 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows 95 / October 2008install printer drivers
I'm reinstalling my old win 95 (1st version) that came with my packard bell. It is not installing my hp laser jet 5L correctly using the original disks (3).It did not install an uninstall icon either. I tried to install abuilt in driver like the hp 4L but it does not install either. Anyone remember any tricks to get the hardware wizard to install a driver? How can I uninstall the the driver I installed but did not work? mc In W98, you uninstall a printer by right-clicking the printer in the printers 'folder' in My Computer and selecting Delete. Only the supprting utilities that the vendor sometimes provides will have an entry in Add/Remove Programs.  SignatureJeff Richards MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) > I'm reinstalling my old win 95 (1st version) that came with my packard > bell. It is not installing my hp laser jet 5L correctly using the original [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > can I uninstall the the driver I installed but did not work? > mc > In W98, you uninstall a printer by right-clicking the printer in the > printers 'folder' in My Computer and selecting Delete. > > Only the supprting utilities that the vendor sometimes provides will have an > entry in Add/Remove Programs. And the proceedure for win95 would be the same > Jeff Richards > MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > can I uninstall the the driver I installed but did not work? > > mc I'm wondering if that will also remove the status window it created that sits on the staus bar?? mc >> In W98, you uninstall a printer by right-clicking the printer in the >> printers 'folder' in My Computer and selecting Delete. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> > can I uninstall the the driver I installed but did not work? >> > mc > I'm wondering if that will also remove the status window it > created that sits on the staus bar?? Get the updated drivers from the HP site. I have an HP6L and the original disks were superseded. I am sure the same happened for the HP5L. Also, you are making a big mistake by reinstalling Win95A. Win 95B or C was ALMOST Win 98 (without the stupid IE "integration"/Active Desktop) and is vastly superior. You can fdisk with FAT32, to begin with. You can get 95B/C from a warez group (even the floppy version!) or at a garage sale or eBay - if you think MS cares and/or were harshly toilet-trained. The HP status window can be removed in win.ini (it's right at the beginning) but it will come back every time you boot up. I just right click and close it. Some things one is just powerless against. (Before someone mentions it, I believe I tried a "start-up manager" as well but it still kept on coming back. Anyway, I don't care. There are worse things than having to do one right click. Like having to reboot every time I forget and make the mistake of thinking it is possible to cancel an MS/HP- driven print job.) SignatureOf course, it is no easy matter to be polite; in so far, I mean, as it requires us to show great respect for everybody, whereas most people deserve none at all; and again in so far as it demands that we should feign the most lively interest in people, when we must be very glad that we have nothing to do with them. - Arthur Schopenhauer [] > Also, you are making a big mistake by reinstalling Win95A. Win > 95B or C was ALMOST Win 98 (without the stupid IE > "integration"/Active Desktop) and is vastly superior. You can > fdisk with FAT32, to begin with. You can get 95B/C from a warez > group (even the floppy version!) or at a garage sale or eBay - > if you think MS cares and/or were harshly toilet-trained. [] Equally, if you actually install '98 but via (or modify it afterwards by using) 98lite, this will give you the opportuinity to use the '95 shell (thus much faster, as it doesn't have the eye candy and so on), but with most of the extra robustness, and some things like USB, that come with '98. (You can get rid of IE too - altogether if you wish.) SignatureJ. P. Gilliver | Tel. +44 1634 203298 > [] >> Also, you are making a big mistake by reinstalling Win95A. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > extra robustness, and some things like USB, that come with > '98. (You can get rid of IE too - altogether if you wish.) Since the OP was talking about 95A (and because I get lazy), I did not bother getting into 98SE, let alone Lite. I have been a happy user of 98SE Lite for about 4 years, since I got a second computer for audio conversions etc. It was a used but very clean 2GHz machine which originally had XP on it. It came with a wiped "factory-new condition" (I tested it) Maxtor drive on which I installed the aforementioned 98SE Lite. I left IE in because it is necessary to read chm files, but that machine is not even connected to the internet, so no IE "problems" :-) My internet machine (this one) is a 10.5 year old 166 w/ 96MB RAM running highly tweaked 95B. It boots in less than 45 seconds and never crashes. Take that, Vista. SignatureThere is nothing bad which could not turn into something worse. - S. I. Witkiewicz [] > Since the OP was talking about 95A (and because I get lazy), I > did not bother getting into 98SE, let alone Lite. > > I have been a happy user of 98SE Lite for about 4 years, since I Nice to meet another fan; lite seems to be viewed somewhat suspiciously in at least one of the '98 'groups. [] > drive on which I installed the aforementioned 98SE Lite. I left > IE in because it is necessary to read chm files, but that If those are HTML-style help files, then you don't need the full IE - just it's "rendering engine" (which I think is a couple of .dll files). I can't remember the details though, nor where I learnt this. > machine is not even connected to the internet, so no IE > "problems" :-) > > My internet machine (this one) is a 10.5 year old 166 w/ 96MB > RAM running highly tweaked 95B. It boots in less than 45 seconds > and never crashes. Take that, Vista. My internet machine is a 400MHz laptop w/128M running highly tweaked 98lite - it does most of what I want, fairly reliably - _rarely_ crashes. The assorted spoilsports keep making things difficult for we '9x fans, though (mainly by withdrawing support in new versions of things). SignatureJ. P. Gilliver | Tel. +44 1634 203298 <SNIP> >> I have been a happy user of 98SE Lite for about 4 years, >> since I > > Nice to meet another fan; lite seems to be viewed somewhat > suspiciously in at least one of the '98 'groups. The one full of venerable MVP's, I would imagine... > [] >> drive on which I installed the aforementioned 98SE Lite. I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > couple of .dll files). I can't remember the details though, > nor where I learnt this. I have tried this (or similar) solution, and it just wasn't going anywhere. I think having IE on an internet-connected machine is probably OK as long as you NEVER use it for anything BUT chm files :-) (Of course, I have forgotten its tendencies to "take over all internet functions" etc. since the last time I used it for internet was probably about 10 years ago.) <SNIP> > My internet machine is a 400MHz laptop w/128M running > highly tweaked 98lite - it does most of what I want, fairly > reliably - _rarely_ crashes. The assorted spoilsports keep > making things difficult for we '9x fans, though (mainly by > withdrawing support in new versions of things). Yes, it's very annoying. Like it would KILL them to keep providing small simple (AOT Vista or even XP) drivers. Sometimes you get lucky - I haven't installed any new hardware for ages, but I read recently someone used 2000 drivers for something and they worked on 98. I HAVE used software which claims not to run on 95 and it works. And the other way around, unfortunately. The ONLY disadvantage to Lite is that since it uses the 95 shell sometimes a program which "runs on 98" will /not/ run on 98 Lite because of some stupid hook into the shell driver. Sigh. I have found over the years that there has been VERY little of anything /really/ new and worthwhile released (I am not a gamer who needs a graphics card with 512MB of memory, of course, nor am I a myspace or UTube addict) and that programs written prior to 2000 are the ones I use most and very happily. There ARE exceptions, but a good program should run on ANY 32bit platform. Also, I firmly believe that excepting MAJOR technological developments, if a program does not have all necessary features by ver. 4 or so, the authors are either greedy jerks withholding features on purpose or just stupid. Then there is the bloat thing - which FEW are immune to. It's astouhnding how programs which ran just fine when they were 1.5 MB are now 25 MB or more. BTW, this may or may not be relevant to you, but I'll mention it anyway. Actually, I'll just quote from a post I made to the aforementioned 98 group (not a single response, of course - they are REALLY good at ignoring me over there :-). (") Frankly, I think this whole virus thing is just a money maker. I have been online for 12 or 13 years and I only ever got ONE virus (in an email from an idiot friend - it couldn't do anything since I have deleted all scripting files from win\sys, but it was hell to remove) and I DL'd some cracked software (ONCE in hundreds of times) which had a call-home program which InCtrl caught so I just deleted it, so I don't even know if that counts. [The reason I got the virus in the email is that I turned off on-line scanning after having it on for a while and realizing that due to my "safe computing" habits it was just a waste of resources (my numerous fans may recall we are talking about a 166 with 64 (now 96) MB of RAM).] Anyway, one virus or no virus, I think it /is/ reasonable to have an A-V program and run it /once in a while/. Now that F- Prot for DOS (which HAS on occasion caught actual viruses in some shareware {NOT cracked ware} and tagged a few files as "suspicious" and ran fast as hell even though I only bothered to scan every month or so unless I DL'd a lot of programs) is dead for good, I went in search of a-v software which is not only good but runs on 95 (and therefore on 98, of course). I found several, even freeware, but most of them have the I D I O T I C requirement of IE being installed on the system (kind of a fundamental contradiction, huh?) or wouldn't run for some other stupid reason. Almost all the freeware ones only run on 2000 and above. f.ck that. Anyway, in case you are wondering what the hell I'm blabbing on about, I found THE solution. I can't remember HOW I came across it, but I have NEVER heard of it before - and I /have/ heard of Sophos etc. This program is called ESET NOD32 and is now in version 3, a "suite" version and just the a-v - which only run on 2000+ or possibly XP/Vista, I forget (since it is irrelevant to me personally). However, version 2.7, which some users (I have been reading up on it quite a bit) actually prefer, WILL (in fact is, right here, right now) running on a 95B system. The main site does not make 2.7 easy to find, nor the DOS version (I have asked them if it still exists, because I "like doing it in DOS" and I never have this stuff enabled while online (except now because I'm kind of testing, and the damn thing only takes up about 4MB of RAM and does not appear to slow anything down - and this is a 166!). They answered my email IMMEDIATELY and the link to version 2.7 is: http://download1.eset.com/eval/win/v2/nentenst.exe This is NOT freeware. It costs 40 bucks (ver. 2.7 /may/ be