 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows 98 / General Topics / November 2006WIN98SE UPDATES FROM CIRCA & AFTER THE FREE MS SECURITY U-DATE (2-
Greetings, Does anybody have the updates (excluding Outlook, .Net, IE-6, Animated Web Character) from around & after the time (2004, February) that Microsoft sent the free Security Update with a Lite copy of E-Trust). I am interested in the earlier IDE, etc, as well as later updates. I am disabled & on a limited budget, but mayhaps we could work out a partial barter or trade). E-mail - onerarebird@hotmail.com or gonzoriginal@netzero.com (John L. Rusciani - Williamstown, NJ) Thanks in advance for your prompt response. Peace, gj I have them all, Gonzo, but it would take some time to access them (they're on an external HD that isn't currently connected to this system) and sort out what you want, and I'm pretty swamped with chores for some time to come. On the other hand, you can go to Windows Updates Catalog and get them all yourself. Go to http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/catalog/en/default.asp  SignatureGary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm http://grystmill.com/articles/security.htm > Greetings, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Peace, > gj =?Utf-8?B?Z29uem9qb2hu?= > Greetings, > > Does anybody have the updates (excluding Outlook, .Net, > IE-6, Animated Web Character) from around & after the time > (2004, February) that Microsoft sent the free Security > Update with a Lite copy of E-Trust). This probably has all you need, in one nice zip file: http://exuberant.ms11.net/98sesp.html >This probably has all you need, in one nice zip file: >http://exuberant.ms11.net/98sesp.html Hi t I was thinking about getting 98lite, do you happen to know which how these two go together. Would you install Lite first then the updates? Best regards Tony >>This probably has all you need, in one nice zip file: >>http://exuberant.ms11.net/98sesp.html [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I was thinking about getting 98lite, do you happen to know which how >these two go together. Would you install Lite first then the updates? Oops, that would read better as; >I was thinking about getting 98lite, do you happen to know how >these two go together. Would you install Lite first then the updates? Best regards Tony >>>This probably has all you need, in one nice zip file: >>>http://exuberant.ms11.net/98sesp.html [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Tony OS first, Lite at the time of install or later (it is reversible etc), then whatever updates you need. FWIW, I have NOT installed ANY updates and I am just FINE. Just don't use IE/OE or Office. >OS first, Lite at the time of install or later (it is reversible >etc), then whatever updates you need. FWIW, I have NOT installed >ANY updates and I am just FINE. Just don't use IE/OE or Office. Many thanks t, I've not used IE/OE or Office for many years now. Now that I've had a look at the Lite site its main selling point seems to be the un-hooking of IE. Maybe I'll change my mind and just keep on cruising as I am :) Many thanks for your time and trouble. Best regards Tony >>OS first, Lite at the time of install or later (it is >>reversible etc), then whatever updates you need. FWIW, I [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Tony You are VERY polite. Actually, this was the LEAST troublesome post I have ever made, probably. Aside from ALLOWING to eliminate IE, the MAIN point of 98LITE is that it replaces three basic system files with the 95B/C versions, getting rid of the disease called "active desktop" and a few other things, and making the system run MUCH faster with less resources required. It is mainly for people who have a 486 with 16 or 32MB RAM or something like that. HOWEVER - there is a small price. SOME programs which would run fine on the "original" 98SE, don't. OTOH, I FIRMLY believe that ANY well-written program should run on ANY 32bit platform. And there are MANY of them - none by Microsoft, of course. Have fun. >>>OS first, Lite at the time of install or later (it is >>>reversible etc), then whatever updates you need. FWIW, I >>>have NOT installed ANY updates and I am just FINE. Just >>>don't use IE/OE or Office. That's interesting. I don't think I've installed any updates either - if I have, it would have been for some specific want, not just "for the hell of it". I don't use IE - in fact it wouldn't be on my system if it weren't for some brain-dead app. that wouldn't install withut it being there, and that was years ago and I probably should get round to removing it again. I _do_ use Office (well, Word), but not Macros - is that more or less OK? (The machine on which I mostly use Word doesn't have an internet