thanatoid

"J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in
news:48779622$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:

<SNIP

>>> Nice to meet another fan; lite seems to be viewed
>>> somewhat suspiciously in at least one of the '98 'groups.
>>
>> The one full of venerable MVP's, I would imagine...
>
> Hmm. I hadn't entirely made that connection ... (-:

Yes, they get /rather/ miffed when anyone suggests you can run
Windows without IE installed :-) Nothing like being brainwashed,
huh?

> []
>> going anywhere. I think having IE on an internet-connected
>> machine is probably OK as long as you NEVER use it for
>> anything BUT chm files :-)
>>
>> (Of course, I have forgotten its tendencies to "take over
>> all internet functions" etc. since the last time I used it
>> for internet was probably about 10 years ago.)
>
> Not just all _internet_ fns, AFAICR (I haven't had it on
> for years either). []

Yes, regrettably, I tend to exaggerate. But I believe IE still
doesn't /really/ know what Usenet is. Or FTP. Or IRC. Now
/that's/ a jungle I have only ventured into once or twice -
/WHERE/ DO YOU START? I did once manage to DL an extremely rare
still of one of my favorite actresses that I have /never/ seen
anywhere else, but it's just not worth the time it would take to
learn to navigate through the insane maze of servers and
channels.

>>> reliably - _rarely_ crashes. The assorted spoilsports
>>> keep making things difficult for we '9x fans, though
>>> (mainly by withdrawing support in new versions of
>>> things).
>>
>> Yes, it's very annoying. Like it would KILL them to keep
>> providing small simple (AOT Vista or even XP) drivers.
>> Sometimes you get lucky - I haven't installed any new
>> hardware for ages, but I read recently someone used 2000
>> drivers for something and they worked on 98. I HAVE used
>> software which claims not to run on 95 and it works. And
>> the other way around, unfortunately.
>
> Ditto (especially pen drives. And yes, I do know about the
> "universal" USB driver - screwed up my machine right
> royally; conversely, I've recently set up a machine using
> soporific's "10th anniversary 1998 UBCD" which included an
> XP-like [i. e. universal] USB driver, and so far that has
> worked with anything I've tried on it).

BION, I have NEVER tried USB with my 98SE machine (all my
current peripherals are parallel or P/S). I just assume it
works. But I'm glad you mentioned the soporific driver, I'll
look it up and DL it. JUst in case.

(Update:
I have searched, and it seems it (if that's in fact what it is)
is only available as part of a ~220MB DL. Would you mind
terribly posting it in some binaries group - just the "10th
anniv. USB" ? I would really appreciate it.)

A few years ago, during a period of highly increased masochistic
tendencies coupled with too much free time, I did install a twin
USB port PCI card in this 95B machine and DL'd all the stuff
that was supposed to make it work. Unfortunately, I was trying
it with a Wacom graphics tablet I had just semi-coincidentally
bought (no one would lend me a USB peripheral) and wasn't really
familiar with it the first place (so I was dealing with 2
unknowns at the same time - a certain recipe for disaster), and
I couldn't get anything to work. So I returned the tablet, which
I kind of regret now because it was a nice all-white one and
much cheaper than the recent models, and it would most probably
work great on my 98SE machine.

>> The ONLY disadvantage to Lite is that since it uses the 95
>> shell sometimes a program which "runs on 98" will /not/
>> run on 98 Lite because of some stupid hook into the shell
>> driver. Sigh.
>
> Sometimes it's only the install routine. Usually the
> installer gives you a crash window saying which routine it
> couldn't find (often something like, IIRR, "calloutaddress
> in explorer.exe"). I've had success with these by one of 3
> (on a 98 system that's been "lite"d) - 1: do a temporary
> shell swap using 98lite, run the install, swap back; 2:
> same thing manually (rename the two files - which 98lite
> keeps there, just renames them from .dll and .exe to .w98)
> (I think you have to boot in DOS to do this), run the
> installer, rename them back; 3: using a hex. editor, hack
> the installer file so that where it says "explorer.exe"
> [near the call to the routine that doesn't exist], change
> it to "explorer.w98, then install.

Thank you, that's an EXCELLENT suggestion, and not at all hard
to follow (well, I am not enough of a tech guy to alter the
install file, but 1 and 2 are no problem).

The first thing I always install whenever I set up a computer
(admittedly it's been /a/while/) is XTree for DOS, so I am not
afraid of doing things outside of Windows, like renaming, moving
hidden files etc. :-)

> The _only_ thing I _notice_ that I miss by normally using
> the '95 shell is that, when doing a copy or move of more
> than one file, the progress bar starts again for each file,
> whereas in the '98 shell it does it for the lot. (Though I
> don't know if, when it shows 50%, it's done half the data
> or just half the number of files.) But for the greatly
> increased speed, and what seems to be increased robustness,
> I'm willing to live with that little thing!

I'm not sure what you mean because I don't use Windows Explorer.
I find the single pane interface maddening, and running two
instances side by side stupid. Not to mention its functionality
is limited, and I am being kind.

I have purchased and am a happy user of Total Commander 6.55. I
believe you get free updates for life but I didn't like the cute
XP style icons and some other unfortunate interface improvements
he put in the 7.02 version so I went back to 6.55. (I have the
interface very minimal, and all in shades of grey, like all of
Windows - courtesy DisplaySet, PC Magazine). I am STILL learning
something new about that program every week! It's AMAZING what
it can do.

<SNIP>

>> to 2000 are the ones I use most and very happily. There
>> ARE exceptions, but a good program should run on ANY 32bit
>> platform.
>
> Agreed. Or, ones that are written _as if_ running on the
> old OS and hardware - usually this means keeping the size
> down; IrfanView goes from strength to strength, and I've
> recently been quite taken with the Roadkil (yes, one L)
> utilities. Mind you, I still want to know how whoever wrote
> "flamer.com" - a DOS prog. that just simulates a fire on
> screen, and has run on everything I've ever run it on -
> managed to get it into 453 bytes!

I like old programs for too many reasons to mention - I have
seen quite a few instances where it is simply unbelievable that
a program SO tiny can not just run so fast but do so much. Quite
a few of them I have found on the www.tinyapps.org site - if
you're N/F I /highly/ recommend it.

I guess the ultimate example of evil bloat and dysfunctionality
is Windows itself. I read somewhere Vista still has code from
the 80's in it - but that may have just been malicious slander.
After all, WHO could ever possibly check it? How many millions
of lines code IS that thing [shudder]?

>> Also, I firmly believe that excepting MAJOR technological
>> developments, if a program does not have all necessary
>> features by ver. 4 or so, the authors are either greedy
>> jerks withholding features on purpose or just stupid. Then
>> there is the bloat
>
> Hmm. An interesting hypothesis/proposition/whatever; I see
> what you mean, though the version numbers vary a bit
> depending on what prompted the author to declare a major
> number change (I have some v6 and v7 things I've stopped
> at).

Of course; I was being very general. But seeing, just as an
example, OmniPage version 12 or 15 is a little ridiculous.
Haven't they heard of going with decimals for minor changes?
Still, IMO it is preferable to using year numbers instead of
version numbers.

ACDSee is another insane bloat example - I still use ver. 2.22
because in the next major revision those lunatics decided to
make the browser and viewer SEPARATE programs which made for a
/really enjoyable/ blank screen flash and delay on this 166MHz.
Plus they committed the ULTIMATE crime - changing some keyboard
shortcuts. Like Adobe did with PageMaker when they bought out
Aldus. Grrrrr. I will NEVER forgive them for that!