less). Needless to say, once you know about the product, it is not difficult to find the usual "sources" for a "free" DL, but we'll leave it at that. I certainly don't mind paying for something that appears to work so incredibly well even on MY system. As I said in my email to them (I found the 9x/ME version on another country's ESET site AFTER I wrote them and it seems it is just ver. 2.7 although they don't say so explicitly on their main site and offer /no/ DL link for it - although there IS a page for it as well as for the DOS version), it installs/uninstalls beautifully, it has extremely flexible and comprehensive settings, and the interface is possibly the least annoying and/or ugly or bloated that I have seen in any program written since 2000. The reason I say that is so good is that I looked at several a-v comparison sites and this damn thing won "best" somewhere FIFTY times, and basically appears to be a work of genius. If any of you are familiar with it, feel free to contradict me - although as I said in my first sentence the whole issue is basically moot since I think only morons catch viruses and also it appears to be the only one available which will run on 95 /without/ IE which I refuse to install even if I will never use it. So there you go. Do what you will with this info. (") Update: In my 2nd email, I asked them several questions, such as "will the update files continue working with this older version" etc and they have not responded, it's been a few days. But I found a Russian site which posts all the updates, (which are AFAICT n/a for DL until you buy the program - even though it provides a 30 day trial) and I now have the signatures from July 7th installed. Needless to say, 0 threats found. I don't even know why I bother. Best regards. SignatureThere is nothing bad which could not turn into something worse. - S. I. Witkiewicz > <SNIP> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The one full of venerable MVP's, I would imagine... Hmm. I hadn't entirely made that connection ... (-: [] > going anywhere. I think having IE on an internet-connected > machine is probably OK as long as you NEVER use it for anything [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > internet functions" etc. since the last time I used it for > internet was probably about 10 years ago.) Not just all _internet_ fns, AFAICR (I haven't had it on for years either). [] >> reliably - _rarely_ crashes. The assorted spoilsports keep >> making things difficult for we '9x fans, though (mainly by [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > they worked on 98. I HAVE used software which claims not to run > on 95 and it works. And the other way around, unfortunately. Ditto (especially pen drives. And yes, I do know about the "universal" USB driver - screwed up my machine right royally; conversely, I've recently set up a machine using soporific's "10th anniversary 1998 UBCD" which included an XP-like [i. e. universal] USB driver, and so far that has worked with anything I've tried on it). > The ONLY disadvantage to Lite is that since it uses the 95 shell > sometimes a program which "runs on 98" will /not/ run on 98 Lite > because of some stupid hook into the shell driver. Sigh. Sometimes it's only the install routine. Usually the installer gives you a crash window saying which routine it couldn't find (often something like, IIRR, "calloutaddress in explorer.exe"). I've had success with these by one of 3 (on a 98 system that's been "lite"d) - 1: do a temporary shell swap using 98lite, run the install, swap back; 2: same thing manually (rename the two files - which 98lite keeps there, just renames them from .dll and .exe to .w98) (I think you have to boot in DOS to do this), run the installer, rename them back; 3: using a hex. editor, hack the installer file so that where it says "explorer.exe" [near the call to the routine that doesn't exist], change it to "explorer.w98, then install. The _only_ thing I _notice_ that I miss by normally using the '95 shell is that, when doing a copy or move of more than one file, the progress bar starts again for each file, whereas in the '98 shell it does it for the lot. (Though I don't know if, when it shows 50%, it's done half the data or just half the number of files.) But for the greatly increased speed, and what seems to be increased robustness, I'm willing to live with that little thing! > I have found over the years that there has been VERY little of > anything /really/ new and worthwhile released (I am not a gamer > who needs a graphics card with 512MB of memory, of course, nor Ditto > am I a myspace or UTube addict) and that programs written prior Ditto > to 2000 are the ones I use most and very happily. There ARE > exceptions, but a good program should run on ANY 32bit platform. Agreed. Or, ones that are written _as if_ running on the old OS and hardware - usually this means keeping the size down; IrfanView goes from strength to strength, and I've recently been quite taken with the Roadkil (yes, one L) utilities. Mind you, I still want to know how whoever wrote "flamer.com" - a DOS prog. that just simulates a fire on screen, and has run on everything I've ever run it on - managed to get it into 453 bytes! > Also, I firmly believe that excepting MAJOR technological > developments, if a program does not have all necessary features > by ver. 4 or so, the authors are either greedy jerks withholding > features on purpose or just stupid. Then there is the bloat Hmm. An interesting hypothesis/proposition/whatever; I see what you mean, though the version numbers vary a bit depending on what prompted the author to declare a major number change (I have some v6 and v7 things I've stopped at). > thing - which FEW are immune to. It's astouhnding how programs > which ran just fine when they were 1.5 MB are now 25 MB or more. And now crawl (even to open). [] > [The reason I got the virus in the email is that I turned off > on-line scanning after having it on for a while and realizing > that due to my "safe computing" habits it was just a waste of > resources (my numerous fans may recall we are talking about a > 166 with 64 (now 96) MB of RAM).] The email/news/etc. software I use keeps attachments safe (it even limits HTML rendering), so that no attachment is dangerous unless saved (and even then not unless run, though you have to be careful with some that it isn't obvious are executable - pictures [but IrfanView doesn't use the vulnerable renderer], Word and other Office documents, etc.), so I don't think I've ever had email scanning turned on. I think there are other softwares as safe in this respect as Turnpike, too. > Anyway, one virus or no virus, I think it /is/ reasonable to > have an A-V program and run it /once in a while/. Now that F- With you there. You need broadband these days though: both AVG and McAfee's daily downloads are BIG (McAfee's usually about 30-50 Meg these days!). [] SignatureJ. P. Gilliver | Tel. +44 1634 203298 <SNIP >>> Nice to meet another fan; lite seems to be viewed >>> somewhat suspiciously in at least one of the '98 'groups. >> >> The one full of venerable MVP's, I would imagine... > > Hmm. I hadn't entirely made that connection ... (-: Yes, they get /rather/ miffed when anyone suggests you can run Windows without IE installed :-) Nothing like being brainwashed, huh? > [] >> going anywhere. I think having IE on an internet-connected [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Not just all _internet_ fns, AFAICR (I haven't had it on > for years either). [] Yes, regrettably, I tend to exaggerate. But I believe IE still doesn't /really/ know what Usenet is. Or FTP. Or IRC. Now /that's/ a jungle I have only ventured into once or twice - /WHERE/ DO YOU START? I did once manage to DL an extremely rare still of one of my favorite actresses that I have /never/ seen anywhere else, but it's just not worth the time it would take to learn to navigate through the insane maze of servers and channels. >>> reliably - _rarely_ crashes. The assorted spoilsports >>> keep making things difficult for we '9x fans, though [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > XP-like [i. e. universal] USB driver, and so far that has > worked with anything I've tried on it). BION, I have NEVER tried USB with my 98SE machine (all my current peripherals are parallel or P/S). I just assume it works. But I'm glad you mentioned the soporific driver, I'll look it up and DL it. JUst in case. (Update: I have searched, and it seems it (if that's in fact what it is) is only available as part of a ~220MB DL. Would you mind terribly posting it in some binaries group - just the "10th anniv. USB" ? I would really appreciate it.) A few years ago, during a period of highly increased masochistic tendencies coupled with too much free time, I did install a twin USB port PCI card in this 95B machine and DL'd all the stuff that was supposed to make it work. Unfortunately, I was trying it with a Wacom graphics tablet I had just semi-coincidentally bought (no one would lend me a USB peripheral) and wasn't really familiar with it the first place (so I was dealing with 2 unknowns at the same time - a certain recipe for disaster), and I couldn't get anything to work. So I returned the tablet, which I kind of regret now because it was a nice all-white one and much cheaper than the recent models, and it would most probably work great on my 98SE machine. >> The ONLY disadvantage to Lite is that since it uses the 95 >> shell sometimes a program which "runs on 98" will /not/ [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > [near the call to the routine that doesn't exist], change > it to "explorer.w98, then install. Thank you, that's an EXCELLENT suggestion, and not at all hard to follow (well, I am not enough of a tech guy to alter the install file, but 1 and 2 are no problem). The first thing I always install whenever I set up a computer (admittedly it's been /a/while/) is XTree for DOS, so I am not afraid of doing things outside of Windows, like renaming, moving hidden files etc. :-) > The _only_ thing I _notice_ that I miss by normally using > the '95 shell is that, when doing a copy or move of more [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > increased speed, and what seems to be increased robustness, > I'm willing to live with that little thing! I'm not sure what you mean because I don't use Windows Explorer. I find the single pane interface maddening, and running two instances side by side stupid. Not to mention its functionality is limited, and I am being kind. I have purchased and am a happy user of Total Commander 6.55. I believe you get free updates for life but I didn't like the cute XP style icons and some other unfortunate interface improvements he put in the 7.02 version so I went back to 6.55. (I have the interface very minimal, and all in shades of grey, like all of Windows - courtesy DisplaySet, PC Magazine). I am STILL learning something new about that program every week! It's AMAZING what it can do. <SNIP> >> to 2000 are the ones I use most and very happily. There >> ARE exceptions, but a good program should run on ANY 32bit [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > screen, and has run on everything I've ever run it on - > managed to get it into 453 bytes! I like old programs for too many reasons to mention - I have seen quite a few instances where it is simply unbelievable that a program SO tiny can not just run so fast but do so much. Quite a few of them I have found on the www.tinyapps.org site - if you're N/F I /highly/ recommend it. I guess the ultimate