connection, so it probably is!) >> Many thanks t, I've not used IE/OE or Office for many years >> now. Now that I've had a look at the Lite site its main >> selling point seems to be the un-hooking of IE. Maybe >> I'll change my mind and just keep on cruising as I am :) If it's only IE removal you're interested in (see thanatoid's points below though), there is a simpler utility (IIRR, the same one runs under quite a lot of versions of Windows) called IEradicator; it used to be available from the lite site, not sure it is still since they went a bit more commercial. >> Many thanks for your time and trouble. >> >> Best regards >> >> Tony You're welcome (I know you weren't talking to me!). > You are VERY polite. Actually, this was the LEAST troublesome > post I have ever made, probably. > > Aside from ALLOWING to eliminate IE, the MAIN point of 98LITE is > that it replaces three basic system files with the 95B/C (I thought it was only B, C having IE? BICBW ...) > versions, getting rid of the disease called "active desktop" and > a few other things, and making the system run MUCH faster with > less resources required. It is mainly for people who have a 486 > with 16 or 32MB RAM or something like that. Yes: the old shell seems _much_ more stable (and not insignificantly faster, I think, too). The one thing I miss when using it (you only use it if you select the "sleek" option in '98lite) is the multiple file copy progress bar, but on the whole I can love without that for the other advantages. Plus (or minus): > HOWEVER - there is a small price. SOME programs which would run > fine on the "original" 98SE, don't. Note: I've found at least one (I think more) where it is only the _installer_ that needs the later (98) shell: I switched back to it to install the software, then went back, and the software works fine. (Not all: I have a slide scanner, the TWAIN driver for which doesn't work at all [scanner just doesn't appear in TWAIN list] under the older shell.) > OTOH, I FIRMLY believe that ANY well-written program should run > on ANY 32bit platform. And there are MANY of them - none by > Microsoft, of course. Hear hear (on both points). > Have fun. >>>>OS first, Lite at the time of install or later (it is >>>>reversible etc), then whatever updates you need. FWIW, I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > there, and that was years ago and I probably should get > round to removing it again. I have IE installed for the sole reason that it is the only way to read chm help files (WHAT THE f.ck WAS WRONG WITH HLP FILES, MS???). I use OffByOne and Opera for browsers. > I _do_ use Office (well, Word), > but not Macros - is that more or less OK? (The machine on > which I mostly use Word doesn't have an internet > connection, so it probably is!) If you don't use macros and aren't connected to the net with that machine, no problem - unless you get an infected file on a disc/k. But you can safely remove most of the files with names like "??SCRIPT.*" from the win\sys directory. The VB files like Vb40032.dll are fine. The scripting serves no purpose whatsoever except letting MS and others take over your computer. (You know who you are: Yes, I know, don't bother, OK?) A FEW are different - like PSCRIPT.INI, etc. Copy them all to another directory and see what happens for a few days in case you removed one that you shouldn't have. >>> Many thanks t, I've not used IE/OE or Office for many >>> years now. Now that I've had a look at the Lite site its >>> main selling point seems to be the un-hooking of IE. >>> Maybe I'll change my mind and just keep on cruising as I >>> am :) The speed of today's machines and the fact that most people have switched to XP makes the IE-removal the main attraction. Since I will NEVER have XP on any machine I own, I haven't bothered *reading* through the features, but I remember from glancing at them that there are some other valuable safety and privacy options. Also, XP tends to run a gazillion of largely unnecessary, resource-hogging, or outright dangerous processes by default, and Lite helps you manage those as well. > If it's only IE removal you're interested in (see > thanatoid's points below though), there is a simpler > utility (IIRR, the same one runs under quite a lot of > versions of Windows) called IEradicator; it used to be > available from the lite site, not sure it is still since > they went a bit more commercial. <SNIP> >> Aside from ALLOWING to eliminate IE, the MAIN point of >> 98LITE is that it replaces three basic system files with >> the 95B/C > > (I thought it was only B, C having IE? BICBW ...) These 3 files have nothing to do with the IE removal feature. >> versions, getting rid of the disease called "active >> desktop" and a few other things, and making the system run [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > but on the whole I can love without that for the other > advantages. I'm not even sure what you mean, but just get a real file manager. (WE appears to have been designed on purpose to let you do almost nothing with an incredible amount of hassle.) www.ghisler.com <SNIP> >> HOWEVER - there is a small price. SOME programs which >> would run fine on the "original" 98SE, don't. