What is wrong with WinME?

  • Thread starter Thread starter letterman@invalid.com
  • Start date Start date
Yes, well with the backup regime you're pretty well safe and everyone should
back up religiously regardless of which OS they use anyway. I just want to
make the point that *I* used to think XP had this boot file corruption
problem that would require a reinstallation from time to time - but while it
was a fairly regular occurance in the beginning, I haven't seen it for
several years - except where it has been this easily correctable boot.ini
issue. Possibly it always was this boot.ini thing (which is probably much
more rare if you only have one partition - though backing up is that much
more troublesome, so less likely to be done, which is why one big C: will
always be birdbrained!).

Certainly I once thought XP was far from as trouble-free as they were making
out now I think it really takes an effort to break it! It *is* the best OS
MS have made. Though they still haven't fixed their Activation procedure.

P.S.

I forgot what I was going to say.


Mart wrote:
> Thanks S - I appreciate your suggestion which sounds like a d**m good
> idea. (Although in my case it was a failed HDD rather than just a
> missing file) But I suppose I've veered a bit OT and we are in danger
> of highjacking LM's thread.
>
> Mart
>
>
> "Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:%239tlc4RBJHA.4368@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> My own experience of an XP box (catastrophically) failing to boot
>>> was when the HDD died - so can't really blame it on XP. But have to
>>> admit that trying to recover data from an NTFS HDD was "difficult"
>>> - Soon learnt to use a backup regime after that!
>>>
>>
>>
>> The one most people run into like into a brick wall is the failing
>> to boot due to the HCL or autochk or NTDETECT or similar not being
>> found and, usually, in my experience, that is due to an incorrect
>> boot.ini. And apart from the fact you can correct that via booting
>> with a BartPE disc - though that is quite a lot of effort to make in
>> the first place - you can edit boot.ini via BootItNG (unregistered).
>> Burn one to cd (especially since odds are you won't have a floppy
>> drive anymore!) and there is no need to update it. With SATA and
>> RAID (and NT6.x as well as NT5.x) I still use a BING cd from 2006,
>> and it can be a godsend. Of course, if you make a copy of boot.ini
>> and leave it in the root you don't even need to edit, just rename.
>>
>>
>> P.
 
Mike M wrote:
> Pogle S. Wood <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> The one most people run into like into a brick wall is the failing to
>> boot due to the HCL or autochk or NTDETECT or similar not being found
>> and, usually, in my experience, that is due to an incorrect boot.ini.
>> And apart from the fact you can correct that via booting with a
>> BartPE disc - though that is quite a lot of effort to make in the
>> first place - you can edit boot.ini via BootItNG (unregistered). Burn
>> one to cd (especially since odds are you won't have a floppy drive
>> anymore!) and there is no need to update it. With SATA and RAID (and
>> NT6.x as well as NT5.x) I still use a BING cd from 2006, and it can
>> be a godsend. Of course, if you make a copy of boot.ini and leave it
>> in the root you don't even need to edit, just rename.
>
> BING can not only handle and edit boot.ini but can also use BCEdit to
> edit the Vista equivalent although you will probably need to be using
> a later version of BING than one from 2006.
>

Yes, I can see that. I shall have to try it. So far the only time I took a
look at BCEdit, I ran away screaming!


P.
 
> I did reply to your most recent e-mail (21 August, re scanner post).

No rush Mike - however I didn't get your reply, above. Odd?

Hmm .. I had been getting a couple of "hanging server" issues (Code 5 -
whatever they mean by that) again earlier in the week. Yahoo seem to have
got yet another rogue server which was playing-up. Just checked again and
there's nothing stuck with my ISP. Definitely not my end though!!

Mart



"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:OJlZsBSBJHA.4316@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Mart <mart(NoSpam)@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>
>> A big AMEN to that Mike!
>>
>> Mart
>>
>> BTW - have you disabled your 'usual' email address recently Mike? I've
>> sent you some over the past couple of weeks. They've not bounced
>> and I've not had a response. Maybe you're just busy <g>
>
> Apologies for that Mart, I must check. I suspect that I might have read
> them, marked them for reply and then forgot all about them. As you have
> already suspected I've not been feeling too hot recently (a different
> problem from normal) and have also been keeping myself busy with
> finalising the accounts for the development where I live. I'll try and
> respond later although I see I did reply to your most recent e-mail (21
> August, re scanner post).
> --
> Mike M
>
>
 
PSW ended with :-

> P.S.
>
> I forgot what I was going to say.