example of evil bloat and dysfunctionality is Windows itself. I read somewhere Vista still has code from the 80's in it - but that may have just been malicious slander. After all, WHO could ever possibly check it? How many millions of lines code IS that thing [shudder]? >> Also, I firmly believe that excepting MAJOR technological >> developments, if a program does not have all necessary [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > number change (I have some v6 and v7 things I've stopped > at). Of course; I was being very general. But seeing, just as an example, OmniPage version 12 or 15 is a little ridiculous. Haven't they heard of going with decimals for minor changes? Still, IMO it is preferable to using year numbers instead of version numbers. ACDSee is another insane bloat example - I still use ver. 2.22 because in the next major revision those lunatics decided to make the browser and viewer SEPARATE programs which made for a /really enjoyable/ blank screen flash and delay on this 166MHz. Plus they committed the ULTIMATE crime - changing some keyboard shortcuts. Like Adobe did with PageMaker when they bought out Aldus. Grrrrr. I will NEVER forgive them for that! Anyway, ACDSee 2.22 is an 824KB exe. I believe the current version, 12 or something, is over 20 MB and I am almost willing to bet it does nothing intrinsically useful AFA image management. When I need a file manager, I use T.C. When I want to play an mp3, I use STP, a 250KB program from tinyapps. Etc. When I want to check a few images, I don't want to wait for a 25 MB app with ten 15-line long menus to load! <SNIP> > The email/news/etc. software I use keeps attachments safe > (it even limits HTML rendering), so that no attachment is > dangerous unless saved (and even then not unless run, > though you have to be careful with some that it isn't > obvious are executable - pictures [but IrfanView doesn't > use the vulnerable renderer], No, someone with (IMO) a rather wicked sense of humor wrote that JPG exploit exclusively for the MS dll. :-) <SNIP> > You need broadband these days though: both > AVG and McAfee's daily downloads are BIG (McAfee's usually > about 30-50 Meg these days!). [] Heh heh. 33.6 modem over here :-) But I only update definitions once every couple of months - I have an Acronis image in case of some disaster. (The NOD32 updates are only about 16MB or so, another plus.) Regards, t. SignatureThere is nothing bad which could not turn into something worse. - S. I. Witkiewicz >Yes, regrettably, I tend to exaggerate. But I believe IE still >doesn't /really/ know what Usenet is. Or FTP. Or IRC. No, IE doesn't know what Usenet is, or what IRC is. IE includes clients for HTTP, FTP and Gopher (Gopher was hot when IE first launched, but the WWW eclipsed it in short order). OE was/is a Usenet client (not necessarily the best one but....). AFAIK, MS never put out an IRC client. > Now >/that's/ a jungle I have only ventured into once or twice - [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >learn to navigate through the insane maze of servers and >channels. I assume you're talking about IRC. I wholeheartedly agree. I dabbled long ago, but I never really figured it out. >> Ditto (especially pen drives. And yes, I do know about the >> "universal" USB driver - screwed up my machine right >> royally; conversely, I've recently set up a machine using >> soporific's "10th anniversary 1998 UBCD" which included an >> XP-like [i. e. universal] USB driver, and so far that has >> worked with anything I've tried on it). Interesting. The only version of Win95 that had any USB support was OEM SR2, and that was a first draft. They didn't really get it right until Win98SE. I've heard of a universal driver for Win98SE, but I'm amazed you can run such a thing in Win95. SignatureTim Slattery MS MVP(Shell/User) Slattery_T@bls.gov http://members.cox.net/slatteryt [] > Yes, they get /rather/ miffed when anyone suggests you can run > Windows without IE installed :-) Nothing like being brainwashed, > huh? (-: [] >> Ditto (especially pen drives. And yes, I do know about the >> "universal" USB driver - screwed up my machine right [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > works. But I'm glad you mentioned the soporific driver, I'll > look it up and DL it. JUst in case. (I don't know BION.) Well, 98SE seems to handle USB as such moderately well - though most things need extra drivers, which they come with (or, these days, you have to download, and they might not exist). I think things like hubs, keyboards, and mice, it manages OK, but anything like a pen drive, card reader, printer, scanner, or ADSL Modem/hub, you need a driver. With the excepion of pen drives, I've not found anything I've not managed to get working, though. > (Update: > I have searched, and it seems it (if that's in fact what it is) > is only available as part of a ~220MB DL. Would you mind > terribly posting it in some binaries group - just the "10th > anniv. USB" ? I would really appreciate it.) Ah, misunderstanding there. What soporific has created is a "tenth anniversary" version of Windows 98 - see http://sharethefiles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=104845&start=0 for details. (This is available in two forms - a few hundred megabyte one that can be downloaded but only includes freeware, and a 701 megabyte .iso image you'll have to get into the dark worlds of file sharing to get.) It _includes_ a universal driver (not sure in which edition); it's also available as part of his autopatcher, which is a sort of collection of lots of updates, from Microsoft and elsewhere, with a sort of wrapper front end: I think that's what you found. There _is_ (at least one) universal driver - a link on http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=291927 (some way down) is the first mention of anything like I find, but http://www.technical-assistance.co.uk/kb/usbmsd98.php looks more like the one I've tried before; I don't know if it's the one soporific incorporates or not. I did try this on one of my 98lite systems, and it screwed up my USB usage - but that _may_ be because I didn't necessarily follow the instructions properly (such as removing any existing USB drivers first). Lots of people seem happy with it; it (the latter one that is) I'm pretty certain appeared to _install_ OK under '98lite, so may work on your '95. [] >>> The ONLY disadvantage to Lite is that since it uses the 95 >>> shell sometimes a program which "runs on 98" will /not/ [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > to follow (well, I am not enough of a tech guy to alter the > install file, but 1 and 2 are no problem). It's not hard: I used the edit functions in XTree! the filename - explorer.exe, shell32.dll or whatever - occurs in plain text somewhere in the installer, so it's fairly simple to change .exe or .dll or whatever to .w98. However, method 1 is probably as easy! > The first thing I always install whenever I set up a computer > (admittedly it's been /a/while/) is XTree for DOS, so I am not > afraid of doing things outside of Windows, like renaming, moving > hidden files etc. :-) Likewise! Pity about the lack of long filenames. I've never invested enough time to really play with Ztree - have you? (Incidentally, another thing I don't like about XP: right-clicking on a filename in explorer in '9x, and looking at properties, will show you what the DOS name - such as progra~1.xyz - is; this seems to have disappeared from XP. [Maybe only if under NTFS, I don't know.]) [] > I'm not sure what you mean because I don't use Windows Explorer. > I find the single pane interface maddening, and running two > instances side by side stupid. Not to mention its functionality > is limited, and I am being kind. It does for me. I have downloaded a free two-pane variant, but haven't got round to playing with it much. [] > I like old programs for too many reasons to mention - I have > seen quite a few instances where it is simply unbelievable that > a program SO tiny can not just run so fast but do so much. Quite > a few of them I have found on the www.tinyapps.org site - if > you're N/F I /highly/ recommend it. Did I mention http://www.roadkil.net/downloads.php? Some small ones there ... [] > Of course; I was being very general. But seeing, just as an > example, OmniPage version 12 or 15 is a little ridiculous. > Haven't they heard of going with decimals for minor changes? > Still, IMO it is preferable to using year numbers instead of > version numbers. Each has its advantages - if you take your eye off one for a little while, at least you know roughly how old it is, whereas you don't with version 12. [] > Anyway, ACDSee 2.22 is an 824KB exe. I believe the current > version, 12 or something, is over 20 MB and I am almost willing > to bet it does nothing intrinsically useful AFA image I can't remember what ACDSee does - if images, I use IrfanView. (The core is still about the size of a floppy, though the plugins - which you _can_ get by without - push it up somewhat if you want to handle every aspect of every image format under the sun). > management. When I need a file manager, I use T.C. When I want > to play an mp3, I use STP, a 250KB program from tinyapps. Etc. WinAmp or IrfanView ... > When I want to check a few images, I don't want to wait for a 25 > MB app with ten 15-line long menus to load! Yes, that's what I like about IrfanView - that plus the easy keyboard navigation. [] >> You need broadband these days though: both >> AVG and McAfee's daily downloads are BIG (McAfee's usually [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > once every couple of months - I have an Acronis image in case of > some disaster. It's how you actually _use_ the image if you have to that worries me. [] SignatureJ. P. Gilliver | Tel. +44 1634 203298 >> BION, I have NEVER tried USB with my 98SE machine (all my >> current peripherals are parallel or P/S). I just assume it >> works. But I'm glad you mentioned the soporific driver, >> I'll look it up and DL it. JUst in case. > > (I don't know BION.) Do you mean you don't know that it stands for 'believe it or not' or that it's not rare for people to have never used USB? Gotta be the latter! <SNIP> > Ah, misunderstanding there. <SNIP> > There _is_ (at least one) universal driver - a link on > http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=291927 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > latter one that is) I'm pretty certain appeared to > _install_ OK under '98lite, so may work on your '95. Nah, I still don't have a single USB device nor do I intend to ever try USB with 95 again, but just in case 98 ever gives me trouble... Thanks for the additional links, I'll visit. [update] I did, and even though it was only last night, I already forgot WHERE I actually got it, but I ended up with the "Maximus Decim Native USB ver.3.3" which I believe covers most of the bases. Anyway, I still don't have a single USB device, so... <SNIP> > Likewise! Pity about the lack of long filenames. I've never > invested enough time to really play with Ztree - have you? Well, I don't know about 'really' - but I did use it for a while. It is very impressive. But it has SO many very advanced features added to it that I couldn't deal with it. And once I found it, I decided I prefer Total Commander, ultimately. I think the functionality is about the same (at the /very least/) and the ease of use much higher in T.C. > (Incidentally, another thing I don't like about XP: > right-clicking on a filename in explorer in '9x, and > looking at properties, will show you