--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 263 WINDOWS '95 Ref: F5H00047 Date: 05/12/98 From: ALAN ZISMAN Time: 12:00am \/To: ADAM SHIH (Read 6 times) Subj: Re: How to setup a netwo Adam Shih said to MARTIN ATKINSON on 05-11-98 03:16: AS> Thank you the help but I had decided I want to setup a 10BaseT network AS> that two PC instead of direct connection. AS> Can you show some point on that Follow the URLs at the bottom of this message for the WIN95 Networking FAQ, or wait a few days, and it will appear again in this echo (it's posted weekly). _______________ Internet mail to: azisman@rogers.wave.ca Win95 FAQ at: http://home.bc.rogers.wave.ca/azisman/faq95.htm ___ * WR 1.31 # 126 * --- Maximus 2.01wb * Origin: Basic'ly Computers: Mooo-ing Right Along. (1:153/9) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 263 WINDOWS '95 Ref: F5H00048 Date: 05/12/98 From: ALAN ZISMAN Time: 12:00am \/To: JOE ZIMMERMAN (Read 6 times) Subj: net dialup Joe Zimmerman said to All on 05-09-98 03:58: JZ>On the my connection dial up menu, I can get everything to work except JZ>the installation of my pass word so that I do not have to put it in JZ>every time. I cannot get the box "save password" to activate. I have JZ>pulled down every screen I can find and still do not know how to get th JZ>program to save my password. With one computer at home and no reason JZ>for it not to got to my provider automatically, it gets to be a pain to JZ>have to type in the password every time I connect to the internet. JZ>How do I get that box activated? From the FAQ messages, posted weekly in this echo: 21) How can I get Dial-up-Networking to save my password? -- You need to add a Networking client in order for D-U-N to remember your password. (No, I don't know why...) Open Control Panel, choose Network, click on the ADD button, then choose Network Client-- Microsoft Network Client (which has nothing to do with the Microsoft on-line service) works well. You'll be asked for your installation floppies or CD disc. Alternatively (thanks Carl Morris!), if you set Win95 for multiple users, it will remember your password for your Internet account. To do this, go to Control Panel/Passwords/User Profiles, and select the [x] Users can customize... option. Of course, then, you'll be asked for a password when you start Win95! Finally, the March 1996 Service Pack #1 upgrade causes problems with saving passwords. If you have installed this upgrade, and find that your password is no longer saved, get the fix for this... a file called Mspwlupd.exe from http://www.microsoft.com/windows/software/updates.htm. Then, delete C:\Windows\*.PWL (your now-corrupt password file), and install Mspwlupd. _______________ Internet mail to: azisman@rogers.wave.ca Win95 FAQ at: http://home.bc.rogers.wave.ca/azisman/faq95.htm ___ * WR 1.31 # 126 * --- Maximus 2.01wb * Origin: Basic'ly Computers: Mooo-ing Right Along. (1:153/9) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 263 WINDOWS '95 Ref: F5H00049 Date: 05/12/98 From: ALAN ZISMAN Time: 12:00am \/To: JAMIE KOWINSKY (Read 6 times) Subj: Dual Boot? Jamie Kowinsky said to Alan Zisman on 05-10-98 22:40: JK>*** On 05-07-98 Alan Zisman scrambled something like this: > 2) Win95 DOES support booting to your former DOS version (though ther > are > problems with this and Win95B). If you have IO.DOS, MSDOS.DOS files JK>*** JK>Could you please describe the problems win95b has with JK>booting to the previous version of dos? Currently I have JK>95 (osr1) and use the previsou ver of dos JK>very often.... I just got a copy of osr2.1 with my new board and plane JK>install that.... However I will still want to use the JK>previous version of dos so I would like to know what to JK>expect. 1) When setting up W95B to boot to your former DOS, it will reboot to the old DOS, but won't return to Win95 on the next boot... you'll need to boot to a WIN95 system floppy, and re-SYS the hard drive. 2) If you set your C: partition to FAT32, you won't be able to boot to your former DOS at all, as DOS version prior to 7.1 can't read FAT32 partitions. - Why do you boot to your former DOS 'very often'? The only things that I found didn't work as advertised booting to DOS 7.0 were related to networking. _______________ Internet mail to: azisman@rogers.wave.ca Win95 FAQ at: http://home.bc.rogers.wave.ca/azisman/faq95.htm ___ * WR 1.31 # 126 * --- Maximus 2.01wb * Origin: Basic'ly Computers: Mooo-ing Right Along. (1:153/9) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 263 WINDOWS '95 Ref: F5H00050 Date: 05/12/98 From: ALAN ZISMAN Time: 12:00am \/To: BILL DRAKE (Read 6 times) Subj: Autoexec and Config Bill Drake said to Alan Zisman on 05-11-98 21:34: AZ>In other words, DOS=HIGH should be enough to load most of Command.co AZ>the UMB command lets DOS manage EMM386's Upper Memory Blocks... thou AZ>not sure what difference that makes. BD>Hi, Alan. DOS=HIGH loads part of IO.SYS into the HMA (a 64K block of BD>memory just above the 1MB mark). Some of the DOS BUFFERS can also be BD>loaded into this area