 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows 98 / General Topics / January 2007I happen to like Win98, and here's why I do
This is a "lead-in", to discussions of why users like Win98. Everywhere on the NET, we find lots of discussions regarding the newer OSs from Microsoft, even here we've seen people expounding upon XPs vastly superior abilities [yeah right]. I think, since we are still using these Win98 OSs, we should have the chance to make our statements on why we do. For me: First, I'll admit there's a measure of comfort involved, lots of years using the OS. It supports all of my peripherals [though of course they were designed around the OS, and I purchased them during its support period]. It never required me to upgrade my computer [except for memory, heck I could even modify it to run on a 386], though it supported all the upgrades that I did over the years until recently. I still use it every day for the Internet, research, document production, occasional: picture manipulation; scanning; playing music; testing programs, and such; hence, all the things I presently need to do. I've even networked it to the newer OSs, at times. IF I pay attention to the security aspects I need to attend to on the Internet, it functions quite well. I'll not ask why I'm supposed to update, obviously if I intend to go the Intel way I will be required to do so, though many of the recent generations of motherboards [non-Intel chip base] and the like, support or supported Win98 to lesser or greater extents. So presently I have to state, I still like this OS. I've tested the newer OSs [to XP], monitored what they provide, and frankly, since I don't need support for the newer Internet glitzy programs, or the newest consumer "gotta have it because its new and nifty" products, I see no need to follow Microsoft's plan to the future, at least yet. What say the other users of Win98? And why do you still use it?  SignatureMEB _______________ > This is a "lead-in", to discussions of why users like Win98. > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > What say the other users of Win98? > And why do you still use it? I was triple booting win98/XP/Vista for fun ...dropped Vista ... the only reason I saw (for myself) to keep XP was I could use files over the 2g limit... other that that , I've made XP look like 98 and flip a coin when I boot :> [....] > the only reason I saw (for myself) to keep XP was I could use files over > the 2g limit... [....] Just swap your Win9x shell32.dll to the new v4.72.3812.620 version and you will now be able to use 2-4 GB files with no limitation. I have and it works just fine. Rick > [....] >> the only reason I saw (for myself) to keep XP was I could use files over [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you will now be able to use 2-4 GB files with no limitation. I have and > it works just fine. ....whoops, actually it's build v4.72.3812.634 (for W98/W98SE) http://www.mdgx.com/files/SHELL98.EXE ..if one prefers just extract the exe and look it over, then manually replace the dll if wanted; however note that the installer is extremely verrrry simple and its mission is only to replace the shell32.dll file on reboot while renaming the original, while also giving the CP AR and uninstall entry which when evoked will completely reverse its install back to original with nothing left over. Simple to install, simple dll upgrade, and as simple to completely reverse - making it ultimately convenient. This later build v4.72.3812.634 corrects an unrelated issue, but on topic to this post, is that a previous build of itself also effectively fixed to allow proper 2-4 GB file usage on W98 with no more limitations - it's a wonderful thing indeed to finally have that taken care of! Confirmed! ..and it's a keeper! The 2-4 GB readme - scroll to the bottom of the installer prompt info box. > Rick >> [....] >>> the only reason I saw (for myself) to keep XP was I could use files over [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >> Rick Thanks for that one Rick ,I'll check that out ...interesting :> [...] > Thanks for that one Rick ,I'll check that out ...interesting :> It's one of the most simplest updates I've ever done, but by far one of the most gratifying ones on a number of levels, in my usage. Rick > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Rick And the verdict is/was that that shell swap works *almost* as well as the older double browse DLL swap one, right? [....] > And the verdict is/was that that shell swap works *almost* as well as the > older double browse DLL swap one, right? My reply where Haggis had metioned: > the only reason I saw (for myself) to keep XP was I could use files over > the 2g limit... ..was to use the file I linked to make 2-4 GB file usage on W9x a simple reality - and for that it works exceptional. My reply to you Bill is yes, the explorer hang on IE6/W98x with v4.72.3812.634 shell.dll in place also works exceptional as well, and I cannot make the hang happen anymore no matter what I do. Yes imho from the broader view it's a better fix than just using the v5 browse*dlls in a few ways, but mainly is being able to leave v6 intact. Rick > [....] > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Rick Well, am I wrong in reading that at least SOME folks had not found it to be as effective (including PCR)? Or maybe I'm misremembering. But I get your point about the consistency advantage of having v6 intact. Oh, but that reminds me: One "anomaly" I've noted when using the IE6 browse DLLs (not the IE55 ones) is that Windows Explorer doesn't retain all my desired display views when I reopen it each time - as explained below: With my current IE55 browse DLLs, and using a windows explorer shortcut (mentioned below), windows explorer (using this customized desktop shortcut) behaves exactly as it should: when I click on the C: icon in the left column in windows explorer, it expands fully so that only the C: drive and its subdirectories are visible in the left pane, just as I want it), and it *stays* that way - expanded for the next time). That doesn't happen if you're using the IE6 browse DLLs. (I haven't tried the new shell32 method, however, but I expect that anomoly would aslo be true there too) NOTE: I am using a windows shortcut on my desktop for C:, with the shortcut switch settings as follows: C:\WINDOWS\EXPLORER.EXE /n,/e,C:\ [...] > Well, am I wrong in reading that at least SOME folks had not found it to On all previous versions prior to the begining of last week was not 100% That's why I specificed version #'s in my post! The newest version for me now is 100% as well as anyone else who's tried it. [...] > NOTE: I am using a windows shortcut on my desktop for C:, with the > shortcut switch settings as follows: C:\WINDOWS\EXPLORER.EXE > /n,/e,C:\ I've never used that before, but have no need to do that but I Do appreciate the notion "you want things how you want it" ..and I feel the same way. I just shortcut'd my C:\ drive to the Desktop and inserted your new line into its properties Target box, and then here's a screenshot of what it does for me anyway: http://rdchauvin.com/BillsShortcutDitty.gif sorry if it does not show up the way you prefer. Rick > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The newest version for me now is 100% as well as anyone else who's tried > it. PCR included? I see he's posted some more in this thread, but I haven't read it yet. :-) More below... > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Rick Nope, it doesn't. And IIRC, it's not the way it used to, in all prior versions of IE/explorer, nor is it the way it's supposed to. If I expand the left pane to only show the C:drive and its subdirectories, it should STAY that way the next time I invoke the shortcut. || [....] || [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] | Well, am I wrong in reading that at least SOME folks had not found it | to be as effective (including PCR)? It didn't appear to be a cure for me, that's right... news:OQpbvFVLHHA.4384@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl ... And I can swear I get mysterious, unexplainable openings of Explorer with that thing in place! But I was only testing the issue of "copy/move/delete of a massive number of files"-- not the issue of size of individual files that can be copied. Neither issue is of great importance to my own use of this computer. | Or maybe I'm misremembering. | But I get your point about the consistency advantage of having v6 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] | With my current IE55 browse DLLs, and using a windows explorer | shortcut (mentioned below), Try replacing the shortcut with a copy of... C:\WINDOWS\EXPLORER.SCF... or a shortcut to that. HOWEVER, the shortcut you describe below DOES work with my IE 6 Browse??.dll's just fine! | windows explorer (using this customized | desktop shortcut) behaves exactly as it should: when I click on the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | shortcut switch settings as follows: C:\WINDOWS\EXPLORER.EXE | /n,/e,C:\ SignatureThanks or Good Luck, There may be humor in this post, and, Naturally, you will not sue, should things get worse after this, PCR pcrrcp@netzero.net [...] > It didn't appear to be a cure for me, that's right... You did not test the latest one, which is much better; however I'm not suggesting that you