Please help

May 21, 2008

Hello,

I am trying to fix my dad's computer for him. He is running Windows 98 SE

on an IDE WD 80 GB HD. The computer will freeze up on him at all different

times. It can be on startup, after running for a short while or after a long

while, but does it everyday. Once it starts on that day it does it a lot.

Here is what I did so far:

Replaced hard drive- my dad's request.

Replaced cable for hard drive

Replaced cooling fan in power box, original fan made awful noise at startup.

Added extra cooling fan; mid tower.

After replacing the hard drive I ran the Manufacture's diagnostics software

on the old drive, found no errors. I also did a scan disk and defrag with no

trouble. So I don't believe the hard drive was the problem. The computer ran

for me all night using the old drive with the case open and a fan blowing on

it near by. So it could have been a heat problem.

I would like to test the following before giving the computer back:

RAM

All hardware

Look for hardware and program conflicts.

Can anyone please suggest the best software for doing the above? Any other

suggestions would be very much welcomed too. I doubt what I did so far fixed

the computer. I don't have a lot of time to spend watching the computer run.

He has been dealing with this freezing problem for a long time and has

gotten very aggravated over it. He is now dealing with having cancer and

going for chemo treatments so I would like to give the computer back to him

fixed.

Thank you in advance for any and all help!

James

May 21, 2008

Re: Please help - Windows 98 SE freeze!

"James" <flyerfanno1@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:23687248-6C73-43B4-A85A-F3E0624F6A6C@microsoft.com...

> I am trying to fix my dad's computer for him. He is running Windows 98 SE

> on an IDE WD 80 GB HD. The computer will freeze up on him at all different

> times. It can be on startup, after running for a short while or after a

long

> while, but does it everyday. Once it starts on that day it does it a lot.

>

> Here is what I did so far:

> Replaced hard drive- my dad's request.

> Replaced cable for hard drive

> Replaced cooling fan in power box, original fan made awful noise at

startup.

> Added extra cooling fan; mid tower.

>

> After replacing the hard drive I ran the Manufacture's diagnostics

software

> on the old drive, found no errors. I also did a scan disk and defrag with

no

> trouble. So I don't believe the hard drive was the problem. The computer

ran

> for me all night using the old drive with the case open and a fan blowing

on

> it near by. So it could have been a heat problem.

The post does not say when Win98SE was last reinstalled.

Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or

two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite before

assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably

5 to 10 years old.)

1. Reliable guidance for reinstallation of Windows is at

http://home.satx.rr.com/badour/html/w98_restore.html

2. Some manufacturers offer diagnostic downloads for

RAM, hard drives etc. But genuine computer repair shops

(if you can find one where you live) have test facilities of

higher quality and can test components like the motherboard.

(E.g. I needed to replace power supply modules 3 times and

a cooling fan once in 25 years of running PCs at home.)

Since peace of mind is important, you should consider this.

A genuine repair shop can advise about overheating problems

better than you or I could by guesswork. They will also remind

you of little things (e.g. whenever in doubt, and the CMOS

battery is two or more years old, replace it just in case, cost $2.)

--

Don Phillipson

Carlsbad Springs

(Ottawa, Canada)

May 21, 2008

Re: Please help - Windows 98 SE freeze!

"James" <flyerfanno1@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:23687248-6C73-43B4-A85A-F3E0624F6A6C@microsoft.com...

>

> Hello,

>

> I am trying to fix my dad's computer for him. He is running Windows 98 SE

> on an IDE WD 80 GB HD. The computer will freeze up on him at all different

> times. It can be on startup, after running for a short while or after a

long

> while, but does it everyday. Once it starts on that day it does it a lot.

>

> Here is what I did so far:

>

> Replaced hard drive- my dad's request.

>

> Replaced cable for hard drive

>

> Replaced cooling fan in power box, original fan made awful noise at

startup.

>

> Added extra cooling fan; mid tower.

>

> After replacing the hard drive I ran the Manufacture's diagnostics

software

> on the old drive, found no errors. I also did a scan disk and defrag with

no

> trouble. So I don't believe the hard drive was the problem. The computer

ran

> for me all night using the old drive with the case open and a fan blowing

on

> it near by. So it could have been a heat problem.

>

> I would like to test the following before giving the computer back:

>

> RAM

>

> All hardware

>

> Look for hardware and program conflicts.

>

> Can anyone please suggest the best software for doing the above? Any

other

> suggestions would be very much welcomed too. I doubt what I did so far

fixed

> the computer. I don't have a lot of time to spend watching the computer

run.

> He has been dealing with this freezing problem for a long time and has

> gotten very aggravated over it. He is now dealing with having cancer and

> going for chemo treatments so I would like to give the computer back to

him

> fixed.

>

> Thank you in advance for any and all help!

>

> James

>

Ram test:

http://oca.microsoft.com/en/windiag.asp

BTW: How is the CPU temp?

is the heatsink and fan OK???

May 21, 2008

Re: Please help - Windows 98 SE freeze!

Hello Don,

Thank you for your help and your suggestion to re-install Windows 98. I

will follow the link you gave me and give it a try. I do believe the install

has been just done in the past year, but it will not hurt to do it again.

Thanks again,

James

"Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message

news:ebdoW22uIHA.3484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> "James" <flyerfanno1@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> news:23687248-6C73-43B4-A85A-F3E0624F6A6C@microsoft.com...

>

>> I am trying to fix my dad's computer for him. He is running Windows 98

>> SE

>> on an IDE WD 80 GB HD. The computer will freeze up on him at all

>> different

>> times. It can be on startup, after running for a short while or after a

> long

>> while, but does it everyday. Once it starts on that day it does it a lot.

>>

>> Here is what I did so far:

>> Replaced hard drive- my dad's request.

>> Replaced cable for hard drive

>> Replaced cooling fan in power box, original fan made awful noise at

> startup.

>> Added extra cooling fan; mid tower.

>>

>> After replacing the hard drive I ran the Manufacture's diagnostics

> software

>> on the old drive, found no errors. I also did a scan disk and defrag with

> no

>> trouble. So I don't believe the hard drive was the problem. The computer

> ran

>> for me all night using the old drive with the case open and a fan blowing

> on

>> it near by. So it could have been a heat problem.

>

> The post does not say when Win98SE was last reinstalled.

> Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or

> two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite before

> assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably

> 5 to 10 years old.)

>

> 1. Reliable guidance for reinstallation of Windows is at

> http://home.satx.rr.com/badour/html/w98_restore.html

>

> 2. Some manufacturers offer diagnostic downloads for

> RAM, hard drives etc. But genuine computer repair shops

> (if you can find one where you live) have test facilities of

> higher quality and can test components like the motherboard.

> (E.g. I needed to replace power supply modules 3 times and

> a cooling fan once in 25 years of running PCs at home.)

> Since peace of mind is important, you should consider this.

> A genuine repair shop can advise about overheating problems

> better than you or I could by guesswork. They will also remind

> you of little things (e.g. whenever in doubt, and the CMOS

> battery is two or more years old, replace it just in case, cost $2.)

>

> --

> Don Phillipson

> Carlsbad Springs

> (Ottawa, Canada)

>

May 21, 2008

Re: Please help - Windows 98 SE freeze!

Hello Philo,

Thank you for the link for testing RAM. I really appreciate it.

CPU fan looks like it is running great. I did not go into the Bios yet to

check the temp, but will do that. I am sure it is running cool right now

because the side panel is off and I have a fan running in the room. When I

get done with the changes inside the computer I will run it for a day with

the panel on and keep an eye on the CPU temp.

Thanks again,

James

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

news:2qednVwAB9JF-6nVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d@ntd.net...

>

> "James" <flyerfanno1@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> news:23687248-6C73-43B4-A85A-F3E0624F6A6C@microsoft.com...

>>

>> Hello,

>>

>> I am trying to fix my dad's computer for him. He is running Windows 98

>> SE

>> on an IDE WD 80 GB HD. The computer will freeze up on him at all

>> different

>> times. It can be on startup, after running for a short while or after a

> long

>> while, but does it everyday. Once it starts on that day it does it a lot.

>>

>> Here is what I did so far:

>>

>> Replaced hard drive- my dad's request.

>>

>> Replaced cable for hard drive

>>

>> Replaced cooling fan in power box, original fan made awful noise at

> startup.

>>

>> Added extra cooling fan; mid tower.

>>

>> After replacing the hard drive I ran the Manufacture's diagnostics

> software

>> on the old drive, found no errors. I also did a scan disk and defrag with

> no

>> trouble. So I don't believe the hard drive was the problem. The computer

> ran

>> for me all night using the old drive with the case open and a fan blowing

> on

>> it near by. So it could have been a heat problem.

>>

>> I would like to test the following before giving the computer back:

>>

>> RAM

>>

>> All hardware

>>

>> Look for hardware and program conflicts.

>>

>> Can anyone please suggest the best software for doing the above? Any

> other

>> suggestions would be very much welcomed too. I doubt what I did so far

> fixed

>> the computer. I don't have a lot of time to spend watching the computer

> run.

>> He has been dealing with this freezing problem for a long time and has

>> gotten very aggravated over it. He is now dealing with having cancer and

>> going for chemo treatments so I would like to give the computer back to

> him

>> fixed.

>>

>> Thank you in advance for any and all help!

>>

>> James

>>

>

> Ram test:

> http://oca.microsoft.com/en/windiag.asp

>

> BTW: How is the CPU temp?

> is the heatsink and fan OK???

>

May 21, 2008

Re: Please help - Windows 98 SE freeze!

Doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results? Why not go

through some diagnostics, first. RAM testing is definitely recommended, but

there's a lot more testing that can be done before you go to that extreme.

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

http://www.grystmill.com

"James" <flyerfanno1@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:71C586CA-9E9F-465D-B4D8-CF3FA9081D52@microsoft.com...

> Hello Don,

>

> Thank you for your help and your suggestion to re-install Windows 98. I

> will follow the link you gave me and give it a try. I do believe the

> install has been just done in the past year, but it will not hurt to do it

> again.

>

> Thanks again,

> James

>

> "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message

> news:ebdoW22uIHA.3484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>> "James" <flyerfanno1@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:23687248-6C73-43B4-A85A-F3E0624F6A6C@microsoft.com...

>>

>>> I am trying to fix my dad's computer for him. He is running Windows 98

>>> SE

>>> on an IDE WD 80 GB HD. The computer will freeze up on him at all

>>> different

>>> times. It can be on startup, after running for a short while or after a

>> long

>>> while, but does it everyday. Once it starts on that day it does it a

>>> lot.

>>>

>>> Here is what I did so far:

>>> Replaced hard drive- my dad's request.

>>> Replaced cable for hard drive

>>> Replaced cooling fan in power box, original fan made awful noise at

>> startup.

>>> Added extra cooling fan; mid tower.

>>>

>>> After replacing the hard drive I ran the Manufacture's diagnostics

>> software

>>> on the old drive, found no errors. I also did a scan disk and defrag

>>> with

>> no

>>> trouble. So I don't believe the hard drive was the problem. The computer

>> ran

>>> for me all night using the old drive with the case open and a fan

>>> blowing

>> on

>>> it near by. So it could have been a heat problem.

>>

>> The post does not say when Win98SE was last reinstalled.

>> Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or

>> two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite before

>> assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably

>> 5 to 10 years old.)

>>

>> 1. Reliable guidance for reinstallation of Windows is at

>> http://home.satx.rr.com/badour/html/w98_restore.html

>>

>> 2. Some manufacturers offer diagnostic downloads for

>> RAM, hard drives etc. But genuine computer repair shops

>> (if you can find one where you live) have test facilities of

>> higher quality and can test components like the motherboard.

>> (E.g. I needed to replace power supply modules 3 times and

>> a cooling fan once in 25 years of running PCs at home.)

>> Since peace of mind is important, you should consider this.

>> A genuine repair shop can advise about overheating problems

>> better than you or I could by guesswork. They will also remind

>> you of little things (e.g. whenever in doubt, and the CMOS

>> battery is two or more years old, replace it just in case, cost $2.)

>>

>> --

>> Don Phillipson

>> Carlsbad Springs

>> (Ottawa, Canada)

>>

>

May 21, 2008

Re: Please help - Windows 98 SE freeze!

Run the RAM test for a couple of days (yes, days), then post back here with

the results. After that, I think I'd run DXDiag, all tests, to exercise/test

the video card.

While you're at it, answer some questions: How does your Dad use the

computer? What does he do with it? Games? Internet? Email? What programs

does he use (exact names, please.) Look in Help>About for each one and tell

us what versions.

What antivirus does the machine use? What other protective apps (Spyware

scanners, etc.)?

Please run MSINFO32, expand the Software Environment, click on Startup

Programs, click in the right-hand pane, press Ctrl-A, then Ctrl-C. Then open

a new reply to this post (let's keep it separate from the rest, it's messy)

and use Ctrl-V to Paste in the data.

Lastly, stop the RAM test for a while and go to the following address and

follow ALL suggestions there. http://aumha.org/a/quickfix.htm

Hope you can find a good use for that old, good HD. Like as a backup drive.

Not good for serious critical data backup, but if there's nothing like that

involved, it could certainly help your Dad in the future. Once you've got

all this figured out, even if it takes a complete reinstall (possibly with

some different apps), if it starts acting up you can just restore a backup

if your Dad is too impatient for a true diagnosis. (Never mind, my mind's

wandering...)

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

http://www.grystmill.com

"James" <flyerfanno1@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:23687248-6C73-43B4-A85A-F3E0624F6A6C@microsoft.com...

> Hello,

>

> I am trying to fix my dad's computer for him. He is running Windows 98 SE

> on an IDE WD 80 GB HD. The computer will freeze up on him at all different

> times. It can be on startup, after running for a short while or after a

> long while, but does it everyday. Once it starts on that day it does it a

> lot.

>

> Here is what I did so far:

>

> Replaced hard drive- my dad's request.

>

> Replaced cable for hard drive

>

> Replaced cooling fan in power box, original fan made awful noise at

> startup.

>

> Added extra cooling fan; mid tower.

>

> After replacing the hard drive I ran the Manufacture's diagnostics

> software on the old drive, found no errors. I also did a scan disk and

> defrag with no trouble. So I don't believe the hard drive was the problem.

> The computer ran for me all night using the old drive with the case open

> and a fan blowing on it near by. So it could have been a heat problem.

>

> I would like to test the following before giving the computer back:

>

> RAM

>

> All hardware

>

> Look for hardware and program conflicts.

>

> Can anyone please suggest the best software for doing the above? Any other

> suggestions would be very much welcomed too. I doubt what I did so far

> fixed the computer. I don't have a lot of time to spend watching the

> computer run. He has been dealing with this freezing problem for a long

> time and has gotten very aggravated over it. He is now dealing with having

> cancer and going for chemo treatments so I would like to give the computer

> back to him fixed.

>

> Thank you in advance for any and all help!

>

> James

>

May 21, 2008

Re: Please help - Windows 98 SE freeze!

"Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message

news:ebdoW22uIHA.3484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> "James" <flyerfanno1@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> news:23687248-6C73-43B4-A85A-F3E0624F6A6C@microsoft.com...

