gone into retirement.

)-:

>

>Anyway, I looked for drive imaging freeware that would run on

>any system and here's one I found that looks fairly good. (There

>were several free ones but they only run on 2000 and up, VERY

>annoying.)

>

>http://www.miray.de/products/sat.hdclone.html

As I say, posting marked for keeping ... it's always the restore side

that concerns me. I may have a look.

[]

--

J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my

shoulders."

Newton [deliberately] misquoted by Hal Ableson, then quoted by chris harrison.

August 20, 2008

Re: 95/98 ramblings

Re: 95/98 ramblings

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in

news:MvS6ZQkmsDqIFw5V@soft255.demon.co.uk:

> (I think I chose a good name for this thread - I suspect it

> will run and run, even if mostly with the two of us!)

Agreed, but I wouldn't mind other fans of good, trouble-free and

fast OS's joining in.

>>File Manager was dropped, but even though it was included

>>in W95 and maybe even W98 or 2000, hardly anyone used it)

>

> I _think_ it was still stuck with 8.3 filenames.

I think you're right. Of course, 8.3 file names were never a

REAL limitation, just difficult for the conceptually-impaired.

You have certainly noticed that all MS files in 95 and 98

maintain the 8.3 name format ("MO MORE DOS!" /right/). I am not

yet familiar with the later systems (still working on cleaning

out the other HD for the XP tryout), but I would NOT be

surprised...

> (Which

> reminds me: at least the file load/save window in 3.x was a

> bit more intuitive. The file load and save windows, in '9x

> and beyond, present "where you are" in a way that's _so_

> different from how Explorer does [and how I visualise

> things], that I have considerable trouble with at least two

> friends who are new to computing [well, several years now

> actually], in explaining how to navigate these windows,

> whereas he's just about understanding Explorer.)

Frankly, it's been so long since I messed with MS File Manager

and 3.1 that I can't remember enough to understand what you

mean.

There /are/ a variety of alternate shells available for various

Win OS's but they might be even more difficult for the average

user. And since I have never tried one, I have no idea whether

the basic dialog boxes are any different. But there are

customizers for that too, like FileEx.

<SNIP>

> I must admit that there's an add-on to Alt-Tab in XP

> (Microsoft produced but not official - bit like TweakUI, in

> fact I think it is called a powertoy) which I like, which

> gives you a miniaturised screenshot of the tasks you're

> switching through rather than just an icon - useful if

> you've got more than one instance of the same thing

> running.

In 95 (I just switched off my 98 computer) there is a line of

text under the icons which tells you exactly which of the

several instances of the same icon you are about to end up in.

It should be quite interesting to see that and all the other

"improvements" in XP. I hope I manage to clean up that damn HD

soon, because I am actually getting curious.

> (The Vista alt-tab is way over the top - a sort of

> 3d thing a bit like a pharmacist's rolling cupboard ...)

As some say... "don't even go there"... (shudder)

>>I asked and was told in another group - they were VERY

>>helpful - that XP allows you to install it ALONG with

>>another Win OS, usually 98 or ME. /And/ it appears XP does

>>/not/ have to be on

>

> That is my understanding too. However (and this may depend

> on the version of XP, and/or what you answer at various

> points), if you just try to install it, it _does_ take

> over; I'm not sure what you have to do to force it to be

> (a) boot-menuable (b) on other than C: - if you find out,

> please share. []

Some more patience will be required, as mentioned above.

Hopefully, my computer will not be scrap by the time I'm done

with the experiment.

<SNIP>

> The microscope worked fine under XP; is it the microscope

> you're referring to?

Yes, I guess the bottom line is XP came with a huge amount of

drivers for almost everything, while with 9x you often have

to/had to search for them, and needless to say a lot of

manufacturers do not even provide them anymore.

>>in "safe mode" and adding drivers 1 by 1 is a nightmare.

>>Just my opinion. Hope you figure out another way.)

>

> Yes, especially since I don't think it is the driver as

> such that is at fault.

Agreed.

>>> Unfortunately, it is getting increasingly hard to get new

>>hardware to run under '9x - a lot of it just won't, and

>>even that which does, I have the feeling that I'm having to

>>spend more time fighting it than I used to.

>>

>>Well, so far I have been forced to just junk them. But

>>there has

>

> What, you've bought hardware and chucked it?

No, most of programs were either freeware, shareware trials, or

commercial programs with trial periods. Sometimes 3 minutes is

more than enough. I /will/ admit to DL'g cracked programs from

various sources - I am not going to spend $300 on a program just

because I am bored and curious about what exactly it is that it

does. In most cases they were deleted within 10 minutes anyway.

I am not a professional pirate, I have bought many programs, and

I have paid for freeware when I though the author deserved it,

more than once.

>>really been VERY little really innovative written since the

>>90's, IMO. The old programs are smaller, run faster, have

>>no bloat, and their authors should be suing the people who

>>are re- writing them with new names and 30 MB of eye candy

>>and /occasionally/ some (mostly useless) add'l "features".

>

> Well, things to do with video _are_ better, I think.

I didn't want to go on and on about it but obviously stuff

involving new or significantly changed technologies is exempt

from the above statement.

>>Of course, I am just a home user. I'm sure it's a different

>>story with scientists etc.

>

> If you mean those who use computers as part of their work

> (for other than general "office" tasks), I don't know that

> a lot of them use Windows at all, other than in some cases

> as a front end.

Well, I don't mean the guys at the most exclusive labs at MIT, I

just meant people who work in offices or average schools and do

some fairly serious stuff. Some of them DO need MS Office and

many other programs most people (myself included) have never

heard about. 99% of home users don't even know how to set tabs

in Word, but they have been brainwashed to HAVE to have Office.

<SNIP>

> I just meant that the wallpaper-changer I use is Panorama

> 32 (http://www.ivory.org/oldwebsite/panorama.html).