Anyway, ACDSee 2.22 is an 824KB exe. I believe the current
version, 12 or something, is over 20 MB and I am almost willing
to bet it does nothing intrinsically useful AFA image
management. When I need a file manager, I use T.C. When I want
to play an mp3, I use STP, a 250KB program from tinyapps. Etc.
When I want to check a few images, I don't want to wait for a 25
MB app with ten 15-line long menus to load!

<SNIP>

> The email/news/etc. software I use keeps attachments safe
> (it even limits HTML rendering), so that no attachment is
> dangerous unless saved (and even then not unless run,
> though you have to be careful with some that it isn't
> obvious are executable - pictures [but IrfanView doesn't
> use the vulnerable renderer],

No, someone with (IMO) a rather wicked sense of humor wrote that
JPG exploit exclusively for the MS dll. :-)

<SNIP>

> You need broadband these days though: both
> AVG and McAfee's daily downloads are BIG (McAfee's usually
> about 30-50 Meg these days!). []

Heh heh. 33.6 modem over here :-) But I only update definitions
once every couple of months - I have an Acronis image in case of
some disaster.

(The NOD32 updates are only about 16MB or so, another plus.)

Regards,
t.

--
There is nothing bad which could not turn into something worse.
- S. I. Witkiewicz

Tim Slattery

thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:

>Yes, regrettably, I tend to exaggerate. But I believe IE still
>doesn't /really/ know what Usenet is. Or FTP. Or IRC.

No, IE doesn't know what Usenet is, or what IRC is. IE includes
clients for HTTP, FTP and Gopher (Gopher was hot when IE first
launched, but the WWW eclipsed it in short order). OE was/is a Usenet
client (not necessarily the best one but....). AFAIK, MS never put out
an IRC client.

> Now
>/that's/ a jungle I have only ventured into once or twice -
>/WHERE/ DO YOU START? I did once manage to DL an extremely rare
>still of one of my favorite actresses that I have /never/ seen
>anywhere else, but it's just not worth the time it would take to
>learn to navigate through the insane maze of servers and
>channels.

I assume you're talking about IRC. I wholeheartedly agree. I dabbled
long ago, but I never really figured it out.

>> Ditto (especially pen drives. And yes, I do know about the
>> "universal" USB driver - screwed up my machine right
>> royally; conversely, I've recently set up a machine using
>> soporific's "10th anniversary 1998 UBCD" which included an
>> XP-like [i. e. universal] USB driver, and so far that has
>> worked with anything I've tried on it).

Interesting. The only version of Win95 that had any USB support was
OEM SR2, and that was a first draft. They didn't really get it right
until Win98SE. I've heard of a universal driver for Win98SE, but I'm
amazed you can run such a thing in Win95.

--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(Shell/User)
Slattery_T@bls.gov
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt

J. P. Gilliver

thanatoid wrote:
> "J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in
> news:48779622$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:
[]
> Yes, they get /rather/ miffed when anyone suggests you can run
> Windows without IE installed :-) Nothing like being brainwashed,
> huh?

(-:
[]
>> Ditto (especially pen drives. And yes, I do know about the
>> "universal" USB driver - screwed up my machine right
>> royally; conversely, I've recently set up a machine using
>> soporific's "10th anniversary 1998 UBCD" which included an
>> XP-like [i. e. universal] USB driver, and so far that has
>> worked with anything I've tried on it).
>
> BION, I have NEVER tried USB with my 98SE machine (all my
> current peripherals are parallel or P/S). I just assume it
> works. But I'm glad you mentioned the soporific driver, I'll
> look it up and DL it. JUst in case.

(I don't know BION.) Well, 98SE seems to handle USB as such moderately
well - though most things need extra drivers, which they come with (or,
these days, you have to download, and they might not exist). I think things
like hubs, keyboards, and mice, it manages OK, but anything like a pen
drive, card reader, printer, scanner, or ADSL Modem/hub, you need a driver.
With the excepion of pen drives, I've not found anything I've not managed to
get working, though.
>
> (Update:
> I have searched, and it seems it (if that's in fact what it is)
> is only available as part of a ~220MB DL. Would you mind
> terribly posting it in some binaries group - just the "10th
> anniv. USB" ? I would really appreciate it.)

Ah, misunderstanding there. What soporific has created is a "tenth
anniversary" version of Windows 98 - see
http://sharethefiles.com/forum/viewt...104845&start=0 for details.
(This is available in two forms - a few hundred megabyte one that can be
downloaded but only includes freeware, and a 701 megabyte .iso image you'll
have to get into the dark worlds of file sharing to get.) It _includes_ a
universal driver (not sure in which edition); it's also available as part of
his autopatcher, which is a sort of collection of lots of updates, from
Microsoft and elsewhere, with a sort of wrapper front end: I think that's
what you found.

There _is_ (at least one) universal driver - a link on
http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=291927 (some way down) is
the first mention of anything like I find, but
http://www.technical-assistance.co.uk/kb/usbmsd98.php looks more like the
one I've tried before; I don't know if it's the one soporific incorporates
or not. I did try this on one of my 98lite systems, and it screwed up my USB
usage - but that _may_ be because I didn't necessarily follow the
instructions properly (such as removing any existing USB drivers first).
Lots of people seem happy with it; it (the latter one that is) I'm pretty
certain appeared to _install_ OK under '98lite, so may work on your '95.
[]
>>> The ONLY disadvantage to Lite is that since it uses the 95
>>> shell sometimes a program which "runs on 98" will /not/
>>> run on 98 Lite because of some stupid hook into the shell
>>> driver. Sigh.
>>
>> Sometimes it's only the install routine. Usually the
>> installer gives you a crash window saying which routine it
>> couldn't find (often something like, IIRR, "calloutaddress
>> in explorer.exe"). I've had success with these by one of 3
>> (on a 98 system that's been "lite"d) - 1: do a temporary
>> shell swap using 98lite, run the install, swap back; 2:
>> same thing manually (rename the two files - which 98lite
>> keeps there, just renames them from .dll and .exe to .w98)
>> (I think you have to boot in DOS to do this), run the
>> installer, rename them back; 3: using a hex. editor, hack
>> the installer file so that where it says "explorer.exe"
>> [near the call to the routine that doesn't exist], change
>> it to "explorer.w98, then install.
>
> Thank you, that's an EXCELLENT suggestion, and not at all hard
> to follow (well, I am not enough of a tech guy to alter the
> install file, but 1 and 2 are no problem).

It's not hard: I used the edit functions in XTree! the filename -
explorer.exe, shell32.dll or whatever - occurs in plain text somewhere in
the installer, so it's fairly simple to change .exe or .dll or whatever to
..w98. However, method 1 is probably as easy!
>
> The first thing I always install whenever I set up a computer
> (admittedly it's been /a/while/) is XTree for DOS, so I am not
> afraid of doing things outside of Windows, like renaming, moving
> hidden files etc. :-)

Likewise! Pity about the lack of long filenames. I've never invested enough
time to really play with Ztree - have you? (Incidentally, another thing I
don't like about XP: right-clicking on a filename in explorer in '9x, and
looking at properties, will show you what the DOS name - such as
progra~1.xyz - is; this seems to have disappeared from XP. [Maybe only if
under NTFS, I don't know.])
[]
> I'm not sure what you mean because I don't use Windows Explorer.
> I find the single pane interface maddening, and running two
> instances side by side stupid. Not to mention its functionality
> is limited, and I am being kind.

It does for me. I have downloaded a free two-pane variant, but haven't got
round to playing with it much.
[]
> I like old programs for too many reasons to mention - I have
> seen quite a few instances where it is simply unbelievable that
> a program SO tiny can not just run so fast but do so much. Quite
> a few of them I have found on the www.tinyapps.org site - if
> you're N/F I /highly/ recommend it.