Thank goodness that its not just me. These 'senior moments' are becoming
more prevalent.

Mart

<snipped>
 
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 04:20:11 -0500, letterman@invalid.com wrote:

> I have been running Win98SE since 1998. I have a WinME Cd. I tried
> it in a spare harddrive. I saw no problems with it, but I only played
> around with the OS. Never ran any real applications. I have
> considered upgrading to WinME many times. I strongly dislike Win2000,
> and XP. Not to mention that my computer is likely too slow to run XP.
> I am fully satisfied with Win98, so I see no reason to upgrade.
> However, I know that ME has better USB support and a few other
> improvements. Yet, I have had many people tell me to avoid WinME.
> They say it's buggy.
>
> What is really wrong with ME? Where are the bugs?

Nothing, that I know of. None, that I know of. One major difference between
Windows Me and Windwos 98SE, that I have observed: System Resources. With
Win98, if you drop to around 30% free System Resources, the system crashes,
hard. Time to cycle the power (and wait for the "File System Integrity
Check" to run on reboot!) With Windows Me, I could recover with as little as
10% free System Resource, by closing applications until I could restart the
system.

The main problem had with Windows Me was running Mercury/32, an MTA, on it.
Every time I opened the Mercury control console, it would use up a few more
of the System Resources. Until I was down to about 15% free System
Resources, and had to restart the system. Not a fun way to run a mail
server. Windows XP does not have that issue with System Resources (it is
inherent to Win9x systems only). Since the old HP Pavilion 6745C that came
with Windows Me was barely adequate to run Windows XP, I upgraded to Windows
XP Home Edition. Fresh install of the upgrade version, on new NTFS file
system. 700 MHz Intel Celeron processor and 256 MBytes of system RAM. Slow
to boot, slow to start applications, but, once it is up and running, it
stays that way.

As currently configured, that old Pavilion does the job but it was becoming
slug with the things I wanted to do, and newer hardware meant getting the
newer OS, as well. Windows Me on that old Pavilion is an OEM install, and
the license ties it to the hardware.

--
Norman
~Shine, bright morning light,
~now in the air the spring is coming.
~Sweet, blowing wind,
~singing down the hills and valleys.
 
Mart,

I've just resent my last e-mail which I first sent on 21 August rather
than yesterday. Perhaps I confused things by saying I had sent it
yesterday. <g>
--
Mike


Mart <mart(NoSpam)@nospam.nospam> wrote:

>> I did reply to your most recent e-mail (21 August, re scanner post).
>
> No rush Mike - however I didn't get your reply, above. Odd?
>
> Hmm .. I had been getting a couple of "hanging server" issues (Code 5
> - whatever they mean by that) again earlier in the week. Yahoo seem
> to have got yet another rogue server which was playing-up. Just
> checked again and there's nothing stuck with my ISP. Definitely not
> my end though!!
 
"Pogle S. Wood" wrote:

> Yes, well with the backup regime you're pretty well safe and everyone should
> back up religiously regardless of which OS they use anyway. I just want to
> make the point that *I* used to think XP had this boot file corruption
> problem that would require a reinstallation from time to time - but while it
> was a fairly regular occurance in the beginning, I haven't seen it for
> several years - except where it has been this easily correctable boot.ini
> issue. Possibly it always was this boot.ini thing (which is probably much
> more rare if you only have one partition - though backing up is that much
> more troublesome, so less likely to be done, which is why one big C: will
> always be birdbrained!).
>
> Certainly I once thought XP was far from as trouble-free as they were making
> out now I think it really takes an effort to break it! It *is* the best OS
> MS have made. Though they still haven't fixed their Activation procedure.
>
> P.S.
>
> I forgot what I was going to say.
>
>
> Mart wrote:
> > Thanks S - I appreciate your suggestion which sounds like a d**m good
> > idea. (Although in my case it was a failed HDD rather than just a
> > missing file) But I suppose I've veered a bit OT and we are in danger
> > of highjacking LM's thread.
> >
> > Mart
> >
> >
> > "Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> > news:%239tlc4RBJHA.4368@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >>> My own experience of an XP box (catastrophically) failing to boot
> >>> was when the HDD died - so can't really blame it on XP. But have to
> >>> admit that trying to recover data from an NTFS HDD was "difficult"
> >>> - Soon learnt to use a backup regime after that!
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> The one most people run into like into a brick wall is the failing
> >> to boot due to the HCL or autochk or NTDETECT or similar not being
> >> found and, usually, in my experience, that is due to an incorrect
> >> boot.ini. And apart from the fact you can correct that via booting
> >> with a BartPE disc - though that is quite a lot of effort to make in
> >> the first place - you can edit boot.ini via BootItNG (unregistered).
> >> Burn one to cd (especially since odds are you won't have a floppy
> >> drive anymore!) and there is no need to update it. With SATA and
> >> RAID (and NT6.x as well as NT5.x) I still use a BING cd from 2006,
> >> and it can be a godsend. Of course, if you make a copy of boot.ini
> >> and leave it in the root you don't even need to edit, just rename.
> >>
> >>
> >> P.
>
>
>
 
Pogle

Regarding "backups" -- can you recommend a (free) backup program that
will run under ME? Can i use msbackup from Win98(NOT)SE? If so, anybody
know which CAB file it's in on the 98 CD?
--- Thanks!
Bob - who still misses DOS


"Pogle S. Wood" wrote:

> Yes, well with the backup regime you're pretty well safe and everyone should
> back up religiously regardless of which OS they use anyway... ...and it can be a godsend. Of course, if you make a copy of boot.ini
> >> and leave it in the root you don't even need to edit, just rename.
> >>
> >>
> >> P.
 
I found 'Acronis True Image' (Free) quite effective and running well under
WinME.
No idea about msbackup.

Harry.


"BobAT286" <Bob@NoSpam_Cheeseburger.NoCoke.Pepsi> wrote in message
news:59E6A128-3147-42AD-98D7-3E118091FE4D@microsoft.com...
> Pogle
>
> Regarding "backups" -- can you recommend a (free) backup program that
> will run under ME? Can i use msbackup from Win98(NOT)SE? If so, anybody
> know which CAB file it's in on the 98 CD?
> --- Thanks!
> Bob - who still misses DOS
>
>
> "Pogle S. Wood" wrote:
>
> > Yes, well with the backup regime you're pretty well safe and everyone
should
> > back up religiously regardless of which OS they use anyway... ...and it
can be a godsend. Of course, if you make a copy of boot.ini
> > >> and leave it in the root you don't even need to edit, just rename.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> P.
>
 
The MS Backup program is in the add-ons\msbackup folder on Microsoft Me
CDs but unfortunately it appears that not all OEMs have included this
folder on the CDs they provide with new PCs. Similarly many of those OEMs
who simply provide restore CDs appear also to have omitted this program.

The executable needed to install MSBackup that Microsoft distribute on the
Win Me CD is msbexp.exe so if you have an OEM CD or a recovery CD you
might want to search the CD and see if it was included.

See also MS KB 264541 - "Microsoft Backup Tool Is Not Installed by Windows
Millennium Edition" (http://support.microsoft.com?kbid=264541). If you
upgraded to Win Me from say Win 98 and MSBackup was installed on Win 98 it
should have been retained on upgrading to Win Me. . Note that Microsoft
have not made MSBackup available for download.
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby@gmail.com


BobAT286 <Bob@NoSpam_Cheeseburger.NoCoke.Pepsi> wrote:

> Pogle
>
> Regarding "backups" -- can you recommend a (free) backup program
> that will run under ME? Can i use msbackup from Win98(NOT)SE? If
> so, anybody know which CAB file it's in on the 98 CD?
 
I don't know (in the biblical sense) any freeware backup programs, sorry.
I've been using PowerQuest DriveImage 2002 for years now (since, well,
2002!). The Acronis Harry mentions is, as far as I know, one that was
briefly offered for free but is no longer.

MSBackup is not up to the job it can back up personal files etc but nothing
that is in use at the time, so cannot make full backups for a complete
restore (I don't think it was able to back up to CD either, although it is a
long time since I looked into it. Of course, with XP came NTBackup, which is
probably marginally better, assuming it runs in 9x).