along with IO.SYS. BD>The rest of the stuff which DOS7 will load into UMB can only occur BD>when the DOS=UMB command is also present in Config.Sys. If this BD>command is present, and sufficient UMB is available, then all the BD>FILES handles, the remaining BUFFERS, IFSHLP.SYS, and the BD>COMMAND.COM low-memory-stub are also loaded into UMB. Thanks for the clarification. _______________ Internet mail to: azisman@rogers.wave.ca Win95 FAQ at: http://home.bc.rogers.wave.ca/azisman/faq95.htm ___ * WR 1.31 # 126 * --- Maximus 2.01wb * Origin: Basic'ly Computers: Mooo-ing Right Along. (1:153/9) Earl Montgomery said to ALL on 05-11-98 14:44: EM> Is it possible to reinstall W95 over my current version without losing EM> everything I presently have installed? I don't think so but thought I EM> ask. Yep... in fact, it's the recommended method to solve some problems (if nothing less drastic has worked). _______________ Internet mail to: azisman@rogers.wave.ca Win95 FAQ at: http://home.bc.rogers.wave.ca/azisman/faq95.htm ___ * WR 1.31 # 126 * --- Maximus 2.01wb * Origin: Basic'ly Computers: Mooo-ing Right Along. (1:153/9) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 263 WINDOWS '95 Ref: F5H00051 Date: 05/12/98 From: ALAN ZISMAN Time: 12:00am \/To: EARL MONTGOMERY (Read 6 times) Subj: Reinstall Earl Montgomery said to ALL on 05-11-98 14:44: EM> Is it possible to reinstall W95 over my current version without losing EM> everything I presently have installed? I don't think so but thought I EM> ask. Yep... in fact, it's the recommended method to solve some problems (if nothing less drastic has worked). _______________ Internet mail to: azisman@rogers.wave.ca Win95 FAQ at: http://home.bc.rogers.wave.ca/azisman/faq95.htm ___ * WR 1.31 # 126 * --- Maximus 2.01wb * Origin: Basic'ly Computers: Mooo-ing Right Along. (1:153/9) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 263 WINDOWS '95 Ref: F5H00052 Date: 05/12/98 From: ALAN ZISMAN Time: 12:00am \/To: KEN WARNOCK (Read 6 times) Subj: Joystick disappeared? Ken Warnock said to Alan Zisman on 05-10-98 03:49: KW>A few days ago you were kind enough to give me the instructions so KW>that I could get a Joystick which is and was attached to my system KW>recognized by Windows '95. It worked at the time so I didn't keep a KW>copy of the instructions. However, now I just noticed that the system KW>has indicated that there is a conflict using the driver for the KW>joystick as installed. I indicated in the Control Panel to delete the KW>device, figuring on going back in and reinstalling after re-booting. KW>Well, to make a long story short, when I rebooted the Control Panel KW>still shows an icon for the Joystick category but when I try to KW>install the driver for the joystick I can't seem to locate it. I've KW>looked in the Add New Hardware, Game Controller, Microsoft location (I KW>think that was where you previously directed me) but I can't find the KW>previously installed driver selection. Am I missing some important KW>aspect. KW>BTW, when I attempt to have the hardware detector automatically detect KW>New Hardware now it comes back saying that an (unnamed) INF file is KW>missing or couldn't be opened. Is this significant or germane to the KW>problem at hand? Didn't used to receive this error message! Sorry... I wasn't the person with advice on this the first time around-- I would have tried doing what you described-- using Control Panel/System/Device Manager to remove the current joystick device, then using Add New Hardware to add it back in. _______________ Internet mail to: azisman@rogers.wave.ca Win95 FAQ at: http://home.bc.rogers.wave.ca/azisman/faq95.htm ___ * WR 1.31 # 126 * --- Maximus 2.01wb * Origin: Basic'ly Computers: Mooo-ing Right Along. (1:153/9) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 263 WINDOWS '95 Ref: F5H00053 Date: 05/12/98 From: KEN BLAKE Time: 07:03pm \/To: CHARLES SCAGLIONE (Read 6 times) Subj: IE 4.0 & Outlook '98 On 05-11-98 20:07, CHARLES SCAGLIONE wrote CS>Bob Bott wrote to All BB> A number of the sales reps at work have decided to replace Act BB>with Outlook as thier PIM. The problem is that installing Outlook BB>forces an upgrade of IE to 4.0... The Intranet / Internet connection BB>we use does NOT like IE 4 at all. Since I'm the unlucky person that BB>gets to 'fix' systems that aren't behaving, I need to know if any of BB>you have any 'tricks' etc. to help me thru this mess. I've talked to BB>the support guys at HQ and all they say is "we don't currently BB>support that software". Yeah, lot's of help... CS>Unfortunately, Outlook Xpress 98 will not run without installing MSIE CS>4.01. A word of clarification here. There is no Product called "Outlook Xpress 98." There is a product called "Outlook Express" and another called "Outlook 98" (the successor to Outlook 97). If the similarity of those names isn't confusing enough, Outlook 98 has no built-in newsreader, and uses Outlook Express for reading News. CS>Being naive, I ordered the CD from MS Recently? It's probably Outlook 98. CS>and found