Well, if this group had edit capabilities I would put a capitalized WARNING
there and in the previous postings which also indicated the problems
associated with installing in previously updated systems.
As for instability, the un-officially updated systems that I have tested
and extensively monitored, ALL come dangerously close to failures, even
though appearing to be *stable*. As these ARE XP and other files, they
contain references and calls to non-existent files, services, and functions
CONSTANTLY bordering upon complete failure. The modifications that have been
applied might limit the impact, but the issues remain for the most part.
That's why I would love to see these testing results and other, posted on
the Internet [and I have no intention of doing so, let the propounders of
use do their own work].
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________
"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:O1Y0XbQvIHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| Only cite from you (recently) that I could find is a one-paragraph, very
| general comment, certainly not a WARNING! But I'll keep looking, <s>.
|
| I looked into that thing, even ran it in simple Search mode, and the most
| minimal "Critical" module (or whatever it's exact title is) contains a TON
| of stuff that I wouldn't want to install en masse, or at all on many if
not
| most machines. And, of course, I wouldn't trust any claims of
| uninstallability, period, without running a full analysis, and I don't
think
| this warrants the effort.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS-MVP Shell/User
|
www.grystmill.com
|
|
| "MEB" <meb@not
here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:%23AXjBMQvIHA.5584@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| > Excuse me for butting in, but *I* did supply the warning in the
| > post/discussion *warning* about installing these things in already
updated
| > systems.
| > I personally HAVE tested numerous of these compilations, and DO warn
| > concerning their use when such appears in this group.
| >
| > I agree, the works are at best "beta tests" as I have repeatedly posted
in
| > this group I also agree that the documentation is slim and poorly
| > researched and presented.. I also would like to see a more extensive
| > review
| > of these compilations.
| >
| > But I also see the potential value, for some, that these might provide.
| > However, I would also like to see the sites which provide these, to also
| > provide support forums for these updaters, where those with issues can
| > address them without scorn. With Summaries and Warnings CLEARLY posted
| > throughout the sites.
| > CLEARLY, those who post that these are fail-safe or attempt to direct in
| > the fashion, are failing to address the differing configurations of the
| > individual systems. They are also CLEARLY failing to address the
differing
| > applications which might be installed within those *unofficially*
updated
| > systems.
| > MOST IMPORTANTLY, they also CLEARLY fail to address the additional
| > security
| > risks and other issues which become part of this un-official updating.
| > Many of these official updates can be modified to work within 9X, but
for
| > them to work safely [or what is purported as such in Microsoft
| > environments], they NEED the other functions/services available within
the
| > OS for which they were originally intended.
| >
| > I have yet to find the sites which have setup proper testing facilities
to
| > test and attack these systems. I have yet to see the file and system
error
| > check reports. I have yet to find the sites which deal with the
| > inter-relationships of these updates and the ramifications thereby
| > related..
| > As such, ALL usage of these unofficial updaters should be taken with
| > extreme
| > caution and skepticism.
| >
| > Stating that "it works for me" means nothing and produces an air that
| > these
| > are OKAY for everyone, which they are NOT..
| >
| > --
| > MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > --
| > _________
| >
| > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > news:%23W7tE1PvIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
| > | LOL! You can't decently defend one accusation I made. Look, just
because
| > it
| > | hasn't caused YOU any problems, it HAS caused problems, as you've seen
| > in
| > | this group in just the past couple of days. And, pray tell, who else
| > here
| > | has said anything negative about AP except me? How could I possibly be
| > | "relying solely on snippets and the barbs of others"? My opinions are
| > | entirely my own, you twit.
| > |
| > | I CERTAINLY read that page of "instructions" and it isn't anything of
| > the
| > | sort. I CERTAINLY, reviewed the forum to a fair extent, and it was
| > totally
| > | non-informative about the app except to prove that lots of people have
| > | problems with it and they seem to be mostly problems of
incompatibility
| > with
| > | other apps and (as seen in this group) hardware. That indicates
| > insufficient
| > | testing. It CERTAINLY caused at least two people in this group grief
| > when
| > | they tried it, with problems you apparently don't know the answer to,
| > and
| > in
| > | one case will apparently require a total rebuild to "fix" it. I
| > CERTAINLY
| > | *have* downloaded it and looked into it, but I don't have a machine I
| > feel
| > | like rebuilding right now, so I'd be stupid to actually run it. And
| > other
| > | than that one "comment", I DON'T see ANYWHERE where it says, "Only run
| > this
| > | on a fresh install of Windows 98." You'd think that was rather an
| > important
| > | thing for the new user to know. But, of course, I've read a lot,
| > everything
| > | available except not ALL of the dozens of pages of MSFN forum, and
| > that's
| > | the only place that little rule is mentioned, so I think YOU are the
one
| > | that's off the wall and that a fresh install isn't supposed to be a
| > | requirement at all. Hey, if you really don't know what you're talking
| > about,
| > | you should keep your yap shut.