Did I mention http://www.roadkil.net/downloads.php? Some small ones there
....
[]
> Of course; I was being very general. But seeing, just as an
> example, OmniPage version 12 or 15 is a little ridiculous.
> Haven't they heard of going with decimals for minor changes?
> Still, IMO it is preferable to using year numbers instead of
> version numbers.

Each has its advantages - if you take your eye off one for a little while,
at least you know roughly how old it is, whereas you don't with version 12.
[]
> Anyway, ACDSee 2.22 is an 824KB exe. I believe the current
> version, 12 or something, is over 20 MB and I am almost willing
> to bet it does nothing intrinsically useful AFA image

I can't remember what ACDSee does - if images, I use IrfanView. (The core is
still about the size of a floppy, though the plugins - which you _can_ get
by without - push it up somewhat if you want to handle every aspect of every
image format under the sun).

> management. When I need a file manager, I use T.C. When I want
> to play an mp3, I use STP, a 250KB program from tinyapps. Etc.

WinAmp or IrfanView ...

> When I want to check a few images, I don't want to wait for a 25
> MB app with ten 15-line long menus to load!

Yes, that's what I like about IrfanView - that plus the easy keyboard
navigation.
[]
>> You need broadband these days though: both
>> AVG and McAfee's daily downloads are BIG (McAfee's usually
>> about 30-50 Meg these days!). []
>
> Heh heh. 33.6 modem over here :-) But I only update definitions
> once every couple of months - I have an Acronis image in case of
> some disaster.

It's how you actually _use_ the image if you have to that worries me.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver | Tel. +44 1634 203298

thanatoid

"J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in
news:487e3595$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:

>> BION, I have NEVER tried USB with my 98SE machine (all my
>> current peripherals are parallel or P/S). I just assume it
>> works. But I'm glad you mentioned the soporific driver,
>> I'll look it up and DL it. JUst in case.
>
> (I don't know BION.)

Do you mean you don't know that it stands for 'believe it or
not' or that it's not rare for people to have never used USB?
Gotta be the latter!

<SNIP>

> Ah, misunderstanding there.

<SNIP>

> There _is_ (at least one) universal driver - a link on
> http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=291927
> (some way down) is the first mention of anything like I
> find, but
> http://www.technical-assistance.co.uk/kb/usbmsd98.php looks
> more like the one I've tried before (...) it (the
> latter one that is) I'm pretty certain appeared to
> _install_ OK under '98lite, so may work on your '95.

Nah, I still don't have a single USB device nor do I intend to
ever try USB with 95 again, but just in case 98 ever gives me
trouble...
Thanks for the additional links, I'll visit.

[update]
I did, and even though it was only last night, I already forgot
WHERE I actually got it, but I ended up with the "Maximus Decim
Native USB ver.3.3" which I believe covers most of the bases.
Anyway, I still don't have a single USB device, so...

<SNIP>

> Likewise! Pity about the lack of long filenames. I've never
> invested enough time to really play with Ztree - have you?

Well, I don't know about 'really' - but I did use it for a
while. It is very impressive. But it has SO many very advanced
features added to it that I couldn't deal with it. And once I
found it, I decided I prefer Total Commander, ultimately. I
think the functionality is about the same (at the /very least/)
and the ease of use much higher in T.C.

> (Incidentally, another thing I don't like about XP:
> right-clicking on a filename in explorer in '9x, and
> looking at properties, will show you what the DOS name -
> such as progra~1.xyz - is; this seems to have disappeared
> from XP. [Maybe only if under NTFS, I don't know.])

I know nothing about XP and VERY sincerely hope to keep it this
way. I just read a link from another group about how there is
really no more XP support (I never cared about 95 or 98 support,
but with XP you actually appear to HAVE to communicate with MS
to even get it running - or running AGAIN - so it's a different
- and smelly - kettle of fish).

One of the comments on that link page said his daughter just
installed Ubuntu, it does everything XP does and no more MS
nightmares.

(BTW, Total Commander has an option to show you the 8.3 names
right in the 2 panes along with the long names.)

>> I'm not sure what you mean because I don't use Windows
>> Explorer. I find the single pane interface maddening, and
>> running two instances side by side stupid. Not to mention
>> its functionality is limited, and I am being kind.
>
> It does for me. I have downloaded a free two-pane variant,
> but haven't got round to playing with it much.

Didn't know there was one. Forgive me for being prejudiced, but
I'm sure it sucks.

>> I like old programs for too many reasons to mention - I
>> have seen quite a few instances where it is simply
>> unbelievable that a program SO tiny can not just run so
>> fast but do so much. Quite a few of them I have found on
>> the www.tinyapps.org site - if you're N/F I /highly/
>> recommend it.
>
> Did I mention http://www.roadkil.net/downloads.php? Some
> small ones there ...

You did mention it but I didn't know what you meant... Will
visit.

(Just did... It seems to be one of the - regrettably - few sites
by a good programmer who believes in freeware... I love that!
Have you tried the data recovery utils? There are almost no free
ones! If his programs are as good as the site
design/functionality, it's a winner! Although the advantage of
tinyapps is that it has a HUGE variety of programs from
everywhere, not just one person's work.)

>> Of course; I was being very general. But seeing, just as
>> an example, OmniPage version 12 or 15 is a little
>> ridiculous. Haven't they heard of going with decimals for
>> minor changes? Still, IMO it is preferable to using year
>> numbers instead of version numbers.
>
> Each has its advantages - if you take your eye off one for
> a little while, at least you know roughly how old it is,
> whereas you don't with version 12. []

Well, you DO have a point there :-)

>> Anyway, ACDSee 2.22 is an 824KB exe. I believe the current
>> version, 12 or something, is over 20 MB and I am almost
>> willing to bet it does nothing intrinsically useful AFA
>> image
>
> I can't remember what ACDSee does - if images, I use
> IrfanView. (The core is still about the size of a floppy,
> though the plugins - which you _can_ get by without - push
> it up somewhat if you want to handle every aspect of every
> image format under the sun).

I have great respect and admiration for IrfanView and the
author's attitude, but when I tried it (admittedly a long time
ago) I found the interface clumsy and ugly, and was already
/very/ used to ACDSee which I'd been using since the early 90's.

I'd try it again, but like I said, I prefer a program to do ONE
thing well than 5 things well (usually it ends up one well, 4
very badly), plus I actually paid for ACDSee so it would be a
little "unpleasant" to switch. I wonder if the interface looks
any better now. (I know that's not the most important thing, but
I am a bit of an aesthete, and for instance, simply could NOT
look at the default icons of ThumbsPlus - otherwise MOST useful
software - so used a program to make my own icons for it. WHAT
an improvement!)

<SNIP>

> It's how you actually _use_ the image if you have to that
> worries me.

Not sure what you mean. By a funny coincidence, the article I
mention above about no XP support actually mentions no support
from Acronis as well. My story is kind of amusing - I have NEVER
heard of disk-imaging programs, but about 5 or so years ago I
bought a copy of PC Answers (a GREAT - then, anyway) British
magazine and it had a full free working version of Acronis T.I.
Deluxe on the CD. (I got a completely free version of AABBY OCR
the same way - incredible!)

It has NEVER failed me - it is simply wonderful. OTOH, I have
read quite a few people complain of problems with later
versions.

Small is beautiful.

WHY can't people just leave well enough alone???

Regards,
t.


--
[from a recent conversation]
thanatoid: So why did you decide you needed broadband?
Neighbor: I wanted to read my e-mail faster.