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > switched back to it to install the software, then went > back, and the software works fine. I haven't ran into that, but as a rule, if a program uses the MSI installer, I find an alternative. There are ALWAYS alternatives. > (Not all: I have a slide > scanner, the TWAIN driver for which doesn't work at all > [scanner just doesn't appear in TWAIN list] under the older > shell.) I call TWAIN Technology Which All Idiots Need - no offense. (I believe it is generally understood to stand for Technology Without An Interesting Name). I use the scanning software that came with the scanner (or a separate scanning program superior to that if you have one). I do all the scans I need to do, shut down the scanner, and then open the OCR or image app and keep on working. I DID try TWAIN when it first came out, and I saw NO advantages whatsoever, only considerable incompatibility, slow-downs and crashing. Plus the TWAIN plug-ins or drivers, whatever they actually are, were limited compared to the "pure" scanning software. I'm sure things must have improved, but I don't care. I believe in one tool for one job and doing one thing at a time. <SNIP> [] > I have IE installed for the sole reason that it is the only way > to read chm help files (WHAT THE f.ck WAS WRONG WITH HLP FILES, > MS???). Agreed with your rant! However, ISTR reading somewhere that you don't need the full IE to handle them - just a core engine (IIRR it was contained in two or three .dll files, BICBW there). > I use OffByOne and Opera for browsers. Interesting. I dabbled with Ob1 a few years ago, when trying to get someone up and running with _very_ little disc space, and found it worked, but was very limited in functionality; I suspect it has imporved a lot. (I haven't played with Opera for years.) [] > But you can safely remove most of the files with names like > "??SCRIPT.*" from the win\sys directory. The VB files like [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > another directory and see what happens for a few days in case > you removed one that you shouldn't have. All useful to know, thanks. [] >>> Aside from ALLOWING to eliminate IE, the MAIN point of >>> 98LITE is that it replaces three basic system files with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > These 3 files have nothing to do with the IE removal feature. You're right, I was getting the shellswitching and the IE removal functions confused. >>> versions, getting rid of the disease called "active >>> desktop" and a few other things, and making the system run >>> MUCH faster with less resources required. It is mainly for >>> people who have a 486 with 16 or 32MB RAM or something >>> like that. I can't argue with your "mainly" as I don't know, but I certainly still use it on a 2.4G machine. >> Yes: the old shell seems _much_ more stable (and not >> insignificantly faster, I think, too). The one thing I miss >> when using it (you only use it if you select the "sleek" >> option in '98lite) is the multiple file copy progress bar, >> but on the whole I can love without that for the other (Oops I meant live ...) >> advantages. > > I'm not even sure what you mean, but just get a real file What I meant was: copy (or move) several files: you get a progress bar (underneath that irritating little animation of pieces of paper being thrown from left to right). With the '95 shell, it restarts for each file copied, which is less (i. e. not at all really) informative if you're copying lots of files in one go. > manager. (WE appears to have been designed on purpose to let you > do almost nothing with an incredible amount of hassle.) I've seen worse (-: ... but better too; I still use Xtree (Gold 3.0) for quite a few things! (I suppose I really ought to buy Ztree to get the LFNs.) > www.ghisler.com Looks interesting (for anyone else who didn't spot it - t. posted that as a source of a better file manager). [] >> Note: I've found at least one (I think more) where it is >> only the _installer_ that needs the later (98) shell: I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > MSI installer, I find an alternative. There are ALWAYS > alternatives. I can't remember which installer it was. >> (Not all: I have a slide >> scanner, the TWAIN driver for which doesn't work at all [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > believe