>

>> I am trying to fix my dad's computer for him. He is running Windows 98

>> SE

>> on an IDE WD 80 GB HD. The computer will freeze up on him at all

>> different

>> times. It can be on startup, after running for a short while or after a

> long

>> while, but does it everyday. Once it starts on that day it does it a lot.

>>

>> Here is what I did so far:

>> Replaced hard drive- my dad's request.

>> Replaced cable for hard drive

>> Replaced cooling fan in power box, original fan made awful noise at

> startup.

>> Added extra cooling fan; mid tower.

>>

>> After replacing the hard drive I ran the Manufacture's diagnostics

> software

>> on the old drive, found no errors. I also did a scan disk and defrag with

> no

>> trouble. So I don't believe the hard drive was the problem. The computer

> ran

>> for me all night using the old drive with the case open and a fan blowing

> on

>> it near by. So it could have been a heat problem.

>

> The post does not say when Win98SE was last reinstalled.

> Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or

> two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite before

> assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably

> 5 to 10 years old.)

Pray tell, what "experts" recommend this habitual reinstallation of Win98?

That's a load of pure B.S. And, yes, installing Windows takes ~ 1 hour. But

it can take days to finish the job properly. One very, very long day, at

best.

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

http://www.grystmill.com

May 22, 2008

Re: Please help - Windows 98 SE freeze!

Gary S. Terhune wrote:

> "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message

[]

>> Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or

>> two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite before

>> assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably

>> 5 to 10 years old.)

>

> Pray tell, what "experts" recommend this habitual reinstallation of

> Win98? That's a load of pure B.S. And, yes, installing Windows takes

> ~ 1 hour. But it can take days to finish the job properly. One very,

> very long day, at best.

Hooray! I was going to say more or less the very same thing.

As part of trying to get that microscope working, I used soporific's

autopatcher - yes, you were all right to say be very careful with it: it

broke my PC [freezes during boot]. (Yes, I know it only does patches. All

right, one of them broke it. Same end result.) Probably irretrievable broken

now, due to the tinkering I've done to try to get it back, but I'm very loth

to do a reinstall, as there are signs that my setup is still there

underneath: it (initially) would still boot into Safe Mode, for example.

(Now just gets as far as the background pattern in Safe Mode. Can still get

to command prompt no problem.)

Any suggestions (other than not be a silly boy again)?

As if I've not learnt my lesson, I quite like the look of soporific's "98

for 2008" - http://sharethefiles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=104845 -

especially the "re-install the operating system Without deleting old

settings" option; however, it seems only to be available via torrent sites,

of which I'm very wary.

--

J. P. Gilliver

May 22, 2008

Re: Please help - Windows 98 SE freeze!

On Wed, 21 May 2008 13:02:37 -0400, "James" <flyerfanno1@hotmail.com>

put finger to keyboard and composed:

> I am trying to fix my dad's computer for him. He is running Windows 98 SE

>on an IDE WD 80 GB HD. The computer will freeze up on him at all different

>times. It can be on startup, after running for a short while or after a long

>while, but does it everyday. Once it starts on that day it does it a lot.

Whenever I have problems like this I remove and reseat all cards and

memory modules. Better still, gently wipe the gold fingers of all the

cards with a soft pencil eraser. I also spray the sockets with

electronic cleaning solvent.

Check the motherboard for swollen or leaking capacitors. Also peak

inside the power supply for signs of same.

Run a stand-alone, floppy based, DOS memory diagnostic such as

Memtest:

http://www.memtest.org/

Run a torture test such as Prime95:

http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/385/

- Franc Zabkar

--

Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

May 22, 2008

Re: Please help - Windows 98 SE freeze!

Strike Two for Auto-Patcher in just a few short days on a dinky NG like this

one. Not good stats, all you AP defenders.

And it does a lot more than "patch", unless you want to use a nice loose

definition that basically says that anything you do to the system is a

"patch". No, I picture Auto-Patcher as a group of guys in white jumpsuits,

running around a room, slapping patches on everything they see, even if

there isn't any dent in the wall there, while another, surly looking bloke

swings a sledge hammer round and round, everyone else ignoring him, even

when the hammer happens to hit a wall or something more important, or even

one of the other patchers. Like Russian Roulette.

And no, I think you've hosed it for good. Start collecting drivers. And this

time pay attention to the apps you install. Make a list, including versions,

etc. As for that last, there is NO SUCH THING as a decent overinstall (a

reinstall without reformatting.) No matter how you do it, it will end up an

unstable knife at the small of your back, just waiting for you to relax.

Auto-Patcher. Bah, Humbug! Another example of death by committee.

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

http://www.grystmill.com

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

news:4835af64$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...

> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>> "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message

> []

>>> Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or

>>> two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite before

>>> assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably

>>> 5 to 10 years old.)

>>

>> Pray tell, what "experts" recommend this habitual reinstallation of

>> Win98? That's a load of pure B.S. And, yes, installing Windows takes

>> ~ 1 hour. But it can take days to finish the job properly. One very,

>> very long day, at best.

>

> Hooray! I was going to say more or less the very same thing.

>

> As part of trying to get that microscope working, I used soporific's

> autopatcher - yes, you were all right to say be very careful with it: it

> broke my PC [freezes during boot]. (Yes, I know it only does patches. All

> right, one of them broke it. Same end result.) Probably irretrievable

> broken now, due to the tinkering I've done to try to get it back, but I'm

> very loth to do a reinstall, as there are signs that my setup is still

> there underneath: it (initially) would still boot into Safe Mode, for

> example. (Now just gets as far as the background pattern in Safe Mode. Can

> still get to command prompt no problem.)

>

> Any suggestions (other than not be a silly boy again)?

>

> As if I've not learnt my lesson, I quite like the look of soporific's "98

> for 2008" - http://sharethefiles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=104845 -

> especially the "re-install the operating system Without deleting old

> settings" option; however, it seems only to be available via torrent

> sites, of which I'm very wary.

> --

> J. P. Gilliver

>

May 23, 2008

Re: Please help - Windows 98 SE freeze!

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

news:4835af64$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...

> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

> > "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message

> []

> >> Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or

> >> two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite before

> >> assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably

> >> 5 to 10 years old.)

> >

> > Pray tell, what "experts" recommend this habitual reinstallation of

> > Win98? That's a load of pure B.S. And, yes, installing Windows takes

> > ~ 1 hour. But it can take days to finish the job properly. One very,

> > very long day, at best.

>

> Hooray! I was going to say more or less the very same thing.

>

> As part of trying to get that microscope working, I used soporific's

> autopatcher - yes, you were all right to say be very careful with it: it

> broke my PC [freezes during boot]. (Yes, I know it only does patches. All

> right, one of them broke it. Same end result.) Probably irretrievable

broken

> now, due to the tinkering I've done to try to get it back, but I'm very

loth

> to do a reinstall, as there are signs that my setup is still there

> underneath: it (initially) would still boot into Safe Mode, for example.

> (Now just gets as far as the background pattern in Safe Mode. Can still

get

> to command prompt no problem.)

>

> Any suggestions (other than not be a silly boy again)?

Is it any wonder that a user that couldn't or wouldn't verify

the microscope mfg's requirements for the OS also couldn't

or wouldn't bother to follow instructions regarding program

installation and then blames the utility's (AP) packager? ;^)

Per the author's instructions, Auto-Patcher is supposed

to be applied to a fresh install of Windows 98 SE. Re:

The correct sequence is:

1. Install Win98se

2. Install Auto-Patcher and use it.

http://soporific.dsleague.com/main/?page_id=7

I've followed that recommendation and despite heavy usage

continue to not have the slightest conceivable issue with Auto-

Patcher, I've in fact had quite the exact opposite experience.

May 23, 2008

Re: Please help - Windows 98 SE freeze!

Would be nice if the author could bother to put a real front page on that

thing. Would be nice if the people slogging this product in this group,

along with the rest of the author's cohort, could be bothered to provide the

important links regarding it's use. So far, I have a link to MSFN that looks

just like any other product development discussion -- two freakin' years

worth. A new user is supposed to slog through that to find a list of

instructions? A new user, in order to avoid SERIOUS FOUL-UPS, is supposed to

do this?

OK, so I go to soporific.com, expecting there'll be instructions there.

Nope, just list of folders. So it's guessing game time. OK, I'll click on

Main. Hmm.... bunch of political blather... Oh, there it is in the upper

right corner, Ok... Whaddya know, it's the page that you so kindly linked

to, the one nobody else who slogs the app here seems to know about.

Just a long list of 47 "Comments", one of which, by golly, suggests that my

Unofficial Time Zones Update package be included. I assume it wasn't, since

I haven't heard from the author. (Oh, and down around "COMMENT" 26 is your

"Instruction". Sorry, but that doesn't qualify as an "Instruction".

So, maybe the app is useful, and maybe it is even a God Send for IT people.

(But I think people who try to turn Windows 98 into Windows XP have

something missing in their soul.) But it was the HEIGHT of irresponsibility

for anyone in this group to be promoting it, because frankly, it isn't

finished, and/or they don't really know anything about it, and/or if they DO

know anything about it, they don't apparently know the most important

thing -- AP is only to be applied to a fresh install.

And, in the end, I don't believe the author had anything like the proper

amount of time or a sufficient depth of testers to allow, on such a massive

pile of cobbled together "patches", anything like a decent margin of safety.

And while a forum works well when building an app by committee, it does NOT

substitute for a manual of instructions, nor all the other usual items you

see on an app's download page, like Min. Reqs., CAUTIONS, etc. I mean, if

the author KNOWS the app is going to choke and cause problems on anything

but a new installation, why THAT info should be the title of the damned

page, not some note buried in Comment 25.

No, not only is this a dangerous abortion of an app for the casual user, it

fails my own minimum requirements for any app worth a damn. My opinion of

those promoting it here is that they lack any sense of responsibility toward

the innocents who come here looking for advice. I say SHAME ON YOU, one and

all.

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

http://www.grystmill.com

"." <.@dot.com> wrote in message news:EppZj.89523$y05.52341@newsfe22.lga...

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

> news:4835af64$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...

>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>> > "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message

>> []

>> >> Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or

>> >> two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite before

>> >> assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably

>> >> 5 to 10 years old.)

>> >

>> > Pray tell, what "experts" recommend this habitual reinstallation of

>> > Win98? That's a load of pure B.S. And, yes, installing Windows takes

>> > ~ 1 hour. But it can take days to finish the job properly. One very,

>> > very long day, at best.

>>

>> Hooray! I was going to say more or less the very same thing.

>>

>> As part of trying to get that microscope working, I used soporific's

>> autopatcher - yes, you were all right to say be very careful with it: it

>> broke my PC [freezes during boot]. (Yes, I know it only does patches. All

>> right, one of them broke it. Same end result.) Probably irretrievable

> broken

>> now, due to the tinkering I've done to try to get it back, but I'm very

> loth

>> to do a reinstall, as there are signs that my setup is still there

>> underneath: it (initially) would still boot into Safe Mode, for example.

>> (Now just gets as far as the background pattern in Safe Mode. Can still

> get

>> to command prompt no problem.)

>>

>> Any suggestions (other than not be a silly boy again)?

>

> Is it any wonder that a user that couldn't or wouldn't verify

> the microscope mfg's requirements for the OS also couldn't

> or wouldn't bother to follow instructions regarding program

> installation and then blames the utility's (AP) packager? ;^)

>

> Per the author's instructions, Auto-Patcher is supposed

> to be applied to a fresh install of Windows 98 SE. Re:

> The correct sequence is:

> 1. Install Win98se

> 2. Install Auto-Patcher and use it.

> http://soporific.dsleague.com/main/?page_id=7

>

> I've followed that recommendation and despite heavy usage

> continue to not have the slightest conceivable issue with Auto-

> Patcher, I've in fact had quite the exact opposite experience.

>

May 23, 2008

Re: Please help - Windows 98 SE freeze!

Don't like it? Don't use it, simple as that; albeit your "review"

is tantamount to an evaluation of a book where the critic has

not only not read the work (let alone perused the Cliff Notes)

but instead haughtily berates those that have relying solely on

snippets and the barbs of others. In any case, to each his own.

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

news:%23oHcbvOvIHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Would be nice if the author could bother to put a real front page on that

> thing. Would be nice if the people slogging this product in this group,

> along with the rest of the author's cohort, could be bothered to provide

the

> important links regarding it's use. So far, I have a link to MSFN that

looks

> just like any other product development discussion -- two freakin' years

> worth. A new user is supposed to slog through that to find a list of

> instructions? A new user, in order to avoid SERIOUS FOUL-UPS, is supposed

to

> do this?

>

> OK, so I go to soporific.com, expecting there'll be instructions there.

> Nope, just list of folders. So it's guessing game time. OK, I'll click on

> Main. Hmm.... bunch of political blather... Oh, there it is in the upper

> right corner, Ok... Whaddya know, it's the page that you so kindly linked

> to, the one nobody else who slogs the app here seems to know about.

>

> Just a long list of 47 "Comments", one of which, by golly, suggests that

my

> Unofficial Time Zones Update package be included. I assume it wasn't,

since

> I haven't heard from the author. (Oh, and down around "COMMENT" 26 is your

> "Instruction". Sorry, but that doesn't qualify as an "Instruction".

>

> So, maybe the app is useful, and maybe it is even a God Send for IT

people.

> (But I think people who try to turn Windows 98 into Windows XP have

> something missing in their soul.) But it was the HEIGHT of

irresponsibility

> for anyone in this group to be promoting it, because frankly, it isn't

> finished, and/or they don't really know anything about it, and/or if they

DO

> know anything about it, they don't apparently know the most important

> thing -- AP is only to be applied to a fresh install.

>

> And, in the end, I don't believe the author had anything like the proper

> amount of time or a sufficient depth of testers to allow, on such a

massive

> pile of cobbled together "patches", anything like a decent margin of

safety.

> And while a forum works well when building an app by committee, it does

NOT

> substitute for a manual of instructions, nor all the other usual items you

> see on an app's download page, like Min. Reqs., CAUTIONS, etc. I mean, if

> the author KNOWS the app is going to choke and cause problems on anything

> but a new installation, why THAT info should be the title of the damned

> page, not some note buried in Comment 25.

>

> No, not only is this a dangerous abortion of an app for the casual user,

it

> fails my own minimum requirements for any app worth a damn. My opinion of

> those promoting it here is that they lack any sense of responsibility

toward

> the innocents who come here looking for advice. I say SHAME ON YOU, one

and

> all.

>

> --

> Gary S. Terhune

> MS-MVP Shell/User

> http://www.grystmill.com

>

> "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message

news:EppZj.89523$y05.52341@newsfe22.lga...

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

> > news:4835af64$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...

> >> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

> >> > "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message

> >> []

> >> >> Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or

> >> >> two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite before

> >> >> assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably

> >> >> 5 to 10 years old.)

> >> >

> >> > Pray tell, what "experts" recommend this habitual reinstallation of

> >> > Win98? That's a load of pure B.S. And, yes, installing Windows takes

> >> > ~ 1 hour. But it can take days to finish the job properly. One very,

> >> > very long day, at best.

> >>

> >> Hooray! I was going to say more or less the very same thing.