do test it anymore. > news:OQpbvFVLHHA.4384@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl > ... And I can swear I get mysterious, unexplainable openings of Explorer I have no idea what you mean for that previous version, but to test you simply take the 2500 0byte files and select all on them and delete to the recycle bin, and then from the recycle bin you select all on them and restore ...but you know that already right. ..anyway, you said you didn't want to fool with it anymore and so honor that, and leave it alone. It was not your cup of tea to worry about in the first place. have a nice day ..I hope you got your painting done by now.. Rick | [...] | || It didn't appear to be a cure for me, that's right... | | You did not test the latest one, which is much better; | however I'm not suggesting that you do test it anymore. The version I tested was... Shell32.dll 4.72.3812.620. Not sure I want to try again, but I promise not to speak ill of newer versions. || news:OQpbvFVLHHA.4384@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl || ... And I can swear I get mysterious, unexplainable openings of || Explorer | | I have no idea what you mean for that previous version, In the first test, I was clicking inside OE-- & an Explorer window opened! In a subsequent test, I forget where/what I was clicking when it happened. | but to test | you simply take the 2500 0byte files and select all on them and | delete to the recycle bin, and then from the recycle bin you select | all on them and restore ...but you know that already right. Yea. That's what I always did. I think the fun begins after 7500 accumulated deletes occur. | ..anyway, you said you didn't want to fool with it anymore and so | honor that, and leave it alone. It was not your cup of tea to worry | about in the first place. Right. But I promise not to meanmouth newer versions! | have a nice day | ..I hope you got your painting done by now.. Pretty much all my inside painting except the hall is done-- but there's this porch to go! Painting isn't expected to be too tough-- but I've belly-crawled FOUR times on its sloped, 3-story roof for repairs-- and that ain't done! | Rick SignatureThanks or Good Luck, There may be humor in this post, and, Naturally, you will not sue, should things get worse after this, PCR pcrrcp@netzero.net [...] > In the first test, I was clicking inside OE-- & an Explorer window > opened! In a subsequent test, I forget where/what I was clicking when it > happened. That's not a realistic or normal way to test really. >| but to test >| you simply take the 2500 0byte files and select all on them and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yea. That's what I always did. I think the fun begins after 7500 > accumulated deletes occur. You personally should never test over 2500, if you do I won't even talk about it with you since it brings into the pudding to many other ingredients errors or issues that's not related to the origin. >| ..anyway, you said you didn't want to fool with it anymore and so >| honor that, and leave it alone. It was not your cup of tea to worry >| about in the first place. > > Right. But I promise not to meanmouth newer versions! Only do simple 2500 test with nothing else going on. But again - I don't think you should test it again anyway. No! >| have a nice day >| ..I hope you got your painting done by now.. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > belly-crawled FOUR times on its sloped, 3-story roof for repairs-- and > that ain't done! Nice job though. This last summer I did our whole place inside and out too.. Rick > -- > Thanks or Good Luck, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > PCR > pcrrcp@netzero.net | [...] || In the first test, I was clicking inside OE-- & an Explorer window || opened! In a subsequent test, I forget where/what I was clicking || when it happened. | | That's not a realistic or normal way to test really. The test was over by then, & I was trying to write it up before rebooting to DOS to switch back to the MS Shell32.dll. BUT Explorer inexplicably opened as I... was... clicking... or just pointing at... this NG in the left pane of OE... I think. That kind of thing never happened in the same circumstance with the MS .dll in place! ||| but to test ||| you simply take the 2500 0byte files and select all on them and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] | talk about it with you since it brings into the pudding to many other | ingredients errors or issues that's not related to the origin. The problem didn't surface after the first 2500 were deleted to the Recycle Bin using Anonymous's Shell32.dll. That only means there was no apparent delay clicking things after that-- it means nothing else! After they were restored from the Bin, no immediate delays showed up still. Deleting to the Bin a SECOND time-- which amounted to 7500 move/delete(s)-- is when things went bad. And it seems to be WORSE in symptoms at that point than it normally is with the MS Shell32.dll! Looks like everything is slow to click-- not just Explorer-related stuff! And there are mysterious openings of Explorer, too! That's with Anonymous's Shell32.dll v.4.72.3812.620 in place & after the test. ||| ..anyway, you said you didn't want to fool with it anymore and so ||| honor that, and leave it alone. It was not your cup of tea to worry [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | | But again - I don't think you should test it again anyway. No! I tend to agree, having suffered thrice now already. ||| have a nice day ||| ..I hope you got your painting done by now.. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | | Nice job though. The tar tape seems to have stuck this time, but it doesn't mean my belly-crawling is done up there. | This last summer I did our whole place inside and out too.. Fresh paint has rolled of the hall walls inside, but it's a lesser problem than flopping tar tape outside on a sloping roof! | Rick | [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] || PCR || pcrrcp@netzero.net SignatureThanks or Good Luck, There may be humor in this post, and, Naturally, you will not sue, should things get worse after this, PCR pcrrcp@netzero.net >>> [....] >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > It didn't appear to be a cure for me, that's right... That's what I had thought I had remembered.. More below.. > news:OQpbvFVLHHA.4384@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl > ... And I can swear I get mysterious, unexplainable openings of Explorer [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > or a shortcut to that. HOWEVER, the shortcut you describe below DOES > work with my IE 6 Browse??.dll's just fine! PCR: it wasn't a question of "working just fine or not", it was a question of working *the way it is supposed to work* - "en total". (See my reply to Rick for more details). >> windows explorer (using this customized >> desktop shortcut) behaves exactly as it should: when I click on the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > PCR > pcrrcp@netzero.net [...] >> It didn't appear to be a cure for me, that's right... Again though what he tested was not latest version, and not only that... Rick | [...] | [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | | Rick What do you mean not only that? > What do you mean not only that? <smile> The tests performed need to be simple and straight forward... But again, No More testing for you per PCR - or I will sue :) <smile> ..me be 10/7 for the day Rick || What do you mean not only that? | | <smile> | | The tests performed need to be simple and straight forward... That's true. Still, in the end one wants to be able to do normal things. | But again, No More testing for you per PCR - or I will sue :) | <smile> I guess I'm willing to let it go. | ..me be 10/7 for the day Good night. | Rick SignatureThanks or Good Luck, There may be humor in this post, and, Naturally, you will not sue, should things get worse after this, PCR pcrrcp@netzero.net Hi Rick, Pardon my interpolation in this thread, but, after the numerous references to the 'explorer-hang' I wanted to ask if this is the same behaviour I've noticed when doing successive copy, delete, or move actions on files: progressively slower response in Explorer, the more I've done, until finally, waiting for explorer to come back for about 3-4 minutes, I decide to reboot the machine? And if so, this is addressable by the .DLL substitution you referred to? Thanks, Joe > > What do you mean not only that? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Rick > Hi Rick, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Thanks, > Joe I can't exactly tell which one of the problems you are talking about with the way you word it, whether it's this issue: Windows98x with IE6x quantity file delete hang bug http://rdchauvin.com/W98xIE6xBug.htm ...and if so then the answer if yes ..or if it's this issue: Win98 - Fix for 'Slow Opening' Folders http://rdchauvin.com/W98xSlowOpeningFolders.htm ..then the simple answer for that is within. Rick > > Hi Rick, > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Rick Thanks, Rick; it is the first one. Will try your fix soon, much appreciated. Also appreciate knowing about the second one, as well, even tho I hadn't encountered it, prob mostly because I don't use My Documents all that much. But there's always the point where it reaches critical mass. :-) Thanks again, Joe |||| [....] |||| [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] | | That's what I had thought I had remembered.. More below.. Now, I see Chauvin is saying there is a new one. I'm toying with the idea, but currently refuse to test it. I will, however, keep my trap shut over the old one, which was... Shell32.dll 4.72.3812.620. || news:OQpbvFVLHHA.4384@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl || ... And I can swear I get mysterious, unexplainable openings of [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] | question of working *the way it is supposed to work* - "en total". | (See my reply to Rick for more details). I'll go look, but it does for me exactly what Chauvin showed it does for him. All drives & folders are shown-- not just C:\-- though C:\ alone is expanded one level, & there are two panes. Also, it will always open that way, even if I change things before shutting it. And I hope that's normal! http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=130510 Command-Line Switches for Windows Explorer You must play with that, if you want it different. For instance... C:\WINDOWS\EXPLORER.EXE /n,/e,/root,C:\ ...will show just an expanded C:\, looks like. ||| windows explorer (using this customized ||| desktop shortcut) behaves exactly as it should: when I click on the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] || PCR || pcrrcp@netzero.net SignatureThanks or Good Luck, There may be humor in this post, and, Naturally, you will not sue, should things get worse after this, PCR pcrrcp@netzero.net >>>>> [....] >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > idea, but currently refuse to test it. I will, however, keep my trap > shut over the old one, which was... Shell32.dll 4.72.3812.620. Well, if you've already tried the old one, I don't see what the big deal is about trying the new one. More below... >>> news:OQpbvFVLHHA.4384@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl >>> ... And I can swear I get mysterious, unexplainable openings of [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > that way, even if I change things before shutting it. And I hope that's > normal! But that's NOT what it's supposed to do, because it is NOT *retaining* the settings! Right? Right! (but it DOES work *right* (i.e, the way it's supposed to, using the older method :-) > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=130510 > Command-Line Switches for Windows Explorer [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > PCR > pcrrcp@netzero.net |||||| [....] |||||| [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] | Well, if you've already tried the old one, I don't see what the big | deal is about trying the new one. More below... I'll never give it a definitive test, because I wouldn't want to keep it for a variety of reasons. Also... who knows really what it does besides effecting a cure or two, if it truly does do that? The author is anonymous after all. Now, over another matter, I've reverted to a backup of my system before ever testing the old one. I guess I'll just leave it be! |||| news:OQpbvFVLHHA.4384@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl |||| ... And I can swear I get mysterious, unexplainable openings of [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] | (but it DOES work *right* (i.e, the way it's supposed to, using the | older method :-) It DOES hold many of the View menu settings -- the only exception being the Explorer Bar choices, that I've just tried -- now that I've tried them. But it WON'T hold the state of the left pane, & always will open as I described it. That's normal! || http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=130510 || Command-Line Switches for Windows Explorer [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] || PCR || pcrrcp@netzero.net SignatureThanks or Good Luck, There may be humor in this post, and, Naturally, you will not sue, should things get worse after this, PCR pcrrcp@netzero.net >>>>>>> [....] >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > them. But it WON'T hold the state of the left pane, & always will open > as I described it. That's normal! No, it's not the way it's supposed to be, if I want - and reasonably expect - the settings to be *retained the way I last left them* - and that goes for BOTH panes. End of story. >>> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=130510 >>> Command-Line Switches for Windows Explorer [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > PCR > pcrrcp@netzero.net |||||||| [....] |||||||| [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] | expect - the settings to be *retained the way I last left them* - and | that goes for BOTH panes. End of story. I doubt I ever saw the behavior you want even in older IE versions, but I can't say for sure it never was there. You may need to lower your expectations about ever getting it back, if this won't do... C:\WINDOWS\EXPLORER.EXE /n,/e,/root,C:\ |||| http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=130510 |||| Command-Line Switches for Windows Explorer [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] || PCR || pcrrcp@netzero.net SignatureThanks or Good Luck, There may be humor in this post, and, Naturally, you will not sue, should things get worse after this, PCR pcrrcp@netzero.net >>>>>>>>> [....] >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > I can't say for sure it never was there. You may need to lower your > expectations about ever getting it back, if this won't do... No, as I recall, it WAS true in the older versions, and, in fact, is NOW true for me, (since I'm using the two older browse DLLs). So. I don't have to lower my expectations. Windows Explorer is working the way it was designed to (with those changes). No problemo. > C:\WINDOWS\EXPLORER.EXE /n,/e,/root,C:\ > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > PCR > pcrrcp@netzero.net ...snip ||||||||| Oh, but that reminds me: One "anomaly" I've noted when ||||||||| using the IE6 browse DLLs (not the IE55 ones) is that Windows [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] | I don't have to lower my expectations. Windows Explorer is working | the way it was designed to (with those changes). No problemo. All right. That's a bonus for you, then. Enjoy. I'm going to stick with the IE6 .dll's, though, mostly out of stubbornness. But also for a variety of valid & sensible reasons! Even Chauvin reverted back to them before adopting those poisonous Anonymous .dll's! || C:\WINDOWS\EXPLORER.EXE /n,/e,/root,C:\ || [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] ||||||||| with the shortcut switch settings as follows: ||||||||| C:\WINDOWS\EXPLORER.EXE /n,/e,C:\ ...snip [...] > All right. That's a bonus for you, then. Enjoy. I'm going to stick with > the IE6 .dll's, though, mostly out of stubbornness. But also for a > variety of valid & sensible reasons! Even Chauvin reverted back to them I didn't really stay there much at all, however it was moreso only when the shell32 came about that I have not only now stayed here since it works so well, but even also previously (35 days ago) installed these unofficial W98SE ~IE6, MS06-072, 925454 - Cumulative for Internet Explorer 12/12/2006 & the ~OE6, MS06-076, 923694 - Cumulative for Outlook Express 12/12/06 ..and it's all been working just fine, and honestly, it pleases me greatly. ymmv. > before adopting those poisonous Anonymous .dll's! They are not anonymous's dlls, they are MS's dlls... No more testing for you though pcr... I will sue! <smile> By the way Bill C, I just pressed 5 at the dos prompt to put the v5 dlls back in place for a moment just so that I could see what you were referring to with your C:\WINDOWS\EXPLORER.EXE /n,/e,C:\ thingy, and fwiw, the screenshot I linked/showed before is still the same way it shows now with the v5 in place which yes like before, it opens every time expanded just as I show it.. ..and so if you are saying yours does something different maybe you can be sure to type out your exactly shortcut making directions from begining to end in case I missed something, and if you would also show us a screenshot of what your setup looks like (as compare to my screenshot) okay. If you don't have a website to upload to then no problem, just use this place to upload and give us the direct to your image http://imageshack.us/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > the v5 in place which yes like before, it opens every time expanded just as > I show it.. ..and so if you are saying yours does something different maybe Yes, (and as PCR also noted). Again, in the left pane, when I click on C: (and thus expand its tree), I can get it so only the C: drive and its subdirectories show up in the left pane - and NO other drives, *just as I want it*, and it will *retain* those settings for me next time around, (so I don't have to see that squished view in the left pane with the other drives appearing in there (instead of a bunch of the C: subdirectories, which is what I want). > you can be sure to type out your exactly shortcut making directions from > begining to end in case I missed something, and if you would also show us a > screenshot of what your setup looks like (as compare to my screenshot) > okay. If you don't have a website to upload to then no problem, just use > this place