Ahh... I thought maybe you meant an image editor and the word is

so common that I felt googling would be pointless. I use

Wallpaper Changer (http://www.wallpaperchanger.de/). I have

tried a bunch and this one was the best, and free. I have never

heard of Panorama, will take a look for the hell of it.

Just did. Looks good, small etc. I do NOT like "Automatically

search your hard disk for image files" - I am capable of doing

this myself, and "Supports MS Plus! scaling" - I don't know what

it is but I don't like the sound of it. Plus! was always just

stupid IMO.

Wow. Just checked DL sizes and 'wallpaper changer' is even

smaller! And it has some GREAT options. Check it out!

>>I never made the Teletubs connection, but you are /so/

>>correct. I saw a few moments of a TT episode once, and it

>>/really/ creeped me out. I don't know WHAT the future

>>generations will be like, and I don't WANT to know.

>

> British children's TV has a long history of being surreal,

> and (allegedly - though I think unintentionally)

> subversive. From the flowerpot men, through the Magic

> Roundabout (a French or Belgian puppet series, perfectly

> ordinary in the original; however, the chap who put English

> words to it didn't speak that language, so made up his own

> storylines, which were a bit - other. Eric Thompson, father

> of actress Emma).

I miss Europe - I think. Haven't been there once since 1972.

It's changed an awful lot I'm sure, probably more than North

America. Maybe not.

>>Well, you MUST have heard this famous quote:

>>"Let's face it, the average computer user has the brain of

>>a Spider Monkey." - Bill Gates, about his customers.

> To be fair, he's probably right. I think he gets a bad

> press: I'm fairly sure he was a good software engineer in

> the early days - my first computer (which I built myself,

> really built with a soldering iron), with its 8K of memory,

> had a Microsoft BASIC, as did many other home computers of

> that period. I think a lot of what Bill himself gets

> accused of is largely due to what Microsoft has become -

> plus, he has handed over control for a lot of things (I

> don't just mean to do with his recent "retirement"), in a

> way with which I can sympathise as I get older. He's made

> some fine howlers too of course (the 640K one is

> oft-quoted, though usually out of context) - but haven't we

> all? []

I agree. And I once did a search on the guy who sold QDOS to

Gates for 50 grand, and he has a job at MS and appears quite

happy even though he never got to be the richest man in the

world.

<SNIP>

>>My biggest concern was that some of my

>>main programs would not run on XP - but if I can keep 98SE,

>>there is obviously no problem.

>

> Well, I don't think they can co-exist to _that_ extent - I

> think it's a boot choice, i. e. you're running one or the

> other.

Oh, that is clear. You can't wear 2 pairs of shoes at the same

time... Well, maybe you /could/, but you know what I mean...

I am also sure that programs which dump stuff into win\sys and

refistry will have to be installed again for XP. Some of them

anyway... I'll know soon, I hope.

I like programs which do not install ANYTHING anywhere except

their directory and do not write anything to the registry. BTW,

a friend gave me an old classic: "The Mother of all Windows

Books" and I read about 80% of it while sitting on the john. It

was written for Win 3.1. Did you know the an early version of

the registry already existed in 3.1 ? I never noticed it /then/.

Makes me want to install 3.11 on the old 486/66 I have siting

around just to check it out.

<SNIP>

>>I doubt I will ever own a digital camera. I did a lot of

>>35mm photography when I was in my late teens and 20's, but

>>the last time I took any photos and enjoyed doing it was

>>about 20 years

>

> Do get a cheap one and play a bit - the enjoyment comes

> back, enhanced by (a) instant review (within the limits of

> the display) and (b) no worries about the cost of film.

I have no family or friends to speak of; well, the total of

those 2 groups of people in my immediate vicinity is about 3,

and none that I would want to take pictures of. I hate where I

live and feel very self-conscious with a camera no matter

/where/ I am and whatever I am doing. I miss the old days when I

used to run around with 16mm film cameras or big video

camcorders and didn't care... Alas...

> Oh,

> and unless you're going to print things out on A4, don't

> use maximum resolution all the time!

Even if I had any pictures to take, I probably would not print

them. For one, I have a B&W laser printer and I also believe in

paperless computing. My first laser cartridge lasted 8 years!

I'm not lying!

> I still use my old -

> and first, really - Fuji 0.8 megapixel one, and most of the

> time don't feel the need for anything else. (After all, how

> many megapixels does my graphics card produce, and that's

> where I'll look at them most of the time.)

It astounds me that you can get a 10 megapixel camera for a

couple of hundred dollars now... 12 years ago 2 megapixels was

considered adequate for professionals, and cost nearly $1,000

IIRC.

>>I have two 35mm cameras (a $10 Vivitar and a used

>>East- German Practica SLR with a Japanese 'Takumar' lens

>>which is not bad at all), but I can not even remember when

>>I last used either one.

> Ah, the old M42 screw thread lenses - you could get

> excellent ones for a song, because everyone wanted bayonet

> fittings. I still have my old Zenit [Russian, I think; very

> heavy!], though like you haven't used it in anger for

> years.

I don't use them because of anger, I use them because I have no

life. And I used to have a Zenit too, a VERY long time ago... My

dad really liked them, he said it was basically a copy of a

Leica he used before the war. And it was, except the Soviets

were not /quite/ as good with manufacturing as the Germans.

> (I do use the digital - it's just a point-and-shoot,

> no zoom or anything [and IGNORE digital zoom] - a fair bit,

> though.)

Anyone using a digital zoom is just dumb, although once you have

10 megapixels to work with, I imagine the results can be quite

acceptable. Maybe I am just spoiled by having used 10, 12 and

15x zooms with 16mm film cameras, but a 3 x zoom is COMPLETE

waste of time IMO. I see ads for paperback-sized consumer

camcorders with a 40x optical zoom and I just can NOT believe

it.

What I hate about the digital cameras are all the stupid add-ons

- image effects, mp3 playback, video recording, "pretty" case

colors, etc. Give me a 10x optical zoom with a good wide and a

macro, and forget everything else! But I really can't see ever

getting one.