J. P. Gilliver

thanatoid wrote:
> "J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in
> news:487e3595$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:
>
>>> BION, I have NEVER tried USB with my 98SE machine (all my
>>> current peripherals are parallel or P/S). I just assume it
>>> works. But I'm glad you mentioned the soporific driver,
>>> I'll look it up and DL it. JUst in case.
>>
>> (I don't know BION.)
>
> Do you mean you don't know that it stands for 'believe it or
> not' or that it's not rare for people to have never used USB?
> Gotta be the latter!

No, I hadn't come across BION before (-:.
[]
> Thanks for the additional links, I'll visit.
>
> [update]
> I did, and even though it was only last night, I already forgot
> WHERE I actually got it, but I ended up with the "Maximus Decim
> Native USB ver.3.3" which I believe covers most of the bases.
> Anyway, I still don't have a single USB device, so...

Good luck with it when you do. I find pen drives (or whatever you wish to
call them) somewhat useful, these days.
[]
>> invested enough time to really play with Ztree - have you?
>
> Well, I don't know about 'really' - but I did use it for a
> while. It is very impressive. But it has SO many very advanced
> features added to it that I couldn't deal with it. And once I
> found it, I decided I prefer Total Commander, ultimately. I
> think the functionality is about the same (at the /very least/)
> and the ease of use much higher in T.C.

I like my keyboard shortcuts. (So I still use Xtree quite a bit.)
[]
> I know nothing about XP and VERY sincerely hope to keep it this

Ah, know thine enemy (-:! I have to use it here at work, and for everyday
tasks, it's fine: there are even some of the things I like.

> way. I just read a link from another group about how there is
> really no more XP support (I never cared about 95 or 98 support,
> but with XP you actually appear to HAVE to communicate with MS
> to even get it running - or running AGAIN - so it's a different
> - and smelly - kettle of fish).

Only once, and that can be by MoDem. (Or not at all if you're a big
corporate or institutional installer, though if you're that you probably
will communicate with them regularly anyway.)
>
> One of the comments on that link page said his daughter just
> installed Ubuntu, it does everything XP does and no more MS
> nightmares.

Ah, well, if you open the door a crack enough to let in the Windows/*x wars,
you'll never hear the end of them ...
[]
>>> Explorer. I find the single pane interface maddening, and
>>> running two instances side by side stupid. Not to mention
>>> its functionality is limited, and I am being kind.
>>
>> It does for me. I have downloaded a free two-pane variant,
>> but haven't got round to playing with it much.
>
> Didn't know there was one. Forgive me for being prejudiced, but
> I'm sure it sucks.

What exactly do you mean by single pane - do you mean (you want to be
capable of) seeing two lists of files as once (like F8 in Xtree)? If so,
that's one of the things the freebie included. I think it might have been
http://www.zabkat.com/x2lite.htm (581 kB [he says; the setup is 2,834]). I
think I'll have another play with it.
>
>>> I like old programs for too many reasons to mention - I
>>> have seen quite a few instances where it is simply
>>> unbelievable that a program SO tiny can not just run so
>>> fast but do so much. Quite a few of them I have found on
>>> the www.tinyapps.org site - if you're N/F I /highly/
>>> recommend it.
>>
>> Did I mention http://www.roadkil.net/downloads.php? Some
>> small ones there ...
>
> You did mention it but I didn't know what you meant... Will
> visit.
>
> (Just did... It seems to be one of the - regrettably - few sites
> by a good programmer who believes in freeware... I love that!
> Have you tried the data recovery utils? There are almost no free
> ones! If his programs are as good as the site
> design/functionality, it's a winner! Although the advantage of

Yes, now that you mention it, the UI _is_ good, too. I've downloaded quite a
few of them (note that some appear under several of the categories). A
colleague has even been trying his uninterruptable copier for genuine work.
(I found his Sudoku very difficult - but then I've never really understood
how setters "rate" a sudoku puzzle, anyway.)

> tinyapps is that it has a HUGE variety of programs from
> everywhere, not just one person's work.)

I've had a look round there. Excellent site (though not very well
maintained - quite a few of the links went to things that clearly aren't
what they were. But that's life).
[]
>>> Anyway, ACDSee 2.22 is an 824KB exe. I believe the current
>>> version, 12 or something, is over 20 MB and I am almost
>>> willing to bet it does nothing intrinsically useful AFA
>>> image
>>
>> I can't remember what ACDSee does - if images, I use
>> IrfanView. (The core is still about the size of a floppy,
>> though the plugins - which you _can_ get by without - push
>> it up somewhat if you want to handle every aspect of every
>> image format under the sun).
>
> I have great respect and admiration for IrfanView and the
> author's attitude, but when I tried it (admittedly a long time
> ago) I found the interface clumsy and ugly, and was already
> /very/ used to ACDSee which I'd been using since the early 90's.

Still going - new version out today, with lots of things fixed/added that I
hadn't realised I wanted it to do, and (the main prog.) still under a
floppy's worth. A few iterations ago, it added the ability to use toolbars
of your own design, and there are a few available now. I _like_ the
interface - although it's virtually all GUIable too, there's a lot that can
be done from the keybaord.
>
> I'd try it again, but like I said, I prefer a program to do ONE
> thing well than 5 things well (usually it ends up one well, 4
> very badly), plus I actually paid for ACDSee so it would be a

I don't think there's a lot that IV actually does do that it doesn't do well
(well, I wouldn't use it much for sound and video, but those aren't what
it's for!). I've actually paid for it as I like it so much.
[]
>> It's how you actually _use_ the image if you have to that
>> worries me.
>
> Not sure what you mean. By a funny coincidence, the article I

I had to think for a while, since we'd been talking about Image prog.s such
as IrfanView, before I remembered we were talking about disc images. What I
mean is: however wonderful your disc imaging software is: how do you restore
from the image, if for some reason your OS won't boot? The imaging prog.
must have some way of starting a basically dead machine in order to do the
restore - I'd say ideally something that can start from a floppy (or at a
pinch these days CD or bootable USB stick).
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver | Tel. +44 1634 203298

thanatoid

"J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in
news:48861a63$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:

> I find pen drives (or
> whatever you wish to call them) somewhat useful, these
> days. []

Oh, they are wonderful (although useless to me personally) and
the prices are getting INSANE. I saw an 8GB (!) online for about
$25 after a rebate, or something! 3 or 4 years ago I bought a
256MB (perhaps 512MB, I can't remember) for a Xmas gift for a
friend and paid well over $50!

>>> invested enough time to really play with Ztree - have
>>> you?

<SNIP>

> I like my keyboard shortcuts. (So I still use Xtree quite a
> bit.)

Total Commander has an ASTONISHING mile-long custom shortcut key
assignment menu. The main reason people don't like it is that
most people can not readjust their brain to the double pane
view. But if you are an Xtree fan, you should love it. Explorer-
like tree view is also possible, or course (accidentally found
THAT option a few weeks ago... I hit the wrong F key along with
the Ctl key... I find new stuff ALL the time).

www.ghisler.com

(Don't be put off by the godawful screenshot. The interface is
quite configurable.)

I try to use the mouse (I actually have a Logitech Marble
Trackman) as little as possible, but it is unfortunately
unavoidable. (What I really hate is programs that allow for
virtually NO kbd shortcuts.)

Still, nothing is funnier/sadder than a person trying to select
3 words to delete from their text with a mouse, letter by space
by letter... I do it with 2-4 keyboard hits (one optional mouse
click) and they almost faint :-)

>> I know nothing about XP and VERY sincerely hope to keep it
>> this
>
> Ah, know thine enemy (-:! I have to use it here at work,
> and for everyday tasks, it's fine: there are even some of
> the things I like.