it is generally understood to stand for Technology > Without An Interesting Name). I've heard conflicting stories there - even including a plausible thing it _could_ stand for, as well as the suggestion (seems unlikely to me) that the above was a back-formation and it didn't stand for anything initially. > I use the scanning software that came with the scanner (or a > separate scanning program superior to that if you have one). I > do all the scans I need to do, shut down the scanner, and then > open the OCR or image app and keep on working. Hmm, scanning software that came with the scanner - from what you're saying, sounds as if it is something that _isn't_ TWAIN; I haven't seen a non-TWAIN hardware driver for ages. The original idea of TWAIN I thought was a good one - a common interface that all graphical software could use; I certainly access most of my TWAIN devices from within IrfanView. However, the TWAIN interface on a lot of more recent scanning devices seems to be trying to do more and more within itself rather than just being a simple interface ... )-: - anyway, for this particular slide scanner, I have no option. > I DID try TWAIN when it first came out, and I saw NO advantages > whatsoever, only considerable incompatibility, slow-downs and > crashing. Plus the TWAIN plug-ins or drivers, whatever they > actually are, were limited compared to the "pure" scanning > software. I'm sure things must have improved, but I don't care. > I believe in one tool for one job and doing one thing at a time. Ah - your "pure scanning software" sounds like it is more than just scanning software, if you find other things limited compared to it; I _want_ a limited interface, and I'll do whatever manipulation I want afterwards, thank you! I think we are both on the same side here, really. > <SNIP> > [] >> I have IE installed for the sole reason that it is the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > engine (IIRR it was contained in two or three .dll files, > BICBW there). I'm certain that is probably true (talk about double-speak!) but I just can't be bothered to find out the gory details. >> I use OffByOne and Opera for browsers. > > Interesting. I dabbled with Ob1 a few years ago, when > trying to get someone up and running with _very_ little > disc space, and found it worked, but was very limited in > functionality; I suspect it has imporved a lot. Its "limited" functionality (which is debatable - I largely find flash intros made by failed wannabe filmmakers and Java - not to mention ActiveX - curses of the www) is its biggest asset. Opera used to boast about being fastest. It may be fast, but NOTHING beats Ob1 for speed, plus it is TOTALLY safe - NOTHING can get at it, as it simply does not recognize things like pop-ups, auto-opening Java windows, malicious applets, etc. etc. All *I* care about on the web is the text and the images (the "page design" is totally irrelevant IMHO and most of the time either terribly pedestrian or just plain ugly). Usenet for music. Not really into movies and video (BION, I am still using the 33.6 USRobotics modem which I ordered with this custom-built machine 9 years ago). I HAVE d'ld a few old fave flv videos from youtube (nothing I wanted has been deleted by Google BTW, perhaps not YET) - using Opera which saves them as tmp files (Ob1 doesn't even HAVE a cache). I also use Opera to do my banking. Everything else - Ob1. It's the greatest - IMHO. The new version added tabs (although you can run as many instances of Ob1 as your memory will handle anyway) and support for png files. AFAIK, it always had secure encryption, except that most sites (like banks and shops) which you want it for also use Java heavily, the idiots. >(I haven't played with Opera for years.) I still use 7.21 or something. Why upgrade if it does everything you need? (My general philosophy, as applies to computers, and, - regrettably, these days only theoretically - girlfriends.) >>>> versions, getting rid of the disease called "active >>>> desktop" and a few other things, and making the system [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I can't argue with your "mainly" as I don't know, but I > certainly still use it on a 2.4G machine. Well, TBH, I don't know about "mainly" - I have a 2GHz machine on which I use it myself, but the info on the program stresses how it will run on a 486. Still, no argument that is always nice to have some help eliminating some of the MS garbage. > What I meant was: copy (or move) several files: you get a > progress bar (underneath that irritating little animation > of pieces of paper being thrown from left to right). Irritating is an understatement! > With > the '95 shell, it restarts for each file copied, which