out too late that CS>I needed to run MSIE 4.0X before being able to use Outlook. CS>Why MS is forcing MSIE 4.0X on us is beyond me. The reason that both Outlook 98 and Outlook Express require the presence of MSIE4 is almost certainly the seamless way they display html messages. They all use the same code to do so. It's a feature I can do without (I hate to get html E-mail because of the large size of the messages), but many people like it. - - Ken Blake kblake@primenet.com - --- * WR 1.31 # 119 * He who eats ice cream in a car is a sundae driver. * Origin: The Tucson Computer Society BBS (1:300/2) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 263 WINDOWS '95 Ref: F5H00054 Date: 05/12/98 From: KEN BLAKE Time: 07:07pm \/To: KOBA TSVENIASHVILY (Read 6 times) Subj: more memory On 05-09-98 19:29, KOBA TSVENIASHVILY wrote KT>Hi. Whats up? KT>I have currently 32MB SDRAM. KT>I was wondering if I will add more 32Sdram will win95 run *MUCH* more KT>faster or it will improve little bit? KT>NOTE: I have K6-200 MHZ. There is no answer to that question that's right for everybody. It depends entirely on what applications you run, and how many you run simultaneously. To take two extreme examples: if all you do is run solitaire, more RAM will provide no improvement at all; if you run PhotoShop and edit large graphic images, more RAM will provide an enormous improvement. - - Ken Blake kblake@primenet.com - --- * WR 1.31 # 119 * If I had any humility I would be perfect. * Origin: The Tucson Computer Society BBS (1:300/2) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 263 WINDOWS '95 Ref: F5H00055 Date: 05/12/98 From: KEN BLAKE Time: 07:17pm \/To: JAMES MCKENZIE (Read 6 times) Subj: Fat32 On 05-11-98 18:35, JAMES MCKENZIE wrote JM>Hello William! JM>06 May 98 20:19, William Grinolds wrote to Bakr Tamory: WG> Bakr Tamory wrote in a message to All: BT>> Yesterday I wanted to try FAT32 on my small HD, which is only 342 BT>> MB. I ran fdisk, deleted it's partition, then created a new BT>> one, and rebooted, as the instructions were on screen. BT>> After that, I formated the HD, and ran Fdisk just to see if it BT>> was using FAT32 or not, but unfortunatly it wasn't. Can you BT>> please tell me where I went wrong? Or, FAT32 only works with HD BT>> larger than 540MB? WG> FAT32 is only an option, by default, on drives >528 MB. WG> There is an undocumented switch you can use with FDISK that will f WG> it to allow FAT32: WG> FDISK /FPRMT WG> But I don't see why you would want FAT32 on a drive that small.... WG> whatever works for you is fine with me. :-) JM>I don't think he will see a major savings as (I think) the default is JM>4096 per JM>cluster (8xsector per cluster). I remember that is the default for JM>FAT16 A 342MB drive? No, FAT16 has 8KB clusters in that size range (256-512MB), so FAT32's 4KB clusters will provide a small saving. JM>After 528MB you will see the savings as FAT32 stays at 4096 until it JM>reaches something close to 16MB clusters (4KBx16MB=64GB parition) JM Then it JM>stops...(this information is from memory) However, the "theorical" max JM>something over 2TB (the first is the limit of EIDE hard drives). What JM>future holds is anyone's guess.... FAT32 stays at 4KB clusters for drives or partitions up to 8GB, then increases from there. It *never* has cluster sizes anywhere near 16MB. Its largest cluster size is 32KB, which starts at partition sizes of 32GB and continues to the FAT32 maximum of 2TB. - - Ken Blake kblake@primenet.com - --- * WR 1.31 # 119 * I'm right 90% of the time. Why quibble about the other 3% * Origin: The Tucson Computer Society BBS (1:300/2) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 263 WINDOWS '95 Ref: F5H00056 Date: 05/12/98 From: KEN BLAKE Time: 07:29pm \/To: JEAN PARROT (Read 6 times) Subj: 95 on 386 On 05-12-98 08:14, JEAN PARROT wrote JP> And a nice morning to you Spaceman John. JP> You were mentioning drive compression. My daughter who codes for JP>MS, is totally against this. It will give you more space, virtual as it JP>is. But I really slows down a system. Compression slows down your system because it takes time to compress and uncompress data. But at the same time, compression speeds up your system, because there's less data to read and to write. Which of these factors is more significant depends on the relative speeds of your processor and disk subsystem, but for most people with modern hardware, there's little difference experienced either way. I personally don't use disk compression, and recommend against it, but for an entirely different reason. Although drivespace 3 appears to be a stable product, its use means you're putting all your eggs in one basket. A relatively minor problem could be exacerbated by its presence to the extent that all your data could be lost. I'll not willing to run such a risk, especially in these days of inexpensive hard drives. - - Ken Blake kblake@primenet.com - --- * WR 1.31 # 119 * Millihelen: amount of beauty needed to launch one ship. * Origin: The Tucson Computer Society BBS (1:300/2)