I presume you mean which cab file on the ME CD? If so, it is in a folder in
the root. 'Extras' I think. I customized my CD long ago and deleted the
'Extras' as a waste of space. In the 98 (SE) cabs the various files are in
WIN98_24.cab, WIN98_25.cab, WIN98_46.cab and WIN98_49.cab, being
msbackup.chm, msbackup.cnt, msbackup.exe and msbackup.hlp respectively.

You can, of course, do backups from DOS, such as with Norton Ghost or
DriveImage rescue floppies. I used to have the former but ditched it in
favour of DriveImage. Seeing as how PowerQuest was brought by Symantec and
DI2002 is long dead, if you want a copy of the rescue floppies, I don't mind
emailing you one. The only problem with them is that on an old ME box,
imaging takes a long time from DOS (it takes long enough from Windows! And
there is another reason why a modern computer is a boon - DriveImage runs at
about 3 times as fast on my 2200GHz Athlon than it did on my old 850!).

P.



BobAT286 wrote:
> Pogle
>
> Regarding "backups" -- can you recommend a (free) backup program
> that will run under ME? Can i use msbackup from Win98(NOT)SE? If
> so, anybody know which CAB file it's in on the 98 CD?
> --- Thanks!
> Bob - who still misses DOS
>
>
> "Pogle S. Wood" wrote:
>
>> Yes, well with the backup regime you're pretty well safe and
>> everyone should
>> back up religiously regardless of which OS they use anyway...
>> ...and it can be a godsend. Of course, if you make a copy of
>> boot.ini
>>>> and leave it in the root you don't even need to edit, just rename.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> P.
 
> would not even boot. Drives formatted with that NTFS format are near
> helpless once the OS cant be booted. With a FAT partition I can
> always boot to dos and save data. Win2000 seems to work ok with a
> FAT32 format, but not XP. I hear vista is even worse. I wont trust

NTFS is not a problem with a BartPE CD. Meanwhile XP does install on FAT32 -
you can even first install Windows 95/98 or ME (with a DOS hack) then delete
all but the DOS files, then install XP to that partition and you have a dual
boot with MS-DOS 7.10 (or 8.00 if using hacked ME). I finally stopped doing
this because with a BART CD and a BING CD (and Partition Magic, which you
can use to browse XP from if you have another compatible OS to install it
in - and here's the best tip: make a 6142G partition and install XP to that.
Then make another, larger partition and install XP to that too. Use the
latter on a daily basis and keep the first for booting to access the main
one from. Apart from the fact once you have XP set up properly the chances
of your being unable to boot it ever again are infinitessimal, but if you
can't this is a far superior way to fix it or save stuff - though most worth
saving should be on another partition anyway - this is a very good way to
scan the main OS for malware, so long as this first drive is hidden, if not
actually disabled - i.e. on a seperate IDE channel - great use for an old
PATA drive! - in normal use).


> my data to an OS that relies on the actual OS having to boot in order
> to access data. With Win9x and earlier, it's easy to use a boot
> floppy to get the data saved.
>

No. Used to be, but not anymore. Bart Lagerweij took care of that (despite
MS lawyers making it as hard as they could for him). And you can believe me,
because I did until recently run XP on FAT32 with a DOS boot option. And
before that I ran Win ME with a Real Mode DOS hack (and in fact still have
the resultant MS-DOS 8.00 on a bootable USB stick).

> What really irks me too, is that everytime a faster computer is
> developed, MS slows it down with more of their bloat. Thus we never
> get any faster. It's like this: I can go grocery shopping with my old
> chevy or I can buy a limosene with all the bells and whistles. Both
> will get me to the store and back just as fast, but the limo costs 25
> times more and uses 3 times more gas. I'll still encounter the same
> traffic jams, and pay the same for my groceries, and since I'm
> driving, I wont be able to enjoy the bells and whistles anyhow.
>

I agree with you in part. No, in going from an 850 Athlon with 256M RAM to a
2200 Athlon with 1024M RAM, drive imaging is three times as fast as it was.
On the old machine twice the RAM would have made a big difference with XP.
Vista likes 2G or more. But the RAM is cheaper now, and faster. Your analogy
is picturesque, but inaccurate. Modern computers are much faster and much
more enjoyable for it. XP on 256M RAM is for most operations faster than any
9x system on the same box. With 1G of RAM XP blows 9x into the weeds. Once
you've got it set up properly - which applies to 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista.
Though even with default configuration XP is not slowed on a modern machine
to the sort of crawl of a 9x machine of 8 + years ago where, if all else is
equal, resource handling/stability shows through.