> >>

> >> As part of trying to get that microscope working, I used soporific's

> >> autopatcher - yes, you were all right to say be very careful with it:

it

> >> broke my PC [freezes during boot]. (Yes, I know it only does patches.

All

> >> right, one of them broke it. Same end result.) Probably irretrievable

> > broken

> >> now, due to the tinkering I've done to try to get it back, but I'm very

> > loth

> >> to do a reinstall, as there are signs that my setup is still there

> >> underneath: it (initially) would still boot into Safe Mode, for

example.

> >> (Now just gets as far as the background pattern in Safe Mode. Can still

> > get

> >> to command prompt no problem.)

> >>

> >> Any suggestions (other than not be a silly boy again)?

> >

> > Is it any wonder that a user that couldn't or wouldn't verify

> > the microscope mfg's requirements for the OS also couldn't

> > or wouldn't bother to follow instructions regarding program

> > installation and then blames the utility's (AP) packager? ;^)

> >

> > Per the author's instructions, Auto-Patcher is supposed

> > to be applied to a fresh install of Windows 98 SE. Re:

> > The correct sequence is:

> > 1. Install Win98se

> > 2. Install Auto-Patcher and use it.

> > http://soporific.dsleague.com/main/?page_id=7

> >

> > I've followed that recommendation and despite heavy usage

> > continue to not have the slightest conceivable issue with Auto-

> > Patcher, I've in fact had quite the exact opposite experience.

May 23, 2008

Re: Please help - Windows 98 SE freeze!

LOL! You can't decently defend one accusation I made. Look, just because it

hasn't caused YOU any problems, it HAS caused problems, as you've seen in

this group in just the past couple of days. And, pray tell, who else here

has said anything negative about AP except me? How could I possibly be

"relying solely on snippets and the barbs of others"? My opinions are

entirely my own, you twit.

I CERTAINLY read that page of "instructions" and it isn't anything of the

sort. I CERTAINLY, reviewed the forum to a fair extent, and it was totally

non-informative about the app except to prove that lots of people have

problems with it and they seem to be mostly problems of incompatibility with

other apps and (as seen in this group) hardware. That indicates insufficient

testing. It CERTAINLY caused at least two people in this group grief when

they tried it, with problems you apparently don't know the answer to, and in

one case will apparently require a total rebuild to "fix" it. I CERTAINLY

*have* downloaded it and looked into it, but I don't have a machine I feel

like rebuilding right now, so I'd be stupid to actually run it. And other

than that one "comment", I DON'T see ANYWHERE where it says, "Only run this

on a fresh install of Windows 98." You'd think that was rather an important

thing for the new user to know. But, of course, I've read a lot, everything

available except not ALL of the dozens of pages of MSFN forum, and that's

the only place that little rule is mentioned, so I think YOU are the one

that's off the wall and that a fresh install isn't supposed to be a

requirement at all. Hey, if you really don't know what you're talking about,

you should keep your yap shut.

The whole IDEA of Auto-Patcher is wrong-headed and it's full of potential

problems because of all the unofficial updates and attempts at building 98

patches from XP versions, but even then, it's not ready for distribution.

It's barely reached Beta stage. Responsible people generally do not

recommend Beta products to others.

NOT ONLY WILL I NOT USE Auto-Patcher, I WILL SLAM IT AND BAD MOUTH ANYONE

WHO EVEN RECOMMENDS IT, now and for the foreseeable future. It's a big a

pile of crap as I've seen in a long time. Like something Symantec might

vomit out.

Lastly, quit brown-nosing me and go find someone else to pretend you're the

equal of. You're an ignorant cuss, enamored of a juvenile circle-jerk called

"Auto-Patcher". If you want a metaphor, try Communism, the "peoples' party"

Valhalla that never managed to accomplish anything but evil.

Let me put it more simply -- If people want Windows XP (or Vista), they

should go out and buy them, instead of trying to make Windows 98 into

something it can never decently be.

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

http://www.grystmill.com

"." <.@dot.com> wrote in message news:qoCZj.89588$y05.29430@newsfe22.lga...

> Don't like it? Don't use it, simple as that; albeit your "review"

> is tantamount to an evaluation of a book where the critic has

> not only not read the work (let alone perused the Cliff Notes)

> but instead haughtily berates those that have relying solely on

> snippets and the barbs of others. In any case, to each his own.

>

> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> news:%23oHcbvOvIHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> Would be nice if the author could bother to put a real front page on that

>> thing. Would be nice if the people slogging this product in this group,

>> along with the rest of the author's cohort, could be bothered to provide

> the

>> important links regarding it's use. So far, I have a link to MSFN that

> looks

>> just like any other product development discussion -- two freakin' years

>> worth. A new user is supposed to slog through that to find a list of

>> instructions? A new user, in order to avoid SERIOUS FOUL-UPS, is supposed

> to

>> do this?

>>

>> OK, so I go to soporific.com, expecting there'll be instructions there.

>> Nope, just list of folders. So it's guessing game time. OK, I'll click on

>> Main. Hmm.... bunch of political blather... Oh, there it is in the upper

>> right corner, Ok... Whaddya know, it's the page that you so kindly linked

>> to, the one nobody else who slogs the app here seems to know about.

>>

>> Just a long list of 47 "Comments", one of which, by golly, suggests that

> my

>> Unofficial Time Zones Update package be included. I assume it wasn't,

> since

>> I haven't heard from the author. (Oh, and down around "COMMENT" 26 is

>> your

>> "Instruction". Sorry, but that doesn't qualify as an "Instruction".

>>

>> So, maybe the app is useful, and maybe it is even a God Send for IT

> people.

>> (But I think people who try to turn Windows 98 into Windows XP have

>> something missing in their soul.) But it was the HEIGHT of

> irresponsibility

>> for anyone in this group to be promoting it, because frankly, it isn't

>> finished, and/or they don't really know anything about it, and/or if they

>

> DO

>> know anything about it, they don't apparently know the most important

>> thing -- AP is only to be applied to a fresh install.

>>

>> And, in the end, I don't believe the author had anything like the proper

>> amount of time or a sufficient depth of testers to allow, on such a

> massive

>> pile of cobbled together "patches", anything like a decent margin of

> safety.

>> And while a forum works well when building an app by committee, it does

> NOT

>> substitute for a manual of instructions, nor all the other usual items

>> you

>> see on an app's download page, like Min. Reqs., CAUTIONS, etc. I mean, if

>> the author KNOWS the app is going to choke and cause problems on anything

>> but a new installation, why THAT info should be the title of the damned

>> page, not some note buried in Comment 25.

>>

>> No, not only is this a dangerous abortion of an app for the casual user,

> it

>> fails my own minimum requirements for any app worth a damn. My opinion of

>> those promoting it here is that they lack any sense of responsibility

> toward

>> the innocents who come here looking for advice. I say SHAME ON YOU, one

> and

>> all.

>>

>> --

>> Gary S. Terhune

>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>> http://www.grystmill.com

>>

>> "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message

> news:EppZj.89523$y05.52341@newsfe22.lga...

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

>> > news:4835af64$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...

>> >> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>> >> > "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message

>> >> []

>> >> >> Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or

>> >> >> two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite before

>> >> >> assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably

>> >> >> 5 to 10 years old.)

>> >> >

>> >> > Pray tell, what "experts" recommend this habitual reinstallation of

>> >> > Win98? That's a load of pure B.S. And, yes, installing Windows takes

>> >> > ~ 1 hour. But it can take days to finish the job properly. One very,

>> >> > very long day, at best.

>> >>

>> >> Hooray! I was going to say more or less the very same thing.

>> >>

>> >> As part of trying to get that microscope working, I used soporific's

>> >> autopatcher - yes, you were all right to say be very careful with it:

> it

>> >> broke my PC [freezes during boot]. (Yes, I know it only does patches.

> All

>> >> right, one of them broke it. Same end result.) Probably irretrievable

>> > broken

>> >> now, due to the tinkering I've done to try to get it back, but I'm

>> >> very

>> > loth

>> >> to do a reinstall, as there are signs that my setup is still there

>> >> underneath: it (initially) would still boot into Safe Mode, for

> example.

>> >> (Now just gets as far as the background pattern in Safe Mode. Can

>> >> still

>> > get

>> >> to command prompt no problem.)

>> >>

>> >> Any suggestions (other than not be a silly boy again)?

>> >

>> > Is it any wonder that a user that couldn't or wouldn't verify

>> > the microscope mfg's requirements for the OS also couldn't

>> > or wouldn't bother to follow instructions regarding program

>> > installation and then blames the utility's (AP) packager? ;^)

>> >

>> > Per the author's instructions, Auto-Patcher is supposed

>> > to be applied to a fresh install of Windows 98 SE. Re:

>> > The correct sequence is:

>> > 1. Install Win98se

>> > 2. Install Auto-Patcher and use it.

>> > http://soporific.dsleague.com/main/?page_id=7

>> >

>> > I've followed that recommendation and despite heavy usage

>> > continue to not have the slightest conceivable issue with Auto-

>> > Patcher, I've in fact had quite the exact opposite experience.

>

May 23, 2008

Re: Please help - Windows 98 SE freeze!

.. wrote:

Bit dotty, this guy! (FWIW, I don't think it's "soporific" himself: I've had

correspondence with him, and although we differ on certain matters, he seems

quite a reasonable guy. And also, AFAICT, he doesn't _sell_ AutoPatcher or

the UBCD - in fact I think he doesn't even use it himself as his main OS.)

[]

> Is it any wonder that a user that couldn't or wouldn't verify

> the microscope mfg's requirements for the OS also couldn't

ThinkGeek's webpage said 98 (I think 98 _and_ 98SE). It still did up to at

least yesterday. As with many distributors, they give neither the maker nor

the model number, so I couldn't check there - though I'm pretty sure I did

as soon as I got it and it was still saying 98 too, but I didn't take a copy

of it at that time. (It doesn't mention 98 now, probably after I

corresponded with them.)

> or wouldn't bother to follow instructions regarding program

> installation and then blames the utility's (AP) packager? ;^)

>

> Per the author's instructions, Auto-Patcher is supposed

> to be applied to a fresh install of Windows 98 SE. Re:

> The correct sequence is:

> 1. Install Win98se

> 2. Install Auto-Patcher and use it.

> http://soporific.dsleague.com/main/?page_id=7

As Gary has said, that "supposed"ness is very far from obvious from that

page! (Or the MSFN one, which just looks like a discussion.)

>

> I've followed that recommendation and despite heavy usage

> continue to not have the slightest conceivable issue with Auto-

> Patcher, I've in fact had quite the exact opposite experience.

I'm sure that many do have that experience; I suspect that, from a clean

start, people using his UBCD -

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

have no problems either. But trying to use _any_ patch - soporific's (OK,

not his, but YKWIM) or other sourced - on an up and running system, ther

than _possibly_ brand new, is dangerous. Definitely going to ghost my C: (or

at least Windows directory) this time, if I can find something (ideally

free) that will save and can then be restored from DOS 7.

--

J. P. Gilliver

May 23, 2008

Re: Please help - Windows 98 SE freeze!

Excuse me for butting in, but *I* did supply the warning in the

post/discussion *warning* about installing these things in already updated

systems.

I personally HAVE tested numerous of these compilations, and DO warn

concerning their use when such appears in this group.

I agree, the works are at best "beta tests" as I have repeatedly posted in

this group; I also agree that the documentation is slim and poorly

researched and presented.. I also would like to see a more extensive review

of these compilations.

But I also see the potential value, for some, that these might provide.

However, I would also like to see the sites which provide these, to also

provide support forums for these updaters, where those with issues can

address them without scorn. With Summaries and Warnings CLEARLY posted

throughout the sites.

CLEARLY, those who post that these are fail-safe or attempt to direct in

the fashion, are failing to address the differing configurations of the

individual systems. They are also CLEARLY failing to address the differing

applications which might be installed within those *unofficially* updated

systems.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, they also CLEARLY fail to address the additional security

risks and other issues which become part of this un-official updating.

Many of these official updates can be modified to work within 9X, but for

them to work safely [or what is purported as such in Microsoft

environments], they NEED the other functions/services available within the

OS for which they were originally intended.

I have yet to find the sites which have setup proper testing facilities to

test and attack these systems. I have yet to see the file and system error

check reports. I have yet to find the sites which deal with the

inter-relationships of these updates and the ramifications thereby related..

As such, ALL usage of these unofficial updaters should be taken with extreme

caution and skepticism.

Stating that "it works for me" means nothing and produces an air that these

are OKAY for everyone, which they are NOT..

--

MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

--

_________

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

news:%23W7tE1PvIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

| LOL! You can't decently defend one accusation I made. Look, just because

it

| hasn't caused YOU any problems, it HAS caused problems, as you've seen in

| this group in just the past couple of days. And, pray tell, who else here

| has said anything negative about AP except me? How could I possibly be

| "relying solely on snippets and the barbs of others"? My opinions are

| entirely my own, you twit.

|

| I CERTAINLY read that page of "instructions" and it isn't anything of the

| sort. I CERTAINLY, reviewed the forum to a fair extent, and it was totally

| non-informative about the app except to prove that lots of people have

| problems with it and they seem to be mostly problems of incompatibility

with

| other apps and (as seen in this group) hardware. That indicates

insufficient

| testing. It CERTAINLY caused at least two people in this group grief when

| they tried it, with problems you apparently don't know the answer to, and

in

| one case will apparently require a total rebuild to "fix" it. I CERTAINLY

| *have* downloaded it and looked into it, but I don't have a machine I feel

| like rebuilding right now, so I'd be stupid to actually run it. And other

| than that one "comment", I DON'T see ANYWHERE where it says, "Only run

this

| on a fresh install of Windows 98." You'd think that was rather an

important

| thing for the new user to know. But, of course, I've read a lot,

everything

| available except not ALL of the dozens of pages of MSFN forum, and that's

| the only place that little rule is mentioned, so I think YOU are the one

| that's off the wall and that a fresh install isn't supposed to be a

| requirement at all. Hey, if you really don't know what you're talking

about,

| you should keep your yap shut.

|

| The whole IDEA of Auto-Patcher is wrong-headed and it's full of potential

| problems because of all the unofficial updates and attempts at building 98

| patches from XP versions, but even then, it's not ready for distribution.

| It's barely reached Beta stage. Responsible people generally do not

| recommend Beta products to others.

|

| NOT ONLY WILL I NOT USE Auto-Patcher, I WILL SLAM IT AND BAD MOUTH ANYONE

| WHO EVEN RECOMMENDS IT, now and for the foreseeable future. It's a big a

| pile of crap as I've seen in a long time. Like something Symantec might

| vomit out.

|

| Lastly, quit brown-nosing me and go find someone else to pretend you're

the

| equal of. You're an ignorant cuss, enamored of a juvenile circle-jerk

called

| "Auto-Patcher". If you want a metaphor, try Communism, the "peoples'

party"

| Valhalla that never managed to accomplish anything but evil.

|

| Let me put it more simply -- If people want Windows XP (or Vista), they

| should go out and buy them, instead of trying to make Windows 98 into

| something it can never decently be.