<SNIP>

>>(Out of curiosity, tried to do one from the Chicago Tribune

>>yesterday. What a nightmare. It's official - I have become

>>a moron.)

>

> No, you just have better things to do with your mind/time

> (-:! [Acronis etc.]

Well, that's nice of you to say, but I actually don't - I

basically do nothing, I am a 53 yr old only child who failed in

life, caring for a 90 year old parent who apparently has decided

to never die. I am basically imprisoned in the house. I kill my

free time with the computer. Since it requires a certain amount

of brain-cell activity, it keeps my mind off my misery.

Anyway... I definitely noticed I was getting stupider around

when I turned 40, and it has been an ongoing process. The ONLY

improvement is I find it easier to concentrate on reading now,

even though I have always read a lot.

>>I think all BIOS's from 95-96 or so onwards can boot from

>>"any" source, but there's more to it than that. I have my

>>current

>

> Hmm, I thought it was a bit later than that that it became

> universal (for example, I'm pretty sure the '98 CD isn't

> self-booting), but you could be right.

I could be wrong :-)

>>image on the HD as well as on CD-R's with all the older

>>ones and if you reboot from Acronis it will restore the

>>image from the HD as well - never even entering into DOS -

>>I /assume/ it passes through the BIOS.

>

> Ah, can it make a floppy version of itself (to use an HD

> backup)? Realistically, unless it uses some fiendish

> compression/encryption algorithm (for which I can see no

> justification), it doesn't actually []

No floppies, but you have to make a bootable recovery CD once

you install it, and then you're set.

<SNIP>

> That's why I like oldversion and

> LastFreewareVersion. (Incidentally, I have somewhere copies

> of Windows 1 and 2

Someone posted them in a.b.w.ibm-pc.old some time ago, but I

have never had time to try them. I hear that if you can get ver.

1 to run at all, you're basically in league with the devil, and

I do not mean Gates.

> though I've never played with them, and

> Netscape 0.9, which I remember actually using. Oh, and an

> early Word, too [i normally use Word 97 Burgundy].)

I use metapad lite. It IGNORES the biggest keyboard curse of all

(and I am NOT talking about the fact the keyboard layout we all

use is what it is because they designed it that way so it would

be MOST difficult to type quickly - since early typewriters

jammed a lot). I am talking about the insert/overwrite toggle!!!

AAAUUGH!!!!!

(Amusingly enough, the FULL version of metapad does NOT ignore

that key, although it has more functionality. But I use other

editors when I need that.)

<SNIP>

> I've quite often used it to

> restore machines that wouldn't even go into Windows, or did

> so but with some infuriating quirk, including an endless

> rebooting loop.

I've heard of that delightful symptom MANY times but I am

fortunate never to have experienced it. Still, I have my share

of horror stories.

> Basically, you just run it from a working

> system, tell it where to put the saved files (it asks; if I

> was doing it now on this machine, I'd specify

> C:\ERD\20080817.000 - keeping to 8.3 filenames of course,

> though it doesn't force you to). If I then wanted to

> restore to how it is now, I'd start up in DOS, navigate to

> that directory, and type erd, and it would restore things.

> (It puts a little executable with the saved files.) If you

> haven't used it, try it, it won't break anything (assuming

> you've got a '95 disc - I'm not sure it's on the '98 one).

Yup, still have the original OEM that came with this computer -

I even made a backup of it! But I would probably just use XTree

to do what you are describing. I still use it when the registry

gets bloated and I need to put an older one in, etc.

<SNIP>

No word from Acronis yet. May never hear from them. Let me know

how that free program worked out.

Cheers.

--

[from a recent conversation]

thanatoid: So why did you decide you needed broadband?

Neighbor: I wanted to read my e-mail faster.

September 5, 2008

Re: 95/98 ramblings

Re: 95/98 ramblings

On Aug 19, 8:07�pm, thanatoid <wait...@the.exit.invalid> wrote:

> I like programs which do not install ANYTHING anywhere except

> their directory and do not write anything to the registry. BTW,

> a friend gave me an old classic: "The Mother of all Windows

> Books" and I read about 80% of it while sitting on the john. It

> was written for Win 3.1. Did you know the an early version of

> the registry already existed in 3.1 ? I never noticed it /then/.

> Makes me want to install 3.11 on the old 486/66 I have siting

> around just to check it out.

>

Yes, it has a registry, working in conjunction with the [extensions]

and [embedding] sections in WIN.INI and a REGEDIT program to play with

it (use /V). A lot easier to figure out than the later incarnations.

But why go back to a 486? Unlike Win 95, Win 3.x doesn't even have a

2GHz CPU ceiling, so the sky is the limit, or available harware

drivers, whatever comes first ;-)

Claude

September 14, 2008

Re: 95/98 ramblings

Re: 95/98 ramblings

In message <Xns9B00171A21BF9thanexit@66.250.146.158>, thanatoid

<waiting@the.exit.invalid> writes

[]

>I think you're right. Of course, 8.3 file names were never a

>REAL limitation, just difficult for the conceptually-impaired.

Indeed. I tend still to use them - to the bemusement of colleagues.

[]

>> (Which

>> reminds me: at least the file load/save window in 3.x was a

>> bit more intuitive. The file load and save windows, in '9x

[]

>Frankly, it's been so long since I messed with MS File Manager

>and 3.1 that I can't remember enough to understand what you

>mean.

The file load/save window in '3.1 (which still appears under '9x at

times, e. g. when you're telling it where drivers are) has a sort of

directory tree on the right of the window.

[]

>> I must admit that there's an add-on to Alt-Tab in XP

>> (Microsoft produced but not official - bit like TweakUI, in

>> fact I think it is called a powertoy) which I like, which

>> gives you a miniaturised screenshot of the tasks you're

>> switching through rather than just an icon - useful if

>> you've got more than one instance of the same thing

>> running.