Well, purely coincidentally, in the last week or so, I have
actually started thinking of putting it on my 2GHz machine...
(If any other posters who know me read this they WILL have to
have ammonia salts brought to them.)

First I thought of making it a multiboot but it is simply
impractical to backup all the crap on it - as I would have to
do, being the kind of person who follows warnings, and
especially when they are about to mess about with the MBR), but
then I thought, I have 16 partitions, the ONLY stuff on C is the
OS and programs (a few DOS programs aren't even on C), and I
have an Acronis Image of the latest config, so why not just wipe
C and install XP on IT? (see later for more on Acronis).

So I am thinking about it. I am concerned some of the programs I
USE which date from over 10 years ago may not run on XP and I am
not clear on whether there is any DOS/3.1 programs support with
XP - I vaguely recall reading somewhere there was a 10MB (or
something huge anyway) "DOS emulator" in it - I don't know if
it's true or not in it but I just saw it as another reason to
stay clear of it. We'll see.

Another concern is NTFS. The remaining 15 partitions will
obviously remain FAT32, and I am not sure whether the version I
am thinking of installing (a "modified" one, shall we say, MS
isn't selling it anymore and that was THEIR decision) allows for
a choice of NTFS or FAT32. I once read an MVP (!) refer to NTFS
as a "fiasco" so I would prefer to install XP with FAT32 - the
partition it is going on IS formatted in FAT32 so perhaps it
will simply "play along".

The bigger concern is (I lack the deeper knowledge of these
things) is whether the stuff on the other partitions in FAT32
will interact properly with XP /should it/ install with NTFS. I
would /think/ the actual file structure system is irrelevant to
what the end-user and the OS "see" and work with, but I don't
know for sure. In any case, should everything go to hell, I have
my trusty Acronis CD-R.

I am not really sure why I am even thinking of it - there are NO
XP-only programs I want to run, but I am just SO SICK of having
watched almost the same screen for 12+ years (I have a wallpaper
changer and LOTS of various wallpapers most of which I made
myself but most of the icons are the ones I had 10 years ago or
almost equivalent), that I hope having a new interface and an
assortment of new annoyances (there are BOUND to be SOME if not
/many/ - although it almost seems that when MS stops "improving"
and "supporting" an OS, THEN is the time to start using it :-)
may give my mind something new to think about as well as inspire
me to try some of the programs I have had for years and never
"got around to". I just have to do a major cleanup-prune-archive
job of all the things I will never look at again anyway (well -
at least I am aware that it is nothing but my pedantry that is
forcing me to perform unnecessary time-consuming actions - like
saving emails from 10 years ago).

<SNIP>

> Ah, well, if you open the door a crack enough to let in the
> Windows/*x wars, you'll never hear the end of them ...

So I have noticed :-)

<SNIP>

> What exactly do you mean by single pane - do you mean (you
> want to be capable of) seeing two lists of files as once
> (like F8 in Xtree)?

Exactly. And Total Commander and about half of the other
"alternatives" to Windows Explorer have that as the basic
feature. As you know, among hundreds (thousands?) of other
things, the 2 panes allow you to use one key to copy or move
file(s) - once you select them of course... I have only used my
advanced file rename utility ONCE, I think, since I got Total
Commander - it includes an EXCELLENT multiple file renamer.

<SNIP>

> (I found his Sudoku very difficult - but then I've never
> really understood how setters "rate" a sudoku puzzle,
> anyway.)

I once spent about 15 seconds trying to comprehend the principle
behind Sudoku and what pleasure can be gained from engaging in
it, but my patience for such things is extremely low. Still, to
me it's just another sign that humans may be descended from
aliens and that if so, the Japanese are the closest relatives...

>> tinyapps is that it has a HUGE variety of programs from
>> everywhere, not just one person's work.)
>
> I've had a look round there. Excellent site (though not
> very well maintained - quite a few of the links went to
> things that clearly aren't what they were. But that's
> life).

Feel free to write to the site owner if you feel it's worth your
time.
(I wrote to him once about a program he has on there that I had
a horrible problem with and he actually answered me!)

I haven't DL'd anything from there in quite a while, but I am
almost sure it is the only place on the web to get STP - a tiny
mp3 player (written by some young Russian guy before he got
drafted and basically disappeared) which is just fantastic. I
learned about quite a few other nice apps there as well.
Understandably, especially when this 166 was my only computer, I
was really into small apps. I still am. For instance, I use the
program from www.goldenhawk.com (under 1.5 MB DL) for CD
burning. IMO it is better and faster than all the well-known
ones - there are a few even smaller ones but they either burn
too many coasters, or have about 3 options instead of 6 or 7
complete and /very/ comprehensive modules, or just don't do
anything - I've tried quite a few after deciding the people who
wrote Nero were just sadists.

<SNIP>

> What I mean is: however
> wonderful your disc imaging software is: how do you restore
> from the image, if for some reason your OS won't boot? The
> imaging prog. must have some way of starting a basically
> dead machine in order to do the restore - I'd say ideally
> something that can start from a floppy (or at a pinch these
> days CD or bootable USB stick).

I don't understand HOW it does it, since it even does it on my
11.5 yr old 95B machine, but all you do is put the Acronis CD in
the drive and reboot the machine. It's simply miraculous. The
fact it was free (on-line reg. was all that was req'd) STILL
blows my mind. I would not at all be surprised if the new
versions offered a USB stick boot option.


--
[from a recent conversation]
thanatoid: So why did you decide you needed broadband?
Neighbor: I wanted to read my e-mail faster.

J. P. Gilliver

thanatoid wrote:
> "J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in
> news:48861a63$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:
>
>> I find pen drives (or
>> whatever you wish to call them) somewhat useful, these
>> days. []
>
> Oh, they are wonderful (although useless to me personally) and
> the prices are getting INSANE. I saw an 8GB (!) online for about
> $25 after a rebate, or something! 3 or 4 years ago I bought a
> 256MB (perhaps 512MB, I can't remember) for a Xmas gift for a
> friend and paid well over $50!

Yes - I recently wanted to get something so that a non-computer-savvy friend
could back things up in case of emergency (she's an accountant, so not dim -
just not computerate), and a pen drive seemed the easiest way (her accounts
package offers to back up wherever you say, whenever you quit it - and I've
checked that the restore onto a new PC is easy too); my local supermarket
was selling them. I think they go up to 32G these days ...
[]
> Total Commander has an ASTONISHING mile-long custom shortcut key
> assignment menu. The main reason people don't like it is that
> most people can not readjust their brain to the double pane

I thought (as you say below) that was - initially - the point!
[]
> www.ghisler.com
>
> (Don't be put off by the godawful screenshot. The interface is

If you mean http://www.ghisler.com/picture.htm, then the one for xplorer2
(http://www.zabkat.com/index.htm), at http://www.zabkat.com/tour1.htm, is
probably worse.

> quite configurable.)
>
> I try to use the mouse (I actually have a Logitech Marble
> Trackman) as little as possible, but it is unfortunately
> unavoidable. (What I really hate is programs that allow for
> virtually NO kbd shortcuts.)