|

| --

| Gary S. Terhune

| MS-MVP Shell/User

| http://www.grystmill.com

|

| "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message

news:qoCZj.89588$y05.29430@newsfe22.lga...

| > Don't like it? Don't use it, simple as that; albeit your "review"

| > is tantamount to an evaluation of a book where the critic has

| > not only not read the work (let alone perused the Cliff Notes)

| > but instead haughtily berates those that have relying solely on

| > snippets and the barbs of others. In any case, to each his own.

| >

| > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| > news:%23oHcbvOvIHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

| >> Would be nice if the author could bother to put a real front page on

that

| >> thing. Would be nice if the people slogging this product in this group,

| >> along with the rest of the author's cohort, could be bothered to

provide

| > the

| >> important links regarding it's use. So far, I have a link to MSFN that

| > looks

| >> just like any other product development discussion -- two freakin'

years

| >> worth. A new user is supposed to slog through that to find a list of

| >> instructions? A new user, in order to avoid SERIOUS FOUL-UPS, is

supposed

| > to

| >> do this?

| >>

| >> OK, so I go to soporific.com, expecting there'll be instructions there.

| >> Nope, just list of folders. So it's guessing game time. OK, I'll click

on

| >> Main. Hmm.... bunch of political blather... Oh, there it is in the

upper

| >> right corner, Ok... Whaddya know, it's the page that you so kindly

linked

| >> to, the one nobody else who slogs the app here seems to know about.

| >>

| >> Just a long list of 47 "Comments", one of which, by golly, suggests

that

| > my

| >> Unofficial Time Zones Update package be included. I assume it wasn't,

| > since

| >> I haven't heard from the author. (Oh, and down around "COMMENT" 26 is

| >> your

| >> "Instruction". Sorry, but that doesn't qualify as an "Instruction".

| >>

| >> So, maybe the app is useful, and maybe it is even a God Send for IT

| > people.

| >> (But I think people who try to turn Windows 98 into Windows XP have

| >> something missing in their soul.) But it was the HEIGHT of

| > irresponsibility

| >> for anyone in this group to be promoting it, because frankly, it isn't

| >> finished, and/or they don't really know anything about it, and/or if

they

| >

| > DO

| >> know anything about it, they don't apparently know the most important

| >> thing -- AP is only to be applied to a fresh install.

| >>

| >> And, in the end, I don't believe the author had anything like the

proper

| >> amount of time or a sufficient depth of testers to allow, on such a

| > massive

| >> pile of cobbled together "patches", anything like a decent margin of

| > safety.

| >> And while a forum works well when building an app by committee, it does

| > NOT

| >> substitute for a manual of instructions, nor all the other usual items

| >> you

| >> see on an app's download page, like Min. Reqs., CAUTIONS, etc. I mean,

if

| >> the author KNOWS the app is going to choke and cause problems on anythi

ng

| >> but a new installation, why THAT info should be the title of the damned

| >> page, not some note buried in Comment 25.

| >>

| >> No, not only is this a dangerous abortion of an app for the casual

user,

| > it

| >> fails my own minimum requirements for any app worth a damn. My opinion

of

| >> those promoting it here is that they lack any sense of responsibility

| > toward

| >> the innocents who come here looking for advice. I say SHAME ON YOU, one

| > and

| >> all.

| >>

| >> --

| >> Gary S. Terhune

| >> MS-MVP Shell/User

| >> http://www.grystmill.com

| >>

| >> "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message

| > news:EppZj.89523$y05.52341@newsfe22.lga...

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

| >> > news:4835af64$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...

| >> >> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

| >> >> > "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message

| >> >> []

| >> >> >> Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or

| >> >> >> two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite before

| >> >> >> assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably

| >> >> >> 5 to 10 years old.)

| >> >> >

| >> >> > Pray tell, what "experts" recommend this habitual reinstallation

of

| >> >> > Win98? That's a load of pure B.S. And, yes, installing Windows

takes

| >> >> > ~ 1 hour. But it can take days to finish the job properly. One

very,

| >> >> > very long day, at best.

| >> >>

| >> >> Hooray! I was going to say more or less the very same thing.

| >> >>

| >> >> As part of trying to get that microscope working, I used soporific's

| >> >> autopatcher - yes, you were all right to say be very careful with

it:

| > it

| >> >> broke my PC [freezes during boot]. (Yes, I know it only does

patches.

| > All

| >> >> right, one of them broke it. Same end result.) Probably

irretrievable

| >> > broken

| >> >> now, due to the tinkering I've done to try to get it back, but I'm

| >> >> very

| >> > loth

| >> >> to do a reinstall, as there are signs that my setup is still there

| >> >> underneath: it (initially) would still boot into Safe Mode, for

| > example.

| >> >> (Now just gets as far as the background pattern in Safe Mode. Can

| >> >> still

| >> > get

| >> >> to command prompt no problem.)

| >> >>

| >> >> Any suggestions (other than not be a silly boy again)?

| >> >

| >> > Is it any wonder that a user that couldn't or wouldn't verify

| >> > the microscope mfg's requirements for the OS also couldn't

| >> > or wouldn't bother to follow instructions regarding program

| >> > installation and then blames the utility's (AP) packager? ;^)

| >> >

| >> > Per the author's instructions, Auto-Patcher is supposed

| >> > to be applied to a fresh install of Windows 98 SE. Re:

| >> > The correct sequence is:

| >> > 1. Install Win98se

| >> > 2. Install Auto-Patcher and use it.

| >> > http://soporific.dsleague.com/main/?page_id=7

| >> >

| >> > I've followed that recommendation and despite heavy usage

| >> > continue to not have the slightest conceivable issue with Auto-

| >> > Patcher, I've in fact had quite the exact opposite experience.

| >

|

May 23, 2008

Re: Please help - Windows 98 SE freeze!

Free? Try Partition Saving.

http://www.partition-saving.com

--

MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

--

_________

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

news:483705d4$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...

| . wrote:

|

| Bit dotty, this guy! (FWIW, I don't think it's "soporific" himself: I've

had

| correspondence with him, and although we differ on certain matters, he

seems

| quite a reasonable guy. And also, AFAICT, he doesn't _sell_ AutoPatcher or

| the UBCD - in fact I think he doesn't even use it himself as his main OS.)

| []

| > Is it any wonder that a user that couldn't or wouldn't verify

| > the microscope mfg's requirements for the OS also couldn't

|

| ThinkGeek's webpage said 98 (I think 98 _and_ 98SE). It still did up to at

| least yesterday. As with many distributors, they give neither the maker

nor

| the model number, so I couldn't check there - though I'm pretty sure I did

| as soon as I got it and it was still saying 98 too, but I didn't take a

copy

| of it at that time. (It doesn't mention 98 now, probably after I

| corresponded with them.)

|

| > or wouldn't bother to follow instructions regarding program

| > installation and then blames the utility's (AP) packager? ;^)

| >

| > Per the author's instructions, Auto-Patcher is supposed

| > to be applied to a fresh install of Windows 98 SE. Re:

| > The correct sequence is:

| > 1. Install Win98se

| > 2. Install Auto-Patcher and use it.

| > http://soporific.dsleague.com/main/?page_id=7

|

| As Gary has said, that "supposed"ness is very far from obvious from that

| page! (Or the MSFN one, which just looks like a discussion.)

| >

| > I've followed that recommendation and despite heavy usage

| > continue to not have the slightest conceivable issue with Auto-

| > Patcher, I've in fact had quite the exact opposite experience.

|

| I'm sure that many do have that experience; I suspect that, from a clean

| start, people using his UBCD -

| http://sharethefiles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=104845&start=0 - sometimes

| have no problems either. But trying to use _any_ patch - soporific's (OK,

| not his, but YKWIM) or other sourced - on an up and running system, ther

| than _possibly_ brand new, is dangerous. Definitely going to ghost my C:

(or

| at least Windows directory) this time, if I can find something (ideally

| free) that will save and can then be restored from DOS 7.

| --

| J. P. Gilliver

|

May 23, 2008

Re: Please help - Windows 98 SE freeze!

Only cite from you (recently) that I could find is a one-paragraph, very

general comment, certainly not a WARNING! But I'll keep looking, <s>.

I looked into that thing, even ran it in simple Search mode, and the most

minimal "Critical" module (or whatever it's exact title is) contains a TON

of stuff that I wouldn't want to install en masse, or at all on many if not

most machines. And, of course, I wouldn't trust any claims of

uninstallability, period, without running a full analysis, and I don't think

this warrants the effort.

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

http://www.grystmill.com

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:%23AXjBMQvIHA.5584@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Excuse me for butting in, but *I* did supply the warning in the

> post/discussion *warning* about installing these things in already updated

> systems.

> I personally HAVE tested numerous of these compilations, and DO warn

> concerning their use when such appears in this group.

>

> I agree, the works are at best "beta tests" as I have repeatedly posted in

> this group; I also agree that the documentation is slim and poorly

> researched and presented.. I also would like to see a more extensive

> review

> of these compilations.

>

> But I also see the potential value, for some, that these might provide.

> However, I would also like to see the sites which provide these, to also

> provide support forums for these updaters, where those with issues can

> address them without scorn. With Summaries and Warnings CLEARLY posted

> throughout the sites.

> CLEARLY, those who post that these are fail-safe or attempt to direct in

> the fashion, are failing to address the differing configurations of the

> individual systems. They are also CLEARLY failing to address the differing

> applications which might be installed within those *unofficially* updated

> systems.

> MOST IMPORTANTLY, they also CLEARLY fail to address the additional

> security

> risks and other issues which become part of this un-official updating.

> Many of these official updates can be modified to work within 9X, but for

> them to work safely [or what is purported as such in Microsoft

> environments], they NEED the other functions/services available within the

> OS for which they were originally intended.

>

> I have yet to find the sites which have setup proper testing facilities to

> test and attack these systems. I have yet to see the file and system error

> check reports. I have yet to find the sites which deal with the

> inter-relationships of these updates and the ramifications thereby

> related..

> As such, ALL usage of these unofficial updaters should be taken with

> extreme

> caution and skepticism.

>

> Stating that "it works for me" means nothing and produces an air that

> these

> are OKAY for everyone, which they are NOT..

>

> --

> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

> --

> _________

>

> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> news:%23W7tE1PvIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> | LOL! You can't decently defend one accusation I made. Look, just because

> it

> | hasn't caused YOU any problems, it HAS caused problems, as you've seen

> in

> | this group in just the past couple of days. And, pray tell, who else

> here

> | has said anything negative about AP except me? How could I possibly be

> | "relying solely on snippets and the barbs of others"? My opinions are

> | entirely my own, you twit.

> |

> | I CERTAINLY read that page of "instructions" and it isn't anything of

> the

> | sort. I CERTAINLY, reviewed the forum to a fair extent, and it was

> totally

> | non-informative about the app except to prove that lots of people have

> | problems with it and they seem to be mostly problems of incompatibility

> with

> | other apps and (as seen in this group) hardware. That indicates

> insufficient

> | testing. It CERTAINLY caused at least two people in this group grief

> when

> | they tried it, with problems you apparently don't know the answer to,

> and

> in

> | one case will apparently require a total rebuild to "fix" it. I

> CERTAINLY

> | *have* downloaded it and looked into it, but I don't have a machine I

> feel

> | like rebuilding right now, so I'd be stupid to actually run it. And

> other

> | than that one "comment", I DON'T see ANYWHERE where it says, "Only run

> this

> | on a fresh install of Windows 98." You'd think that was rather an

> important

> | thing for the new user to know. But, of course, I've read a lot,

> everything

> | available except not ALL of the dozens of pages of MSFN forum, and

> that's

> | the only place that little rule is mentioned, so I think YOU are the one

> | that's off the wall and that a fresh install isn't supposed to be a

> | requirement at all. Hey, if you really don't know what you're talking

> about,

> | you should keep your yap shut.

> |

> | The whole IDEA of Auto-Patcher is wrong-headed and it's full of

> potential

> | problems because of all the unofficial updates and attempts at building

> 98

> | patches from XP versions, but even then, it's not ready for

> distribution.

> | It's barely reached Beta stage. Responsible people generally do not

> | recommend Beta products to others.

> |

> | NOT ONLY WILL I NOT USE Auto-Patcher, I WILL SLAM IT AND BAD MOUTH

> ANYONE

> | WHO EVEN RECOMMENDS IT, now and for the foreseeable future. It's a big a

> | pile of crap as I've seen in a long time. Like something Symantec might

> | vomit out.

> |

> | Lastly, quit brown-nosing me and go find someone else to pretend you're

> the

> | equal of. You're an ignorant cuss, enamored of a juvenile circle-jerk

> called

> | "Auto-Patcher". If you want a metaphor, try Communism, the "peoples'

> party"

> | Valhalla that never managed to accomplish anything but evil.

> |

> | Let me put it more simply -- If people want Windows XP (or Vista), they

> | should go out and buy them, instead of trying to make Windows 98 into

> | something it can never decently be.

> |

> | --

> | Gary S. Terhune

> | MS-MVP Shell/User

> | http://www.grystmill.com

> |

> | "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message

> news:qoCZj.89588$y05.29430@newsfe22.lga...

> | > Don't like it? Don't use it, simple as that; albeit your "review"

> | > is tantamount to an evaluation of a book where the critic has

> | > not only not read the work (let alone perused the Cliff Notes)

> | > but instead haughtily berates those that have relying solely on

> | > snippets and the barbs of others. In any case, to each his own.

> | >

> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> | > news:%23oHcbvOvIHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> | >> Would be nice if the author could bother to put a real front page on

> that

> | >> thing. Would be nice if the people slogging this product in this

> group,

> | >> along with the rest of the author's cohort, could be bothered to

> provide

> | > the

> | >> important links regarding it's use. So far, I have a link to MSFN

> that

> | > looks

> | >> just like any other product development discussion -- two freakin'

> years

> | >> worth. A new user is supposed to slog through that to find a list of

> | >> instructions? A new user, in order to avoid SERIOUS FOUL-UPS, is

> supposed

> | > to

> | >> do this?

> | >>

> | >> OK, so I go to soporific.com, expecting there'll be instructions

> there.

> | >> Nope, just list of folders. So it's guessing game time. OK, I'll

> click

> on

> | >> Main. Hmm.... bunch of political blather... Oh, there it is in the

> upper

> | >> right corner, Ok... Whaddya know, it's the page that you so kindly

> linked

> | >> to, the one nobody else who slogs the app here seems to know about.

> | >>

> | >> Just a long list of 47 "Comments", one of which, by golly, suggests

> that

> | > my

> | >> Unofficial Time Zones Update package be included. I assume it wasn't,

> | > since

> | >> I haven't heard from the author. (Oh, and down around "COMMENT" 26 is

> | >> your

> | >> "Instruction". Sorry, but that doesn't qualify as an "Instruction".

> | >>

> | >> So, maybe the app is useful, and maybe it is even a God Send for IT

> | > people.

> | >> (But I think people who try to turn Windows 98 into Windows XP have

> | >> something missing in their soul.) But it was the HEIGHT of

> | > irresponsibility

> | >> for anyone in this group to be promoting it, because frankly, it

> isn't

> | >> finished, and/or they don't really know anything about it, and/or if

> they

> | >

> | > DO

> | >> know anything about it, they don't apparently know the most important

> | >> thing -- AP is only to be applied to a fresh install.

