--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 263 WINDOWS '95 Ref: F5P00110 Date: 05/14/98 From: BILL DAWSON Time: 11:22pm \/To: CLARENCE HOGAN (Read 7 times) Subj: Long-dead horse -=> Quoting Clarence Hogan to Bill Dawson <=- CH> I thought that we had settled all of this PARTICULAR part many CH> moons ago, as the Indian would say, and completely agreed on this CH> PARTICULAR part/point? :) CH> Sooooooo, I guess the question now is, how did everyone get back CH> on THIS dead horse? :'( :) I thought you just re-sent the query, based on something similar that had come up. If you didn't re-send, I wonder who did? CH> Hi ya' Bill, tickled pink to hear from you again even under such CH> circumstances! ;) BD> The phrasing of your query was what did it. I would swear I'd seen something from you similar to what started the prior exchange about what was and wasn't pirated software, and a new person chiming in worried about whether you wanted an "illegal copy" of something. CH> Well Bill, from my limited amount of experience, it just seemed CH> to me that it kinda' like reading commentaries on the Bible, for CH> a person might read nine of them and still not understand the CH> Verse in question, but upon reading the tenth one by another CH> commentator in his own particular phrasing of words, the light CH> suddenly goes on! :) So re-phrasing is a good policy IMHO! This next was based on my recollection. Perhaps I am totally all wet? BD> There is a built-in that is in some versions of some larger system, BD> such as Win95, but isn't shipped in every version. [I thought you BD> asked about such a piece.] CH> Yup and understood, just like the NEW Pentium 200 MMX that I had CH> special built by a local company did not have Win95 installed in CH> it, but a copy labeled "For Distribution Only with a New PC" was CH> included in the bill of $1300 and they installed it before shipping CH> it to me and is registered in my name, of course! And I wouldn't CH> have had it any other way! :) BD> Some folks who didn't have it saw you ask how to get what you saw, BD> phrased in such a way that it was interpreted as if you didn't feel BD> like buying a copy. CH> Which is what I deducted from the responses back then From this with the "back then," you make it sound like you didn't re-send the message yourself, and there wasn't some newer version of the earlier accusation that came up recently. CH> and of course was never my intent to start with, for at that time I CH> was indeed a complete computer dummy and had no knowledge of comput- CH> ers or programs whatsoever and truly though that I was asking the CH> right questions to solve the problem that I was having with the CH> Win3.11 that my son had installed in order for me to be able to use CH> JUNO, and I never used the Windows part at all, in fact, my son did CH> not even turn on any of the features of Windows and I never accessed CH> Windows for files or anything and at the time all I knew was that it CH> had to be on my hard drive in order for JUNO to work! And just an CH> afterthought, as I recall, it was my understanding then that the CH> program was no longer on the market and could not even be purchased, CH> which was the main reason for seeking someone with what I thought CH> would be an out of date copy! BD> I remember seeing your question and although I had no answer, and BD> already was pretty sure you weren't seeking a "pirated copy," I pre- BD> dicted to myself that someone would come along to fuss at you again. Once again, that piece there is based on believing I'd seen a newer query of yours about something within Windows95, although not in my own copy. CH> Shucks no Bill, for at that time I didn't even know what a "pirated CH> copy" was! HeeHee, that was an easy prediction, just like the guy CH> that rides his horse to death and then gets off and kicks the dead CH> horse for dying when it was his fault all along! BD> I can't even recall, however, what feature or function caused the BD> dead horse to get back onto its figurative feet. It isn't on my own BD> setup yet. CH> Me neither Bill! BD> I really thought the prior discussions should've remained adequate BD> to cover this latest misunderstanding. CH> And I thought that it was over and done with months and months CH> ago, in fact, so far back, that I had truly forgotten all about CH> it till I received this message! I answered what appeared to be a new query or a re-send. Bill D --- * Origin: It will certainly get worse before it gets better! (1:387/601.4) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 263 WINDOWS '95 Ref: F5P00111 Date: 05/14/98 From: BILL DAWSON Time: 10:21pm \/To: TOM WILKES (Read 7 times) Subj: QuickView -=> Quoting Tom Wilkes to All <=- TW> A week or so back I read in some magazine or other about a TW> application named Quickview. It, as I recall, was installable thru TW> windows Add/Remove applications. It should already be installed in a standard install. You should see an option on a right-click menu when you right-click on any file name in Explorer. This is a sort of trial version of the W3.x program, Outside In, and I had trouble with it not having very many converters so it seemed to constantly say it couldn't display some pretty common kinds of files, so I bought the commercial version, name changed to Quick View Plus. TW> It was something really handy according to it's explanation - TW> something you really had to have! I do use it rather regularly and it's