Incidently, my XP installations look like 9x. I despise 'Luna'.

> MS seems to think we need all this bloat, when in the end, we all see
> the same websites, type and print a document the same way, and nothing
> else changes, except the new computer will cost more to run for both
> purchasing and electric usage, as well as taking more time to use

No. Well, possibly. Possibly not. Old components become increasingly
inefficient - I mean, apart from the fact of most of this stuff evolving
with more efficient design anyway. Use your motor car analogy. As electrical
components age they create more heat running, which requires more energy
input, right up until the point at which they burn out. Older car engines
run richer and create more exhaust pollutants newer cars are - mostly -
much more energy efficient.

> because there are too many unneeded functions getting in the way.

Not when you've pruned them - which applies to 9x too.

P.
 
> you have another compatible OS to install it in - and here's the best
> tip: make a 6142G partition and install XP to that. Then make

I've changed my mind - just 6G or 6144M is sufficient! The second
installation probably wouldn't boot more than 6 terabytes into the disk!


P.
 
Pogle:

This sounds a bit complicated, if not to say 'confusing', to me.
Does it have to be that way?

Harry.



"Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:%23eawp7VBJHA.2060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> > would not even boot. Drives formatted with that NTFS format are near
> > helpless once the OS cant be booted. With a FAT partition I can
> > always boot to dos and save data. Win2000 seems to work ok with a
> > FAT32 format, but not XP. I hear vista is even worse. I wont trust
>
> NTFS is not a problem with a BartPE CD. Meanwhile XP does install on
FAT32 -
> you can even first install Windows 95/98 or ME (with a DOS hack) then
delete
> all but the DOS files, then install XP to that partition and you have a
dual
> boot with MS-DOS 7.10 (or 8.00 if using hacked ME). I finally stopped
doing
> this because with a BART CD and a BING CD (and Partition Magic, which you
> can use to browse XP from if you have another compatible OS to install it
> in - and here's the best tip: make a 6142G partition and install XP to
that.
> Then make another, larger partition and install XP to that too. Use the
> latter on a daily basis and keep the first for booting to access the main
> one from. Apart from the fact once you have XP set up properly the chances
> of your being unable to boot it ever again are infinitessimal, but if you
> can't this is a far superior way to fix it or save stuff - though most
worth
> saving should be on another partition anyway - this is a very good way to
> scan the main OS for malware, so long as this first drive is hidden, if
not
> actually disabled - i.e. on a seperate IDE channel - great use for an old
> PATA drive! - in normal use).
>
>
> > my data to an OS that relies on the actual OS having to boot in order
> > to access data. With Win9x and earlier, it's easy to use a boot
> > floppy to get the data saved.
> >
>
> No. Used to be, but not anymore. Bart Lagerweij took care of that (despite
> MS lawyers making it as hard as they could for him). And you can believe
me,
> because I did until recently run XP on FAT32 with a DOS boot option. And
> before that I ran Win ME with a Real Mode DOS hack (and in fact still have
> the resultant MS-DOS 8.00 on a bootable USB stick).
>
> > What really irks me too, is that everytime a faster computer is
> > developed, MS slows it down with more of their bloat. Thus we never
> > get any faster. It's like this: I can go grocery shopping with my old
> > chevy or I can buy a limosene with all the bells and whistles. Both
> > will get me to the store and back just as fast, but the limo costs 25
> > times more and uses 3 times more gas. I'll still encounter the same
> > traffic jams, and pay the same for my groceries, and since I'm
> > driving, I wont be able to enjoy the bells and whistles anyhow.
> >
>
> I agree with you in part. No, in going from an 850 Athlon with 256M RAM to
a
> 2200 Athlon with 1024M RAM, drive imaging is three times as fast as it
was.
> On the old machine twice the RAM would have made a big difference with XP.
> Vista likes 2G or more. But the RAM is cheaper now, and faster. Your
analogy
> is picturesque, but inaccurate. Modern computers are much faster and much
> more enjoyable for it. XP on 256M RAM is for most operations faster than
any
> 9x system on the same box. With 1G of RAM XP blows 9x into the weeds. Once
> you've got it set up properly - which applies to 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista.
> Though even with default configuration XP is not slowed on a modern
machine
> to the sort of crawl of a 9x machine of 8 + years ago where, if all else
is
> equal, resource handling/stability shows through.
>
> Incidently, my XP installations look like 9x. I despise 'Luna'.
>
> > MS seems to think we need all this bloat, when in the end, we all see
> > the same websites, type and print a document the same way, and nothing
> > else changes, except the new computer will cost more to run for both
> > purchasing and electric usage, as well as taking more time to use
>
> No. Well, possibly. Possibly not. Old components become increasingly
> inefficient - I mean, apart from the fact of most of this stuff evolving
> with more efficient design anyway. Use your motor car analogy. As
electrical
> components age they create more heat running, which requires more energy
> input, right up until the point at which they burn out. Older car engines
> run richer and create more exhaust pollutants newer cars are - mostly -
> much more energy efficient.
>
> > because there are too many unneeded functions getting in the way.
>
> Not when you've pruned them - which applies to 9x too.
>
> P.
>
>
 