> | >>

> | >> And, in the end, I don't believe the author had anything like the

> proper

> | >> amount of time or a sufficient depth of testers to allow, on such a

> | > massive

> | >> pile of cobbled together "patches", anything like a decent margin of

> | > safety.

> | >> And while a forum works well when building an app by committee, it

> does

> | > NOT

> | >> substitute for a manual of instructions, nor all the other usual

> items

> | >> you

> | >> see on an app's download page, like Min. Reqs., CAUTIONS, etc. I

> mean,

> if

> | >> the author KNOWS the app is going to choke and cause problems on

> anythi

> ng

> | >> but a new installation, why THAT info should be the title of the

> damned

> | >> page, not some note buried in Comment 25.

> | >>

> | >> No, not only is this a dangerous abortion of an app for the casual

> user,

> | > it

> | >> fails my own minimum requirements for any app worth a damn. My

> opinion

> of

> | >> those promoting it here is that they lack any sense of responsibility

> | > toward

> | >> the innocents who come here looking for advice. I say SHAME ON YOU,

> one

> | > and

> | >> all.

> | >>

> | >> --

> | >> Gary S. Terhune

> | >> MS-MVP Shell/User

> | >> http://www.grystmill.com

> | >>

> | >> "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message

> | > news:EppZj.89523$y05.52341@newsfe22.lga...

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

> | >> > news:4835af64$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...

> | >> >> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

> | >> >> > "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message

> | >> >> []

> | >> >> >> Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or

> | >> >> >> two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite

> before

> | >> >> >> assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably

> | >> >> >> 5 to 10 years old.)

> | >> >> >

> | >> >> > Pray tell, what "experts" recommend this habitual reinstallation

> of

> | >> >> > Win98? That's a load of pure B.S. And, yes, installing Windows

> takes

> | >> >> > ~ 1 hour. But it can take days to finish the job properly. One

> very,

> | >> >> > very long day, at best.

> | >> >>

> | >> >> Hooray! I was going to say more or less the very same thing.

> | >> >>

> | >> >> As part of trying to get that microscope working, I used

> soporific's

> | >> >> autopatcher - yes, you were all right to say be very careful with

> it:

> | > it

> | >> >> broke my PC [freezes during boot]. (Yes, I know it only does

> patches.

> | > All

> | >> >> right, one of them broke it. Same end result.) Probably

> irretrievable

> | >> > broken

> | >> >> now, due to the tinkering I've done to try to get it back, but I'm

> | >> >> very

> | >> > loth

> | >> >> to do a reinstall, as there are signs that my setup is still there

> | >> >> underneath: it (initially) would still boot into Safe Mode, for

> | > example.

> | >> >> (Now just gets as far as the background pattern in Safe Mode. Can

> | >> >> still

> | >> > get

> | >> >> to command prompt no problem.)

> | >> >>

> | >> >> Any suggestions (other than not be a silly boy again)?

> | >> >

> | >> > Is it any wonder that a user that couldn't or wouldn't verify

> | >> > the microscope mfg's requirements for the OS also couldn't

> | >> > or wouldn't bother to follow instructions regarding program

> | >> > installation and then blames the utility's (AP) packager? ;^)

> | >> >

> | >> > Per the author's instructions, Auto-Patcher is supposed

> | >> > to be applied to a fresh install of Windows 98 SE. Re:

> | >> > The correct sequence is:

> | >> > 1. Install Win98se

> | >> > 2. Install Auto-Patcher and use it.

> | >> > http://soporific.dsleague.com/main/?page_id=7

> | >> >

> | >> > I've followed that recommendation and despite heavy usage

> | >> > continue to not have the slightest conceivable issue with Auto-

> | >> > Patcher, I've in fact had quite the exact opposite experience.

> | >

> |

>

May 23, 2008

Re: Please help - Windows 98 SE freeze!

Well, if this group had edit capabilities I would put a capitalized WARNING

there and in the previous postings which also indicated the problems

associated with installing in previously updated systems.

As for instability, the un-officially updated systems that I have tested

and extensively monitored, ALL come dangerously close to failures, even

though appearing to be *stable*. As these ARE XP and other files, they

contain references and calls to non-existent files, services, and functions

CONSTANTLY bordering upon complete failure. The modifications that have been

applied might limit the impact, but the issues remain for the most part.

That's why I would love to see these testing results and other, posted on

the Internet [and I have no intention of doing so, let the propounders of

use do their own work].

--

MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

--

_________

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

news:O1Y0XbQvIHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

| Only cite from you (recently) that I could find is a one-paragraph, very

| general comment, certainly not a WARNING! But I'll keep looking, <s>.

|

| I looked into that thing, even ran it in simple Search mode, and the most

| minimal "Critical" module (or whatever it's exact title is) contains a TON

| of stuff that I wouldn't want to install en masse, or at all on many if

not

| most machines. And, of course, I wouldn't trust any claims of

| uninstallability, period, without running a full analysis, and I don't

think

| this warrants the effort.

|

| --

| Gary S. Terhune

| MS-MVP Shell/User

| http://www.grystmill.com

|

| "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| news:%23AXjBMQvIHA.5584@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

| > Excuse me for butting in, but *I* did supply the warning in the

| > post/discussion *warning* about installing these things in already

updated

| > systems.

| > I personally HAVE tested numerous of these compilations, and DO warn

| > concerning their use when such appears in this group.

| >

| > I agree, the works are at best "beta tests" as I have repeatedly posted

in

| > this group; I also agree that the documentation is slim and poorly

| > researched and presented.. I also would like to see a more extensive

| > review

| > of these compilations.

| >

| > But I also see the potential value, for some, that these might provide.

| > However, I would also like to see the sites which provide these, to also

| > provide support forums for these updaters, where those with issues can

| > address them without scorn. With Summaries and Warnings CLEARLY posted

| > throughout the sites.

| > CLEARLY, those who post that these are fail-safe or attempt to direct in

| > the fashion, are failing to address the differing configurations of the

| > individual systems. They are also CLEARLY failing to address the

differing

| > applications which might be installed within those *unofficially*

updated

| > systems.

| > MOST IMPORTANTLY, they also CLEARLY fail to address the additional

| > security

| > risks and other issues which become part of this un-official updating.

| > Many of these official updates can be modified to work within 9X, but

for

| > them to work safely [or what is purported as such in Microsoft

| > environments], they NEED the other functions/services available within

the

| > OS for which they were originally intended.

| >

| > I have yet to find the sites which have setup proper testing facilities

to

| > test and attack these systems. I have yet to see the file and system

error

| > check reports. I have yet to find the sites which deal with the

| > inter-relationships of these updates and the ramifications thereby

| > related..

| > As such, ALL usage of these unofficial updaters should be taken with

| > extreme

| > caution and skepticism.

| >

| > Stating that "it works for me" means nothing and produces an air that

| > these

| > are OKAY for everyone, which they are NOT..

| >

| > --

| > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

| > --

| > _________

| >

| > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| > news:%23W7tE1PvIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

| > | LOL! You can't decently defend one accusation I made. Look, just

because

| > it

| > | hasn't caused YOU any problems, it HAS caused problems, as you've seen

| > in

| > | this group in just the past couple of days. And, pray tell, who else

| > here

| > | has said anything negative about AP except me? How could I possibly be

| > | "relying solely on snippets and the barbs of others"? My opinions are

| > | entirely my own, you twit.

| > |

| > | I CERTAINLY read that page of "instructions" and it isn't anything of

| > the

| > | sort. I CERTAINLY, reviewed the forum to a fair extent, and it was

| > totally

| > | non-informative about the app except to prove that lots of people have

| > | problems with it and they seem to be mostly problems of

incompatibility

| > with

| > | other apps and (as seen in this group) hardware. That indicates

| > insufficient

| > | testing. It CERTAINLY caused at least two people in this group grief

| > when

| > | they tried it, with problems you apparently don't know the answer to,

| > and

| > in

| > | one case will apparently require a total rebuild to "fix" it. I

| > CERTAINLY

| > | *have* downloaded it and looked into it, but I don't have a machine I

| > feel

| > | like rebuilding right now, so I'd be stupid to actually run it. And

| > other

| > | than that one "comment", I DON'T see ANYWHERE where it says, "Only run

| > this

| > | on a fresh install of Windows 98." You'd think that was rather an

| > important

| > | thing for the new user to know. But, of course, I've read a lot,

| > everything

| > | available except not ALL of the dozens of pages of MSFN forum, and

| > that's

| > | the only place that little rule is mentioned, so I think YOU are the

one

| > | that's off the wall and that a fresh install isn't supposed to be a

| > | requirement at all. Hey, if you really don't know what you're talking

| > about,

| > | you should keep your yap shut.

| > |

| > | The whole IDEA of Auto-Patcher is wrong-headed and it's full of

| > potential

| > | problems because of all the unofficial updates and attempts at

building

| > 98

| > | patches from XP versions, but even then, it's not ready for

| > distribution.

| > | It's barely reached Beta stage. Responsible people generally do not

| > | recommend Beta products to others.

| > |

| > | NOT ONLY WILL I NOT USE Auto-Patcher, I WILL SLAM IT AND BAD MOUTH

| > ANYONE

| > | WHO EVEN RECOMMENDS IT, now and for the foreseeable future. It's a big

a

| > | pile of crap as I've seen in a long time. Like something Symantec

might

| > | vomit out.

| > |

| > | Lastly, quit brown-nosing me and go find someone else to pretend

you're

| > the

| > | equal of. You're an ignorant cuss, enamored of a juvenile circle-jerk

| > called

| > | "Auto-Patcher". If you want a metaphor, try Communism, the "peoples'

| > party"

| > | Valhalla that never managed to accomplish anything but evil.

| > |

| > | Let me put it more simply -- If people want Windows XP (or Vista),

they

| > | should go out and buy them, instead of trying to make Windows 98 into

| > | something it can never decently be.

| > |

| > | --

| > | Gary S. Terhune

| > | MS-MVP Shell/User

| > | http://www.grystmill.com

| > |

| > | "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message

| > news:qoCZj.89588$y05.29430@newsfe22.lga...

| > | > Don't like it? Don't use it, simple as that; albeit your "review"

| > | > is tantamount to an evaluation of a book where the critic has

| > | > not only not read the work (let alone perused the Cliff Notes)

| > | > but instead haughtily berates those that have relying solely on

| > | > snippets and the barbs of others. In any case, to each his own.

| > | >

| > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| > | > news:%23oHcbvOvIHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

| > | >> Would be nice if the author could bother to put a real front page

on

| > that

| > | >> thing. Would be nice if the people slogging this product in this

| > group,

| > | >> along with the rest of the author's cohort, could be bothered to

| > provide

| > | > the

| > | >> important links regarding it's use. So far, I have a link to MSFN

| > that

| > | > looks

| > | >> just like any other product development discussion -- two freakin'

| > years

| > | >> worth. A new user is supposed to slog through that to find a list

of

| > | >> instructions? A new user, in order to avoid SERIOUS FOUL-UPS, is

| > supposed

| > | > to

| > | >> do this?

| > | >>

| > | >> OK, so I go to soporific.com, expecting there'll be instructions

| > there.

| > | >> Nope, just list of folders. So it's guessing game time. OK, I'll

| > click

| > on

| > | >> Main. Hmm.... bunch of political blather... Oh, there it is in the

| > upper

| > | >> right corner, Ok... Whaddya know, it's the page that you so kindly

| > linked

| > | >> to, the one nobody else who slogs the app here seems to know about.

| > | >>

| > | >> Just a long list of 47 "Comments", one of which, by golly, suggests

| > that

| > | > my

| > | >> Unofficial Time Zones Update package be included. I assume it

wasn't,

| > | > since

| > | >> I haven't heard from the author. (Oh, and down around "COMMENT" 26

is

| > | >> your

| > | >> "Instruction". Sorry, but that doesn't qualify as an "Instruction".

| > | >>

| > | >> So, maybe the app is useful, and maybe it is even a God Send for IT

| > | > people.

| > | >> (But I think people who try to turn Windows 98 into Windows XP have

| > | >> something missing in their soul.) But it was the HEIGHT of

| > | > irresponsibility

| > | >> for anyone in this group to be promoting it, because frankly, it

| > isn't

| > | >> finished, and/or they don't really know anything about it, and/or

if

| > they

| > | >

| > | > DO

| > | >> know anything about it, they don't apparently know the most

important

| > | >> thing -- AP is only to be applied to a fresh install.

| > | >>

| > | >> And, in the end, I don't believe the author had anything like the

| > proper

| > | >> amount of time or a sufficient depth of testers to allow, on such a

| > | > massive

| > | >> pile of cobbled together "patches", anything like a decent margin

of

| > | > safety.

| > | >> And while a forum works well when building an app by committee, it

| > does

| > | > NOT

| > | >> substitute for a manual of instructions, nor all the other usual

| > items

| > | >> you

| > | >> see on an app's download page, like Min. Reqs., CAUTIONS, etc. I

| > mean,

| > if

| > | >> the author KNOWS the app is going to choke and cause problems on

| > anythi

| > ng

| > | >> but a new installation, why THAT info should be the title of the

| > damned

| > | >> page, not some note buried in Comment 25.

| > | >>

| > | >> No, not only is this a dangerous abortion of an app for the casual

| > user,

| > | > it

| > | >> fails my own minimum requirements for any app worth a damn. My

| > opinion

| > of

| > | >> those promoting it here is that they lack any sense of

responsibility

| > | > toward

| > | >> the innocents who come here looking for advice. I say SHAME ON YOU,

| > one

| > | > and

| > | >> all.

| > | >>

| > | >> --

| > | >> Gary S. Terhune

| > | >> MS-MVP Shell/User

| > | >> http://www.grystmill.com

| > | >>

| > | >> "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message

| > | > news:EppZj.89523$y05.52341@newsfe22.lga...

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

| > | >> > news:4835af64$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...

| > | >> >> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

| > | >> >> > "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message

| > | >> >> []

| > | >> >> >> Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or

| > | >> >> >> two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite

| > before

| > | >> >> >> assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably

| > | >> >> >> 5 to 10 years old.)

| > | >> >> >

| > | >> >> > Pray tell, what "experts" recommend this habitual

reinstallation

| > of

| > | >> >> > Win98? That's a load of pure B.S. And, yes, installing Windows

| > takes

| > | >> >> > ~ 1 hour. But it can take days to finish the job properly. One

| > very,

| > | >> >> > very long day, at best.

| > | >> >>

| > | >> >> Hooray! I was going to say more or less the very same thing.

| > | >> >>

| > | >> >> As part of trying to get that microscope working, I used

| > soporific's

| > | >> >> autopatcher - yes, you were all right to say be very careful

with

| > it:

| > | > it

| > | >> >> broke my PC [freezes during boot]. (Yes, I know it only does

| > patches.

| > | > All

| > | >> >> right, one of them broke it. Same end result.) Probably

| > irretrievable

| > | >> > broken

| > | >> >> now, due to the tinkering I've done to try to get it back, but

I'm

| > | >> >> very

| > | >> > loth

| > | >> >> to do a reinstall, as there are signs that my setup is still

there

| > | >> >> underneath: it (initially) would still boot into Safe Mode, for

| > | > example.

| > | >> >> (Now just gets as far as the background pattern in Safe Mode.