| > |
| > | The whole IDEA of Auto-Patcher is wrong-headed and it's full of
| > potential
| > | problems because of all the unofficial updates and attempts at
building
| > 98
| > | patches from XP versions, but even then, it's not ready for
| > distribution.
| > | It's barely reached Beta stage. Responsible people generally do not
| > | recommend Beta products to others.
| > |
| > | NOT ONLY WILL I NOT USE Auto-Patcher, I WILL SLAM IT AND BAD MOUTH
| > ANYONE
| > | WHO EVEN RECOMMENDS IT, now and for the foreseeable future. It's a big
a
| > | pile of crap as I've seen in a long time. Like something Symantec
might
| > | vomit out.
| > |
| > | Lastly, quit brown-nosing me and go find someone else to pretend
you're
| > the
| > | equal of. You're an ignorant cuss, enamored of a juvenile circle-jerk
| > called
| > | "Auto-Patcher". If you want a metaphor, try Communism, the "peoples'
| > party"
| > | Valhalla that never managed to accomplish anything but evil.
| > |
| > | Let me put it more simply -- If people want Windows XP (or Vista),
they
| > | should go out and buy them, instead of trying to make Windows 98 into
| > | something it can never decently be.
| > |
| > | --
| > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| > |
www.grystmill.com
| > |
| > | "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message
| > news:qoCZj.89588$y05.29430@newsfe22.lga...
| > | > Don't like it? Don't use it, simple as that albeit your "review"
| > | > is tantamount to an evaluation of a book where the critic has
| > | > not only not read the work (let alone perused the Cliff Notes)
| > | > but instead haughtily berates those that have relying solely on
| > | > snippets and the barbs of others. In any case, to each his own.
| > | >
| > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > | > news:%23oHcbvOvIHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| > | >> Would be nice if the author could bother to put a real front page
on
| > that
| > | >> thing. Would be nice if the people slogging this product in this
| > group,
| > | >> along with the rest of the author's cohort, could be bothered to
| > provide
| > | > the
| > | >> important links regarding it's use. So far, I have a link to MSFN
| > that
| > | > looks
| > | >> just like any other product development discussion -- two freakin'
| > years
| > | >> worth. A new user is supposed to slog through that to find a list
of
| > | >> instructions? A new user, in order to avoid SERIOUS FOUL-UPS, is
| > supposed
| > | > to
| > | >> do this?
| > | >>
| > | >> OK, so I go to soporific.com, expecting there'll be instructions
| > there.
| > | >> Nope, just list of folders. So it's guessing game time. OK, I'll
| > click
| > on
| > | >> Main. Hmm.... bunch of political blather... Oh, there it is in the
| > upper
| > | >> right corner, Ok... Whaddya know, it's the page that you so kindly
| > linked
| > | >> to, the one nobody else who slogs the app here seems to know about.
| > | >>
| > | >> Just a long list of 47 "Comments", one of which, by golly, suggests
| > that
| > | > my
| > | >> Unofficial Time Zones Update package be included. I assume it
wasn't,
| > | > since
| > | >> I haven't heard from the author. (Oh, and down around "COMMENT" 26
is
| > | >> your
| > | >> "Instruction". Sorry, but that doesn't qualify as an "Instruction".
| > | >>
| > | >> So, maybe the app is useful, and maybe it is even a God Send for IT
| > | > people.
| > | >> (But I think people who try to turn Windows 98 into Windows XP have
| > | >> something missing in their soul.) But it was the HEIGHT of
| > | > irresponsibility
| > | >> for anyone in this group to be promoting it, because frankly, it
| > isn't
| > | >> finished, and/or they don't really know anything about it, and/or
if
| > they
| > | >
| > | > DO
| > | >> know anything about it, they don't apparently know the most
important
| > | >> thing -- AP is only to be applied to a fresh install.