>

>In 95 (I just switched off my 98 computer) there is a line of

>text under the icons which tells you exactly which of the

>several instances of the same icon you are about to end up in.

The basic XP one is similar (slightly improved IIRR); the powertoy

add-on does IMO add something useful.

[]

>Yes, I guess the bottom line is XP came with a huge amount of

>drivers for almost everything, while with 9x you often have

>to/had to search for them, and needless to say a lot of

>manufacturers do not even provide them anymore.

The universal USB driver for '98 does work well when installed as part

of a fresh install (e. g. soporific's UBCD or "Windows 98 tenth

anniversary edition"); I've installed it on two systems now, and both

recognise any USB stick I've tried in them. I've tried a universal USB

driver (not sure if the same one) on not-from-scratch systems, and it

has caused problems ("hosed" them GST would say).

[]

>more than enough. I /will/ admit to DL'g cracked programs from

>various sources - I am not going to spend $300 on a program just

>because I am bored and curious about what exactly it is that it

>does. In most cases they were deleted within 10 minutes anyway.

>I am not a professional pirate, I have bought many programs, and

>I have paid for freeware when I though the author deserved it,

>more than once.

Snap.

[]

>heard about. 99% of home users don't even know how to set tabs

>in Word, but they have been brainwashed to HAVE to have Office.

It occurred to me recently that tab is just another term - along with

carriage return and line feed - that comes from typewriters, and this is

not known by the majority these days.

[]

>Just did. Looks good, small etc. I do NOT like "Automatically

>search your hard disk for image files" - I am capable of doing

Ditto; I don't think I've ever used that function. However, I see no

reason to knock it - it might be useful to some.

>this myself, and "Supports MS Plus! scaling" - I don't know what

>it is but I don't like the sound of it. Plus! was always just

>stupid IMO.

Indeed. (But may have been fashionable when Panorama was written.)

>

>Wow. Just checked DL sizes and 'wallpaper changer' is even

>smaller! And it has some GREAT options. Check it out!

Post marked "keep" to do so.

[]

>I miss Europe - I think. Haven't been there once since 1972.

>It's changed an awful lot I'm sure, probably more than North

>America. Maybe not.

Well, I've never been to NA, so I guess we're even (-:.

[]

>I agree. And I once did a search on the guy who sold QDOS to

>Gates for 50 grand, and he has a job at MS and appears quite

>happy even though he never got to be the richest man in the

>world.

Some of us are happy within moderate means.

[]

>Oh, that is clear. You can't wear 2 pairs of shoes at the same

>time... Well, maybe you /could/, but you know what I mean...

>

>I am also sure that programs which dump stuff into win\sys and

>refistry will have to be installed again for XP. Some of them

>anyway... I'll know soon, I hope.

Yes, I expect so.

>

>I like programs which do not install ANYTHING anywhere except

>their directory and do not write anything to the registry. BTW,

Likewise. I actually liked the idea of .dlls - common code - when they

were first mooted, but the original concept seems to have been well

broken. Plus modern storage costs have reduced the need.

>a friend gave me an old classic: "The Mother of all Windows

>Books" and I read about 80% of it while sitting on the john. It

>was written for Win 3.1. Did you know the an early version of

>the registry already existed in 3.1 ? I never noticed it /then/.

(I think it might have been 3.11, but yes, I did. As you say, it never

caused much in the way of problems then. A predecessor, of course, was

the win.ini file.)

[]

>>>I doubt I will ever own a digital camera. I did a lot of

>>>35mm photography when I was in my late teens and 20's, but

>>>the last time I took any photos and enjoyed doing it was

>>>about 20 years

>>

>> Do get a cheap one and play a bit - the enjoyment comes

>> back, enhanced by (a) instant review (within the limits of

>> the display) and (b) no worries about the cost of film.

>

>I have no family or friends to speak of; well, the total of

>those 2 groups of people in my immediate vicinity is about 3,

>and none that I would want to take pictures of. I hate where I

Flowers can be most satisfying.

>live and feel very self-conscious with a camera no matter

>/where/ I am and whatever I am doing. I miss the old days when I

>used to run around with 16mm film cameras or big video

>camcorders and didn't care... Alas...

Public attitudes to photography - not least by the authorities - have

changed; you're either a pedo or a terr'st or both, nowadays )-:.

>

>> Oh,

>> and unless you're going to print things out on A4, don't

>> use maximum resolution all the time!

>

>Even if I had any pictures to take, I probably would not print

>them. For one, I have a B&W laser printer and I also believe in

>paperless computing. My first laser cartridge lasted 8 years!

>I'm not lying!

My cartridges tend to dry out.

>

>> I still use my old -

>> and first, really - Fuji 0.8 megapixel one, and most of the

>> time don't feel the need for anything else. (After all, how

[]

>It astounds me that you can get a 10 megapixel camera for a

>couple of hundred dollars now... 12 years ago 2 megapixels was

I had a flyer for (among other things) a 8+M one for 50 or 60 quid the

other day.

[]

>Anyone using a digital zoom is just dumb, although once you have

>10 megapixels to work with, I imagine the results can be quite

As you say, if using the camera set to save at less than its maximum

resolution (which most users don't even know how to do), I guess the

zoom is useful. Pity most of them don't tell you when you've reached its

limit, though.

[]

>waste of time IMO. I see ads for paperback-sized consumer

>camcorders with a 40x optical zoom and I just can NOT believe

They _are_ pretty good!

[]

>What I hate about the digital cameras are all the stupid add-ons

>- image effects, mp3 playback, video recording, "pretty" case

>colors, etc. Give me a 10x optical zoom with a good wide and a

>macro, and forget everything else! But I really can't see ever

>getting one.

Just get a cheap one, to play with a bit.

[]

[Acronis]

>No floppies, but you have to make a bootable recovery CD once

>you install it, and then you're set.

If, as I say, you have a suitable BIOS.