to upload and give us the direct to your image > http://imageshack.us/ [...] > Again, in the left pane, when I click on C: (and thus expand its tree), I > can get it so only the C: drive and its subdirectories show up in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > there (instead of a bunch of the C: subdirectories, which is what I > want). I have v5 in place and as I said can't get it to do that which is why I asked for more details since there is something amiss with your instructions how to do it in some way. Anyway, it doesn't matter to me really and I was just a little curious, but you will have to better detail it as I asked below, if you want, or I've let it go now so no worries. v6 back in place. nite, Rick >> you can be sure to type out your exactly shortcut making directions from >> begining to end in case I missed something, and if you would also show >> us a screenshot of what your setup looks like (as compare to my >> screenshot) okay. If you don't have a website to upload to then no >> problem, just use this place to upload and give us the direct link to >> your image http://imageshack.us/ > [...] >> Again, in the left pane, when I click on C: (and thus expand its tree), I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I have v5 in place and as I said can't get it to do that which is why I I believe the reason for this is because I have a PURE, unmodified, un-updated, virgin, IE6 SP1 installation now, with the single exception of the double browse DLL swap. Again Rick, I don't have any "updates" or "security patches" OR changes in shell32 or kernel32 at this point. And I think that's the explanation. And I do know for a fact that when I put back the two IE6 SP1 browse DLLs, the problem I mentioned here comes back, and windows explorer does NOT behave the way it should - by *faithfully retaining* its last view in both window panes (left and right) just as it SHOULD. > asked for more details since there is something amiss with your > instructions how to do it in some way. Anyway, it doesn't matter to me [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>> problem, just use this place to upload and give us the direct link to >>> your image http://imageshack.us/ Guys and Gals [if applicable], this discussion regarding the switching of the dlls has been pounded on for several dozen threads over the course of time. This isn't directed to anyone specifically, but this constant discussion is producing conflicting issues and confusion to those who might read them. If I might: 1. This switching of the dlls COULD be affected by the KNOWN aspect of Windows retaining dlls in physical memory. If one switches AFTER doing something recently using the dlls, then it COULD cause various issues related thereto. I also remind you of the SWAP file and what it retains. 2. Tweakui causes various affects and effects within the system. IF Tweakui is installed, then you can NOT state you are using a standard Microsoft system. There are reasons for NOT installing it across the web due to problems it has caused. Once used, you have a highly modified system due to the changes made. Discussions in this News Group have already been done regarding some of those registry changes and file relationships. All of the "tweaking programs" have the potential of adverse effects within the system, particularly if one is not a completely knowledgeable user of related issues and associations. 3. If you question whether these dlls [the browser dlls] have been loaded, then I suggest you run Autoruns by sysinternals, and monitoring programs INCLUDING a Startup log. Switching the dlls WITHOUT restarting MAY work to a limited extent or for your file issues, however, the back and forth switching without a shutdown is asking more from the OS than it can supply by its DEFAULT settings. You can, of course, modify the registry to unload the used dlls from memory by tweaking it, but that's no more STANDARD than the shell replacement, browser dll replacement, or Tweakui. 4. I expect opinions to vary, but that's what they are, opinions. TESTING AND MONITORING with more than mere observation, is the only accurate way to address the full ramifications of these and related issues. Just because something APPEARS to work or may actually seem to achieve the desired effect, by watching or observation, does not mean it was entirely successful, or completely addresses the issues, or corrects some flaw without introducing others. Nor does mere observation of failures address why those failures may occur. 5. ANY TWEAK done in a system, MAY affect and/or effect other tweaks. IN the original shell32 testing discussion, I attempted to point these issues out. I point these potentials out again. Just as Microsoft produced the original Power Toys and Kernel Toy tools files, then warned against using them [most of them anyway] after a certain point in the update cycle, the same was done regarding later "tweaks and updates" and warnings against or related to those as well. To IGNORE the facts and effects of ANY AND ALL prior tweaking and modification relationships, to and within the OS, and other newer tweaks and modifications, fails to address the realities of the software environment. Think about the FULL collated and cumulative effects of everything previously done, before you continue to opine among yourselves... NUFF SAID!!! SignatureMEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/ BLOG - http://peoplescounsel.spaces.live.com/ Public Notice or the "real world" "Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth. Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happen." Winston Churchill Or to put it another way: Morpheus can offer you the two pills; but only you can choose whether you take the red pill or the blue one. _______________ | Guys and Gals [if applicable], this discussion regarding the | switching of the dlls has been pounded on for several dozen threads | over the course of time. This isn't directed to anyone specifically, | but this constant discussion is producing conflicting issues and | confusion to those who might read them. Those .dll's have now evolved beyond my experience of them. And my decision is currently to let it be & just to keep my mouth shut. | If I might: | | 1. This switching of the dlls COULD be affected by the KNOWN aspect of | Windows retaining dlls in physical memory. If one switches AFTER doing | something recently using the dlls, then it COULD cause various issues | related thereto. That is true. But Shell32.dll must be switched in DOS. Then, a boot to Windows starts it fresh. | I also remind you of the SWAP file and what it | retains. After a fresh boot, the Swap File too is renewed. It retains only its size, & even that migh change after five minutes or so. | 2. Tweakui causes various affects and effects within the system. IF | Tweakui is installed, then you can NOT state you are using a standard [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | is not a completely knowledgeable user of related issues and | associations. That is a good reason to stick with the latest MS .dll's-- for anyone except those who truly can't live without Explorer being able to delete a ton of files or handling files larger than 2 GB. And I don't do those things or just do them in a Windows DOS box. | 3. If you question whether these dlls [the browser dlls] have been | loaded, then I suggest you run Autoruns by sysinternals, and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | memory by tweaking it, but that's no more STANDARD than the shell | replacement, browser dll replacement, or Tweakui. For those .dll's that can be switched while Windows is running, yea, you'd be crazy not to reboot anyhow. | 4. I expect opinions to vary, but that's what they are, opinions. | [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | Nor does mere observation of failures address why those failures may | occur. You are absolutely correct, but it is more than I'm willing to do. After all, I'm not writing them, & I have no intention to keep them. Make Chauvin do it! | 5. ANY TWEAK done in a system, MAY affect and/or effect other tweaks. | IN the original shell32 testing discussion, I attempted to point | these issues out. I point these potentials out again. There is truth to that. But the number of such tweaks is astronomical. | Just as Microsoft produced the original Power Toys and Kernel Toy | tools files, then warned against using them [most of them anyway] [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | previously done, before you continue to opine among yourselves... NUFF | SAID!!! No one can test .dll's against every possible tweak. SignatureThanks or Good Luck, There may be humor in this post, and, Naturally, you will not sue, Should things get worse after this, PCR pcrrcp@netzero.net | [...] | [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | | I didn't really stay there much at all, I can't say when or how long. I only recall you ultimately tired of switching back/forth each time a new cumulative IE critical update came along for you to install. | however it was moreso only | when the shell32 came about that I have not only now stayed here | since it works so well, You're talking about a Shell32.dll that is later than v.4.72.3812.620? Then, I have promised to keep my trap shut! But v.4.72.3812.620 is poison to me! | but even also previously (35 days ago) | installed these unofficial W98SE [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | ..and it's all been working just fine, and honestly, it pleases me | greatly. ymmv. Very good. But I want to remain real close to pure MS & NOT become a Win98 mutant-- JUST as I've always avoided XP mutancy! || before adopting those poisonous Anonymous .dll's! | | They are not anonymous's dlls, they are MS's dlls... They have been altered by Anonymous-- right? The last pure MS one for Win98SE was... SHELL32.DLL Desc: Windows Shell Common Dll Loc: C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM Size: 1,388,816 bytes Mod: Thursday, December 06, 2001 11:25:08 PM Ver: 4.72.3812.600 | No more testing for you though pcr... I will sue! <smile> No, no-- I won't! | By the way Bill C, I just pressed 5 at the dos prompt to put the v5 | dlls back in place for a moment just so that I could see what you | were referring to with your C:\WINDOWS\EXPLORER.EXE /n,/e,C:\ thingy, | and fwiw, the screenshot I linked/showed before is still the same way | it shows now with the v5 in place which yes like before, it opens | every time expanded just as I show it.. ..and so if you are saying [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | place to upload and give us the direct to your image | http://imageshack.us/ Mine is just like yours, Chauvin. It will open with C:\ expanded every time. SignatureThanks or Good Luck, There may be humor in this post, and, Naturally, you will not sue, Should things get worse after this, PCR pcrrcp@netzero.net [...] > I can't say when or how long. I only recall you ultimately tired of > switching back/forth each time a new cumulative IE critical update came > along for you to install. Sure, I always installed the latest IE6 cumulative, and naturally quickly tested to see if MS fixed the specific topic hang issue too, but they never did and so naturally again I would press 5 at the dos prompt to automatically/instantly swap the v5 browse*dlls back in place; that is until 35 days ago till now having IE6 being at a present day IE6 status. > You're talking about a Shell32.dll that is later than v.4.72.3812.620? Yes. It needs to be v4.72.3812.634 and that's the Only one I'm referring to! Talking about anything else is a waste of time and irrelevant to my post. [...] > Very good. But I want to remain real close to pure MS & NOT become a > Win98 mutant-- JUST as I've always avoided XP mutancy! Actually imho and experience my setup this way is what a true MS setup should be, and so in no way do I consider meself a mutant - but quite the contrary, and consider this setup to be a pure current updated MS 98SE setup as compared to outdated ones. You just have no idea is all. > Mine is just like yours, Chauvin. It will open with C:\ expanded every > time. Yep, I even just now booted up an older computer while I am typing this, and it's a true virgin IE5.5 SP2 setup too - and created the shortcut and pasted in the target line, and it's exactly the same as my screenshot showed on IE6. I tried telling Bill that, and even asking for better procedure instructions and screenshots even so he could tell us what he did different, but the more words I use to ask the more he doesn't seem to understand what I'm asking and keeps replying with the same things - that's okay and you can blame it on me maybe not communicating my question better, but the time has passed and it doesn't have importance to me anyway except on the trivial pursuit side of scratching the itch to solve a question presented. Rick > -- > Thanks or Good Luck, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > PCR > pcrrcp@netzero.net > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > pasted in the target line, and it's exactly the same as my screenshot > showed on IE6. But I've already told you Rick that your screenshot is NOT what I'm getting, NOR is it what I want, which, *once again*, in the left pane, is to ONLY see the C: drive (at the top left corner) and its subdirectories right below that (expanded downward), and that's all - no other drives or directories Why is this seemingly so difficult to understand? YOUR screenshot (as I recall) showed MORE than just the C: drive *in the left pane*, unless I'm mistaken - it showed some other drives too, and did NOT have the C:branch fully expanded downward to show all its subdirectories. (In the right pane is also a list of all the C: subdirectories expanded downward too, BUT showing the folders's sizes, types, and modified date columns, as well. So, I think that's pretty clear, isn't it? > I tried telling Bill that, and even asking for better > procedure instructions procedure instructions ?? There was no procedure, except to open windows explorer via the desktop shortcut I mentioned with a single click. > and screenshots even so he could tell us what he did Haven't figured out how to do that yet. > different, but the more words I use to ask the more he doesn't seem to > understand what I'm asking and keeps replying with the same things - that's [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> PCR >> pcrrcp@netzero.net > But I've already told you Rick that your screenshot is NOT what I'm > getting, NOR is it what I want, which, *once again*, in the left pane, You continually miss the point over and over and over. You tell us the same thing over and over and over. I'm starting to get cranky of patience with you <g> Facts, With straight IE6 installed your shortcut gives screenshot* results With IE6 with v5 browse*dlls give the same screenshot* results With straight IE5SP2 !!! installed gives the same screenshot* results * http://rdchauvin.com/BillsShortcutDitty.gif Do You Get The Picture Now! All three combinations on differnt computers gives these same results It's only logical to conclude you had previously done something different on your setup 'besides' what you have told us with C:\WINDOWS\EXPLORER.EXE /n,/e,C:\ in order to get those results you keep exclaiming about. My only question was asking what is it that you had done which you have forgotten to tell us, otherwise I would be able to reproduce your claim on any of said OS/IE combinations and I could not, and so.... ...logical deduction is - you aren't telling us the whole story. ! end of discussion ! I really don't want to know anyway you see, I don't need to do that, and again it was just the point of scratching the itch of a problem not explained correctly by you. ..over and out ...10/7 Rick >> But I've already told you Rick that your screenshot is NOT what I'm >> getting, NOR is it what I want, which, *once again*, in the left pane, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Do You Get The Picture Now! > All three combinations on differnt computers gives these same results Once again, I do NOT get the results shown in that GIF file, NOR should I, if windows explorer is working the way *its supposed to*, by *faithfully retaining* the way I left it, as I've said countless times before. More below... > It's only logical to conclude you had previously done something different > on your setup 'besides' what you have told us with C:\WINDOWS\EXPLORER.EXE > /n,/e,C:\ in order to get those results you keep exclaiming about. No, Rick (at least not to the best of my knowledge). Again, I think YOU have done at least some changes to your system, and (at least as I recall), you have already admitted the same. Again: do you have a virgin IE6 SP1 installation system, with NO system or IE security updates? That means having ALL (and only) the original Win98SE and IE6 SP1 files, and no other real changes (except the double browse DLL swap). > My only question was asking what is it that you had done which you have > forgotten to tell us, otherwise I would be able to reproduce your claim on > any of said OS/IE combinations and I could not, and so.... > > ...logical deduction is - you aren't telling us the whole story. No, I think YOUR system has some other updates. How about the kernel and shell DLLs, for example? Oh, and before I forget, get this: Just one more important tidbit: Not too long ago I reinstalled IE6 SP1, and got exactly what you show in your GIF file above. But THEN I put back the two IE55 browse DLLs, and presto, I'm home free, with what I said. Hence - YOUR "logical deduction" must be in error! I believe the changes must be on YOUR system. | [...] | [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | place; that is until 35 days ago till now having IE6 being at a | present day IE6 status. I doubt there ever will be another IE cumulative for Win98 users, but you had to take them because other .dll's & kill bits were involved-- not just Browse??.dll's. Then, you switched back to the IE5 .dll's, & fortunately that trick still worked despite those other changes. Fine, you don't have to worry about that anymore (& Colorado never did), but anything added that uses Shell32.dll will have to be watched a while to see whether it blows up on v...634. Also, who really knows what Anonymous put into that .dll besides the two fixes that please you so well? || You're talking about a Shell32.dll that is later than || v.4.72.3812.620? | | Yes. It needs to be v4.72.3812.634 and that's the Only one I'm | referring to! Talking about anything else is a waste of time and | irrelevant to my post. You are correct, & it is why I must keep my mouth shut or test that one too. | [...] | [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | the contrary, and consider this setup to be a pure current updated MS | 98SE setup as compared to outdated ones. You just have no idea is all. I, I, I'm not ne, nec, necessarily saying it is horrible to be a Win98 mutant. For instance, the ones on "Heroes" are OK by me! I mean, the good ones are. But DEFINITELY stay away from that XP partition of yours! || Mine is just like yours, Chauvin. It will open with C:\ expanded || every time. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] | | Rick I would like to see that screen shot too. Colorado, just hit Prt Scrn & it ends up in the Clipboard. Then, paste it into a file to upload to Chauvin's site or paste it into an HTML post here. But the latter is bad practice if abused in frequency-- & I don't know how to do the former myself! || -- || Thanks or Good Luck, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] || PCR || pcrrcp@netzero.net SignatureThanks or Good Luck, There may be humor in this post, and, Naturally, you will not sue, Should things get worse after this, PCR pcrrcp@netzero.net >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > practice if abused in frequency-- & I don't know how to do the former > myself! Well, I was a bit too lazy to figure it out and go and do it. And besides, I had thought I *had* explained it pretty well, *especially* in my previous post just a couple of hours ago. Right? Right. >>> -- >>> Thanks or Good Luck, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > PCR > pcrrcp@netzero.net ...snip || I would like to see that screen shot too. Colorado, just hit Prt || Scrn & it ends up in the Clipboard. Then, paste it into a file to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | *especially* in my previous post just a couple of hours ago. Right? | Right. Well, my system is Win98SE, IE6 SP1, fully updated. I do have that Win2K Vgx.dll, but doubt it has an influence in this. I get what Chauvin posted with either of these... C:\WINDOWS\EXPLORER.EXE /n,/e,C:\ Explorer.scf ..., which is Explorer opened with C:\ expanded in the left pane & showing in the right. All other drives & special folders also show in the left pane. Many View Menu options will stick, if changed, for the next click of that shortcut. But the "View, Explorer Bar" will always revert to "Folders". Also, it always reverts to C:\ expanded & selected. To get what you want & do get,... "But I've already told you Rick that your screenshot is NOT what I'm getting, NOR is it what I want, which, once again, in the left pane, is to ONLY see the C: drive (at the top left corner) and its subdirectories right below that (expanded downward), and that's all - no other drives or directories" ...I have to use... C:\WINDOWS\EXPLORER.EXE /n,/e,/root,C:\ But it always opens that way & will not hold left pane settings, except for its width (I've just discovered). It certainly won't remember expanded sub-folders! > ...snip >>> I would like to see that screen shot too. Colorado, just hit Prt [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > for its width (I've just discovered). It certainly won't remember > expanded sub-folders! Well, it does on my system, which is (admittedly) more virgin than yours and Rick's. (Except for that double browse DLL swap, from IE55). || ...snip |||| I would like to see that screen shot too. Colorado, just hit Prt [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] | yours and Rick's. (Except for that double browse DLL swap, from | IE55). I can't become a virgin & Chauvin already tried it with IE5.5 .dll's. All I can do is to play with... /select,<sub object>... in... http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=130510 Command-Line Switches for Windows Explorer ..., but I am fully content with what it's doing now. >>> ...snip >>>>> I would like to see that screen shot too. Colorado, just hit Prt [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > I can't become a virgin & Chauvin already tried it with IE5.5 .dll's. Neither one of you can become a virgin, so (again) the answer as to why mine works right (as it's SUPPOSED to), and yours and Rick's doesn't, seems due to that fact. And (again), if you and Rick read my previous post, where I mentioned reinstalling IE6 SP1, observing what you're seeing (as in that GIF), and then doing the double DLL browse swap to get what I have now (i.e, *Explorer working the way it's supposed to*), it's seems pretty evident. I have a near virgin system, you guys don't, and that appears to be the explanation. "elementary, my dear Watson" > All I can do is to play with... /select,<sub object>... in... > > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=130510 > Command-Line Switches for Windows Explorer > > ..., but I am fully content with what it's doing now. We've hit bottom in that thread segment. So, I'll post here... |||| Bill in Co. wrote: |||| ...snip [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] | why mine works right (as it's SUPPOSED to), and yours and Rick's | doesn't, seems due to that fact. We took the IE cumulative critical updates, yea, & he even retrofitted some ME updates into his SE, IIRC. But I'm not going to go into all that again! I know you prefer to go without! | And (again), if you and Rick read my previous post, where I mentioned | reinstalling IE6 SP1, observing what you're seeing (as in that GIF), | and then doing the double DLL browse swap to get what I have now | (i.e, *Explorer working the way it's supposed to*), it's seems pretty | evident. I have a near virgin system, you guys don't, and that | appears to be the explanation. So, you can choose to select say Program Files in Explorer, & it will be remembered that way after you close/open it again? It's amazing (I don't ever recall it)-- but, unless you never want to see another folder, you are really STILL in OUR boat, anyhow. You have to click your way to a different folder just like the rest of us! | "elementary, my dear Watson" | [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] || || ..., but I am fully content with what it's doing now. SignatureThanks or Good Luck, There may be humor in this post, and, Naturally, you will not sue, Should things get worse after this, PCR pcrrcp@netzero.net > We've hit bottom in that thread segment. So, I'll post here... > [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > So, you can choose to select say Program Files in Explorer, & it will be > remembered that way after you close/open it again? No, not quite, so if I implied that, that is wrong. My desktop shortcut (with the switches I mentioned before) always opens with the C: drive shown in the upper left hand corner of the left pane, and showing its subdirectories completely expanded downward to the bottom of the screen. Ditto for the right pane, except that in the right pane, it also shows columns for the folder sizes, types, and modified dates, just as I want it to be. > It's amazing (I don't > ever recall it)-- but, unless you never want to see another folder, you > are really STILL in OUR boat, anyhow. Not exactly, but in many ways, yes. > You have to click your way to a different folder just like the rest of us! Yes, that part is true. >> "elementary, my dear Watson" >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > PCR > pcrrcp@netzero.net || We've hit bottom in that thread segment. So, I'll post here... || [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] | pane, it also shows columns for the folder sizes, types, and modified | dates, just as I want it to be. Oh, OK. So, all I have to do is use "root" to be the same as that, then. That's that, then. This thread segment is too difficult to work with, & I must go anyhow. OK, bye. "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:O9QzmICQHHA.4372@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl > Neither one of you can become a virgin, so (again) the answer as to why > mine works right (as it's SUPPOSED to), and yours and Rick's doesn't, > seems due to that fact. Sure I can, and I do - anytime to anywhere in an OS's virgin history that I want - in just 3 minutes flat. Just like I have always mentioned about the subject, and recently in BAP's thread, when you do a fresh install, simply make separate partition image points along the way at each particular milestone, which continually can be used for all types of valuable future use when restored; which those are just words to you I know, but to me it's an everyday working hands on reality. I have a 121 GB Image partition that is full of specific OS images history for a good reason, of which I've done the same procedures for W2K & WXP too. I do software testing, and with that needs virgin setups of each OS, at any Windows or Internet Explorer build point along the way, to be able to go back at a moments notice to any point in time of the OS's History, to be able to try something on for reference.. ..you just have no idea. As I've told you Bill, and telling you again more, I did test that switch you gave not only on besides my current setup, but on a virgin straight IE5.5; a virgin straight IE6.0 trying and then swapping out to v5 browse*dlls; a straight IE6SP1 trying and then swapping out to v5 browse*dlls ...and yep you guessed it - notta!..it's the same results as shown in my screenshot. And so you see Bill like I've been