what the DOS name - > such as progra~1.xyz - is; this seems to have disappeared > from XP. [Maybe only if under NTFS, I don't know.]) I know nothing about XP and VERY sincerely hope to keep it this way. I just read a link from another group about how there is really no more XP support (I never cared about 95 or 98 support, but with XP you actually appear to HAVE to communicate with MS to even get it running - or running AGAIN - so it's a different - and smelly - kettle of fish). One of the comments on that link page said his daughter just installed Ubuntu, it does everything XP does and no more MS nightmares. (BTW, Total Commander has an option to show you the 8.3 names right in the 2 panes along with the long names.) >> I'm not sure what you mean because I don't use Windows >> Explorer. I find the single pane interface maddening, and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It does for me. I have downloaded a free two-pane variant, > but haven't got round to playing with it much. Didn't know there was one. Forgive me for being prejudiced, but I'm sure it sucks. >> I like old programs for too many reasons to mention - I >> have seen quite a few instances where it is simply [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Did I mention http://www.roadkil.net/downloads.php? Some > small ones there ... You did mention it but I didn't know what you meant... Will visit. (Just did... It seems to be one of the - regrettably - few sites by a good programmer who believes in freeware... I love that! Have you tried the data recovery utils? There are almost no free ones! If his programs are as good as the site design/functionality, it's a winner! Although the advantage of tinyapps is that it has a HUGE variety of programs from everywhere, not just one person's work.) >> Of course; I was being very general. But seeing, just as >> an example, OmniPage version 12 or 15 is a little [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a little while, at least you know roughly how old it is, > whereas you don't with version 12. [] Well, you DO have a point there :-) >> Anyway, ACDSee 2.22 is an 824KB exe. I believe the current >> version, 12 or something, is over 20 MB and I am almost [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it up somewhat if you want to handle every aspect of every > image format under the sun). I have great respect and admiration for IrfanView and the author's attitude, but when I tried it (admittedly a long time ago) I found the interface clumsy and ugly, and was already /very/ used to ACDSee which I'd been using since the early 90's. I'd try it again, but like I said, I prefer a program to do ONE thing well than 5 things well (usually it ends up one well, 4 very badly), plus I actually paid for ACDSee so it would be a little "unpleasant" to switch. I wonder if the interface looks any better now. (I know that's not the most important thing, but I am a bit of an aesthete, and for instance, simply could NOT look at the default icons of ThumbsPlus - otherwise MOST useful software - so used a program to make my own icons for it. WHAT an improvement!) <SNIP> > It's how you actually _use_ the image if you have to that > worries me. Not sure what you mean. By a funny coincidence, the article I mention above about no XP support actually mentions no support from Acronis as well. My story is kind of amusing - I have NEVER heard of disk-imaging programs, but about 5 or so years ago I bought a copy of PC Answers (a GREAT - then, anyway) British magazine and it had a full free working version of Acronis T.I. Deluxe on the CD. (I got a completely free version of AABBY OCR the same way - incredible!) It has NEVER failed me - it is simply wonderful. OTOH, I have read quite a few people complain of problems with later versions. Small is beautiful. WHY can't people just leave well enough alone??? Regards, t. Signature[from a recent conversation] thanatoid: So why did you decide you needed broadband? Neighbor: I wanted to read my e-mail faster. >>> BION, I have NEVER tried USB with my 98SE machine (all my >>> current peripherals are parallel or P/S). I just assume it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > not' or that it's not rare for people to have never used USB? > Gotta be the latter! No, I hadn't come across BION before (-:. [] > Thanks for the additional links, I'll visit. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Native USB ver.3.3" which I believe covers most of the bases. > Anyway, I still don't have a single USB device, so... Good luck with it when you do. I find pen drives (or whatever you wish to call them) somewhat useful, these days. [] >> invested enough time to really play with Ztree - have you? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > think the functionality is about the same (at the /very least/) > and the ease of use much higher in T.C. I like my keyboard shortcuts. (So I still use Xtree quite a bit.) [] > I know nothing about XP and VERY sincerely hope to keep it this Ah, know thine enemy (-:! I have to use it here at work, and for everyday tasks, it's fine: there are even some of the things I like. > way. I just read a link from another group about how there is > really no more XP support (I never cared about 95 or 98 support, > but with XP you actually appear to HAVE to communicate with MS > to even get it running - or running AGAIN - so it's a different > - and smelly - kettle of fish). Only once, and that can be by MoDem. (Or not at all if you're a big corporate or institutional installer, though if you're that you probably will communicate with them regularly anyway.) > One of the comments on that link page said his daughter just > installed Ubuntu, it does everything XP does and no more MS > nightmares. Ah, well, if you open the door a crack enough to let in the Windows/*x wars, you'll never hear the end of them ... [] >>> Explorer. I find the single pane interface maddening, and >>> running two instances side by side stupid. Not to mention [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Didn't know there was one. Forgive me for being prejudiced, but > I'm sure it sucks. What exactly do you mean by single pane - do you mean (you want to be capable of) seeing two lists of files as once (like F8 in Xtree)? If so, that's one of the things the freebie included. I think it might have been http://www.zabkat.com/x2lite.htm (581 kB [he says; the setup is 2,834]). I think I'll have another play with it. >>> I like old programs for too many reasons to mention - I >>> have seen quite a few instances where it is simply [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > ones! If his programs are as good as the site > design/functionality, it's a winner! Although the advantage of Yes, now that you mention it, the UI _is_ good, too. I've downloaded quite a few of them (note that some appear under several of the categories). A colleague has even been trying his uninterruptable copier for genuine work. (I found his Sudoku very difficult - but then I've never really understood how setters "rate" a sudoku puzzle, anyway.) > tinyapps is that it has a HUGE variety of programs from > everywhere, not just one person's work.) I've had a look round there. Excellent site (though not very well maintained - quite a few of the links went to things that clearly aren't what they were. But that's life). [] >>> Anyway, ACDSee 2.22 is an 824KB exe. I believe the current >>> version, 12 or something, is over 20 MB and I am almost [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > ago) I found the interface clumsy and ugly, and was already > /very/ used to ACDSee which I'd been using since the early 90's. Still going - new version out today, with lots of things fixed/added that I hadn't realised I wanted it to do, and (the main prog.) still under a floppy's worth. A few iterations ago, it added the ability to use toolbars of your own design, and there are a few available now. I _like_ the interface - although it's virtually all GUIable too, there's a lot that can be done from the keybaord. > I'd try it again, but like I said, I prefer a program to do ONE > thing well than 5 things well (usually it ends up one well, 4 > very badly), plus I actually paid for ACDSee so it would be a I don't think there's a lot that IV actually does do that it doesn't do well (well, I wouldn't use it much for sound and video, but those aren't what it's for!). I've actually paid for it as I like it so much. [] >> It's how you actually _use_ the image if you have to that >> worries me. > > Not sure what you mean. By a funny coincidence, the article I I had to think for a while, since we'd been talking about Image prog.s such as IrfanView, before I remembered we were talking about disc images. What I mean is: however wonderful your disc imaging software is: how do you restore from the image, if for some reason your OS won't boot? The imaging prog. must have some way of starting a basically dead machine in order to do the restore - I'd say ideally something that can start from a floppy (or at a pinch these days CD or bootable USB stick). [] SignatureJ. P. Gilliver | Tel. +44 1634 203298 > I find pen drives (or > whatever you wish to call them) somewhat useful, these > days. [] Oh, they are wonderful (although useless to me personally) and the prices are getting INSANE. I saw an 8GB (!) online for about $25 after a rebate, or something! 3 or 4 years ago I bought a 256MB (perhaps 512MB, I can't remember) for a Xmas gift for a friend and paid well over $50! >>> invested enough time to really play with Ztree - have >>> you? <SNIP> > I like my keyboard shortcuts. (So I still use Xtree quite a > bit.) Total Commander has an ASTONISHING mile-long custom shortcut key assignment menu. The main reason people don't like it is that most people can not readjust their brain to the double pane view. But if you are an Xtree fan, you should love it. Explorer- like tree view is also possible, or course (accidentally found THAT option a few weeks ago... I hit the wrong F key along with the Ctl key... I find new stuff ALL the time). www.ghisler.com (Don't be put off by the godawful screenshot. The interface is quite configurable.) I try to use the mouse (I actually have a Logitech Marble Trackman) as little as possible, but it is unfortunately unavoidable. (What I really hate is programs that allow for virtually NO kbd shortcuts.) Still, nothing is funnier/sadder than a person trying to select 3 words to delete from their text with a mouse, letter by space by letter... I do it with 2-4 keyboard hits (one optional mouse click) and they almost faint :-) >> I know nothing about XP and VERY sincerely hope to keep it >> this > > Ah, know thine enemy (-:! I have to use it here at work, > and for everyday tasks, it's fine: there are even some of > the things I like. Well, purely coincidentally, in the last week or so, I have actually started thinking of putting it on my 2GHz machine... (If any other posters who know me read this they WILL have to have ammonia salts brought to them.) First I thought of making it a multiboot but it is simply impractical to backup all the crap on it - as I would have to do, being the kind of person who follows warnings, and especially when they are about to mess about with the MBR), but then I thought, I have 16 partitions, the ONLY stuff on C is the OS and programs (a few DOS programs aren't even on C), and I have an Acronis Image of the latest config, so why not just wipe C and install XP on IT? (see later for more on Acronis). So I am thinking about it. I am concerned some of the