[]

>> early Word, too [i normally use Word 97 Burgundy].)

>

>I use metapad lite. It IGNORES the biggest keyboard curse of all

>(and I am NOT talking about the fact the keyboard layout we all

>use is what it is because they designed it that way so it would

>be MOST difficult to type quickly - since early typewriters

>jammed a lot). I am talking about the insert/overwrite toggle!!!

>AAAUUGH!!!!!

Did I already tell you about ITK (http://www.mlin.net/misc.shtml)? I use

Notepad+ for text files.

[]

>> Basically, you just run it from a working

>> system, tell it where to put the saved files (it asks; if I

>> was doing it now on this machine, I'd specify

>> C:\ERD\20080817.000 - keeping to 8.3 filenames of course,

>> though it doesn't force you to). If I then wanted to

>> restore to how it is now, I'd start up in DOS, navigate to

>> that directory, and type erd, and it would restore things.

>> (It puts a little executable with the saved files.) If you

>> haven't used it, try it, it won't break anything (assuming

>> you've got a '95 disc - I'm not sure it's on the '98 one).

>

>Yup, still have the original OEM that came with this computer -

>I even made a backup of it! But I would probably just use XTree

>to do what you are describing. I still use it when the registry

>gets bloated and I need to put an older one in, etc.

Have a look at ERD/ERU - it's under others/misc, or misc/others, or

something like that, on the '95 disc.

>

><SNIP>

>

>No word from Acronis yet. May never hear from them. Let me know

>how that free program worked out.

Will if I find my tuit ...

>

>Cheers.

>

I think XP is now in the same position as '9x: refusing to die. The new

crop of "netbooks", started by the Asus Eees (which have made Linux

mainstream, though the users don't know - or care! - what OS they run)

have developed to cover models with, for example, 80G drives, but still

in a tiny machine (no optical drive), and these seem to be keeping XP

alive. Have a look at

http://www.mobilecomputermag.co.uk/20080813803/where-to-find-all-of-mobile-computer-s-netbook-reviews.html

for a few reviews.

--

J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

"I never trust a woman until she rejects me" - Woody Allen, 1999

September 19, 2008

Re: 95/98 ramblings

Re: 95/98 ramblings

In message <Xns9B1D17797AD8Dthanexit@66.250.146.158>, thanatoid

<waiting@the.exit.invalid> writes

[]

>Good point. Ah... the good old days. I MAY have already mentioned it,

>but did you know the qwerty layout is what it is because the earliest

>typewriters jammed a lot so they made the layout AS DIFFICULT as they

>could so people would be forced to type REALLY slow?! And we're STILL

ISTR reading somewhere that some of that is an urban myth - that it was

indeed designed to get round problems with mechanical typewriter keys

jamming, but not actually designed to make it as slow as possible. (The

positioning of the commonest letters does tend to support this. Plus the

fact that it is different in different languages - I think it is AZERTY

in German, for example.)

[]

>>>Wow. Just checked DL sizes and 'wallpaper changer' is even

>>>smaller! And it has some GREAT options. Check it out!

>>

>> Post marked "keep" to do so.

>

>Obviously, I never read the whole post, just start replying. Maybe I

>should try it someday. Sigh.

Oh, I wouldn't bother - I do the same as you, just reply in a

stream-of-consciousness way!

[]

>> Likewise. I actually liked the idea of .dlls - common code

>> - when they were first mooted, but the original concept

>> seems to have been well broken. Plus modern storage costs

>> have reduced the need.

>

>I actually never /quite/ understood the concept and functionality of

>DLL's, but they sure appear to be a rather flexible extension. I have a

>collection of icons for my desktop (some original program icons are

>just HORRID or simply make NO sense) and I have it saved as a DLL.

Well, my understanding of the idea behind DLLs was that lots of prog.s

use certain common routines (e. g. box/window drawing ones), and at the

time it made sense to put these into a common library, thus making the

size of the actual executables for applications smaller (and possibly

faster); this was significant at the time, when disc space was at a

premium at least to some extent, and also download sizes benefitted from

limitation.

[]

>I REALLY think the 3 ini files were just fine. The registry is such as

Yes. Actually, I preferred prog.s that used their own .ini file, kept in

their own directory.

>horrible agglomeration of useless crap - who needs ALL the time zones

>in the world if they KNOW they will never live anywhere else? And

Agreed.

>that's not even the worst of it. From what I have read recently, it

>seems an awful lot of it has to do with the way MS programs

>(specifically within Office) communicate with each other and exchange

>information - something which is of ABSOLUTELY no use to me personally.

Yes, Office seems to be almost an adjunct to the OS - not quite to the

extent that IE is, in that the Office bits seem only to affect other

parts of Office in the main, but I know what you mean; I've even found

cases where the only way I could see to change something in one part of

Office was to change it in another part (usually Word).

[]

>>>> Do get a cheap one and play a bit - the enjoyment comes

[]

>> Flowers can be most satisfying.

[]

>plants in general. But I appreciate the encouragement.

Good (-:. Well, other small things then.

[]

>photography you might consider a color laser printer. They have finally

I have access to an hp 4500N; very cranky and very slow (especially if

I'm the one who has to wake it up from its slumbers), but it does

produce lovely output.

>come down to a reasonable price level - and needless to say will be

>even cheaper a year from now.

I don't do that much photography, and what I do I nearly always view on

screen.

[]

>Crazy, isn't it? And the MAIN effect of such huge image sizes (in an

>average user's life) are 20MB email attachments of boring relatives. No

>one knows how (or cares) to resize. Sigh.

Agreed. (Or how to use their camera at less than max. size in the first

place.)

[]

>> Just get a cheap one, to play with a bit.

>

>No, there's no point. I NEVER touch my two 35mm cameras, and like I

No, but at least part of the reason for that is the knowledge of the

inherent delay due to processing. If you like instead, have a play with

a cheap USB microscope.