How about trying this link:

http://www.freedownloadscenter.com/Utilities/Misc__Utilities/Acronis_True_Image.html

It says 'free download', but I didn't test it myself.
Let us know either way, please.

Harry.


"Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:%23oaaiTVBJHA.3496@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> I don't know (in the biblical sense) any freeware backup programs, sorry.
> I've been using PowerQuest DriveImage 2002 for years now (since, well,
> 2002!). The Acronis Harry mentions is, as far as I know, one that was
> briefly offered for free but is no longer.
>
> MSBackup is not up to the job it can back up personal files etc but
nothing
> that is in use at the time, so cannot make full backups for a complete
> restore (I don't think it was able to back up to CD either, although it is
a
> long time since I looked into it. Of course, with XP came NTBackup, which
is
> probably marginally better, assuming it runs in 9x).
>
> I presume you mean which cab file on the ME CD? If so, it is in a folder
in
> the root. 'Extras' I think. I customized my CD long ago and deleted the
> 'Extras' as a waste of space. In the 98 (SE) cabs the various files are in
> WIN98_24.cab, WIN98_25.cab, WIN98_46.cab and WIN98_49.cab, being
> msbackup.chm, msbackup.cnt, msbackup.exe and msbackup.hlp respectively.
>
> You can, of course, do backups from DOS, such as with Norton Ghost or
> DriveImage rescue floppies. I used to have the former but ditched it in
> favour of DriveImage. Seeing as how PowerQuest was brought by Symantec and
> DI2002 is long dead, if you want a copy of the rescue floppies, I don't
mind
> emailing you one. The only problem with them is that on an old ME box,
> imaging takes a long time from DOS (it takes long enough from Windows! And
> there is another reason why a modern computer is a boon - DriveImage runs
at
> about 3 times as fast on my 2200GHz Athlon than it did on my old 850!).
>
> P.
>
>
>
> BobAT286 wrote:
> > Pogle
> >
> > Regarding "backups" -- can you recommend a (free) backup program
> > that will run under ME? Can i use msbackup from Win98(NOT)SE? If
> > so, anybody know which CAB file it's in on the 98 CD?
> > --- Thanks!
> > Bob - who still misses DOS
> >
> >
> > "Pogle S. Wood" wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, well with the backup regime you're pretty well safe and
> >> everyone should
> >> back up religiously regardless of which OS they use anyway...
> >> ...and it can be a godsend. Of course, if you make a copy of
> >> boot.ini
> >>>> and leave it in the root you don't even need to edit, just rename.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> P.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
 
webster72n wrote:
> Pogle:
>
> This sounds a bit complicated, if not to say 'confusing', to me.
> Does it have to be that way?
>

No doubt it is a little confusing in that I did not finish a sentence, and
recommended making a 6T (which is a pre-unit Thunderbird) partition. But
probably what I was going to add is obvious - if by the time you get to the
end of the diversion-in-parentheses you can remember how it started! I am
not a great communicator, though I can signal my disdain quite well if I do
say so myself. And as I do say so myself it doesn't really count.