programs I USE which date from over 10 years ago may not run on XP and I am not clear on whether there is any DOS/3.1 programs support with XP - I vaguely recall reading somewhere there was a 10MB (or something huge anyway) "DOS emulator" in it - I don't know if it's true or not in it but I just saw it as another reason to stay clear of it. We'll see. Another concern is NTFS. The remaining 15 partitions will obviously remain FAT32, and I am not sure whether the version I am thinking of installing (a "modified" one, shall we say, MS isn't selling it anymore and that was THEIR decision) allows for a choice of NTFS or FAT32. I once read an MVP (!) refer to NTFS as a "fiasco" so I would prefer to install XP with FAT32 - the partition it is going on IS formatted in FAT32 so perhaps it will simply "play along". The bigger concern is (I lack the deeper knowledge of these things) is whether the stuff on the other partitions in FAT32 will interact properly with XP /should it/ install with NTFS. I would /think/ the actual file structure system is irrelevant to what the end-user and the OS "see" and work with, but I don't know for sure. In any case, should everything go to hell, I have my trusty Acronis CD-R. I am not really sure why I am even thinking of it - there are NO XP-only programs I want to run, but I am just SO SICK of having watched almost the same screen for 12+ years (I have a wallpaper changer and LOTS of various wallpapers most of which I made myself but most of the icons are the ones I had 10 years ago or almost equivalent), that I hope having a new interface and an assortment of new annoyances (there are BOUND to be SOME if not /many/ - although it almost seems that when MS stops "improving" and "supporting" an OS, THEN is the time to start using it :-) may give my mind something new to think about as well as inspire me to try some of the programs I have had for years and never "got around to". I just have to do a major cleanup-prune-archive job of all the things I will never look at again anyway (well - at least I am aware that it is nothing but my pedantry that is forcing me to perform unnecessary time-consuming actions - like saving emails from 10 years ago). <SNIP> > Ah, well, if you open the door a crack enough to let in the > Windows/*x wars, you'll never hear the end of them ... So I have noticed :-) <SNIP> > What exactly do you mean by single pane - do you mean (you > want to be capable of) seeing two lists of files as once > (like F8 in Xtree)? Exactly. And Total Commander and about half of the other "alternatives" to Windows Explorer have that as the basic feature. As you know, among hundreds (thousands?) of other things, the 2 panes allow you to use one key to copy or move file(s) - once you select them of course... I have only used my advanced file rename utility ONCE, I think, since I got Total Commander - it includes an EXCELLENT multiple file renamer. <SNIP> > (I found his Sudoku very difficult - but then I've never > really understood how setters "rate" a sudoku puzzle, > anyway.) I once spent about 15 seconds trying to comprehend the principle behind Sudoku and what pleasure can be gained from engaging in it, but my patience for such things is extremely low. Still, to me it's just another sign that humans may be descended from aliens and that if so, the Japanese are the closest relatives... >> tinyapps is that it has a HUGE variety of programs from >> everywhere, not just one person's work.) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > things that clearly aren't what they were. But that's > life). Feel free to write to the site owner if you feel it's worth your time. (I wrote to him once about a program he has on there that I had a horrible problem with and he actually answered me!) I haven't DL'd anything from there in quite a while, but I am almost sure it is the only place on the web to get STP - a tiny mp3 player (written by some young Russian guy before he got drafted and basically disappeared) which is just fantastic. I learned about quite a few other nice apps there as well. Understandably, especially when this 166 was my only computer, I was really into small apps. I still am. For instance, I use the program from www.goldenhawk.com (under 1.5 MB DL) for CD burning. IMO it is better and faster than all the well-known ones - there are a few even smaller ones but they either burn too many coasters, or have about 3 options instead of 6 or 7 complete and /very/ comprehensive modules, or just don't do anything - I've tried quite a few after deciding the people who wrote Nero were just sadists. <SNIP> > What I mean is: however > wonderful your disc imaging software is: how do you restore [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > something that can start from a floppy (or at a pinch these > days CD or bootable USB stick). I don't understand HOW it does it, since it even does it on my 11.5 yr old 95B machine, but all you do is put the Acronis CD in the drive and reboot the machine. It's simply miraculous. The fact it was free (on-line reg. was all that was req'd) STILL blows my mind. I would not at all be surprised if the new versions offered a USB stick boot option. Signature[from a recent conversation] thanatoid: So why did you decide you needed broadband? Neighbor: I wanted to read my e-mail faster. >> I find pen drives (or >> whatever you wish to call them) somewhat useful, these [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 256MB (perhaps 512MB, I can't remember) for a Xmas gift for a > friend and paid well over $50! Yes - I recently wanted to get something so that a non-computer-savvy friend could back things up in case of emergency (she's an accountant, so not dim - just not computerate), and a pen drive seemed the easiest way (her accounts package offers to back up wherever you say, whenever you quit it - and I've checked that the restore onto a new PC is easy too); my local supermarket was selling them. I think they go up to 32G these days ... [] > Total Commander has an ASTONISHING mile-long custom shortcut key > assignment menu. The main reason people don't like it is that > most people can not readjust their brain to the double pane I thought (as you say below) that was - initially - the point! [] > www.ghisler.com > > (Don't be put off by the godawful screenshot. The interface is If you mean http://www.ghisler.com/picture.htm, then the one for xplorer2 (http://www.zabkat.com/index.htm), at http://www.zabkat.com/tour1.htm, is probably worse. > quite configurable.) > > I try to use the mouse (I actually have a Logitech Marble > Trackman) as little as possible, but it is unfortunately > unavoidable. (What I really hate is programs that allow for > virtually NO kbd shortcuts.) Indeed. As well as personal preference (and productivity - I think most things _can_ be done faster from the keyboard, _though not all_ [some things _are_ quicker with the mouse]), I have another interest: computing for the blind. For them, keyboard shortcuts are virtually essential: OK, a good "screenreader" (the name for the interface software; of course, it does a lot more than just read the screen these days) can make _most_ things usable to some extent (other than image manipulation which they won't be using anyway), but things are a lot easier to use if the designer has put them in. > Still, nothing is funnier/sadder than a person trying to select > 3 words to delete from their text with a mouse, letter by space > by letter... I do it with 2-4 keyboard hits (one optional mouse > click) and they almost faint :-) Or watching them fill in a form - type, mouse, type, mouse - rather than using the tab key. (Mind you, in a few cases the order the tab key taked you round the boxes is, at the least, invigorating - the more obscure corners of IrfanView's configuration screens are a good example; I presume it's how whichever software it is has developed). And closing down: Win, u, e (with a few Alt-space, X [and enter to save if necessary] if anything needs closing first). In XP, incidentally, it's Win, U, U to close - in many cases (can depend on configuration). [XP] > Well, purely coincidentally, in the last week or so, I have > actually started thinking of putting it on my 2GHz machine... [] > So I am thinking about it. I am concerned some of the programs I > USE which date from over 10 years ago may not run on XP and I am [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it's true or not in it but I just saw it as another reason to > stay clear of it. We'll see. I _think_ I don't have anything that works in the DOS box in '9x that doesn't in XP; there might have been the odd one where the built-in XP function was sufficiently acceptable (or, heresy to say, better) than my old utility so I either didn't worry that it didn't work or didn't try, but not many. > Another concern is NTFS. The remaining 15 partitions will > obviously remain FAT32, and I am not sure whether the version I > am thinking of installing (a "modified" one, shall we say, MS > isn't selling it anymore and that was THEIR decision) allows for > a choice of NTFS or FAT32. I once read an MVP (!) refer to NTFS > as a "fiasco" so I would prefer to install XP with FAT32 - the I agree with your "(!)"; most MVPs definitely toe the party line on that! > partition it is going on IS formatted in FAT32 so perhaps it > will simply "play along". From what I remember (I have installed XP a few times, but not enough to say I'm familiar with the process), if it finds an already-existant FAT partition, it will offer to convert it to NTFS, but not oblige you to do so. This may depend on which version of XP you try, and/or what choices (e. g. default or custom) you choose, I don't know, though. (I nearly always choose custom on any install that offers it, on the basis that the defaults under custom are usually the same as the default, so any setting I don't understand I leave anyway.) > The bigger concern is (I lack the deeper knowledge of these > things) is whether the stuff on the other partitions in FAT32 > will interact properly with XP /should it/ install with NTFS. I > would /think/ the actual file structure system is irrelevant to > what the end-user and the OS "see" and work with, but I don't I'm pretty sure XP will see and use any FS regardless of what the one it's installed on is. (This even, I think, applies to an HD you put into an external box and connect to the USB port [or use a USB-to-IDE cable - I'v used this, though so far only with a FAT one].) It still reads/writes floppies (though there's something about 720k ones - can't remember if it's no altogether, or just it can't write or maybe format them). > know for sure. In any case, should everything go to hell, I have > my trusty Acronis CD-R. > > I am not really sure why I am even thinking of it - there are NO > XP-only programs I want to run, but I am just SO SICK of having Unfortunately, it is getting increasingly hard to get new hardware to run under '9x - a lot of it just won't, and even that which does, I have the feeling that I'm having to spend more time fighting it than I used to. (That _could_ just be compared to XP, where I'm afraid to say a lot of it just _works_, often without having to install _anything_. I recenty bought a microscope, for example.) > watched almost the same screen for 12+ years (I have a wallpaper > changer and LOTS of various wallpapers most of which I made Panorama? (Works under XP by the way.) > myself but most of the icons are the ones I had 10 years ago or > almost equivalent), that I hope having a new interface and an Well, the