Can

| > | >> >> still

| > | >> > get

| > | >> >> to command prompt no problem.)

| > | >> >>

| > | >> >> Any suggestions (other than not be a silly boy again)?

| > | >> >

| > | >> > Is it any wonder that a user that couldn't or wouldn't verify

| > | >> > the microscope mfg's requirements for the OS also couldn't

| > | >> > or wouldn't bother to follow instructions regarding program

| > | >> > installation and then blames the utility's (AP) packager? ;^)

| > | >> >

| > | >> > Per the author's instructions, Auto-Patcher is supposed

| > | >> > to be applied to a fresh install of Windows 98 SE. Re:

| > | >> > The correct sequence is:

| > | >> > 1. Install Win98se

| > | >> > 2. Install Auto-Patcher and use it.

| > | >> > http://soporific.dsleague.com/main/?page_id=7

| > | >> >

| > | >> > I've followed that recommendation and despite heavy usage

| > | >> > continue to not have the slightest conceivable issue with Auto-

| > | >> > Patcher, I've in fact had quite the exact opposite experience.

| > | >

| > |

| >

|

May 23, 2008

Re: Please help - Windows 98 SE freeze!

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

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

http://www.grystmill.com

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:ecrT6yQvIHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Well, if this group had edit capabilities I would put a capitalized

> WARNING

> there and in the previous postings which also indicated the problems

> associated with installing in previously updated systems.

>

> As for instability, the un-officially updated systems that I have tested

> and extensively monitored, ALL come dangerously close to failures, even

> though appearing to be *stable*. As these ARE XP and other files, they

> contain references and calls to non-existent files, services, and

> functions

> CONSTANTLY bordering upon complete failure. The modifications that have

> been

> applied might limit the impact, but the issues remain for the most part.

> That's why I would love to see these testing results and other, posted on

> the Internet [and I have no intention of doing so, let the propounders of

> use do their own work].

>

> --

> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

> --

> _________

>

> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> news:O1Y0XbQvIHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> | Only cite from you (recently) that I could find is a one-paragraph, very

> | general comment, certainly not a WARNING! But I'll keep looking, <s>.

> |

> | I looked into that thing, even ran it in simple Search mode, and the

> most

> | minimal "Critical" module (or whatever it's exact title is) contains a

> TON

> | of stuff that I wouldn't want to install en masse, or at all on many if

> not

> | most machines. And, of course, I wouldn't trust any claims of

> | uninstallability, period, without running a full analysis, and I don't

> think

> | this warrants the effort.

> |

> | --

> | Gary S. Terhune

> | MS-MVP Shell/User

> | http://www.grystmill.com

> |

> | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> | news:%23AXjBMQvIHA.5584@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> | > Excuse me for butting in, but *I* did supply the warning in the

> | > post/discussion *warning* about installing these things in already

> updated

> | > systems.

> | > I personally HAVE tested numerous of these compilations, and DO warn

> | > concerning their use when such appears in this group.

> | >

> | > I agree, the works are at best "beta tests" as I have repeatedly

> posted

> in

> | > this group; I also agree that the documentation is slim and poorly

> | > researched and presented.. I also would like to see a more extensive

> | > review

> | > of these compilations.

> | >

> | > But I also see the potential value, for some, that these might

> provide.

> | > However, I would also like to see the sites which provide these, to

> also

> | > provide support forums for these updaters, where those with issues can

> | > address them without scorn. With Summaries and Warnings CLEARLY posted

> | > throughout the sites.

> | > CLEARLY, those who post that these are fail-safe or attempt to direct

> in

> | > the fashion, are failing to address the differing configurations of

> the

> | > individual systems. They are also CLEARLY failing to address the

> differing

> | > applications which might be installed within those *unofficially*

> updated

> | > systems.

> | > MOST IMPORTANTLY, they also CLEARLY fail to address the additional

> | > security

> | > risks and other issues which become part of this un-official updating.

> | > Many of these official updates can be modified to work within 9X, but

> for

> | > them to work safely [or what is purported as such in Microsoft

> | > environments], they NEED the other functions/services available within

> the

> | > OS for which they were originally intended.

> | >

> | > I have yet to find the sites which have setup proper testing

> facilities

> to

> | > test and attack these systems. I have yet to see the file and system

> error

> | > check reports. I have yet to find the sites which deal with the

> | > inter-relationships of these updates and the ramifications thereby

> | > related..

> | > As such, ALL usage of these unofficial updaters should be taken with

> | > extreme

> | > caution and skepticism.

> | >

> | > Stating that "it works for me" means nothing and produces an air that

> | > these

> | > are OKAY for everyone, which they are NOT..

> | >

> | > --

> | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

> | > --

> | > _________

> | >

> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> | > news:%23W7tE1PvIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> | > | LOL! You can't decently defend one accusation I made. Look, just

> because

> | > it

> | > | hasn't caused YOU any problems, it HAS caused problems, as you've

> seen

> | > in

> | > | this group in just the past couple of days. And, pray tell, who else

> | > here

> | > | has said anything negative about AP except me? How could I possibly

> be

> | > | "relying solely on snippets and the barbs of others"? My opinions

> are

> | > | entirely my own, you twit.

> | > |

> | > | I CERTAINLY read that page of "instructions" and it isn't anything

> of

> | > the

> | > | sort. I CERTAINLY, reviewed the forum to a fair extent, and it was

> | > totally

> | > | non-informative about the app except to prove that lots of people

> have

> | > | problems with it and they seem to be mostly problems of

> incompatibility

> | > with

> | > | other apps and (as seen in this group) hardware. That indicates

> | > insufficient

> | > | testing. It CERTAINLY caused at least two people in this group grief

> | > when

> | > | they tried it, with problems you apparently don't know the answer

> to,

> | > and

> | > in

> | > | one case will apparently require a total rebuild to "fix" it. I

> | > CERTAINLY

> | > | *have* downloaded it and looked into it, but I don't have a machine

> I

> | > feel

> | > | like rebuilding right now, so I'd be stupid to actually run it. And

> | > other

> | > | than that one "comment", I DON'T see ANYWHERE where it says, "Only

> run

> | > this

> | > | on a fresh install of Windows 98." You'd think that was rather an

> | > important

> | > | thing for the new user to know. But, of course, I've read a lot,

> | > everything

> | > | available except not ALL of the dozens of pages of MSFN forum, and

> | > that's

> | > | the only place that little rule is mentioned, so I think YOU are the

> one

> | > | that's off the wall and that a fresh install isn't supposed to be a

> | > | requirement at all. Hey, if you really don't know what you're

> talking

> | > about,

> | > | you should keep your yap shut.

> | > |

> | > | The whole IDEA of Auto-Patcher is wrong-headed and it's full of

> | > potential

> | > | problems because of all the unofficial updates and attempts at

> building

> | > 98

> | > | patches from XP versions, but even then, it's not ready for

> | > distribution.

> | > | It's barely reached Beta stage. Responsible people generally do not

> | > | recommend Beta products to others.

> | > |

> | > | NOT ONLY WILL I NOT USE Auto-Patcher, I WILL SLAM IT AND BAD MOUTH

> | > ANYONE

> | > | WHO EVEN RECOMMENDS IT, now and for the foreseeable future. It's a

> big

> a

> | > | pile of crap as I've seen in a long time. Like something Symantec

> might

> | > | vomit out.

> | > |

> | > | Lastly, quit brown-nosing me and go find someone else to pretend

> you're

> | > the

> | > | equal of. You're an ignorant cuss, enamored of a juvenile

> circle-jerk

> | > called

> | > | "Auto-Patcher". If you want a metaphor, try Communism, the "peoples'

> | > party"

> | > | Valhalla that never managed to accomplish anything but evil.

> | > |

> | > | Let me put it more simply -- If people want Windows XP (or Vista),

> they

> | > | should go out and buy them, instead of trying to make Windows 98

> into

> | > | something it can never decently be.

> | > |

> | > | --

> | > | Gary S. Terhune

> | > | MS-MVP Shell/User

> | > | http://www.grystmill.com

> | > |

> | > | "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message

> | > news:qoCZj.89588$y05.29430@newsfe22.lga...

> | > | > Don't like it? Don't use it, simple as that; albeit your "review"

> | > | > is tantamount to an evaluation of a book where the critic has

> | > | > not only not read the work (let alone perused the Cliff Notes)

> | > | > but instead haughtily berates those that have relying solely on

> | > | > snippets and the barbs of others. In any case, to each his own.

> | > | >

> | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> | > | > news:%23oHcbvOvIHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> | > | >> Would be nice if the author could bother to put a real front page

> on

> | > that

> | > | >> thing. Would be nice if the people slogging this product in this

> | > group,

> | > | >> along with the rest of the author's cohort, could be bothered to

> | > provide

> | > | > the

> | > | >> important links regarding it's use. So far, I have a link to MSFN

> | > that

> | > | > looks

> | > | >> just like any other product development discussion -- two

> freakin'

> | > years

> | > | >> worth. A new user is supposed to slog through that to find a list

> of

> | > | >> instructions? A new user, in order to avoid SERIOUS FOUL-UPS, is

> | > supposed

> | > | > to

> | > | >> do this?

> | > | >>

> | > | >> OK, so I go to soporific.com, expecting there'll be instructions

> | > there.

> | > | >> Nope, just list of folders. So it's guessing game time. OK, I'll

> | > click

> | > on

> | > | >> Main. Hmm.... bunch of political blather... Oh, there it is in

> the

> | > upper

> | > | >> right corner, Ok... Whaddya know, it's the page that you so

> kindly

> | > linked

> | > | >> to, the one nobody else who slogs the app here seems to know

> about.

> | > | >>

> | > | >> Just a long list of 47 "Comments", one of which, by golly,

> suggests

> | > that

> | > | > my

> | > | >> Unofficial Time Zones Update package be included. I assume it

> wasn't,

> | > | > since

> | > | >> I haven't heard from the author. (Oh, and down around "COMMENT"

> 26

> is

> | > | >> your

> | > | >> "Instruction". Sorry, but that doesn't qualify as an

> "Instruction".

> | > | >>

> | > | >> So, maybe the app is useful, and maybe it is even a God Send for

> IT

> | > | > people.

> | > | >> (But I think people who try to turn Windows 98 into Windows XP

> have

> | > | >> something missing in their soul.) But it was the HEIGHT of

> | > | > irresponsibility

> | > | >> for anyone in this group to be promoting it, because frankly, it

> | > isn't

> | > | >> finished, and/or they don't really know anything about it, and/or

> if

> | > they

> | > | >

> | > | > DO

> | > | >> know anything about it, they don't apparently know the most

> important

> | > | >> thing -- AP is only to be applied to a fresh install.

> | > | >>

> | > | >> And, in the end, I don't believe the author had anything like the

> | > proper

> | > | >> amount of time or a sufficient depth of testers to allow, on such

> a

> | > | > massive

> | > | >> pile of cobbled together "patches", anything like a decent margin

> of

> | > | > safety.

> | > | >> And while a forum works well when building an app by committee,

> it

> | > does

> | > | > NOT

> | > | >> substitute for a manual of instructions, nor all the other usual

> | > items

> | > | >> you

> | > | >> see on an app's download page, like Min. Reqs., CAUTIONS, etc. I

> | > mean,

> | > if

> | > | >> the author KNOWS the app is going to choke and cause problems on

> | > anythi

> | > ng

> | > | >> but a new installation, why THAT info should be the title of the

> | > damned

> | > | >> page, not some note buried in Comment 25.

> | > | >>

> | > | >> No, not only is this a dangerous abortion of an app for the

> casual

> | > user,

> | > | > it

> | > | >> fails my own minimum requirements for any app worth a damn. My

> | > opinion

> | > of

> | > | >> those promoting it here is that they lack any sense of

> responsibility

> | > | > toward

> | > | >> the innocents who come here looking for advice. I say SHAME ON

> YOU,

> | > one

> | > | > and

> | > | >> all.

> | > | >>

> | > | >> --

> | > | >> Gary S. Terhune

> | > | >> MS-MVP Shell/User

> | > | >> http://www.grystmill.com

> | > | >>

> | > | >> "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message

> | > | > news:EppZj.89523$y05.52341@newsfe22.lga...

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

> message

> | > | >> > news:4835af64$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...

> | > | >> >> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

> | > | >> >> > "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message

> | > | >> >> []

> | > | >> >> >> Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or

> | > | >> >> >> two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite

> | > before

> | > | >> >> >> assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably

> | > | >> >> >> 5 to 10 years old.)

> | > | >> >> >

> | > | >> >> > Pray tell, what "experts" recommend this habitual

> reinstallation

> | > of

> | > | >> >> > Win98? That's a load of pure B.S. And, yes, installing

> Windows

> | > takes

> | > | >> >> > ~ 1 hour. But it can take days to finish the job properly.

> One

> | > very,

> | > | >> >> > very long day, at best.

> | > | >> >>

> | > | >> >> Hooray! I was going to say more or less the very same thing.

> | > | >> >>

> | > | >> >> As part of trying to get that microscope working, I used

> | > soporific's

> | > | >> >> autopatcher - yes, you were all right to say be very careful

> with

> | > it:

> | > | > it

> | > | >> >> broke my PC [freezes during boot]. (Yes, I know it only does

> | > patches.

> | > | > All

> | > | >> >> right, one of them broke it. Same end result.) Probably

> | > irretrievable

> | > | >> > broken

> | > | >> >> now, due to the tinkering I've done to try to get it back, but

> I'm

> | > | >> >> very

> | > | >> > loth

> | > | >> >> to do a reinstall, as there are signs that my setup is still

> there

> | > | >> >> underneath: it (initially) would still boot into Safe Mode,

> for

> | > | > example.

> | > | >> >> (Now just gets as far as the background pattern in Safe Mode.

> Can

> | > | >> >> still

> | > | >> > get

> | > | >> >> to command prompt no problem.)

> | > | >> >>

> | > | >> >> Any suggestions (other than not be a silly boy again)?

> | > | >> >

> | > | >> > Is it any wonder that a user that couldn't or wouldn't verify

> | > | >> > the microscope mfg's requirements for the OS also couldn't

> | > | >> > or wouldn't bother to follow instructions regarding program

> | > | >> > installation and then blames the utility's (AP) packager? ;^)

> | > | >> >

> | > | >> > Per the author's instructions, Auto-Patcher is supposed

> | > | >> > to be applied to a fresh install of Windows 98 SE. Re:

> | > | >> > The correct sequence is:

> | > | >> > 1. Install Win98se

> | > | >> > 2. Install Auto-Patcher and use it.

> | > | >> > http://soporific.dsleague.com/main/?page_id=7

> | > | >> >

> | > | >> > I've followed that recommendation and despite heavy usage

> | > | >> > continue to not have the slightest conceivable issue with Auto-

> | > | >> > Patcher, I've in fact had quite the exact opposite experience.

> | > | >

> | > |

> | >

> |

>

May 23, 2008

Re: Please help - Windows 98 SE freeze!