Indeed. As well as personal preference (and productivity - I think most
things _can_ be done faster from the keyboard, _though not all_ [some things
_are_ quicker with the mouse]), I have another interest: computing for the
blind. For them, keyboard shortcuts are virtually essential: OK, a good
"screenreader" (the name for the interface software; of course, it does a
lot more than just read the screen these days) can make _most_ things usable
to some extent (other than image manipulation which they won't be using
anyway), but things are a lot easier to use if the designer has put them in.
>
> Still, nothing is funnier/sadder than a person trying to select
> 3 words to delete from their text with a mouse, letter by space
> by letter... I do it with 2-4 keyboard hits (one optional mouse
> click) and they almost faint :-)

Or watching them fill in a form - type, mouse, type, mouse - rather than
using the tab key. (Mind you, in a few cases the order the tab key taked you
round the boxes is, at the least, invigorating - the more obscure corners of
IrfanView's configuration screens are a good example; I presume it's how
whichever software it is has developed). And closing down: Win, u, e (with a
few Alt-space, X [and enter to save if necessary] if anything needs closing
first). In XP, incidentally, it's Win, U, U to close - in many cases (can
depend on configuration).
[XP]
> Well, purely coincidentally, in the last week or so, I have
> actually started thinking of putting it on my 2GHz machine...
[]
> So I am thinking about it. I am concerned some of the programs I
> USE which date from over 10 years ago may not run on XP and I am
> not clear on whether there is any DOS/3.1 programs support with
> XP - I vaguely recall reading somewhere there was a 10MB (or
> something huge anyway) "DOS emulator" in it - I don't know if
> it's true or not in it but I just saw it as another reason to
> stay clear of it. We'll see.

I _think_ I don't have anything that works in the DOS box in '9x that
doesn't in XP; there might have been the odd one where the built-in XP
function was sufficiently acceptable (or, heresy to say, better) than my old
utility so I either didn't worry that it didn't work or didn't try, but not
many.
>
> Another concern is NTFS. The remaining 15 partitions will
> obviously remain FAT32, and I am not sure whether the version I
> am thinking of installing (a "modified" one, shall we say, MS
> isn't selling it anymore and that was THEIR decision) allows for
> a choice of NTFS or FAT32. I once read an MVP (!) refer to NTFS
> as a "fiasco" so I would prefer to install XP with FAT32 - the

I agree with your "(!)"; most MVPs definitely toe the party line on that!

> partition it is going on IS formatted in FAT32 so perhaps it
> will simply "play along".

From what I remember (I have installed XP a few times, but not enough to say
I'm familiar with the process), if it finds an already-existant FAT
partition, it will offer to convert it to NTFS, but not oblige you to do so.
This may depend on which version of XP you try, and/or what choices (e. g.
default or custom) you choose, I don't know, though. (I nearly always choose
custom on any install that offers it, on the basis that the defaults under
custom are usually the same as the default, so any setting I don't
understand I leave anyway.)
>
> The bigger concern is (I lack the deeper knowledge of these
> things) is whether the stuff on the other partitions in FAT32
> will interact properly with XP /should it/ install with NTFS. I
> would /think/ the actual file structure system is irrelevant to
> what the end-user and the OS "see" and work with, but I don't

I'm pretty sure XP will see and use any FS regardless of what the one it's
installed on is. (This even, I think, applies to an HD you put into an
external box and connect to the USB port [or use a USB-to-IDE cable - I'v
used this, though so far only with a FAT one].) It still reads/writes
floppies (though there's something about 720k ones - can't remember if it's
no altogether, or just it can't write or maybe format them).

> know for sure. In any case, should everything go to hell, I have
> my trusty Acronis CD-R.
>
> I am not really sure why I am even thinking of it - there are NO
> XP-only programs I want to run, but I am just SO SICK of having

Unfortunately, it is getting increasingly hard to get new hardware to run
under '9x - a lot of it just won't, and even that which does, I have the
feeling that I'm having to spend more time fighting it than I used to. (That
_could_ just be compared to XP, where I'm afraid to say a lot of it just
_works_, often without having to install _anything_. I recenty bought a
microscope, for example.)

> watched almost the same screen for 12+ years (I have a wallpaper
> changer and LOTS of various wallpapers most of which I made

Panorama? (Works under XP by the way.)

> myself but most of the icons are the ones I had 10 years ago or
> almost equivalent), that I hope having a new interface and an

Well, the initial default interface (complete with what in UK is often
referred to as the "Teletubbies" wallpaper, from its resemblance to a
children's TV series) will sicken you: with each new iteration, it seems to
me they make for more pastel colours, and bigger icons - with the result
that though you may have a higher-resolution display, you still can only get
the same number of icons on it. Fortunately, you can switch both the start
menu and taskbar, and the appearance of windows in general, to a "classic"
view (e. g. with square corners). (Mind you, some of the normal things -
like altering the colours of various parts of a window - are now hidden
behind an "Advanced" button! What that says about what they think of their
target audience ...)

> assortment of new annoyances (there are BOUND to be SOME if not
> /many/ - although it almost seems that when MS stops "improving"

To be fair, after the initial familiarisation (and the feeling of loss of
control, due in large part to NTFS which I won't use if I go XP), not a lot.
A lot of it does just work.

> and "supporting" an OS, THEN is the time to start using it :-)

Are you me (-:?!?
[]
> <SNIP>

(Sorry, that's what my "[]" mean.)
[]
> advanced file rename utility ONCE, I think, since I got Total
> Commander - it includes an EXCELLENT multiple file renamer.

As does IrfanView (including the ability to rename files based on their EXIF
data, so the first thing I usually do when taking .jpg files from my
camera's card is rename them from pic001 or whatever to 2008-08-12 9-51-18
or whatever).
[]
> I once spent about 15 seconds trying to comprehend the principle
> behind Sudoku and what pleasure can be gained from engaging in
> it, but my patience for such things is extremely low. Still, to

There _is_ a satisfaction in doing it, especially when you get moderately
familiar with some of the ways. Still, I'd say it's pretty unproductive -
slightly more so than doing cryptic crosswords, which at least teaches you
(very occasionally) new words/facts.

> me it's just another sign that humans may be descended from
> aliens and that if so, the Japanese are the closest relatives...

Naughty!
>
>>> tinyapps is that it has a HUGE variety of programs from
[]
> Feel free to write to the site owner if you feel it's worth your
> time.
> (I wrote to him once about a program he has on there that I had
> a horrible problem with and he actually answered me!)

I really should, since he's gone to all the trouble of creating the site. It
wasn't any of his own, I think - some of his links to other sites no longer
are.
[]
> program from www.goldenhawk.com (under 1.5 MB DL) for CD
> burning. IMO it is better and faster than all the well-known
> ones - there are a few even smaller ones but they either burn
> too many coasters, or have about 3 options instead of 6 or 7
> complete and /very/ comprehensive modules, or just don't do
> anything - I've tried quite a few after deciding the people who
> wrote Nero were just sadists.

Ah, I've got burn4free, and another even smaller one; burn4free (if I've
remembered it's name right) seems to work very well, and also doesn't need
new drivers to match new drives (including DVD ones), unlike "Easy" CD
Creator, which is Adaptec/Roxio's competitor to Nero. I will admit I tend to
_use_ ECDC, simply because I got it with a drive and have got used to its
UI.
[]
> I don't understand HOW it does it, since it even does it on my
> 11.5 yr old 95B machine, but all you do is put the Acronis CD in
> the drive and reboot the machine. It's simply miraculous. The

Does imply a BIOS that can boot from CD.

> fact it was free (on-line reg. was all that was req'd) STILL

Hmm. Sadly, doesn't seem to be any more, at a quick glance, unless I've
missed the part of the web page (I could understand if it's just hidden -
any pointers?); the excellent http://www.oldversion.com/ (you do know it, I
take it? not oldversionS) doesn't seem to know it. (I've tried a couple of
others too - http://www.oldapps.com/.) Do you know the Last Freeware version
site, as well (http://www.321download.com/)? That links, but only to the
paid version. (Googling for acronis and free finds lots of links, mostly
mentioning V7; I'll have to look into them.)

> blows my mind. I would not at all be surprised if the new
> versions offered a USB stick boot option.

Nor would I.