initial default interface (complete with what in UK is often referred to as the "Teletubbies" wallpaper, from its resemblance to a children's TV series) will sicken you: with each new iteration, it seems to me they make for more pastel colours, and bigger icons - with the result that though you may have a higher-resolution display, you still can only get the same number of icons on it. Fortunately, you can switch both the start menu and taskbar, and the appearance of windows in general, to a "classic" view (e. g. with square corners). (Mind you, some of the normal things - like altering the colours of various parts of a window - are now hidden behind an "Advanced" button! What that says about what they think of their target audience ...) > assortment of new annoyances (there are BOUND to be SOME if not > /many/ - although it almost seems that when MS stops "improving" To be fair, after the initial familiarisation (and the feeling of loss of control, due in large part to NTFS which I won't use if I go XP), not a lot. A lot of it does just work. > and "supporting" an OS, THEN is the time to start using it :-) Are you me (-:?!? [] > <SNIP> (Sorry, that's what my "[]" mean.) [] > advanced file rename utility ONCE, I think, since I got Total > Commander - it includes an EXCELLENT multiple file renamer. As does IrfanView (including the ability to rename files based on their EXIF data, so the first thing I usually do when taking .jpg files from my camera's card is rename them from pic001 or whatever to 2008-08-12 9-51-18 or whatever). [] > I once spent about 15 seconds trying to comprehend the principle > behind Sudoku and what pleasure can be gained from engaging in > it, but my patience for such things is extremely low. Still, to There _is_ a satisfaction in doing it, especially when you get moderately familiar with some of the ways. Still, I'd say it's pretty unproductive - slightly more so than doing cryptic crosswords, which at least teaches you (very occasionally) new words/facts. > me it's just another sign that humans may be descended from > aliens and that if so, the Japanese are the closest relatives... Naughty! >>> tinyapps is that it has a HUGE variety of programs from [] > Feel free to write to the site owner if you feel it's worth your > time. > (I wrote to him once about a program he has on there that I had > a horrible problem with and he actually answered me!) I really should, since he's gone to all the trouble of creating the site. It wasn't any of his own, I think - some of his links to other sites no longer are. [] > program from www.goldenhawk.com (under 1.5 MB DL) for CD > burning. IMO it is better and faster than all the well-known [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > anything - I've tried quite a few after deciding the people who > wrote Nero were just sadists. Ah, I've got burn4free, and another even smaller one; burn4free (if I've remembered it's name right) seems to work very well, and also doesn't need new drivers to match new drives (including DVD ones), unlike "Easy" CD Creator, which is Adaptec/Roxio's competitor to Nero. I will admit I tend to _use_ ECDC, simply because I got it with a drive and have got used to its UI. [] > I don't understand HOW it does it, since it even does it on my > 11.5 yr old 95B machine, but all you do is put the Acronis CD in > the drive and reboot the machine. It's simply miraculous. The Does imply a BIOS that can boot from CD. > fact it was free (on-line reg. was all that was req'd) STILL Hmm. Sadly, doesn't seem to be any more, at a quick glance, unless I've missed the part of the web page (I could understand if it's just hidden - any pointers?); the excellent http://www.oldversion.com/ (you do know it, I take it? not oldversionS) doesn't seem to know it. (I've tried a couple of others too - http://www.oldapps.com/.) Do you know the Last Freeware version site, as well (http://www.321download.com/)? That links, but only to the paid version. (Googling for acronis and free finds lots of links, mostly mentioning V7; I'll have to look into them.) > blows my mind. I would not at all be surprised if the new > versions offered a USB stick boot option. Nor would I. Do you know ERD/ERU (on the W95 CD under misc\other, or other\misc, or something like that - but not copied over by default, for reasons I've never been sure of; it's tiny)? Though not a full backup by any means, it backs up about a dozen files by default (including the two that form the registry) [you can choose which, and also change its list with a bit of tweaking, though I haven't], into a directory of your choice, along with a DOS-runnable executable that restores it? It has got me (and others) out of a hole many times. It works under '98 fine (though I'm not sure it's on the '98 CD). And, someone's written a version - called ERUNT, google for it - that works under XP (and, as you'd guess, NT; I think now Vista too). I'll certainly be installing that (not that it needs "installing") if I go XP. SignatureJ. P. Gilliver | Tel. +44 1634 203298 <SNIP> >> Total Commander has an ASTONISHING mile-long custom >> shortcut key assignment menu. The main reason people don't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I thought (as you say below) that was - initially - the > point! [] If you mean the pane, well, for /me/ it is, I can not function with one pane, but it seems many people are so "accustomed" to what comes with Windows (I don't know how long it's been since File Manager was dropped, but even though it was included in W95 and maybe even W98 or 2000, hardly anyone used it) that maybe the two pane thing is just too difficult for some. After all, "I have one computer, [usually] one partition [another subject, sigh...] so WHY would there be /two/ panes?" Or did you mean something else? >> (Don't be put off by the godawful screenshot. The >> interface is > > If you mean http://www.ghisler.com/picture.htm, then the > one for xplorer2 (http://www.zabkat.com/index.htm), at > http://www.zabkat.com/tour1.htm, is probably worse. It is only worse in that the unbelievable screen clutter it shows would instantly eliminate it as anything I would even want to try. Albeit I find the red pointers to what is what helpful. (I admit I have not read any of the text - the clutter may be from cramming ALL the functions into one screen to prove what it can do - nor have I enlarged the image - if it's possible.) The current Ghisler screen shot is OK, but it suffers from the same clutter - although it IS about 1/10 of the clutter in zabkat. I guess Ghisler wants to show most options visible, whereas even if you've never used a 2-paner before, shortcuts become automatic very quickly. Also, he is even showing the FTP connection (IMHO one of the very few unnecessary extras the program has - there are SO many free FTP programs), and a bunch of other things which just clutter it up. Not to mention the godawful XP style box. (The good thing is he has just released 7.04a as a successor to 7.02a - which I had installed and went back to 6.55 because he gave it too much of an XP look: just the mere icons for the drives were bugging me. The latest version seems to compromise between the old simple rectangular drive icon and the new horror, IOW /may/ be very slightly rounded but they are smaller and the color is less offensive. Also, there actually ARE 2 or 3 new features that are worthwhile. [Of course, I still have not learned of all the original features. Astounding program.]) FWIW, all I have on /my/ TC screen are the drive boxes (which I should probably take out since I have them all shortcutted anyway, along with the most important directories) and one line above each pane which tells me the used/free space on that partition. I /do/ have the status bar on at the bottom - it is quite essential to everyday operations (shows # of files or dirs selected, their sizes, etc.) This is /not/ the picture I was referring to, in any case. Several years ago he had a different screenshot on the main page, which was about the size of zabkat's screenshot, and also showed most options enabled, but also had an absolutely /horrid/ color scheme. After playing with colors for quite a few years when I was a wee lad (said desktop color schemes often eliciting exclamations of astonishment from co-workers, who did not even know it was possible to change the colors, or that File Manager existed in 95, for that matter) , I have now gone to an all-grey scheme. Much nicer. I used PC Magazine's "DisplaySet" to achieve this, since it is /considerably/ more comprehensive than the built-in Windows color schemer, to put it mildly. >> I try to use the mouse (I actually have a Logitech Marble >> Trackman) as little as possible, but it is unfortunately [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > _though not all_ [some things _are_ quicker with the > mouse] Definitely true, but not many. But of course there are things that can ONLY be done with a mouse no matter how much you'd like to use the keyboard (although there ARE utilities to replace the mouse with the arrow keys, they are an even bigger drag (DRAG! HAAAAR!) than the mouse itself. And tablets are nice for image retouching etc. I have a really old one. > I have another interest: computing for the blind. Hearing that kind of thing makes me feel I am a totally useless space-wasting creature. But let's not get into personal problems and lifestyles... I would assume you have heard of Ray Kurzweil, a true genius, responsible for a fantastic music synthesizer (since bought by Kawaii - I believe - as Kurzweil moved on to other interests) who also made the first ever book-reading machine for the blind. I have no idea how much it cost, but I know that Stevie Wonder had one. That was in the late 70's IIRC. <SNIP> >> Still, nothing is funnier/sadder than a person trying to >> select 3 words to delete from their text with a mouse, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Or watching them fill in a form - type, mouse, type, mouse > - rather than using the tab key. I still remember the astonishment and bewilderment as my co- workers saw me use the alt-tab combination... "I did not know whether to laugh or to cry..." <SNIP> >> So I am thinking about it. I am concerned some of the >> programs I USE which date from over 10 years ago may not [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > so I either didn't worry that it didn't work or didn't try, > but not many. I asked and was told in another group - they were VERY helpful - that XP allows you to install it ALONG with another Win OS, usually 98 or ME. /And/ it appears XP does /not/ have to be on C:, where the previous OS obviously resides. And it /appears/ the two can coexist. Once I clean out my other machine's drive, I may find out. I am still not sure whether it is just temporary insanity or what. <SNIP> > From what I remember (I have installed XP a few times, but > not enough to say I'm familiar with the process), if it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the same as the default, so any setting I don't understand > I leave anyway.) Same here. And thanks for the add'l info about XP. <SNIP> You mean a microscope whose image is shown on the screen, and it works with XP out of the box? Surely you MUST have installed SOME drivers! (Just read your recent post in the 98 group. Didn't you say it worked perfectly well in the post I'm replying to? BTW, booting in "safe mode" and adding drivers 1 by 1 is a nightmare. Just my opinion. Hope you figure out another way.) > Unfortunately, it is getting increasingly hard to get