| > | >>
| > | >> And, in the end, I don't believe the author had anything like the
| > proper
| > | >> amount of time or a sufficient depth of testers to allow, on such a
| > | > massive
| > | >> pile of cobbled together "patches", anything like a decent margin
of
| > | > safety.
| > | >> And while a forum works well when building an app by committee, it
| > does
| > | > NOT
| > | >> substitute for a manual of instructions, nor all the other usual
| > items
| > | >> you
| > | >> see on an app's download page, like Min. Reqs., CAUTIONS, etc. I
| > mean,
| > if
| > | >> the author KNOWS the app is going to choke and cause problems on
| > anythi
| > ng
| > | >> but a new installation, why THAT info should be the title of the
| > damned
| > | >> page, not some note buried in Comment 25.
| > | >>
| > | >> No, not only is this a dangerous abortion of an app for the casual
| > user,
| > | > it
| > | >> fails my own minimum requirements for any app worth a damn. My
| > opinion
| > of
| > | >> those promoting it here is that they lack any sense of
responsibility
| > | > toward
| > | >> the innocents who come here looking for advice. I say SHAME ON YOU,
| > one
| > | > and
| > | >> all.
| > | >>
| > | >> --
| > | >> Gary S. Terhune
| > | >> MS-MVP Shell/User
| > | >>
www.grystmill.com
| > | >>
| > | >> "." <.@dot.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:EppZj.89523$y05.52341@newsfe22.lga...
| > | >> > "J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in message
| > | >> > news:4835af64$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
| > | >> >> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
| > | >> >> > "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message
| > | >> >> []
| > | >> >> >> Experts usually recommend that this be done every year or
| > | >> >> >> two. It takes less than an hour thus seems prerequisite
| > before
| > | >> >> >> assuming hardware causes the problem in this PC (presumably
| > | >> >> >> 5 to 10 years old.)
| > | >> >> >
| > | >> >> > Pray tell, what "experts" recommend this habitual
reinstallation
| > of
| > | >> >> > Win98? That's a load of pure B.S. And, yes, installing Windows
| > takes
| > | >> >> > ~ 1 hour. But it can take days to finish the job properly. One
| > very,
| > | >> >> > very long day, at best.
| > | >> >>
| > | >> >> Hooray! I was going to say more or less the very same thing.
| > | >> >>
| > | >> >> As part of trying to get that microscope working, I used
| > soporific's
| > | >> >> autopatcher - yes, you were all right to say be very careful
with
| > it:
| > | > it
| > | >> >> broke my PC [freezes during boot]. (Yes, I know it only does
| > patches.
| > | > All
| > | >> >> right, one of them broke it. Same end result.) Probably
| > irretrievable
| > | >> > broken
| > | >> >> now, due to the tinkering I've done to try to get it back, but
I'm
| > | >> >> very
| > | >> > loth
| > | >> >> to do a reinstall, as there are signs that my setup is still
there
| > | >> >> underneath: it (initially) would still boot into Safe Mode, for
| > | > example.
| > | >> >> (Now just gets as far as the background pattern in Safe Mode.
Can
| > | >> >> still
| > | >> > get
| > | >> >> to command prompt no problem.)
| > | >> >>
| > | >> >> Any suggestions (other than not be a silly boy again)?
| > | >> >
| > | >> > Is it any wonder that a user that couldn't or wouldn't verify
| > | >> > the microscope mfg's requirements for the OS also couldn't
| > | >> > or wouldn't bother to follow instructions regarding program
| > | >> > installation and then blames the utility's (AP) packager? ^)
| > | >> >
| > | >> > Per the author's instructions, Auto-Patcher is supposed
| > | >> > to be applied to a fresh install of Windows 98 SE. Re:
| > | >> > The correct sequence is:
| > | >> > 1. Install Win98se
| > | >> > 2. Install Auto-Patcher and use it.
| > | >> >
http://soporific.dsleague.com/main/?page_id=7
| > | >> >
| > | >> > I've followed that recommendation and despite heavy usage
| > | >> > continue to not have the slightest conceivable issue with Auto-
| > | >> > Patcher, I've in fact had quite the exact opposite experience.
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| >
| >
|