[]

>> [Acronis]

>>>No floppies, but you have to make a bootable recovery CD

>>>once you install it, and then you're set.

>>

>> If, as I say, you have a suitable BIOS.

>

>Actually, during my 2 weeks of computer hell, I found out how it works

>(because I almost destroyed my computer). It creates a little directory

>with custom boot info which (if necessary, perhaps) allows it to boot

Presumably on the HD, so no good if the HD actually dies, rather than

just getting scrambled.

>from the CD, loading the drivers etc., I imagine, and deletes it when

>you restart after the image restore. My 11 year old computer

>(temporarily "sitting idle", so to speak) after I went a /little/ too

>far with it, has a boot from CDROM option in its 14 year old BIOS, so I

>think it's possible on almost any machine except XT's.

Hmm, I think I have seen ones considerably more modern than XTs which

didn't have the from-CD boot option, but probably any one which anyone

would bother to work with these days would have it (maybe anything

Pentium on - certainly I'd expect it in anything P-II on).

>

>>>> early Word, too [i normally use Word 97 Burgundy].)

>

>No idea what the "Burgundy" thing is.

An OEM one I picked up somewhere - basically Office '97 with updates;

it's actually dates '98 I think. It is a genuine Microsoft product.

[]

>Anyway, I've been to Mike Lin's site a few times. A few of his utils

>worked perfectly, some did NOTHING. Isn't ITK the one that disables the

>damn insert/overwrite thing? It did NOT work on my machine!

It just makes a bleep whenever you hit the insert/overtype key, that's

all - rather like the "toggle keys" for the three lock keys which are

part of W'9x anyway, but for some reason hidden away under

"Accessibility" or something like that. (I find them useful, as I find

it very easy to hit caps lock without meaning to, and this at least

tells me I've done so.)

[]

>> Have a look at ERD/ERU - it's under others/misc, or

>> misc/others, or something like that, on the '95 disc.

>

>I have and it did not inspire confidence. Anyway, Acronis takes care of

>everything. They have not replied to me and apparently could not care

>less so if you like I will post a copy of my old small and perfectly

>bug-free version for you somewhere with my serial.

Far be it from me to encourage illegal activities ... (-:

[]

>I hate laptops. The keyboard (Fn key, no number keypad, 4 functions per

>key, etc.) and the mouse "substitutes" would drive me even more insane

>than I already am. I realize many people HAVE to have them for work or

>school. I am glad I am not one of them. I LIKE my desk!

I agree with you about the Fn keys; I stick to this laptop because it

has he sixpack and arrows-T as more or less as they are on a fullsize

kbd. I thought I'd never get the hang of a touchpad, either, but I have,

and now use it as easily as a mouse (it's easier for some things, and a

mouse wins for some things). I certainly don't think I'd get on with

those rubbery things that stick out of they keyboard - I didn't realise

they were actually a sort of mouse for ages, I thought they were just a

screen-protecting bump!

>

>Anyway, it took three days and a fantastic tiny utility called

>w2fix.exe to get me on BB with my "other" (now "this") 2GHz 98SELite

>machine. Since I /never/ intended to use it for internet, it did not

>have any network or dial-up components installed, and I needed to DL

My main desktop machine has never been online since I last rebuilt it

(after I replaced the mobo/proc/RAM after a mishap, some years ago). I

BB (and, to be honest, do a lot else) from this 400MHz 128M laptop.

>those at a friend's house and install them, and then it turned out my

>whole winsock/DUN thing was screwed up. The 60KB w2fix.exe program

>fixed it like magic. After 3 hours on the phone with BB support and

>them telling my I had to reinstall the whole OS (right!), next day I

>found that tiny program, ran it, and was online instantly! In fact, at

Does w2fix.exe _only_ fix online things, or - as its name suggests -

does it fix other things?

>512kbps I am FASTER (I get about 450-500kbps) than my friend who has a

>wireless 1GHz connection and barely manages 300kbps! (I have NO

>problems with wires.)

Me neither. (A wireless link is only as good as the wired link to the

wireless router; an ultrafast wireless link makes no difference at all,

unless you're transferring big files between _local_ computers.)

[]

>--

>[from a recent mental conversation]

>

>thanatoid:

>So why did you decide you wanted broadband after all your

>endless babbling about how no one except DVD pirates really

>needs it?

>

>thanatoid:

>My ISP is offering it for less than I am paying for dial-up now

It's getting that way here - pay-as-you-go dialup costs between 1.20 and

3 pounds an hour, so it isn't difficult (especially at dialup speeds) to

clock up the 6 to 10 pounds a month bottom-end BB costs.

(All-you-can-eat dialup, for the few people who might use it, already

costs more.)

>AND the offer includes some other very attractive rate

>reductions in the basic phone service charges. And I decided I

>want to read my e-mail faster :-)

You say that in jest, but with the already-discussed tendency of people

to put unnecessarily huge attachments on (and/or to add video), there is

some truth in it!

>

>(to be continued)

In the next thrilling instalment ...

--

J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

Electricians do it 'till it Hz.

September 21, 2008

Re: 95/98 ramblings

Re: 95/98 ramblings

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in

news:OuzqJwTYWv0IFwIw@soft255.demon.co.uk:

<SNIP>

> ISTR reading somewhere that some of that is an urban myth -

> that it was indeed designed to get round problems with

> mechanical typewriter keys jamming, but not actually

> designed to make it as slow as possible. (The positioning

> of the commonest letters does tend to support this. Plus

> the fact that it is different in different languages - I

> think it is AZERTY in German, for example.)

Well, making it slow would prevent jamming, wouldn't it? 6 of

one and half-dozen of the other, methinks. Still, it could be a

myth, it just seemed like one of those interesting/crazy items

from the history of advancement of the civilization so it stuck

in my mind. WHO knows what the truth about ANYTHING is.

<SNIP>

> Yes. Actually, I preferred prog.s that used their own .ini

> file, kept in their own directory.