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

news:%23oHcbvOvIHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Would be nice if the author could bother to put a real front page on that

> thing. Would be nice if the people slogging this product in this group,

> along with the rest of the author's cohort, could be bothered to provide

the

> important links regarding it's use. So far, I have a link to MSFN that

looks

> just like any other product development discussion -- two freakin' years

> worth. A new user is supposed to slog through that to find a list of

> instructions? A new user, in order to avoid SERIOUS FOUL-UPS, is supposed

to

> do this?

Your sense of entitlement suggests that perhaps you

should also be supplied with free: reliable transportation,

vehicle and home maintenance, nourishment ... it's all

somewhat reminiscent of the complaint in the old saw

about the terrible food ... and such small portions.

> OK, so I go to soporific.com, expecting there'll be instructions there.

> Nope, just list of folders. So it's guessing game time. OK, I'll click on

> Main. Hmm.... bunch of political blather... Oh, there it is in the upper

> right corner, Ok... Whaddya know, it's the page that you so kindly linked

> to, the one nobody else who slogs the app here seems to know about.

>

> Just a long list of 47 "Comments", one of which, by golly, suggests that

my

> Unofficial Time Zones Update package be included. I assume it wasn't,

since

> I haven't heard from the author. (Oh, and down around "COMMENT" 26 is your

> "Instruction". Sorry, but that doesn't qualify as an "Instruction".

Such gall, not providing spoonfeeding and all.

> So, maybe the app is useful, and maybe it is even a God Send for IT

people.

> (But I think people who try to turn Windows 98 into Windows XP have

> something missing in their soul.) But it was the HEIGHT of

irresponsibility

> for anyone in this group to be promoting it, because frankly, it isn't

> finished, and/or they don't really know anything about it, and/or if they

DO

> know anything about it, they don't apparently know the most important

> thing -- AP is only to be applied to a fresh install.

>

> And, in the end, I don't believe the author had anything like the proper

> amount of time or a sufficient depth of testers to allow, on such a

massive

> pile of cobbled together "patches", anything like a decent margin of

safety.

> And while a forum works well when building an app by committee, it does

NOT

> substitute for a manual of instructions, nor all the other usual items you

> see on an app's download page, like Min. Reqs., CAUTIONS, etc. I mean, if

> the author KNOWS the app is going to choke and cause problems on anything

> but a new installation, why THAT info should be the title of the damned

> page, not some note buried in Comment 25.

Just who does he think he is offering a clearly marked

"use at your own risk" free utility.

> No, not only is this a dangerous abortion of an app for the casual user,

it

> fails my own minimum requirements for any app worth a damn. My opinion of

> those promoting it here is that they lack any sense of responsibility

toward

> the innocents who come here looking for advice. I say SHAME ON YOU, one

and

> all.

Anyone in this day and age looking to blindly follow an

anonymous poster on an international newsgroup forum

seeking competely safe, competent and free advice may

well learn a hopefully inexpensive worthwile lesson about

becoming too dependent on that approach.

> --

> Gary S. Terhune

> MS-MVP Shell/User

> http://www.grystmill.com

>

> "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message

news:EppZj.89523$y05.52341@newsfe22.lga...

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

> > news:4835af64$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...

> >> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

> >> > "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message

> >> []

> >> >> Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or

> >> >> two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite before

> >> >> assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably

> >> >> 5 to 10 years old.)

> >> >

> >> > Pray tell, what "experts" recommend this habitual reinstallation of

> >> > Win98? That's a load of pure B.S. And, yes, installing Windows takes

> >> > ~ 1 hour. But it can take days to finish the job properly. One very,

> >> > very long day, at best.

> >>

> >> Hooray! I was going to say more or less the very same thing.

> >>

> >> As part of trying to get that microscope working, I used soporific's

> >> autopatcher - yes, you were all right to say be very careful with it:

it

> >> broke my PC [freezes during boot]. (Yes, I know it only does patches.

All

> >> right, one of them broke it. Same end result.) Probably irretrievable

> > broken

> >> now, due to the tinkering I've done to try to get it back, but I'm very

> > loth

> >> to do a reinstall, as there are signs that my setup is still there

> >> underneath: it (initially) would still boot into Safe Mode, for

example.

> >> (Now just gets as far as the background pattern in Safe Mode. Can still

> > get

> >> to command prompt no problem.)

> >>

> >> Any suggestions (other than not be a silly boy again)?

> >

> > Is it any wonder that a user that couldn't or wouldn't verify

> > the microscope mfg's requirements for the OS also couldn't

> > or wouldn't bother to follow instructions regarding program

> > installation and then blames the utility's (AP) packager? ;^)

> >

> > Per the author's instructions, Auto-Patcher is supposed

> > to be applied to a fresh install of Windows 98 SE. Re:

> > The correct sequence is:

> > 1. Install Win98se

> > 2. Install Auto-Patcher and use it.

> > http://soporific.dsleague.com/main/?page_id=7

> >

> > I've followed that recommendation and despite heavy usage

> > continue to not have the slightest conceivable issue with Auto-

> > Patcher, I've in fact had quite the exact opposite experience.

May 23, 2008

Re: Please help - Windows 98 SE freeze!

You're always (yes, I've handed you your head before) so

predictably riled, easily fished-in and mercilessly goaded and

given that you're again so deserving and incessantly begging

for it, here's both barrells once more.

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

news:%23W7tE1PvIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> LOL! You can't decently defend one accusation I made.

Observe what a single paragraph from me elicited from you.

> Look, just because it

> hasn't caused YOU any problems, it HAS caused problems,

Even though in my earliest undergraduate days Thevenin

and Norton Equivalent Circuits, the Fitzgerald Contraction,

Lorentz Transformations, Maxwell's Equations ... all worked

fine for me, I don't necessarily expect that they are ever going

to work for you.

> as you've seen in

> this group in just the past couple of days.

The mantra of a true dilettante troubleshooter: Y issues

exist with X, others have Z problems with X, therefore

the problem MUST be with X.

> And, pray tell, who else here

> has said anything negative about AP except me?

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

for the rest.

> How could I possibly be

> "relying solely on snippets and the barbs of others"? My opinions are

> entirely my own, you twit.

Well simpleton, given that you never tested it yourself ...

Wasn't it an old Reagan defense, rendering him, by his

own admission, either an incompetent or a liar. See above.

> I CERTAINLY read that page of "instructions" and it isn't anything of the

> sort. I CERTAINLY, reviewed the forum to a fair extent, and it was totally

> non-informative about the app

I read a fair extent and it was totally non-informative - too precious

I read a fair extent of a PDR. Am I now a Pharmacist? I read

a fair extent of movie reviews, and I now a cinematographer?

> except to prove that lots of people have

> problems with it and they seem to be mostly problems of incompatibility

with

> other apps and (as seen in this group) hardware. That indicates

insufficient

> testing.

Lots of people have problems with mathematics and physics.

Must be insufficient testing.

> It CERTAINLY caused at least two people in this group grief when

> they tried it, with problems you apparently don't know the answer to, and

in

> one case will apparently require a total rebuild to "fix" it.

Maybe they should read, understand and follow the author's

directions and recommendations first. Just a modest proposal.

> I CERTAINLY *have* downloaded it and looked into it, but I don't have a

machine I feel

> like rebuilding right now,

For some, there's never enough time to do it right (the first

time), but there is enough to do it over again (and complain)?

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

And more so to out of hand criticize that which you're only,

at best, barely familiar. Q.E.F.

> And other

> than that one "comment", I DON'T see ANYWHERE where it says, "Only run

this

> on a fresh install of Windows 98."

Other than where it says to do so, it doesn't say anywhere

to do so. Beautiful. Except of course that it does, you've

only discovered where it was reiterated for the excessively

slow learners that also missed it on an earlier occasion.

> You'd think that was rather an

important

> thing for the new user to know.

And quite possibly why it was restated for those too busy

to get it right the first time.

> But, of course, I've read a lot,

everything

> available except not ALL

More of the "I've read most (and that being rather open to

interpretation) of the subject matter". Common knowledge

has always suggested that should be more than sufficient.

> of the dozens of pages of MSFN forum,

Which is where the project commenced and later clearly

referenced and recommended on the Soporific page.

> and that's

> the only place that little rule is mentioned, so I think YOU are the one

> that's off the wall and that a fresh install isn't supposed to be a

> requirement at all. Hey, if you really don't know what you're talking

about,

> you should keep your yap shut.

> The whole IDEA of Auto-Patcher is wrong-headed and it's full of potential

> problems

Except of course that autopatching is a tried and proven concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopatcher

> because of all the unofficial updates and attempts at building 98

> patches from XP versions,

As we are all aware, only MS programmers can write and

release updates and patches.

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

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

> It's barely reached Beta stage. Responsible people generally do not

> recommend Beta products to others.

>

> NOT ONLY WILL I NOT USE Auto-Patcher, I WILL SLAM IT AND BAD MOUTH ANYONE

> WHO EVEN RECOMMENDS IT, now and for the foreseeable future.

And with your opinion and a twenty dollar bill (any overhead

can be used for counterbalancing the former not to mention

your winning personality) you can purchase a cup of coffee.

> It's a big a

> pile of crap as I've seen in a long time. Like something Symantec might

> vomit out.

Symantec too will continue to thrive despite your devasting

yet thoroughly ignored assessment.

> Lastly, quit brown-nosing me

Brown nosing you?!?! No one of my considerable intelligence,

education, knowlegde and experience would begin to consider

shitting on the best part of you.

> and go find someone else to pretend you're

the

> equal of. You're an ignorant cuss,

You know precisely and exactly nothing of either me or

my background, goofball.

> enamored of a juvenile circle-jerk

called

> "Auto-Patcher".

Misinformation and misrepresentation, that's quite a day's

work. But I'm neither advocate nor critic per se, just passing

along a utility that worked well for me. Though as always,

caveat emptor, don't buy a pig in a poke, don't blindly accept

advice from anonymous strangers and don't let anyone else

do your thinking for you.

> If you want a metaphor, try Communism, the "peoples'

party"

> Valhalla that never managed to accomplish anything but evil.

No doubt one of the clowns that would claim "Communism

is dead" despite the fact that the greatest country the world

has ever known is now and remains Communist.

> Let me put it more simply

We can all trust in the most certain conceivable knowledge

that nothing more than simple, easy and wrong is your first

and last approach.

> If people want Windows XP (or Vista), they

> should go out and buy them, instead of trying to make Windows 98 into

> something it can never decently be.

Windows 98 Revolutions is meant to provide some of the

appearance and emulate some of the functionalities of XP

and Vista. Your statement also proves that you don't

comprehend that AP is most assuredly neither designed

as nor proposed to be an attempt at being XP or Vista.

Your posts prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that you're

quite clearly and inarguably mentally disturbed and possessed

of an inferiority complex masquerading (as it so often does) as

superciliousness

> --

> Gary S. Terhune

> MS-MVP Shell/User

> http://www.grystmill.com

>

> "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message

news:qoCZj.89588$y05.29430@newsfe22.lga...

> > Don't like it? Don't use it, simple as that; albeit your "review"

> > is tantamount to an evaluation of a book where the critic has

> > not only not read the work (let alone perused the Cliff Notes)

> > but instead haughtily berates those that have relying solely on

> > snippets and the barbs of others. In any case, to each his own.

> >

> > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> > news:%23oHcbvOvIHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> >> Would be nice if the author could bother to put a real front page on

that

> >> thing. Would be nice if the people slogging this product in this group,

> >> along with the rest of the author's cohort, could be bothered to

provide

> > the

> >> important links regarding it's use. So far, I have a link to MSFN that

> > looks

> >> just like any other product development discussion -- two freakin'

years

> >> worth. A new user is supposed to slog through that to find a list of

> >> instructions? A new user, in order to avoid SERIOUS FOUL-UPS, is

supposed

> > to

> >> do this?

> >>

> >> OK, so I go to soporific.com, expecting there'll be instructions there.

> >> Nope, just list of folders. So it's guessing game time. OK, I'll click

on

> >> Main. Hmm.... bunch of political blather... Oh, there it is in the

upper

> >> right corner, Ok... Whaddya know, it's the page that you so kindly

linked

> >> to, the one nobody else who slogs the app here seems to know about.

> >>

> >> Just a long list of 47 "Comments", one of which, by golly, suggests

that

> > my

> >> Unofficial Time Zones Update package be included. I assume it wasn't,

> > since

> >> I haven't heard from the author. (Oh, and down around "COMMENT" 26 is

> >> your

> >> "Instruction". Sorry, but that doesn't qualify as an "Instruction".

> >>

> >> So, maybe the app is useful, and maybe it is even a God Send for IT

> > people.

> >> (But I think people who try to turn Windows 98 into Windows XP have

> >> something missing in their soul.) But it was the HEIGHT of

> > irresponsibility

> >> for anyone in this group to be promoting it, because frankly, it isn't

> >> finished, and/or they don't really know anything about it, and/or if

they

> >

> > DO

> >> know anything about it, they don't apparently know the most important

> >> thing -- AP is only to be applied to a fresh install.

> >>

> >> And, in the end, I don't believe the author had anything like the

proper

> >> amount of time or a sufficient depth of testers to allow, on such a

> > massive

> >> pile of cobbled together "patches", anything like a decent margin of

> > safety.

> >> And while a forum works well when building an app by committee, it does

> > NOT

> >> substitute for a manual of instructions, nor all the other usual items

> >> you

> >> see on an app's download page, like Min. Reqs., CAUTIONS, etc. I mean,

if

> >> the author KNOWS the app is going to choke and cause problems on

anything

> >> but a new installation, why THAT info should be the title of the damned

> >> page, not some note buried in Comment 25.

> >>

> >> No, not only is this a dangerous abortion of an app for the casual

user,

> > it

> >> fails my own minimum requirements for any app worth a damn. My opinion

of

> >> those promoting it here is that they lack any sense of responsibility

> > toward

> >> the innocents who come here looking for advice. I say SHAME ON YOU, one

> > and

> >> all.

> >>

> >> --

> >> Gary S. Terhune

> >> MS-MVP Shell/User

> >> http://www.grystmill.com

> >>

> >> "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message

> > news:EppZj.89523$y05.52341@newsfe22.lga...

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

> >> > news:4835af64$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...

> >> >> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

> >> >> > "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message

> >> >> []

> >> >> >> Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or

> >> >> >> two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite before

> >> >> >> assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably

> >> >> >> 5 to 10 years old.)

> >> >> >

> >> >> > Pray tell, what "experts" recommend this habitual reinstallation

of

> >> >> > Win98? That's a load of pure B.S. And, yes, installing Windows

takes

> >> >> > ~ 1 hour. But it can take days to finish the job properly. One

very,

> >> >> > very long day, at best.

> >> >>

> >> >> Hooray! I was going to say more or less the very same thing.

> >> >>

> >> >> As part of trying to get that microscope working, I used soporific's

> >> >> autopatcher - yes, you were all right to say be very careful with

it:

> > it

> >> >> broke my PC [freezes during boot]. (Yes, I know it only does

patches.