Do you know ERD/ERU (on the W95 CD under misc\other, or other\misc, or
something like that - but not copied over by default, for reasons I've never
been sure of; it's tiny)? Though not a full backup by any means, it backs up
about a dozen files by default (including the two that form the registry)
[you can choose which, and also change its list with a bit of tweaking,
though I haven't], into a directory of your choice, along with a
DOS-runnable executable that restores it? It has got me (and others) out of
a hole many times. It works under '98 fine (though I'm not sure it's on the
'98 CD). And, someone's written a version - called ERUNT, google for it -
that works under XP (and, as you'd guess, NT; I think now Vista too). I'll
certainly be installing that (not that it needs "installing") if I go XP.
--
J. P. Gilliver | Tel. +44 1634 203298

thanatoid

"J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver@baesystems.com> wrote in
news:48a14ffa$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:

> thanatoid wrote:

<SNIP>

>> Total Commander has an ASTONISHING mile-long custom
>> shortcut key assignment menu. The main reason people don't
>> like it is that most people can not readjust their brain
>> to the double pane
>
> I thought (as you say below) that was - initially - the
> point! []

If you mean the pane, well, for /me/ it is, I can not function
with one pane, but it seems many people are so "accustomed" to
what comes with Windows (I don't know how long it's been since
File Manager was dropped, but even though it was included in W95
and maybe even W98 or 2000, hardly anyone used it) that maybe
the two pane thing is just too difficult for some. After all, "I
have one computer, [usually] one partition [another subject,
sigh...] so WHY would there be /two/ panes?"

Or did you mean something else?

>> (Don't be put off by the godawful screenshot. The
>> interface is
>
> If you mean http://www.ghisler.com/picture.htm, then the
> one for xplorer2 (http://www.zabkat.com/index.htm), at
> http://www.zabkat.com/tour1.htm, is probably worse.

It is only worse in that the unbelievable screen clutter it
shows would instantly eliminate it as anything I would even want
to try. Albeit I find the red pointers to what is what helpful.
(I admit I have not read any of the text - the clutter may be
from cramming ALL the functions into one screen to prove what it
can do - nor have I enlarged the image - if it's possible.)

The current Ghisler screen shot is OK, but it suffers from the
same clutter - although it IS about 1/10 of the clutter in
zabkat. I guess Ghisler wants to show most options visible,
whereas even if you've never used a 2-paner before, shortcuts
become automatic very quickly. Also, he is even showing the FTP
connection (IMHO one of the very few unnecessary extras the
program has - there are SO many free FTP programs), and a bunch
of other things which just clutter it up. Not to mention the
godawful XP style box.

(The good thing is he has just released 7.04a as a successor to
7.02a - which I had installed and went back to 6.55 because he
gave it too much of an XP look: just the mere icons for the
drives were bugging me. The latest version seems to compromise
between the old simple rectangular drive icon and the new
horror, IOW /may/ be very slightly rounded but they are smaller
and the color is less offensive. Also, there actually ARE 2 or 3
new features that are worthwhile. [Of course, I still have not
learned of all the original features. Astounding program.])

FWIW, all I have on /my/ TC screen are the drive boxes (which I
should probably take out since I have them all shortcutted
anyway, along with the most important directories) and one line
above each pane which tells me the used/free space on that
partition. I /do/ have the status bar on at the bottom - it is
quite essential to everyday operations (shows # of files or dirs
selected, their sizes, etc.)

This is /not/ the picture I was referring to, in any case.
Several years ago he had a different screenshot on the main
page, which was about the size of zabkat's screenshot, and also
showed most options enabled, but also had an absolutely /horrid/
color scheme.

After playing with colors for quite a few years when I was a wee
lad (said desktop color schemes often eliciting exclamations of
astonishment from co-workers, who did not even know it was
possible to change the colors, or that File Manager existed in
95, for that matter) , I have now gone to an all-grey scheme.
Much nicer.

I used PC Magazine's "DisplaySet" to achieve this, since it is
/considerably/ more comprehensive than the built-in Windows
color schemer, to put it mildly.

>> I try to use the mouse (I actually have a Logitech Marble
>> Trackman) as little as possible, but it is unfortunately
>> unavoidable. (What I really hate is programs that allow
>> for virtually NO kbd shortcuts.)
>
> Indeed. As well as personal preference (and productivity -
> I think most things _can_ be done faster from the keyboard,
> _though not all_ [some things _are_ quicker with the
> mouse]

Definitely true, but not many. But of course there are things
that can ONLY be done with a mouse no matter how much you'd like
to use the keyboard (although there ARE utilities to replace the
mouse with the arrow keys, they are an even bigger drag (DRAG!
HAAAAR!) than the mouse itself. And tablets are nice for image
retouching etc. I have a really old one.

> I have another interest: computing for the blind.

Hearing that kind of thing makes me feel I am a totally useless
space-wasting creature. But let's not get into personal problems
and lifestyles...

I would assume you have heard of Ray Kurzweil, a true genius,
responsible for a fantastic music synthesizer (since bought by
Kawaii - I believe - as Kurzweil moved on to other interests)
who also made the first ever book-reading machine for the blind.
I have no idea how much it cost, but I know that Stevie Wonder
had one. That was in the late 70's IIRC.

<SNIP>

>> Still, nothing is funnier/sadder than a person trying to
>> select 3 words to delete from their text with a mouse,
>> letter by space by letter... I do it with 2-4 keyboard
>> hits (one optional mouse click) and they almost faint :-)
>
> Or watching them fill in a form - type, mouse, type, mouse
> - rather than using the tab key.

I still remember the astonishment and bewilderment as my co-
workers saw me use the alt-tab combination... "I did not know
whether to laugh or to cry..."

<SNIP>

>> So I am thinking about it. I am concerned some of the
>> programs I USE which date from over 10 years ago may not
>> run on XP and I am not clear on whether there is any
>> DOS/3.1 programs support with XP - I vaguely recall
>> reading somewhere there was a 10MB (or something huge
>> anyway) "DOS emulator" in it - I don't know if it's true
>> or not in it but I just saw it as another reason to stay
>> clear of it. We'll see.
>
> I _think_ I don't have anything that works in the DOS box
> in '9x that doesn't in XP; there might have been the odd
> one where the built-in XP function was sufficiently
> acceptable (or, heresy to say, better) than my old utility
> so I either didn't worry that it didn't work or didn't try,
> but not many.

I asked and was told in another group - they were VERY helpful -
that XP allows you to install it ALONG with another Win OS,
usually 98 or ME. /And/ it appears XP does /not/ have to be on
C:, where the previous OS obviously resides. And it /appears/
the two can coexist. Once I clean out my other machine's drive,
I may find out. I am still not sure whether it is just temporary
insanity or what.

<SNIP>

> From what I remember (I have installed XP a few times, but
> not enough to say I'm familiar with the process), if it
> finds an already-existant FAT partition, it will offer to
> convert it to NTFS, but not oblige you to do so. This may
> depend on which version of XP you try, and/or what choices
> (e. g. default or custom) you choose, I don't know, though.
> (I nearly always choose custom on any install that offers
> it, on the basis that the defaults under custom are usually
> the same as the default, so any setting I don't understand
> I leave anyway.)

Same here. And thanks for the add'l info about XP.

<SNIP>

You mean a microscope whose image is shown on the screen, and it
works with XP out of the box? Surely you MUST have installed
SOME drivers!

(Just read your recent post in the 98 group. Didn't you say it
worked perfectly well in the post I'm replying to? BTW, booting
in "safe mode" and adding drivers 1 by 1 is a nightmare. Just my
opinion. Hope you figure out another way.)