There are still some programs which keep /everything/ in their

own directory - and that's the best way. INI's /could/ all go in

the windows dir which would make backing them up a little

simpler - just copying all *.ini files to a backup from one

directory instead from 20 or 50 or a 100.

<SNIP>

> I don't do that much photography, and what I do I nearly

> always view on screen.

I only have a b&w laser, and I almost never print anything.

Early on I printed some manuals (when programs still included

manuals!) but now I turn the thing on MAYBE once every 6 weeks

to print out an email for my mother or something.

I greatly believe in being "paperless". I would LOVE to put all

the news snips and misc. stuff I tore out of magazines and

newspapers over 30 years on my HD, but the time and effort

required will probably ensure that it never happens - not to

mention I am not that interested in the stuff anymore. (It

/would/ make moving a lot easier, but I don't intend to move

again, either, let alone with all my crap.)

>>>>No floppies, but you have to make a bootable recovery CD

>>>>once you install it, and then you're set.

>>>

>>> If, as I say, you have a suitable BIOS.

Well, practically speaking, I think all BIOS's in use support

that.

>>Actually, during my 2 weeks of computer hell, I found out

>>how it works (because I almost destroyed my computer). It

>>creates a little directory with custom boot info which (if

>>necessary, perhaps) allows it to boot

>

> Presumably on the HD, so no good if the HD actually dies,

> rather than just getting scrambled.

After installing Acronis, you make an Acronis Rescue Boot CD,

which has the program on it, boot from it, and then just put the

CD(s) with the last image in afterwards. No problem even if the

HD is dead. You put in a new drive and have the same C: that you

did before. Of course, backing up data on other partitions is

another matter, but Acronis allows you to back up any partition

and restore it to any other partition or HD. It allows you to

resize partitions at the same time if required (although I

believe the D: etc. partitions better be empty, it's not a

substitute for a true partition manager or just using fdisk

judiciously when setting up a machine).

<SNIP>

>>Isn't ITK the

>>one that disables the damn insert/overwrite thing? It did

>>NOT work on my machine!

>

> It just makes a bleep whenever you hit the insert/overtype

> key, that's all

Ahh, that's why it "didn't work" - I have all sounds turned off!

> - rather like the "toggle keys" for the

> three lock keys which are part of W'9x anyway, but for some

> reason hidden away under "Accessibility" or something like

> that. (I find them useful, as I find it very easy to hit

> caps lock without meaning to, and this at least tells me

> I've done so.)

I didn't know about this feature - will have to look it up. That

means installing accessibility options and sticking the 98 CD in

the drive again... The torture NEVER stops, does it... Actually,

all my text editors change type case very easily, so caps lock

hasn't been much trouble... But just yesterday I was reminded of

WHY I use Metapad while writing something in another editor.

What a drag!

>>if you like I will post a

>>copy of my old small and perfectly bug-free version for you

>>somewhere with my serial.

>

> Far be it from me to encourage illegal activities ... (-:

Well, it WAS given away for free with a magazine and they only

wanted you to go to the site to get the serial so they could

send you emails about new versions etc, which I opted out of

immediately and never heard from them again.

Anyway, seriously, just let me know.

>>I hate laptops.

<SNIP>

> I agree with you about the Fn keys; I stick to this laptop

> because it has he sixpack and arrows-T as more or less as

> they are on a fullsize kbd. I thought I'd never get the

> hang of a touchpad, either, but I have, and now use it as

> easily as a mouse (it's easier for some things, and a mouse

> wins for some things). I certainly don't think I'd get on

> with those rubbery things that stick out of they keyboard -

> I didn't realise they were actually a sort of mouse for

> ages, I thought they were just a screen-protecting bump!

That makes sense, actually! They ARE horrible, and they break

off. And IBM/Lenovo STILL put them on the machines, although I

believe they have added the little rectangular pad, at least.

Anyway, I am reasonably certain I will never ever own a laptop.

OTOH, small (or big) mouses (mice?) can be plugged into any

laptop. And people seem to carry them around in big bags anyway,

so there's space for lots of junk.

>>Anyway, it took three days and a fantastic tiny utility

>>called w2fix.exe to get me on BB with my "other" (now

>>"this") 2GHz 98SELite machine. Since I /never/ intended to

>>use it for internet, it did not have any network or dial-up

>>components installed, and I needed to DL

>

> My main desktop machine has never been online since I last

> rebuilt it (after I replaced the mobo/proc/RAM after a

> mishap, some years ago). I BB (and, to be honest, do a lot

> else) from this 400MHz 128M laptop.

No one needs anything else unless they are heavily into CAD or

multimedia or gaming.

<SNIP>

> Does w2fix.exe _only_ fix online things, or - as its name

> suggests - does it fix other things?

I believe the name stands for winsock2 fix. It doesn't do

anything else - it does ONE thing, PERFECTLY. It was like

witnessing a miracle.

I should mention it's for 98SE only. I found a few other

programs for 95-XP but never needed to try them. They probably

work fine too.

>>512kbps I am FASTER (I get about 450-500kbps) than my

>>friend who has a wireless 1GHz connection and barely

>>manages 300kbps! (I have NO problems with wires.)

>

> Me neither. (A wireless link is only as good as the wired

> link to the wireless router; an ultrafast wireless link

> makes no difference at all, unless you're transferring big

> files between _local_ computers.) []

People just like to have the latest and snazziest, even if it

decreases performance/usability. Insane. The main computer of

the 3 he has at home - where the wireless router is plugged in -

can't even get on the net at all. Ridiculous. It's a Sony Vaio

XP machine and it's slower than my 166. It has NEVER been

"maintained" or cleaned up or even defragged I believe - and

it's about 5 or 6 years old. (Needless to say, it has the

teletubbies wallpaper.)

t.

--

Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the

votes decide everything.