trying to tell you all along that your instructions to just add the switch into the target of a C:\ shortcut (for your particular! outcome) was incomplete even though you keep stubbornly talking it up - but then when presented with proof it was not so, you backpedaled and said, oh, by the way a tidbit, you have to reinstall in virgin status on a virgin IE6SP1 w/5.5 browse*dlls to get it to work... well again I'm telling you that is still not the case - since I have personally tried that and more - not at all because I want to have your particular instance for any valuable usage, but for the trivial fun pursuit in the itch of problem solving.. ..which by this point with you is beyond boring since you don't physically do anything but talk from a rather vague remembrance of this n that. Yes it seems you have something unique on your setup, but can't give specific details how for anyone else to create it as I've accurately said right along, but you keep protesting giving no workable proofage to re-create. > And (again), if you and Rick read my previous post, where I mentioned > reinstalling IE6 SP1, observing what you're seeing (as in that GIF), and > then doing the double DLL browse swap to get what I have now (i.e, > *Explorer working the way it's supposed to*), it's seems pretty evident. The only thing that's evident Dr Watson, is that you are all wet. <smile> That switch 'you give' was to do just what my screenshot shows. > I have a near virgin system, you guys don't, and that appears to be the > explanation. Your setup is not nearly as virgin as you say it is but rather a hodgepodge'd virgin with a unique shortcut hiccup <g> Rick > "elementary, my dear Watson" > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:O9QzmICQHHA.4372@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > beyond boring since you don't physically do anything but talk from a rather > vague remembrance of this n that. OK, look Rick, if you want proof that what I said I was seeing in windows explorer (using that shortcut switch) is what I am seeing, tell me again where to send the GIF or JPG, (I'll do a print screen), and I'll send it to you. OTOH, if you're asking me what (supposedly) makes MY system "so unique", I don't have the answer for you. > Yes it seems you have something unique on your setup, but can't give > specific details how for anyone else to create it as I've accurately said [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >> "elementary, my dear Watson" Make no mistake I totally believed you how it makes your left hand side appear with only the C:\ drive showing and that it's all expanded; and the right side too. I was only asking you to explain details how anyone else can reproduce that. And by the way in one of my last posts since I had spent the time giving you a link to upload gifs to you could of used it, and that it will host it for you free. It's easy, go there, click the 'Browse' button to find and click to highlight your gif, then click their 'Host It' button to upload your gif to the website, and after it's uploaded on the bottom of their screen they give you a direct link to it - just copy that link into your browser and go there. Share the link to whomever for access to your gif. Nothing could be so easy to do to give a great visual example of what is meant, and as rod stewart said... every picture tells a story <g> http://imageshack.us/ ..for instance, a link to a gif hosted there will look like this link below that I just uploaded there now to demonstrate: http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/392/shortcutswitch6sx.gif ..and fwiw for future use, the easy to use gif screenshot maker I've used for years is this one, and it's even free; its install footprint is simple. http://www.webtree.ca/newlife/printkey_info.htm I just use the 'Rectangle' tool to square around what I want to screenshot, and save it as a gif. You can then drop the gif into your simple 9x Paint program to edit with arrows or text even, like I just did above. Looking at my quick install notes for PrintKey I made back then here's what I said to myself as I installed it: copy/paste ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ..while installing, selecting no backup files, after install then delete the icon in the Programs> StartUp folder so that it doesn't startup on every boot.. and you can start it manually when needed ..Also go to Options> check it to include cursor if you want .. ..also Options> Define Defaults> Default Filename: (your choice) ..also in that box change Current Directory to Desktop, and then actually Save a gif there - navigate the browser box to Desktop which should set it default.. ..Color Depth to 32k instead of default because keeps the gif size's smaller but still okay.. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > OTOH, if you're asking me what (supposedly) makes MY system "so unique", > I don't have the answer for you. Okay fair enough - there you go; now that was simple - god bless ya! If you ever figure out how to 'easily' duplicate the way to get it to only show C:\ totally expanded, and anyone can easily reproduce it, then by all means for gp, do tell. Rick "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:OUk6xbaQHHA.3812@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl > This really is a bit puzzling, and yes, I have to admit, my system is not > virgin EXCEPT in terms of not taking in any of those updates. (By not [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Really, really weird. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bill, one thing I can say I do appreciate about you, is your open honesty during and after the fact to tell it like it is, even if you were mistaken. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Without screenshots of what you mean Bill in all these cases above and before, it's really hard to visualize what you really mean considering our last conversations and what was said to be so, and what really was/is. That's why for everyone, screenshots of 'what really is' says more than a dictionary of words. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You're right your system is not virgin, and just looking at what folders you have in C:\ for the first 12 inches of what shows it's still in the A's for heavens sake, is almost inconceivable actually. On mine as you saw/see it only has what a total of 7 folders (and two of them one being Ws which is the old WordStar for DOS and the RenewTIF is Bill Blanton's famous Boot_day.com ditty) ...and after that I have what, a dozen files - you see these are what's there when you Fresh install and what is 'really meant' when you use the word Virgin/Fresh install; so don't whore it up <g> You haven't did a fresh install in 7 years Bill, and even if you were god, you would not be able to remember let alone have any understanding of the enormous changes your setup has gone though over that time with just the normal installs and uninstalls and everyday things you do, which is a lot by the looks of it. This is why when someone starts getting into imaging, it is imperative that they have small Primaries (for many reasons) and only have on the OS partition what is needed to run the OS, and all else gets stored on the D:\ Storage partition, and from C:\ you can even shortcut into the folders on D:\, etc, for the things you want to reference. I'm helpless to explain the 100's of good reasons benefits when it comes to imaging (and common everyday practice) to keep primaries small for OS's, and store the Stuuuff not needed for OS operation - on storage partitions. ...anyway, everyone has their own professional ways; ymmv ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Now, back to the subject at hand ! Bill, if you like the idea with IE5x6x, that when you click your special Shortcut and having it show 'only' C:\ in the Left and Right side, while being expanded to + on the left, ..then why not just use this switch: C:\WINDOWS\EXPLORER.EXE /n,/e,/ROOT,C:\ ...and as shown in this new screenshot - it gives this layout of results: (naturally visualize your own folders/files showing of course) http://rdchauvin.com/IsThisWhatYouReallyWantBill.gif I'm gonna unflag and leave this thread now okay. The threads are too deep anyway and server is erring. best, Rick ......oh ps, For Future Situations going forward, why not install the simple, excelent, small footprint, PrintScreen 2000 program I've already linked for you, and then use the link I gave you to upload 'gif' screenshots for reference; don't be so stubburn to move forward, ...please :) Rick Chauvin wrote: > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> I'm gonna try and paste it directly in here rather than go thru and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Okay but for the forum moderators it may be against normal forum > etiquette, but I certainly don't mind - At least I finally get to see something > anyway, but your screenshot is incomplete and leads to more questions and > gives us only incomplete answers, again! .. just like your whole [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > iow, with what we can physically see from your screenshot does not show all > the way down to the bottom of both sides only because you have so many > folders (and god knows how many files) as compared to when you said the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Rick