> Unfortunately, it is getting increasingly hard to get new
hardware to run under '9x - a lot of it just won't, and even
that which does, I have the feeling that I'm having to spend
more time fighting it than I used to.

Well, so far I have been forced to just junk them. But there has
really been VERY little really innovative written since the
90's, IMO. The old programs are smaller, run faster, have no
bloat, and their authors should be suing the people who are re-
writing them with new names and 30 MB of eye candy and
/occasionally/ some (mostly useless) add'l "features".

Of course, I am just a home user. I'm sure it's a different
story with scientists etc.

>> watched almost the same screen for 12+ years (I have a
>> wallpaper changer and LOTS of various wallpapers most of
>> which I made
>
> Panorama? (Works under XP by the way.)

Huh? I just use Micrografx Picture Publisher (I don't do pre-
press for $250 coffee-table books so I don't need Photoshop, and
MPP had multiple undo and other great features YEARS before
Photoshop did).

>> myself but most of the icons are the ones I had 10 years
>> ago or almost equivalent), that I hope having a new
>> interface and an
>
> Well, the initial default interface (complete with what in
> UK is often referred to as the "Teletubbies" wallpaper,
> from its resemblance to a children's TV series) will sicken
> you:

It already did when I saw shots of it on web pages. Ugh.

I never made the Teletubs connection, but you are /so/ correct.
I saw a few moments of a TT episode once, and it /really/
creeped me out. I don't know WHAT the future generations will be
like, and I don't WANT to know.

> with each new iteration, it seems to me they make for
> more pastel colours, and bigger icons - with the result
> that though you may have a higher-resolution display, you
> still can only get the same number of icons on it.
> Fortunately, you can switch both the start menu and
> taskbar, and the appearance of windows in general, to a
> "classic" view (e. g. with square corners). (Mind you, some
> of the normal things - like altering the colours of various
> parts of a window - are now hidden behind an "Advanced"
> button! What that says about what they think of their
> target audience ...)

Well, you MUST have heard this famous quote:
"Let's face it, the average computer user has the brain of a
Spider Monkey." - Bill Gates, about his customers.

>> assortment of new annoyances (there are BOUND to be SOME
>> if not /many/ - although it almost seems that when MS
>> stops "improving"
>
> To be fair, after the initial familiarisation (and the
> feeling of loss of control, due in large part to NTFS which
> I won't use if I go XP), not a lot. A lot of it does just
> work.

So I hear, and so as long as I can make it not look like a 5
year old's (Spider Monkey's?) playroom and /hopefully/ use
Display Set to further customize it (who knows, maybe the
functions ARE in XP already - hidden, as you say), it may not be
so bad. My biggest concern was that some of my main programs
would not run on XP - but if I can keep 98SE, there is obviously
no problem.

>> and "supporting" an OS, THEN is the time to start using it
>> :-)
>
> Are you me (-:?!?

Heh heh.

> []
>> <SNIP>
>
> (Sorry, that's what my "[]" mean.)

I took me a few minutes but I figured it out. I MUST admit it is
a LOT faster than typing <SNIP>.

(Just added it to my Short Keys list. WHY didn't I do that years
ago?????)

<SNIP>
<SNIP>
<SNIP>
ahhh...

>> advanced file rename utility ONCE, I think, since I got
>> Total Commander - it includes an EXCELLENT multiple file
>> renamer.
>
> As does IrfanView (including the ability to rename files
> based on their EXIF data, so the first thing I usually do
> when taking .jpg files from my camera's card is rename them
> from pic001 or whatever to 2008-08-12 9-51-18 or whatever).

I doubt I will ever own a digital camera. I did a lot of 35mm
photography when I was in my late teens and 20's, but the last
time I took any photos and enjoyed doing it was about 20 years
ago. I have two 35mm cameras (a $10 Vivitar and a used East-
German Practica SLR with a Japanese 'Takumar' lens which is not
bad at all), but I can not even remember when I last used either
one.

>> I once spent about 15 seconds trying to comprehend the
>> principle behind Sudoku and what pleasure can be gained
>> from engaging in it, but my patience for such things is
>> extremely low. Still, to
>
> There _is_ a satisfaction in doing it, especially when you
> get moderately familiar with some of the ways. Still, I'd
> say it's pretty unproductive - slightly more so than doing
> cryptic crosswords, which at least teaches you (very
> occasionally) new words/facts.

I hate crosswords. I can't even do the National Enquirer ones! I
tried the NYT (or Harper's, or something) crossword once and I
decided my IQ tests results (which have been consistent over the
years and fairly respectable) must be a hallucination.

(Out of curiosity, tried to do one from the Chicago Tribune
yesterday. What a nightmare. It's official - I have become a
moron.)

>> me it's just another sign that humans may be descended
>> from aliens and that if so, the Japanese are the closest
>> relatives...
>
> Naughty!

Oh no, I like aliens, but you MUST admit the Japanese culture,
aside from regaling the civilization with the Trinitron and
geishas, has also contributed things like sumo wrestling and
Transformers. On sushi I can go either way depending on the
slime factor :-)

<SNIP>

>> I don't understand HOW it does it, since it even does it
>> on my 11.5 yr old 95B machine, but all you do is put the
>> Acronis CD in the drive and reboot the machine. It's
>> simply miraculous. The
>
> Does imply a BIOS that can boot from CD.

I think all BIOS's from 95-96 or so onwards can boot from "any"
source, but there's more to it than that. I have my current
image on the HD as well as on CD-R's with all the older ones and
if you reboot from Acronis it will restore the image from the HD
as well - never even entering into DOS - I /assume/ it passes
through the BIOS.

> Hmm. Sadly, doesn't seem to be any more, at a quick glance,
> unless I've missed the part of the web page (I could
> understand if it's just hidden - any pointers?); the
> excellent http://www.oldversion.com/ (you do know it, I
> take it?

Yes, it's come in handy a few times.

> (I've tried a couple of others too - http://www.oldapps.com/

That one was only introduced to me a few months ago and I was
quite disappointed. I find places like Garbo etc. infinitely
richer in nice old stuff.

> Do
> you know the Last Freeware version site, as well
> (http://www.321download.com/)?

Yes. I have links to a bunch of software collection sites (there
are way too many!) but what REALLY annoys me is that they always
have the latest version ONLY, and quite often when it's an older
program, often the DL link is to the author's web site, which in
many cases no longer exists. INFURIATING. But then again, WHO
could keep up?

Here's a nice one if you're not familiar with it:
http://freeware.intrastar.net

> That links, but only to the
> paid version. (Googling for acronis and free finds lots of
> links, mostly mentioning V7; I'll have to look into them.)

I am pretty sure all versions work with 95 (except maybe the
latest) and I am also pretty sure ver 6 and 7 were still
relatively unbloated.

> And, someone's written a version - called
> ERUNT, google for it - that works under XP (and, as you'd
> guess, NT; I think now Vista too). I'll certainly be
> installing that (not that it needs "installing") if I go
> XP.

I have looked at ERUNT and it was a little confusing, and I
think unnecessary...

What I like about Acronis is that ALL the programs I had to have
to make sure I could salvage my machine when it "went boom" have
gone into retirement.

Anyway, I looked for drive imaging freeware that would run on
any system and here's one I found that looks fairly good. (There
were several free ones but they only run on 2000 and up, VERY
annoying.)

http://www.miray.de/products/sat.hdclone.html

There is also an apparently /fantastic/ freeware image burner
called imgburn. It is not a "disc imager" but I think it could
work as one. I believe it will create bootable discs as many
other CD/DVD burners will do - and with the most enthusiastic
reviews I have /ever/ seen ("THE best freeware program I've ever
used" etc.) this one sounds like it actually works (I tried
about 10 variou