is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> let you do almost nothing with an incredible amount of >> hassle.) > I've seen worse (-: ... but better too; I still use Xtree > (Gold 3.0) for quite a few things! (I suppose I really > ought to buy Ztree to get the LFNs.) I've tried AT LEAST 20 file managers, and I have never seen anything worse than WE - not counting fm's BASED on WE, and attempting to just add a couple of (usually stupid) features. XTree is great. I still use it at least once a week. It was funny to see how perfectly it handled the "no more DOS!" Win95 and 98! (Ever notice how ALL MS files in the win dirs are 8.3 format???) For some reason, I could never get ZTree to run on my machine. Plus it's just too complicated for me, frankly. But I have great respect for the author(s?). That was a good thing to do. >> www.ghisler.com > > Looks interesting (for anyone else who didn't spot it - t. > posted that as a source of a better file manager). An MVP I discussed this with once said (among other things) that the screenshot was horrible, and I agree - but it shows EVERYTHING enabled, and the colors are, well, a little gaudy. But the display is totally customizable - all I have on MY screen are the menus, drive icons, and the two panels, all in nice shades of grey which I set up in "DisplaySet". As for ease of use and speed, for example, to create a new directory on a different drive, and move everything from some place to that new directory, you need THREE keystrokes (not counting naming the new directory). I show this to people, they shake their heads, say it's amazingly mindblowing, and then go back home and continue to use WE. I will NEVER understand this. >>> Note: I've found at least one (I think more) where it is >>> only the _installer_ that needs the later (98) shell: I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I can't remember which installer it was. I have NEVER run into a problem with ANY installers other than MSI. And MSI is not even a serious problem, it's just a bloated pig which leaves a muddy smelly trail all over your computer, like everything MS makes these days. I once DL'd a shareware program which used MSI and the MSI accounted for about 80% of the DL! (I deleted the whole thing immediately and then went and washed my hands!) >>> (Not all: I have a slide >>> scanner, the TWAIN driver for which doesn't work at all [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > suggestion (seems unlikely to me) that the above was a > back-formation and it didn't stand for anything initially. I'd be interested in some other interpretations - if you remember. I don't know what a back-formation is, duuh. Oh, you mean putting in the words AFTER the acronym exists? It might very well just stand for the same thing the word stands for in "the twain shall never meet" - one could argue that with this technology they DO - or that they DON'T - or that they do but with no worthwhile results (my personal opinion). >> I use the scanning software that came with the scanner (or >> a separate scanning program superior to that if you have [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > _isn't_ TWAIN; I haven't seen a non-TWAIN hardware driver > for ages. Well, my scanner is about 5 years old, but I DO occasionally look at new hardware just to see what is happening, and AFAIK, ALL scanners come with stand-alone software as well as a TWAIN driver. I could be wrong, of course. I just wish I had the HPIIcx we used to have at work. Now THAT was a scanner, all 25 lbs of it! > The original idea of TWAIN I thought was a good one - a > common interface that all graphical software could use; I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > interface ... )-: - anyway, for this particular slide > scanner, I have no option. I don't know what you have but I would be EXTREMELY surprised if there wasn't a standalone scanning app for it on the manufacturer's site, or even in your house - it may just install the TWAIN version by default. I CAN'T be the only person in the world who doesn't like TWAIN! There used to be a nice (BEAUTIFUL hard cardboard box) VERY customizable and advanced for its time scanning app. called Ofoto about 9 or 10 years ago (since then dead and buried - last I looked, Ofoto was an image-file-sharing web site). Maybe there are some others around. Might be worth looking. >> I DID try TWAIN when it first came out, and I saw NO >> advantages whatsoever, only considerable incompatibility, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > limited compared to it; I _want_ a limited interface, and > I'll do whatever manipulation I want afterwards, thank you! That was a long time ago, I'm sure the new TWAIN drivers are basically equal in features to the standalone apps and that all the bugs