This really is a bit puzzling, and yes, I have to admit, my system is not virgin EXCEPT in terms of not taking in any of those updates. (By not virgin, I mean I currently have some 20+ odd "processes" running after bootup). Well anyway, I went back and (temporarily) put back the two IE6 DLLs to see what's going on. Interestingly, after I did that, and I used the C: shortcut and switches, I only get a collapsed tree showing there in the left pane (which shows all the drives, but none of the folders underneath since it's collapsed), but interestingly when I use the D: drive shortcut (with similar switches), I *do* see the D:drive expanded in the left pane with the folders showing up underneath. Weird. So then I put back the IE55 DLLs, and at least get consistent results now where the C: drive in the left panel stays expanded (and shows the folders underneath), and is NOT collapsed. Really, really weird. | Rick Chauvin wrote: |> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] | | Really, really weird. It's unexplainable why you see what you do. But I can get a similar effect with... WinKey+e-- it's Explorer open to My Computer with nothing expanded. It sounds like your IE5.5 .dll's are normal, but the IE6 ones are ill. I wonder... Which BrowseWM.dll are you using? That was the one you NEEDN'T fool with. It should always be the IE6 v.6.00.2800.1106 in C:\Windows\System, if you've updated that far. Did you perhaps once put the IE5.5 version there & forget to switch it back? But I'm only guessing that has anything to do with it. >> Rick Chauvin wrote: >>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > expanded. It sounds like your IE5.5 .dll's are normal, but the IE6 ones > are ill. Well, I'm not sure anything is really ill, per se. It might have to do with the fact that I have so many folders/directories in the C: drive/partition, unlike any of my other drives/partitions. I have about 450 directories on the C: partition (which is my main partition for nearly everything, obviously). It's a 20 GB partition, my "root partition", which is the way I want it. (N.B.: I'm not obsessing over any alleged "cluster inefficiencies" here - I'm much more interested in keeping things nice and simple, and more convenient, for MY own "efficiencies", thank you very much!). > I wonder... Which BrowseWM.dll are you using? version 6.00.2800.1106 > That was the one you NEEDN'T fool with. It should always be the IE6 > v.6.00.2800.1106 in C:\Windows\System, if you've updated that far. Did > you perhaps once put the IE5.5 version there & forget to switch it back? Nope, per above. > But I'm only guessing that has anything to do with it. |>> Rick Chauvin wrote: |>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] | | Well, I'm not sure anything is really ill, per se. Are they...?... BrowseUI.dll v.6.00.2800.1692 (xpsp2.050617-2102) BrowseLC.dll v.6.00.2800.1106 But I can't be sure version matters for this, but it does seem to be something about those .dll's doing it. | It might have to do with the fact that I have so many | folders/directories in the C: drive/partition, unlike any of my other | drives/partitions. That doesn't bother the IE5.5 .dll's, though. | I have about 450 directories on the C: partition (which is my main | partition for nearly everything, obviously). I have only 20 on C:. But all my directories & subdirectories do add up to... 784 Folders & 10,786 Files. | It's a 20 GB | partition, my "root partition", which is the way I want it. (N.B.: | I'm not obsessing over any alleged "cluster inefficiencies" here - | I'm much more interested in keeping things nice and simple, and more | convenient, for MY own "efficiencies", thank you very much!). Finally, I moved stuff OFF of C: & into other partitions. But it tougher to get a full system backup this way. |> I wonder... Which BrowseWM.dll are you using? | [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | | Nope, per above. It was only a guess. Just like-- did you try deleting/recreating the same shortcut with the IE6 .dll's in place? But, you don't run that way, so probably there's no need to cure you, anyhow. |> But I'm only guessing that has anything to do with it. SignatureThanks or Good Luck, There may be humor in this post, and, Naturally, you will not sue, Should things get worse after this, PCR pcrrcp@netzero.net >>>> Rick Chauvin wrote: >>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > BrowseUI.dll v.6.00.2800.1692 (xpsp2.050617-2102) > BrowseLC.dll v.6.00.2800.1106 I was using the ones that came with IE6 SP1, both being: 6.00.2800.1106 No updates. (thanks, but no thanks) > But I can't be sure version matters for this, but it does seem to be > something about those .dll's doing it. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I have only 20 on C:. But all my directories & subdirectories do add up > to... 784 Folders & 10,786 Files. I think the large number of root directories in C: (i.e., my vast number of them) is the reason. >> It's a 20 GB >> partition, my "root partition", which is the way I want it. (N.B.: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Finally, I moved stuff OFF of C: & into other partitions. But it tougher > to get a full system backup this way. Yup, I'm sure. The only backups I'm doing now consist of a complete partition backup of C: (the 20 GB one) to another drive, using BING. I currently have about 10 GB total of "data (incl programs)" on this drive, and it takes BING 45 minutes to do the partition copy. Not bad. The only thing that is bad is that I have to disconnect and reconnect that 40 pin IDE connector (and small 4 pin power connector), each time. A minor nuisance. I'd like to have an IDE 40 pin, 2 position (A-B) switch (if they made one), so I didn't have to do this, and could instead just flip the switch manually each time (to either select my other hard drive, which is in the system, or the backup drive, which is normally out of the system, as needbe).. >>> I wonder... Which BrowseWM.dll are you using? >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > same shortcut with the IE6 .dll's in place? But, you don't run that way, > so probably there's no need to cure you, anyhow. Yup, already tried recreating the shortcut, and got the same results. >>> But I'm only guessing that has anything to do with it. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > PCR > pcrrcp@netzero.net ...snip |>>>> This really is a bit puzzling, and yes, I have to admit, my system |>>>> is not virgin EXCEPT in terms of not taking in any of those [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] | 6.00.2800.1106 | No updates. (thanks, but no thanks) I understand. I doubt it matters for this, anyhow. And I'm running out of guesses! |> But I can't be sure version matters for this, but it does seem to be |> something about those .dll's doing it. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] | I think the large number of root directories in C: (i.e., my vast | number of them) is the reason. That doesn't strick me as being it, but I have no easy way to know. |>> It's a 20 GB |>> partition, my "root partition", which is the way I want it. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] | drive, and it takes BING 45 minutes to do the partition copy. | Not bad. Mine go in about 12 mins., but the data copied is 1.25 GB. | The only thing that is bad is that I have to disconnect and reconnect | that 40 pin IDE connector (and small 4 pin power connector), each | time. A minor nuisance. I keep mine constantly connected, & it allows mini-copies to be made in Explorer back/forth. For instance, I keep McAfee updated on the clone by copying over 4 files after an update of defs. It's either that or taking 99+ of them after restoring to the backup! Also, rather than use BING, I just copy over stuff from my smaller partitions to their backups on the 2nd drive. | I'd like to have an IDE 40 pin, 2 | position (A-B) switch (if they made one), so I didn't have to do | this, and could instead just flip the switch manually each time (to | either select my other hard drive, which is in the system, or the | backup drive, which is normally out of the system, as needbe).. I have no experience in it, but haven't others posted about a tray of removable/switchable drives? Or is that what you've already got? |>>> I wonder... Which BrowseWM.dll are you using? |>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] | | Yup, already tried recreating the shortcut, and got the same results. Uhuh. Nothing more is coming into my head-- and I've pondered 17 minutes more! What happens for you in both situations when you try...?... "WinKey+e". But, for me, that gives the unexpanded one with the focus on "My Computer". And that is the same as... "R-Clk 'My Computer' on Desktop, Explore". I don't really see how knowing this can cure you, though. |>>> But I'm only guessing that has anything to do with it. |> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] |> PCR |> pcrrcp@netzero.net SignatureThanks or Good Luck, There may be humor in this post, and, Naturally, you will not sue, Should things get worse after this, PCR pcrrcp@netzero.net > ...snip >>>>>> This really is a bit puzzling, and yes, I have to admit, my system [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > I keep mine cons |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message