Otherwise I am basically responding to what M. Letterman has to say and much
of what I mean requires a knowledge of computers consistent with making
value-judgement comparisons of operating systems and isn't meant to be
accessible to all (which is not to say that it is deliberately meant to be
opaque).

Having said that - and I have, so I'll continue - if you could be more
specific, i.e. *what* sounds a bit complicated and confusing and does *what*
have to be that way (if I haven't already addressed this above?)

P.


>
>
>
> "Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23eawp7VBJHA.2060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> would not even boot. Drives formatted with that NTFS format are
>>> near helpless once the OS cant be booted. With a FAT partition I
>>> can always boot to dos and save data. Win2000 seems to work ok
>>> with a FAT32 format, but not XP. I hear vista is even worse. I
>>> wont trust
>>
>> NTFS is not a problem with a BartPE CD. Meanwhile XP does install on
>> FAT32 - you can even first install Windows 95/98 or ME (with a DOS
>> hack) then delete all but the DOS files, then install XP to that
>> partition and you have a dual boot with MS-DOS 7.10 (or 8.00 if
>> using hacked ME). I finally stopped doing this because with a BART
>> CD and a BING CD (and Partition Magic, which you can use to browse
>> XP from if you have another compatible OS to install it in - and
>> here's the best tip: make a 6142G partition and install XP to that.
>> Then make another, larger partition and install XP to that too. Use
>> the latter on a daily basis and keep the first for booting to access
>> the main one from. Apart from the fact once you have XP set up
>> properly the chances of your being unable to boot it ever again are
>> infinitessimal, but if you can't this is a far superior way to fix
>> it or save stuff - though most worth saving should be on another
>> partition anyway - this is a very good way to scan the main OS for
>> malware, so long as this first drive is hidden, if not actually
>> disabled - i.e. on a seperate IDE channel - great use for an old
>> PATA drive! - in normal use).
>>
>>
>>> my data to an OS that relies on the actual OS having to boot in
>>> order to access data. With Win9x and earlier, it's easy to use a
>>> boot floppy to get the data saved.
>>>
>>
>> No. Used to be, but not anymore. Bart Lagerweij took care of that
>> (despite MS lawyers making it as hard as they could for him). And
>> you can believe me, because I did until recently run XP on FAT32
>> with a DOS boot option. And before that I ran Win ME with a Real
>> Mode DOS hack (and in fact still have the resultant MS-DOS 8.00 on a
>> bootable USB stick).
>>
>>> What really irks me too, is that everytime a faster computer is
>>> developed, MS slows it down with more of their bloat. Thus we never
>>> get any faster. It's like this: I can go grocery shopping with my
>>> old chevy or I can buy a limosene with all the bells and whistles.
>>> Both will get me to the store and back just as fast, but the limo
>>> costs 25 times more and uses 3 times more gas. I'll still
>>> encounter the same traffic jams, and pay the same for my groceries,
>>> and since I'm driving, I wont be able to enjoy the bells and
>>> whistles anyhow.
>>>
>>
>> I agree with you in part. No, in going from an 850 Athlon with 256M
>> RAM to a 2200 Athlon with 1024M RAM, drive imaging is three times as
>> fast as it was. On the old machine twice the RAM would have made a
>> big difference with XP. Vista likes 2G or more. But the RAM is
>> cheaper now, and faster. Your analogy is picturesque, but
>> inaccurate. Modern computers are much faster and much more enjoyable
>> for it. XP on 256M RAM is for most operations faster than any 9x
>> system on the same box. With 1G of RAM XP blows 9x into the weeds.
>> Once you've got it set up properly - which applies to 95, 98, ME,
>> XP, Vista. Though even with default configuration XP is not slowed
>> on a modern machine to the sort of crawl of a 9x machine of 8 +
>> years ago where, if all else is equal, resource handling/stability
>> shows through.
>>
>> Incidently, my XP installations look like 9x. I despise 'Luna'.
>>
>>> MS seems to think we need all this bloat, when in the end, we all
>>> see the same websites, type and print a document the same way, and
>>> nothing else changes, except the new computer will cost more to run
>>> for both purchasing and electric usage, as well as taking more time
>>> to use
>>
>> No. Well, possibly. Possibly not. Old components become increasingly
>> inefficient - I mean, apart from the fact of most of this stuff
>> evolving with more efficient design anyway. Use your motor car
>> analogy. As electrical components age they create more heat running,
>> which requires more energy input, right up until the point at which
>> they burn out. Older car engines run richer and create more exhaust
>> pollutants newer cars are - mostly - much more energy efficient.
>>
>>> because there are too many unneeded functions getting in the way.
>>
>> Not when you've pruned them - which applies to 9x too.
>>
>> P.
 