have been worked out. I just like to do things one at a time - and having to load Photoshop just to scan something which you are going to OCR later makes NO sense to me. Actually, there are a few things which you HAVE to do DURING the scan and which can NOT be corrected afterwards, no matter what. My scanner is garbage, and the software offers only the most basic options, but REALLY good scanning software allows you to adjust not only brightness and contrast but also gamma, individual color (ie RGB) saturation, etc . However, I am quite lucky in that my crap scanner reproduces colors PERFECTLY. Many don't. And the only setting I changed permanently was raising brightness by 10%. (I also put a sheet of black matte paper on the highly reflective shiny white lid cover to minimize bleed- through.) > I think we are both on the same side here, really. Agreed. Regards, t. [] > XTree is great. I still use it at least once a week. It was > funny to see how perfectly it handled the "no more DOS!" Win95 > and 98! (Ever notice how ALL MS files in the win dirs are 8.3 > format???) Yes, I'd noticed that (-:! > For some reason, I could never get ZTree to run on my machine. > Plus it's just too complicated for me, frankly. But I have great > respect for the author(s?). That was a good thing to do. My thoughts/experiences _exactly_. (Well, can't remember if I didn't get it to work, or did but just found it too complicated as you say.) [] >>> I call TWAIN Technology Which All Idiots Need - no >>> offense. (I believe it is generally understood to stand [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > remember. I don't know what a back-formation is, duuh. Oh, you > mean putting in the words AFTER the acronym exists? Sorry, can't remember. Yes, though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-formation suggests it is more words than acronyms, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backronym (which I _had_ seen before, but had forgotten) is more what I meant. [] > Well, my scanner is about 5 years old, but I DO occasionally > look at new hardware just to see what is happening, and AFAIK, > ALL scanners come with stand-alone software as well as a TWAIN > driver. I could be wrong, of course. I just wish I had the Now you mention it, I think most ordinary A4 ones do have something very basic, which is presented as just a way of testing that the thing is working, though I suppose some have save to file functionality, which is all you need. I'm pretty certain my slide scanner (Pacific Imaging IIRR) only has the TWAIN driver though. [] > That was a long time ago, I'm sure the new TWAIN drivers are > basically equal in features to the standalone apps and that all > the bugs have been worked out. I just like to do things one at a > time - and having to load Photoshop just to scan something > which you are going to OCR later makes NO sense to me. Certainly, something like Photoshop (or Paint Shop Pro), I don't blame you. I use IrfanView for almost everything image-related, and that doesn't take any time (that I am aware of - obviously it must take _some_!) to load. (The installer is still less than a floppy's worth! It's _very_ fast, especially for a keyboard-junkie like me; give it a try - with version 3.99, he's finally got round to the centred zoom!) > Actually, there are a few things which you HAVE to do DURING the > scan and which can NOT be corrected afterwards, no matter what. > My scanner is garbage, and the software offers only the most > basic options, but REALLY good scanning software allows you to > adjust not only brightness and contrast but also gamma, > individual color (ie RGB) saturation, etc . However, I am quite Most image-manipulation software offers those too (even IrfanView). It depends on whether the adjustments that are apparently being made "during" scanning are actually altering the analogue parameters of the scanner - lamp brightness, sensor bias, etc. - or just modifying the data as (after) it comes through; if they really do, then indeed, those are things that you can't do afterwards. > lucky in that my crap scanner reproduces colors PERFECTLY. Many > don't. And the only setting I changed permanently was raising > brightness by 10%. (I also put a sheet of black matte paper on > the highly reflective shiny white lid cover to minimize bleed- > through.) When you changed brightness, did the lamp brightness increase? [] > [] >> XTree is great. I still use it at least once a week. It [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > try - with version 3.99, he's finally got round to the > centred zoom!) (/laughter/ Funny how sometimes the most elementary features somehow escape the authors of even very good programs.) I tried IrfanView years ago and didn't like the interface/design