new hardware to run under '9x - a lot of it just won't, and even that which does, I have the feeling that I'm having to spend more time fighting it than I used to. Well, so far I have been forced to just junk them. But there has really been VERY little really innovative written since the 90's, IMO. The old programs are smaller, run faster, have no bloat, and their authors should be suing the people who are re- writing them with new names and 30 MB of eye candy and /occasionally/ some (mostly useless) add'l "features". Of course, I am just a home user. I'm sure it's a different story with scientists etc. >> watched almost the same screen for 12+ years (I have a >> wallpaper changer and LOTS of various wallpapers most of >> which I made > > Panorama? (Works under XP by the way.) Huh? I just use Micrografx Picture Publisher (I don't do pre- press for $250 coffee-table books so I don't need Photoshop, and MPP had multiple undo and other great features YEARS before Photoshop did). >> myself but most of the icons are the ones I had 10 years >> ago or almost equivalent), that I hope having a new [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > from its resemblance to a children's TV series) will sicken > you: It already did when I saw shots of it on web pages. Ugh. I never made the Teletubs connection, but you are /so/ correct. I saw a few moments of a TT episode once, and it /really/ creeped me out. I don't know WHAT the future generations will be like, and I don't WANT to know. > with each new iteration, it seems to me they make for > more pastel colours, and bigger icons - with the result [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > button! What that says about what they think of their > target audience ...) Well, you MUST have heard this famous quote: "Let's face it, the average computer user has the brain of a Spider Monkey." - Bill Gates, about his customers. >> assortment of new annoyances (there are BOUND to be SOME >> if not /many/ - although it almost seems that when MS [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I won't use if I go XP), not a lot. A lot of it does just > work. So I hear, and so as long as I can make it not look like a 5 year old's (Spider Monkey's?) playroom and /hopefully/ use Display Set to further customize it (who knows, maybe the functions ARE in XP already - hidden, as you say), it may not be so bad. My biggest concern was that some of my main programs would not run on XP - but if I can keep 98SE, there is obviously no problem. >> and "supporting" an OS, THEN is the time to start using it >> :-) > > Are you me (-:?!? Heh heh. > [] >> <SNIP> > > (Sorry, that's what my "[]" mean.) I took me a few minutes but I figured it out. I MUST admit it is a LOT faster than typing <SNIP>. (Just added it to my Short Keys list. WHY didn't I do that years ago?????) <SNIP> <SNIP> <SNIP> ahhh... >> advanced file rename utility ONCE, I think, since I got >> Total Commander - it includes an EXCELLENT multiple file [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > when taking .jpg files from my camera's card is rename them > from pic001 or whatever to 2008-08-12 9-51-18 or whatever). I doubt I will ever own a digital camera. I did a lot of 35mm photography when I was in my late teens and 20's, but the last time I took any photos and enjoyed doing it was about 20 years ago. I have two 35mm cameras (a $10 Vivitar and a used East- German Practica SLR with a Japanese 'Takumar' lens which is not bad at all), but I can not even remember when I last used either one. >> I once spent about 15 seconds trying to comprehend the >> principle behind Sudoku and what pleasure can be gained [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > cryptic crosswords, which at least teaches you (very > occasionally) new words/facts. I hate crosswords. I can't even do the National Enquirer ones! I tried the NYT (or Harper's, or something) crossword once and I decided my IQ tests results (which have been consistent over the years and fairly respectable) must be a hallucination. (Out of curiosity, tried to do one from the Chicago Tribune yesterday. What a nightmare. It's official - I have become a moron.) >> me it's just another sign that humans may be descended >> from aliens and that if so, the Japanese are the closest >> relatives... > > Naughty! Oh no, I like aliens, but you MUST admit the Japanese culture, aside from regaling the civilization with the Trinitron and geishas, has also contributed things like sumo wrestling and Transformers. On sushi I can go either way depending on the slime factor :-) <SNIP> >> I don't understand HOW it does it, since it even does it >> on my 11.5 yr old 95B machine, but all you do is put the >> Acronis CD in the drive and reboot the machine. It's >> simply miraculous. The > > Does imply a BIOS that can boot from CD. I think all BIOS's from 95-96 or so onwards can boot from "any" source, but there's more to it than that. I have my current image on the HD as well as on CD-R's with all the older ones and if you reboot from Acronis it will restore the image from the HD as well - never even entering into DOS - I /assume/ it passes through the BIOS. > Hmm. Sadly, doesn't seem to be any more, at a quick glance, > unless I've missed the part of the web page (I could > understand if it's just hidden - any pointers?); the > excellent http://www.oldversion.com/ (you do know it, I > take it? Yes, it's come in handy a few times. > (I've tried a couple of others too - http://www.oldapps.com/ That one was only introduced to me a few months ago and I was quite disappointed. I find places like Garbo etc. infinitely richer in nice old stuff. > Do > you know the Last Freeware version site, as well > (http://www.321download.com/)? Yes. I have links to a bunch of software collection sites (there are way too many!) but what REALLY annoys me is that they always have the latest version ONLY, and quite often when it's an older program, often the DL link is to the author's web site, which in many cases no longer exists. INFURIATING. But then again, WHO could keep up? Here's a nice one if you're not familiar with it: http://freeware.intrastar.net > That links, but only to the > paid version. (Googling for acronis and free finds lots of > links, mostly mentioning V7; I'll have to look into them.) I am pretty sure all versions work with 95 (except maybe the latest) and I am also pretty sure ver 6 and 7 were still relatively unbloated. > And, someone's written a version - called > ERUNT, google for it - that works under XP (and, as you'd > guess, NT; I think now Vista too). I'll certainly be > installing that (not that it needs "installing") if I go > XP. I have looked at ERUNT and it was a little confusing, and I think unnecessary... What I like about Acronis is that ALL the programs I had to have to make sure I could salvage my machine when it "went boom" have gone into retirement. Anyway, I looked for drive imaging freeware that would run on any system and here's one I found that looks fairly good. (There were several free ones but they only run on 2000 and up, VERY annoying.) http://www.miray.de/products/sat.hdclone.html There is also an apparently /fantastic/ freeware image burner called imgburn. It is not a "disc imager" but I think it could work as one. I believe it will create bootable discs as many other CD/DVD burners will do - and with the most enthusiastic reviews I have /ever/ seen ("THE best freeware program I've ever used" etc.) this one sounds like it actually works (I tried about 10 various CD burner programs - most didn't work or were VERY buggy - and ended up buying the one from www.goldenhawk.com - it is excellent, but it is $40). I checked the Acronis site and it is as bloated now as the latest versions. I was going to offer to post the zip of my version along with the serial in some binaries group for you, but there are a few "problems" associated with doing this. I wrote to Acronis to see if they'll give me another license number "for a friend" so we'll see what they say. Signature[from a recent conversation] thanatoid: So why did you decide you needed broadband? Neighbor: I wanted to read my e-mail faster. (I think I chose a good name for this thread - I suspect it will run and run, even if mostly with the two of us!) [] >File Manager was dropped, but even though it was included in W95 >and maybe even W98 or 2000, hardly anyone used it) that maybe I _think_ it was still stuck with 8.3 filenames. (Which reminds me: at least the file load/save window in 3.x was a bit more intuitive. The file load and save windows, in '9x and beyond, present "where you are" in a way that's _so_ different from how Explorer does [and how I visualise things], that I have considerable trouble with at least two friends who are new to computing [well, several years now actually], in explaining how to navigate these windows, whereas he's just about understanding Explorer.) >the two pane thing is just too difficult for some. After all, "I >have one computer, [usually] one partition [another subject, >sigh...] so WHY would there be /two/ panes?" I use several partitions, too (I assume that's what you are signing about) ... [] >It is only worse in that the unbelievable screen clutter it >shows would instantly eliminate it as anything I would even want >to try. Albeit I find the red pointers to what is what helpful. Agreed on that last point. [much about TC] >This is /not/ the picture I was referring to, in any case. >Several years ago he had a different screenshot on the main >page, which was about the size of zabkat's screenshot, and also >showed most options enabled, but also had an absolutely /horrid/ >color scheme. I fear I soldier on with Explorer (sometimes two instances). I'm sure both TC and explorer2 or whatever zabkat's one is called (and which I already have) are much better; it's just a matter of the time needed to learn any new prog., versus the time that will be saved by using it after I've done so. (And, you and I may - almost certainly do - do different things.) >After playing with colors for quite a few years when I was a wee >lad (said desktop color schemes often eliciting exclamations of >astonishment from co-workers, who did not even know it was I think I have the defaults, other than cyan instead of white for backgrounds; this does elicit some comments, though I don't think any for a couple of years. [] >> I have another interest: computing for the blind. > >Hearing that kind of thing makes me feel I am a totally useless >space-wasting creature. But let's not get into personal problems >and lifestyles... Oh, I don't actually _produce_ anything, I'm just interested in the subject. I do have a blind couple (in their fifties, but very young at heart, as is often the case I've found) who are friends, and I observe with interest their experiences; I've helped them out a lot, but not written any of the software they use (in fact I've done very little programming for decades [other than VHDL which is a very different matter, and that not for a few years]); my help has been in building, installing, and so on, and also describing. >I would assume you have heard of Ray Kurzweil, a true genius, >responsible for a fantastic music synthesizer (since bought by >Kawaii - I believe - as Kurzweil moved on to other interests) >who also made the first ever book-reading machine for the blind. >I have no idea how much it cost, but I know that Stevie Wonder >had one. That was in the late 70's IIRC. I didn't know the Ray part, or in fact that it was an individual, or the music bit; I was aware of the