I just had "system32\ntoskrnl.exe not found". This is because I made
another attempt to install Win2K, the way I do everything else, i.e. so that
my boot manager can then add it and the new OS successfully boot that way.

This time I tried adding Win2K by deleting XP then reinstalling it - and the
boot manager - after Win2K was set up. But it did not work, again, so I
deleted it, again, and restored XP - and the OS next to it, which I had also
deleted.

Only this time the 2nd OS got the ID 'partition(1'), which XP had been
before. However that happened I do not know but this is a regular problem in
restoring, multibooting - or disk management where you want the SATA disk
listed before the PATA disk: the way the bios enumerates them is not the
same as the way XP does, i.e. the bios (probably dependent on the make I
suppose) lists them in the order they were created, while XP lists them in
the order they are physically allocated.

XP was 'partition(1)' and the other OS was 'partition(2)', but following the
restore those were reversed in the bios, but not in the restored boot.ini,
so I had to edit it to read 'partition(2)' instead of 'partition(1)'.
Restarted and it booted right away no problem.

The NT6.x partition booted from the off, despite also being reversed.

btw Mart, I feel this is a legitimate offshoot of the original thread, since
the OP states a good deal about XP being terrible and a reason to stick with
9x, apparently based on misunderstood first impressions or perhaps 'Common
Sense' - which is usually shorthand for 'Completely Wrong On Account Of
Believing What It Takes To Believe To Shore Up One's Comforting Delusions
Rather Than What Can Be Seen Clear As Day When You Don't Make An Effort To
Avoid Doing So'. It is easy to see why the shorthand is preferred -
unfortunately the original meaning has been lost in the mists of living in
the past.

P.

Mart wrote:
> Thanks S - I appreciate your suggestion which sounds like a d**m good
> idea. (Although in my case it was a failed HDD rather than just a
> missing file) But I suppose I've veered a bit OT and we are in danger
> of highjacking LM's thread.
>
> Mart
>
>
> "Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:%239tlc4RBJHA.4368@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> My own experience of an XP box (catastrophically) failing to boot
>>> was when the HDD died - so can't really blame it on XP. But have to
>>> admit that trying to recover data from an NTFS HDD was "difficult"
>>> - Soon learnt to use a backup regime after that!
>>>
>>
>>
>> The one most people run into like into a brick wall is the failing
>> to boot due to the HCL or autochk or NTDETECT or similar not being
>> found and, usually, in my experience, that is due to an incorrect
>> boot.ini. And apart from the fact you can correct that via booting
>> with a BartPE disc - though that is quite a lot of effort to make in
>> the first place - you can edit boot.ini via BootItNG (unregistered).
>> Burn one to cd (especially since odds are you won't have a floppy
>> drive anymore!) and there is no need to update it. With SATA and
>> RAID (and NT6.x as well as NT5.x) I still use a BING cd from 2006,
>> and it can be a godsend. Of course, if you make a copy of boot.ini
>> and leave it in the root you don't even need to edit, just rename.
>>
>>
>> P.
 
>> MS seems to think we need all this bloat, when in the end, we all see
>> the same websites, type and print a document the same way, and
>> nothing else changes, except the new computer will cost more to run
>> for both purchasing and electric usage, as well as taking more time
>> to use
>

Also, new computers are far, far cheaper to purchase than they were. My 850
Athlon WinME box cost over £1000 in 2000. My 2200 Athlon XP Pro box cost
about £300 a bit more than a year ago. Now for the same price you can get
one with Vista Home Premium and 2G of RAM. The processors we're talking here
are likely to be 64-bit and/or dual core into the bargain.

The downside is they're made in China.

P.
 
Back
Top