philosophy. But I agree it is a great program, let alone for free. <SNIP> > When you changed brightness, did the lamp brightness > increase? [] Not that I noticed (not to mention I don't like to stare at very bright lights...). AFAIK, the lamps/LCD's in scanners can not change their operational parameters (ie brightness and color temperature - although I suppose they DO very slowly dim with time like backlights in LCD screens do), nor can the speed of the mechanism - whether it's a line art, greyscale or 32bit color scan (the SIZE of the resulting image file IS of course affected). All the software scan adjustments affect the *processing* of the raw image, which always comes into the computer the same - AFAIK. But like with film/video sound, when you have "presence" (AKA "room noise") and edit the dialogue and end up with short spaces without the "presence", it sounds TERRIBLE. (I have heard it in MANY productions! But sound crews who know what they're doing usually record a few minutes of the location's "presence" and it's looped "just in case" as an additional track during the sound mix.) Anyway, if you want to have good sound, you have to minimize the audible background noises to the ABSOLUTE minimum possible WHILE recording, just like you have to set certain image control parameters DURING the scanning - because once it's "there", it's "there" forever and not even Photoshop or GIMP will fix it - either AT ALL, or not without adversely - sometimes severely - affecting some other aspect of the image. Beyond the contrast and brightness controls I don't think my scanner software has any other controls to speak of. (Aside from the resolution, which goes up to 3,600 dpi or something - bullshit of course ["interpolated"], not to mention no one needs to scan ANYTHING at more than 300 dpi to begin with - slides being the exception of course - but consumers like big impressive numbers). The RGB's CAN be adjusted individually but as I said, even though the scanner is cheap crap, it reproduces colors perfectly, so I never had to mess with adjusting the RGB. (Actually, stupid me, I just looked at the help file for the FIRST time and the three sliders are for adjusting GAMMA of the three colors - so the crap scanner software is much better than I thought!) It also defaults (I've tried everything) to automatically opening MS Paint after each scan to show the results at 100% (I save all original scans as BMP's anyway so it's OK) but after a few weeks of silent cursing I realized it is actually not a bad way to go, because the (only) advantage of Paint is that it is super tiny and fast, so I can almost instantly see if the scan is OK and then just close it. Of course, Paint opens again the moment the next scan is completed, ad infinitum, but I've gotten used to it. It all goes into a "raw scans" directory I've set up and then I turn off the scanner, open the image editor or OCR program and keep on working. Regards, t. SignatureViolent disagreements and the usual abuse expected and welcomed. >> I'd be interested in some other interpretations - if you >> remember. I don't know what a back-formation is, duuh. Oh, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backronym (which I _had_ seen > before, but had forgotten) is more what I meant. P.S. Thanks for that link! A great read! > This probably has all you need, in one nice zip file: > http://exuberant.ms11.net/98sesp.html is it 98SP1 or SP2? what does the '1a' mean? (or is it sp2 dot 1a) it has been noted here that sp2 is not a good idea to have. (for various reasons.) 98 Thanks for all of your time, help, & links. Peace, gj Noted by whom? And this is the first post I see by "98 Rules" in this group. How can you make such a sweeping statement if you've obviously never spent much time here? Or are you one of the regular trolls with a new mask? SignatureGary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm http://grystmill.com/articles/security.htm >> This probably has all you need, in one nice zip file: >> http://exuberant.ms11.net/98sesp.html [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > 98 > Noted by whom? And this is the first post I see by "98 Rules" in this group. > How can you make such a sweeping statement if you've obviously never spent > much time here? Or are you one of the regular trolls with a new mask? 1)I still believe 98 rules 2)The question was to thanatoid regarding the site link, and whether it is for SP1 or SP2 3)Define Troll (through your eyes of course) 98 rules 1. If you'd gone to the link, you'd have noticed that it isn't a Microsoft SP at all. 2. Quote: "it has been noted here that sp2 is not a good idea to have". It is this statement to which I am referring. You use the term "here". I presume that you meant "here in this newsgroup". I've never seen "98 Rules" post in this newsgroup. Thus my query regarding how you could make such a statement about recommendations "here". 