> > All

> >> >> right, one of them broke it. Same end result.) Probably

irretrievable

> >> > broken

> >> >> now, due to the tinkering I've done to try to get it back, but I'm

> >> >> very

> >> > loth

> >> >> to do a reinstall, as there are signs that my setup is still there

> >> >> underneath: it (initially) would still boot into Safe Mode, for

> > example.

> >> >> (Now just gets as far as the background pattern in Safe Mode. Can

> >> >> still

> >> > get

> >> >> to command prompt no problem.)

> >> >>

> >> >> Any suggestions (other than not be a silly boy again)?

> >> >

> >> > Is it any wonder that a user that couldn't or wouldn't verify

> >> > the microscope mfg's requirements for the OS also couldn't

> >> > or wouldn't bother to follow instructions regarding program

> >> > installation and then blames the utility's (AP) packager? ;^)

> >> >

> >> > Per the author's instructions, Auto-Patcher is supposed

> >> > to be applied to a fresh install of Windows 98 SE. Re:

> >> > The correct sequence is:

> >> > 1. Install Win98se

> >> > 2. Install Auto-Patcher and use it.

> >> > http://soporific.dsleague.com/main/?page_id=7

> >> >

> >> > I've followed that recommendation and despite heavy usage

> >> > continue to not have the slightest conceivable issue with Auto-

> >> > Patcher, I've in fact had quite the exact opposite experience.

May 23, 2008

Re: Please help - Windows 98 SE freeze!

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

news:483705d4$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...

> . wrote:

>

> Bit dotty, this guy! (FWIW, I don't think it's "soporific" himself: I've

had

> correspondence with him, and although we differ on certain matters, he

seems

> quite a reasonable guy. And also, AFAICT, he doesn't _sell_ AutoPatcher or

> the UBCD - in fact I think he doesn't even use it himself as his main OS.)

> []

> > Is it any wonder that a user that couldn't or wouldn't verify

> > the microscope mfg's requirements for the OS also couldn't

>

> ThinkGeek's webpage said 98 (I think 98 _and_ 98SE). It still did up to at

> least yesterday. As with many distributors, they give neither the maker

nor

> the model number, so I couldn't check there - though I'm pretty sure I did

> as soon as I got it and it was still saying 98 too, but I didn't take a

copy

> of it at that time. (It doesn't mention 98 now, probably after I

> corresponded with them.)

From your link listing the sale point it took exacly two mouse

clicks to determine the manufacturers OS requirements.

> > or wouldn't bother to follow instructions regarding program

> > installation and then blames the utility's (AP) packager? ;^)

> >

> > Per the author's instructions, Auto-Patcher is supposed

> > to be applied to a fresh install of Windows 98 SE. Re:

> > The correct sequence is:

> > 1. Install Win98se

> > 2. Install Auto-Patcher and use it.

> > http://soporific.dsleague.com/main/?page_id=7

>

> As Gary has said, that "supposed"ness is very far from obvious from that

> page! (Or the MSFN one, which just looks like a discussion.)

> >

> > I've followed that recommendation and despite heavy usage

> > continue to not have the slightest conceivable issue with Auto-

> > Patcher, I've in fact had quite the exact opposite experience.

>

> I'm sure that many do have that experience; I suspect that, from a clean

> start, people using his UBCD -

> http://sharethefiles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=104845&start=0 - sometimes

> have no problems either. But trying to use _any_ patch - soporific's (OK,

> not his, but YKWIM) or other sourced - on an up and running system, ther

> than _possibly_ brand new, is dangerous. Definitely going to ghost my C:

(or

> at least Windows directory) this time, if I can find something (ideally

> free) that will save and can then be restored from DOS 7.

> --

> J. P. Gilliver

Blindly following ANYONE'S recommendations and

allowing others do your thinking for you are tactics

that are bound to eventually engender consequences.

May 23, 2008

Re: Please help - Windows 98 SE freeze!

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:%23AXjBMQvIHA.5584@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Excuse me for butting in, but *I* did supply the warning in the

> post/discussion *warning* about installing these things in already updated

> systems.

> I personally HAVE tested numerous of these compilations, and DO warn

> concerning their use when such appears in this group.

>

> I agree, the works are at best "beta tests" as I have repeatedly posted in

> this group; I also agree that the documentation is slim and poorly

> researched and presented.. I also would like to see a more extensive

review

> of these compilations.

>

> But I also see the potential value, for some, that these might provide.

> However, I would also like to see the sites which provide these, to also

> provide support forums for these updaters, where those with issues can

> address them without scorn. With Summaries and Warnings CLEARLY posted

> throughout the sites.

> CLEARLY, those who post that these are fail-safe or attempt to direct in

> the fashion, are failing to address the differing configurations of the

> individual systems. They are also CLEARLY failing to address the differing

> applications which might be installed within those *unofficially* updated

> systems.

> MOST IMPORTANTLY, they also CLEARLY fail to address the additional

security

> risks and other issues which become part of this un-official updating.

> Many of these official updates can be modified to work within 9X, but for

> them to work safely [or what is purported as such in Microsoft

> environments], they NEED the other functions/services available within the

> OS for which they were originally intended.

>

> I have yet to find the sites which have setup proper testing facilities

to

> test and attack these systems. I have yet to see the file and system error

> check reports. I have yet to find the sites which deal with the

> inter-relationships of these updates and the ramifications thereby

related..

> As such, ALL usage of these unofficial updaters should be taken with

extreme

> caution and skepticism.

>

> Stating that "it works for me" means nothing and produces an air that

these

> are OKAY for everyone, which they are NOT..

>

> --

> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

> --

Sorry but as an attorney(?), I'd think that you would be

well aware that stating "X works for me" hardly constitutes

"it's okay for everyone" to a rational, responsible adult.

> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> news:%23W7tE1PvIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> | LOL! You can't decently defend one accusation I made. Look, just because

> it

> | hasn't caused YOU any problems, it HAS caused problems, as you've seen

in

> | this group in just the past couple of days. And, pray tell, who else

here

> | has said anything negative about AP except me? How could I possibly be

> | "relying solely on snippets and the barbs of others"? My opinions are

> | entirely my own, you twit.

> |

> | I CERTAINLY read that page of "instructions" and it isn't anything of

the

> | sort. I CERTAINLY, reviewed the forum to a fair extent, and it was

totally

> | non-informative about the app except to prove that lots of people have

> | problems with it and they seem to be mostly problems of incompatibility

> with

> | other apps and (as seen in this group) hardware. That indicates

> insufficient

> | testing. It CERTAINLY caused at least two people in this group grief

when

> | they tried it, with problems you apparently don't know the answer to,

and

> in

> | one case will apparently require a total rebuild to "fix" it. I

CERTAINLY

> | *have* downloaded it and looked into it, but I don't have a machine I

feel

> | like rebuilding right now, so I'd be stupid to actually run it. And

other

> | than that one "comment", I DON'T see ANYWHERE where it says, "Only run

> this

> | on a fresh install of Windows 98." You'd think that was rather an

> important

> | thing for the new user to know. But, of course, I've read a lot,

> everything

> | available except not ALL of the dozens of pages of MSFN forum, and

that's

> | the only place that little rule is mentioned, so I think YOU are the one

> | that's off the wall and that a fresh install isn't supposed to be a

> | requirement at all. Hey, if you really don't know what you're talking

> about,

> | you should keep your yap shut.

> |

> | The whole IDEA of Auto-Patcher is wrong-headed and it's full of

potential

> | problems because of all the unofficial updates and attempts at building

98

> | patches from XP versions, but even then, it's not ready for

distribution.

> | It's barely reached Beta stage. Responsible people generally do not

> | recommend Beta products to others.

> |

> | NOT ONLY WILL I NOT USE Auto-Patcher, I WILL SLAM IT AND BAD MOUTH

ANYONE

> | WHO EVEN RECOMMENDS IT, now and for the foreseeable future. It's a big a

> | pile of crap as I've seen in a long time. Like something Symantec might

> | vomit out.

> |

> | Lastly, quit brown-nosing me and go find someone else to pretend you're

> the

> | equal of. You're an ignorant cuss, enamored of a juvenile circle-jerk

> called

> | "Auto-Patcher". If you want a metaphor, try Communism, the "peoples'

> party"

> | Valhalla that never managed to accomplish anything but evil.

> |

> | Let me put it more simply -- If people want Windows XP (or Vista), they

> | should go out and buy them, instead of trying to make Windows 98 into

> | something it can never decently be.

> |

> | --

> | Gary S. Terhune

> | MS-MVP Shell/User

> | http://www.grystmill.com

> |

> | "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message

> news:qoCZj.89588$y05.29430@newsfe22.lga...

> | > Don't like it? Don't use it, simple as that; albeit your "review"

> | > is tantamount to an evaluation of a book where the critic has

> | > not only not read the work (let alone perused the Cliff Notes)

> | > but instead haughtily berates those that have relying solely on

> | > snippets and the barbs of others. In any case, to each his own.

> | >

> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> | > news:%23oHcbvOvIHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> | >> Would be nice if the author could bother to put a real front page on

> that

> | >> thing. Would be nice if the people slogging this product in this

group,

> | >> along with the rest of the author's cohort, could be bothered to

> provide

> | > the

> | >> important links regarding it's use. So far, I have a link to MSFN

that

> | > looks

> | >> just like any other product development discussion -- two freakin'

> years

> | >> worth. A new user is supposed to slog through that to find a list of

> | >> instructions? A new user, in order to avoid SERIOUS FOUL-UPS, is

> supposed

> | > to

> | >> do this?

> | >>

> | >> OK, so I go to soporific.com, expecting there'll be instructions

there.

> | >> Nope, just list of folders. So it's guessing game time. OK, I'll

click

> on

> | >> Main. Hmm.... bunch of political blather... Oh, there it is in the

> upper

> | >> right corner, Ok... Whaddya know, it's the page that you so kindly

> linked

> | >> to, the one nobody else who slogs the app here seems to know about.

> | >>

> | >> Just a long list of 47 "Comments", one of which, by golly, suggests

> that

> | > my

> | >> Unofficial Time Zones Update package be included. I assume it wasn't,

> | > since

> | >> I haven't heard from the author. (Oh, and down around "COMMENT" 26 is

> | >> your

> | >> "Instruction". Sorry, but that doesn't qualify as an "Instruction".

> | >>

> | >> So, maybe the app is useful, and maybe it is even a God Send for IT

> | > people.

> | >> (But I think people who try to turn Windows 98 into Windows XP have

> | >> something missing in their soul.) But it was the HEIGHT of

> | > irresponsibility

> | >> for anyone in this group to be promoting it, because frankly, it

isn't

> | >> finished, and/or they don't really know anything about it, and/or if

> they

> | >

> | > DO

> | >> know anything about it, they don't apparently know the most important

> | >> thing -- AP is only to be applied to a fresh install.

> | >>

> | >> And, in the end, I don't believe the author had anything like the

> proper

> | >> amount of time or a sufficient depth of testers to allow, on such a

> | > massive

> | >> pile of cobbled together "patches", anything like a decent margin of

> | > safety.

> | >> And while a forum works well when building an app by committee, it

does

> | > NOT

> | >> substitute for a manual of instructions, nor all the other usual

items

> | >> you

> | >> see on an app's download page, like Min. Reqs., CAUTIONS, etc. I

mean,

> if

> | >> the author KNOWS the app is going to choke and cause problems on

anythi

> ng

> | >> but a new installation, why THAT info should be the title of the

damned

> | >> page, not some note buried in Comment 25.

> | >>

> | >> No, not only is this a dangerous abortion of an app for the casual

> user,

> | > it

> | >> fails my own minimum requirements for any app worth a damn. My

opinion

> of

> | >> those promoting it here is that they lack any sense of responsibility

> | > toward

> | >> the innocents who come here looking for advice. I say SHAME ON YOU,

one

> | > and

> | >> all.

> | >>

> | >> --

> | >> Gary S. Terhune

> | >> MS-MVP Shell/User

> | >> http://www.grystmill.com

> | >>

> | >> "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message

> | > news:EppZj.89523$y05.52341@newsfe22.lga...

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

> | >> > news:4835af64$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...

> | >> >> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

> | >> >> > "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message

> | >> >> []

> | >> >> >> Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or

> | >> >> >> two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite

before

> | >> >> >> assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably

> | >> >> >> 5 to 10 years old.)

> | >> >> >

> | >> >> > Pray tell, what "experts" recommend this habitual reinstallation

> of

> | >> >> > Win98? That's a load of pure B.S. And, yes, installing Windows

> takes

> | >> >> > ~ 1 hour. But it can take days to finish the job properly. One

> very,

> | >> >> > very long day, at best.

> | >> >>

> | >> >> Hooray! I was going to say more or less the very same thing.

> | >> >>

> | >> >> As part of trying to get that microscope working, I used

soporific's

> | >> >> autopatcher - yes, you were all right to say be very careful with

> it:

> | > it

> | >> >> broke my PC [freezes during boot]. (Yes, I know it only does

> patches.

> | > All

> | >> >> right, one of them broke it. Same end result.) Probably

> irretrievable

> | >> > broken

> | >> >> now, due to the tinkering I've done to try to get it back, but I'm

> | >> >> very

> | >> > loth

> | >> >> to do a reinstall, as there are signs that my setup is still there

> | >> >> underneath: it (initially) would still boot into Safe Mode, for

> | > example.

> | >> >> (Now just gets as far as the background pattern in Safe Mode. Can

> | >> >> still

> | >> > get

> | >> >> to command prompt no problem.)

> | >> >>

> | >> >> Any suggestions (other than not be a silly boy again)?

> | >> >

> | >> > Is it any wonder that a user that couldn't or wouldn't verify

> | >> > the microscope mfg's requirements for the OS also couldn't

> | >> > or wouldn't bother to follow instructions regarding program

> | >> > installation and then blames the utility's (AP) packager? ;^)

> | >> >

> | >> > Per the author's instructions, Auto-Patcher is supposed

> | >> > to be applied to a fresh install of Windows 98 SE. Re:

> | >> > The correct sequence is:

> | >> > 1. Install Win98se

> | >> > 2. Install Auto-Patcher and use it.

> | >> > http://soporific.dsleague.com/main/?page_id=7

> | >> >

> | >> > I've followed that recommendation and despite heavy usage

> | >> > continue to not have the slightest conceivable issue with Auto-

> | >> > Patcher, I've in fact had quite the exact opposite experience.

Sign In

Please help - Windows 98 SE freeze!

Recommended Posts

Guest James

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest Don Phillipson

Guest philo

Guest James

Guest James

Guest Gary S. Terhune

Guest Gary S. Terhune

Guest Gary S. Terhune

Guest J. P. Gilliver

Guest Franc Zabkar

Guest Gary S. Terhune

Guest .

Guest Gary S. Terhune

Guest .

Guest Gary S. Terhune

Guest J. P. Gilliver

Guest MEB

Guest MEB

Guest Gary S. Terhune

Guest MEB

Guest Gary S. Terhune

Guest .

Guest .

Guest .

Guest .

Similar Content

Help please my windows is turning on by itself

please help in activating my genuine window* Changed to a question

Why am i suddenly signed out, please help!!!

Please help me understand Window Server Updates and Cumulative Updates

Browse

Activity

Site Info