- Josef Stalin

September 23, 2008

Re: 95/98 ramblings

Re: 95/98 ramblings

In message <Xns9B2081B367A9Dthanexit@66.250.146.158>, thanatoid

<waiting@the.exit.invalid> writes

[]

>> ISTR reading somewhere that some of that is an urban myth -

>> that it was indeed designed to get round problems with

>> mechanical typewriter keys jamming, but not actually

>> designed to make it as slow as possible. (The positioning

>> of the commonest letters does tend to support this. Plus

>> the fact that it is different in different languages - I

>> think it is AZERTY in German, for example.)

>

>Well, making it slow would prevent jamming, wouldn't it? 6 of

Yes, but there are/were other ways to stop it jamming that _didn't_

involve slowing it down - moving the commonest letters so they weren't

too close to each other, I guess.

[]

>> Yes. Actually, I preferred prog.s that used their own .ini

>> file, kept in their own directory.

>

>There are still some programs which keep /everything/ in their

>own directory - and that's the best way. INI's /could/ all go in

>the windows dir which would make backing them up a little

>simpler - just copying all *.ini files to a backup from one

>directory instead from 20 or 50 or a 100.

Agreed on all you say.

>

><SNIP>

>

>> I don't do that much photography, and what I do I nearly

>> always view on screen.

>

>I only have a b&w laser, and I almost never print anything.

So, a simple camera (and/or microscope) would be some fun for you. Just

have a play!

[]

>I greatly believe in being "paperless". I would LOVE to put all

>the news snips and misc. stuff I tore out of magazines and

>newspapers over 30 years on my HD, but the time and effort

>required will probably ensure that it never happens - not to

>mention I am not that interested in the stuff anymore. (It

You are me. Again. (And mp3ing my records/CDs/etc., and scanning all my

old slides/prints ...)

>/would/ make moving a lot easier, but I don't intend to move

>again, either, let alone with all my crap.)

Ditto. One move after 20 years did show how much junk I have - I've made

one room here the junk room, but much of what's in there hasn't been

accessed since I moved in (over a year now), so I really ought to throw

some of it out ...

[]

>After installing Acronis, you make an Acronis Rescue Boot CD,

>which has the program on it, boot from it, and then just put the

>CD(s) with the last image in afterwards. No problem even if the

>HD is dead. You put in a new drive and have the same C: that you

Ah, I assumed it'd be something like that. Does it actually boot some

form of Linux? Is it able to handle (recreate) NTFS drives? Can it read

USB HDs/USB CDs?

[]

>>>Isn't ITK the

>>>one that disables the damn insert/overwrite thing? It did

>>>NOT work on my machine!

>>

>> It just makes a bleep whenever you hit the insert/overtype

>> key, that's all

>

>Ahh, that's why it "didn't work" - I have all sounds turned off!

>

>> - rather like the "toggle keys" for the

>> three lock keys which are part of W'9x anyway, but for some

>> reason hidden away under "Accessibility" or something like

>> that. (I find them useful, as I find it very easy to hit

>> caps lock without meaning to, and this at least tells me

>> I've done so.)

>

>I didn't know about this feature - will have to look it up. That

It's dead simple.

>means installing accessibility options and sticking the 98 CD in

>the drive again... The torture NEVER stops, does it... Actually,

You mean you don't have the WIN98 directory (root contents only) copied

to C:\WINDOWS\OPTIONS\CABS? (That seems to be the location of choice -

though I've never found anyone to explain why.)

[]

>> Far be it from me to encourage illegal activities ... (-:

>

>Well, it WAS given away for free with a magazine and they only

>wanted you to go to the site to get the serial so they could

>send you emails about new versions etc, which I opted out of

>immediately and never heard from them again.

>

>Anyway, seriously, just let me know.

In that case, yes please. (Email me if you wish - anything @ my soft255

domain will reach me; G6JPG@ will usually get read first.)

[]

>> with those rubbery things that stick out of they keyboard -

>> I didn't realise they were actually a sort of mouse for

>> ages, I thought they were just a screen-protecting bump!

>

>That makes sense, actually! They ARE horrible, and they break

>off. And IBM/Lenovo STILL put them on the machines, although I

>believe they have added the little rectangular pad, at least.

You _do_ get very used to using the touchpad; on Saturday I played with

one of the netbooks, which some reviewers had said the very small

touchpad was a bit difficult to use, but I found it no problem. (The

buttons being to the sides rather than below threw me a bit, but I'm

sure one gets used to that too.)

>Anyway, I am reasonably certain I will never ever own a laptop.

>OTOH, small (or big) mouses (mice?) can be plugged into any

Not any: most modern laptops only have USB sockets, or rather don't have

PS/2 ones, so it has to be a USB mouse.

>laptop. And people seem to carry them around in big bags anyway,

>so there's space for lots of junk.

Well, the netbook _is_ particularly dinky, so might buck that trend (on

the basis that you wouldn't go for such a tiny machine if you were going

to put it in a big bag anyway).

[]

--

J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice.

-Abraham Lincoln, 16th U.S. President (1809-1865)

Sign In

install printer drivers

Recommended Posts

Guest mc

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest Jeff Richards

Guest philo

Guest mc

Guest Jeff Richards

Guest mc

Guest Jeff Richards

Guest mc

Guest J. P. Gilliver

Guest J. P. Gilliver

Guest thanatoid

Guest Tim Slattery

Guest J. P. Gilliver

Guest thanatoid

Guest J. P. Gilliver

Guest thanatoid

Guest J. P. Gilliver

Guest thanatoid

Guest J. P. Gilliver (John)

Guest thanatoid

Guest Claudehl@aol.com

Guest J. P. Gilliver (John)

Guest J. P. Gilliver (John)

Guest thanatoid

Guest J. P. Gilliver (John)

Similar Content

error 0X800f0214 when installing printer driver

Can't install network drivers.

Urgent help needed to install Hp printer driver

Cannot install graphics driver

Help with my printer driver

Browse

Activity

Site Info