3. My questioning your bona fides is due to having also read a few other posts from you yesterday. In one, you bad-mouth Dell without offering any real advice. In another, you take Gonzojohn to task for not explainign what ATI is, and for not fully detailing a product he suggested called CoolBits. Just where do you get off correcting someone else's posts. FYI, there was nothing wrong with his post. If you want to know the details about CoolBits, go find out. ATI, particularly in the context of that thread, is obviously another brand of video adapter. If you need to know more, Google it. In all, only *one* of your posts yesterday was a reasonable and useful post, and even then, it was one "correcting" someone else's post. A troll, to me, is someone who's mission isn't to assist others in a peer-to-peer forum, but rather to interject inane or irrelevant material, or to trash-talk, to slam this or that company or person gratutously, or to otherwise exhibit anti-social behavior. While your particular posts yesterday do not quite rise to the level of Troll, they are certainly troll-like, and your reference to "here" suggests that you have been reading/posting here under another name -- another behavior common to trolls. Thus my question. Are you one of the usual trolls who hang out here, now using a new alias, or what? SignatureGary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm http://grystmill.com/articles/security.htm >> Noted by whom? And this is the first post I see by "98 Rules" in this > group. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > 98 rules "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in news:u0$FFQ$GHA.4740@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl: <SNIP> > In all, only *one* of your posts yesterday was a reasonable > and useful post, and even then, it was one "correcting" > someone else's post. A troll, to me, is someone who's that "whose" - not "who is" > mission isn't to assist others in a peer-to-peer forum, but > rather to interject inane or irrelevant material, or to > trash-talk, to slam this or that company or person > gratutously that's "gratuitously" , or to otherwise exhibit anti-social behavior. <SNIP> With all due respect, this is not a moderated group. Just ignore him if you don't like him. My silly spelling corrections above are the equivalent to your entire post to him - who cares, why bother, get a life, etc. Cheers t. | "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in | news:u0$FFQ$GHA.4740@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | | that "whose" - not "who is" That's "that's"— not "that", thatatoid! | > mission isn't to assist others in a peer-to-peer forum, but | > rather to interject inane or irrelevant material, or to | > trash-talk, to slam this or that company or person | > gratutously | | that's "gratuitously" Your spelling is fine near as I can tell, but capitalization & punctuation are lacking! There should be a capital letter somewhere in your name too! | , or to otherwise exhibit anti-social behavior. | [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | are the equivalent to your entire post to him - who cares, why | bother, get a life, etc. Terhune & other MVPs like Harper, Martell, glee & Brian A. DO moderate this NG & cannot abide misinformation & trolling! Certain knowledgeable non-MVPs are almost like that too, like Candlin & AlmostBob! I've dabbled in it, myself! I'm not 100% certain 98 rules is 100% a troll or 90% full of misinformation (nor am I 92% certain Terhune cannot hypnotize him to conform)— BUT I'd certainly hate one day to come here & find nothing but that stuff around! Surely on that day I would willingly subscribe to an XP NG— JUST to burn in it's radiation! Everyone else would go too! Even Colorado would go! | Cheers | t. >> This probably has all you need, in one nice zip file: >> http://exuberant.ms11.net/98sesp.html [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > 98 I have no idea about SP1, SP2, or 1a. I just have the URL in my db of useful sites. I use 98SE Lite and I have NO upgrades installed. I would assume there is nothing REALLY wrong with any SP's as long as you don't use IE which you shouldn't regardless of what Windows OS you're running. Whether you actually NEED any or all of the upgrades is a matter up for discussion. You can choose what to install. I haven't used the package myself, because I know I don't need any upgrades (YMWV). There are dozens of sites offering similar packages if you want more info or a different approach with more choices. Google etc. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.