concept of "a Kurzweill machine", as a stand-alone scanner/speech synthesizer, which apparently was in some public libraries (very few in this country, I think). Of course now scanning and OCR are functions of most PCs, and in fact the OCR that comes free with scanners these days really isn't bad (though the ability to read light-text-on-dark arrived quite late in the day, and may still not be in some of the free ones); having attended a few exhibitions with my friends, I know that stand-alone scanners still exist (not everybody can use or even wants to a computer), though these days they tend to be about the size of a large A4 flatbed scanner only (though somewhat deeper), rather than the big-photocopier-like thing I saw telly coverage of when I first became aware of the Kurzweills. [] >I still remember the astonishment and bewilderment as my co- >workers saw me use the alt-tab combination... "I did not know >whether to laugh or to cry..." I must admit that there's an add-on to Alt-Tab in XP (Microsoft produced but not official - bit like TweakUI, in fact I think it is called a powertoy) which I like, which gives you a miniaturised screenshot of the tasks you're switching through rather than just an icon - useful if you've got more than one instance of the same thing running. (The Vista alt-tab is way over the top - a sort of 3d thing a bit like a pharmacist's rolling cupboard ...) [] >I asked and was told in another group - they were VERY helpful - >that XP allows you to install it ALONG with another Win OS, >usually 98 or ME. /And/ it appears XP does /not/ have to be on That is my understanding too. However (and this may depend on the version of XP, and/or what you answer at various points), if you just try to install it, it _does_ take over; I'm not sure what you have to do to force it to be (a) boot-menuable (b) on other than C: - if you find out, please share. [] >You mean a microscope whose image is shown on the screen, and it >works with XP out of the box? Surely you MUST have installed >SOME drivers! No - if you think about it, a microscope is just a camera as far as the OS is concerned - at least a cheap one like this one is, there's no software control of magnification, focusing, or lighting, those are all just switches/knobs on the body. XP has basic interfacing with (web)cameras built in. I can't remember if it just popped up a preview screen after connection or if I had to start from a TWAIN-compliant app. (in my case IrfanView but I lent it to a colleague who just used the built-in - and not bad - image software). >(Just read your recent post in the 98 group. Didn't you say it >worked perfectly well in the post I'm replying to? BTW, booting The microscope worked fine under XP; is it the microscope you're referring to? >in "safe mode" and adding drivers 1 by 1 is a nightmare. Just my >opinion. Hope you figure out another way.) Yes, especially since I don't think it is the driver as such that is at fault. >> Unfortunately, it is getting increasingly hard to get new >hardware to run under '9x - a lot of it just won't, and even >that which does, I have the feeling that I'm having to spend >more time fighting it than I used to. > >Well, so far I have been forced to just junk them. But there has What, you've bought hardware and chucked it? >really been VERY little really innovative written since the >90's, IMO. The old programs are smaller, run faster, have no >bloat, and their authors should be suing the people who are re- >writing them with new names and 30 MB of eye candy and >/occasionally/ some (mostly useless) add'l "features". Well, things to do with video _are_ better, I think. >Of course, I am just a home user. I'm sure it's a different >story with scientists etc. If you mean those who use computers as part of their work (for other than general "office" tasks), I don't know that a lot of them use Windows at all, other than in some cases as a front end. >>> watched almost the same screen for 12+ years (I have a >>> wallpaper changer and LOTS of various wallpapers most of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >MPP had multiple undo and other great features YEARS before >Photoshop did). I just meant that the wallpaper-changer I use is Panorama 32 (http://www.ivory.org/oldwebsite/panorama.html). [] >I never made the Teletubs connection, but you are /so/ correct. >I saw a few moments of a TT episode once, and it /really/ >creeped me out. I don't know WHAT the future generations will be >like, and I don't WANT to know. British children's TV has a long history of being surreal, and (allegedly - though I think unintentionally) subversive. From the flowerpot men, through the Magic Roundabout (a French or Belgian puppet series, perfectly ordinary in the original; however, the chap who put English words to it didn't speak that language, so made up his own storylines, which were a bit - other. Eric Thompson, father of actress Emma). [] >Well, you MUST have heard this famous quote: >"Let's face it, the average computer user has the brain of a >Spider Monkey." - Bill Gates, about his customers. To be fair, he's probably right. I think he gets a bad press: I'm fairly sure he was a good software engineer in the early days - my first computer (which I built myself, really built with a soldering iron), with its 8K of memory, had a Microsoft BASIC, as did many other home computers of that period. I think a lot of what Bill himself gets accused of is largely due to what Microsoft has become - plus, he has handed over control for a lot of things (I don't just mean to do with his recent "retirement"), in a way with which I can sympathise as I get older. He's made some fine howlers too of course (the 640K one is oft-quoted, though usually out of context) - but haven't we all? [] >So I hear, and so as long as I can make it not look like a 5 >year old's (Spider Monkey's?) playroom and /hopefully/ use [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >would not run on XP - but if I can keep 98SE, there is obviously >no problem. Well, I don't think they can co-exist to _that_ extent - I think it's a boot choice, i. e. you're running one or the other. But as I said in an earlier post, _I_ haven't found anything that I still actually want to use that won't run under XP (even Xtree, in as much as it ran under '9x [i. e. no long filenames], which even works with external drives like pen drives and so on). [] ><SNIP> ><SNIP> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >photography when I was in my late teens and 20's, but the last >time I took any photos and enjoyed doing it was about 20 years Do get a cheap one and play a bit - the enjoyment comes back, enhanced by (a) instant review (within the limits of the display) and (b) no worries about the cost of film. Oh, and unless you're going to print things out on A4, don't use maximum resolution all the time! I still use my old - and first, really - Fuji 0.8 megapixel one, and most of the time don't feel the need for anything else. (After all, how many megapixels does my graphics card produce, and that's where I'll look at them most of the time.) >ago. I have two 35mm cameras (a $10 Vivitar and a used East- >German Practica SLR with a Japanese 'Takumar' lens which is not >bad at all), but I can not even remember when I last used either >one. Ah, the old M42 screw thread lenses - you could get excellent ones for a song, because everyone wanted bayonet fittings. I still have my old Zenit [Russian, I think; very heavy!], though like you haven't used it in anger for years. (I do use the digital - it's just a point-and-shoot, no zoom or anything [and IGNORE digital zoom] - a fair bit, though.) >>> I once spent about 15 seconds trying to comprehend the >>> principle behind Sudoku and what pleasure can be gained [] >I hate crosswords. I can't even do the National Enquirer ones! I I take it that's general knowledge rather than cryptic. [] >(Out of curiosity, tried to do one from the Chicago Tribune >yesterday. What a nightmare. It's official - I have become a >moron.) No, you just have better things to do with your mind/time (-:! [Acronis etc.] >> Does imply a BIOS that can boot from CD. > >I think all BIOS's from 95-96 or so onwards can boot from "any" >source, but there's more to it than that. I have my current Hmm, I thought it was a bit later than that that it became universal (for example, I'm pretty sure the '98 CD isn't self-booting), but you could be right. >image on the HD as well as on CD-R's with all the older ones and >if you reboot from Acronis it will restore the image from the HD >as well - never even entering into DOS - I /assume/ it passes >through the BIOS. Ah, can it make a floppy version of itself (to use an HD backup)? Realistically, unless it uses some fiendish compression/encryption algorithm (for which I can see no justification), it doesn't actually [] >> Do >> you know the Last Freeware version site, as well [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >are way too many!) but what REALLY annoys me is that they always >have the latest version ONLY, and quite often when it's an older Indeed. That's why I like oldversion and LastFreewareVersion. (Incidentally, I have somewhere copies of Windows 1 and 2, though I've never played with them, and Netscape 0.9, which I remember actually using. Oh, and an early Word, too [I normally use Word 97 Burgundy].) >program, often the DL link is to the author's web site, which in >many cases no longer exists. INFURIATING. But then again, WHO >could keep up? Indeed. >Here's a nice one if you're not familiar with it: >http://freeware.intrastar.net Hmm. Your post pinned as "keep". [] >I am pretty sure all versions work with 95 (except maybe the >latest) and I am also pretty sure ver 6 and 7 were still >relatively unbloated. (Acronis) >> And, someone's written a version - called >> ERUNT, google for it - that works under XP (and, as you'd [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I have looked at ERUNT and it was a little confusing, and I >think unnecessary... Hmm - you've probably never used ERU/ERD, then. Although not a full backup by any means, it _does_ backup about a dozen files - including the registry - and is much quicker to restore from than any full backup could be, since it only restores those files; I've quite often used it to restore machines that wouldn't even go into Windows, or did so but with some infuriating quirk, including an endless rebooting loop. Basically, you just run it from a working system, tell it where to put the saved files (it asks; if I was doing it now on this machine, I'd specify C:\ERD\20080817.000 - keeping to 8.3 filenames of course, though it doesn't force you to). If I then wanted to restore to how it is now, I'd start up in DOS, navigate to that directory, and type erd, and it would restore things. (It puts a little executable with the saved files.) If you haven't used it, try it, it won't break anything (assuming you've got a '95 disc - I'm not sure it's on the '98 one). >What I like about Acronis is that ALL the programs I had to have >to make sure I could salvage my machine when it "went boom" have >gone into retirement. )-: >Anyway, I looked for drive imaging freeware that would run on >any system and here's one I found that looks fairly good. (There >were several free ones but they only run on 2000 and up, VERY >annoying.) > >http://www.miray.de/products/sat.hdclone.html As I say, posting marked for keeping ... it's always the restore side that concerns me. I may have a look. [] SignatureJ. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message