very handy. Of course, some other applications can also display a variety of different file types, such as Norton's Navigator. TW> Trouble is I can't find where I read the article and I don't seem to TW> find any such program in the list of installable programs from Control TW> Panel. If it is already installed, it won't be there. If you chose either a custom or a minimum install, you could've missed getting it, but then it ought to be among the potential "Add" items in Add/Remove. (If you look through the Remove List and find it there, then it *is* already installed.) Bill D --- * Origin: Might as well make this a sort of tagline this time.. 1:387/601.4) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 263 WINDOWS '95 Ref: F5P00112 Date: 05/14/98 From: RICK SEFERI Time: 01:02pm \/To: SASCHA BEAUMONT (Read 7 times) Subj: CTLOAD.COM On 12-May-98, at: 18:41:35, Sascha Beaumont wrote to All Subject: CTLOAD.COM SB> Sorry to go off topic, *but* everyones is going on about SB> CTLOAD.COM, saying I can pull it off the internet, but not all of SB> us have that availibility. I am recieving this as a fido echo, so SB> I don't know if it is a newsgroup or something but if someone SB> would give me a url for the file ie. SB> http://www.xxx.com/software/ctload.com or post a ZIP or UUE or SB> something. It is really frustrating. Even a quick autoresponder SB> wuold be easy enugh to set up. _PLEASE_HELP_ME_ You can download it directly from: ftp://ftp.creaf.com/pub/creative/patches/ctload.exe Or you can find it on this page: http://www.creaf.com/wwwnew/tech/ftp/ftp-pat.html Later, -Rick --- Terminate 5.00/Pro * Origin: My personal dead end on the Information Superhighway (1:141/757.5) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 263 WINDOWS '95 Ref: F5P00113 Date: 05/14/98 From: JERRY MURPHY Time: 10:28am \/To: SASCHA BEAUMONT (Read 7 times) Subj: Dangerous programs? G'day Sascha, In a recent message, you said, among several other valid remarks: SB>_BUT_ if you insist on going into win95, and want your ET or SB>whatever, there is a ZTreeWin out there. I don't know if it is Long SB>file name compatible because if you use your ET there is a very good SB>chance that you will lose the LFN when working with such files. It would go too far off-topic to fully describe ZTreeWin for you, but I can answer that question about LFN. It does have LFN capability. It also brings several new limitations, though, and may not be the bargain folks want. It doesn't know about the mouse since it is keyboard commands only. It doesn't have near the capability of the XTree it attempts to emulate; the author never used most of the XTree abilities, it seems, so isn't driven to incorporate them. Where many capabilities were built-in to the XTree program, ZTree depends to a great extent on very hard-to-find, and rather expensive, (and lame) shareware utilities. ZTree does do a very few things very well, including LFN, but it has some serious limitations. So most of my work depends on the ever-present XTree, and occasional call-up of ZTree. For more in-depth discussion, send fido netmail in care of this origin. the Jerry Murphy in Lakewood, Ohio, USA * DeLuxe2 1.21 #8814 * Murphy is out there somewhere ... just waiting ... --- InterEcho 1.19 * Origin: Nerd's Nook, Westlake OH, U.S.A. (1:157/3) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 263 WINDOWS '95 Ref: F5P00114 Date: 05/14/98 From: JERRY MURPHY Time: 10:28am \/To: JEAN PARROT (Read 7 times) Subj: Disk compression . JP> And a nice morning to you Spaceman Ken. KB> I'll not willing to run such a risk, especially in these days of KB> inexpensive hard drives. JP> Is this not a very good reason not to compress a disk ? I use JP>about 500megs in my system and I have 2 HDDs, one is 2.1 gig and tother JP>is 2.4 gigs. No need to compress here. JP> Thanks for your comment on the "relative" speed of both the JP>disk drive access rate and the CPU that does the de-compressing if JP>needed. I wish I could remember who said this on a fido echo a few years ago: "There are three requirements if you want to compress your HDD: you must be completely out of hard drive space; you must be completely out of money with which to buy bigger drives; and you must be completely out of your mind!" Those are sage words! I was once forced to use STACker for a short time on one of my systems, and I'll never get stuck in that rut again. There's just too much maintenance, too much insurance required. For a temporary fix, it is great. But not good at all for the long haul. the Jerry Murphy in Lakewood, Ohio, USA * DeLuxe2 1.21 #8814 * Nature almost always sides with the hidden flaw. --- InterEcho 1.19 * Origin: Nerd's Nook, Westlake OH, U.S.A. (1:157/3) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 263 WINDOWS '95 Ref: F5P00115 Date: 05/14/98 From: JERRY MURPHY Time: 10:28am \/To: ALAN ZISMAN (Read 7 times) Subj: Hard disk AZ>Bakr Tamory said to All on 05-13-98 02:36: BT> If i had a 6GB Hard disk, can I utilize all the 6 GB as one drive? BT>Or should I "split" it into 3 (2gb each)? AZ> There' no single 'right' answer... AZ> We have to assume you're uing FAT32, since FAT16 doesn't give you the AZ>possibility of a single partition larger than 2 gig (running Win95). AZ> Single large partitions are popular because they're conceptually simple, and AZ>there's no possibility of forgetting which drive letter a file is on. AZ> However, some operations will be slowed down by needing to search a ingle AZ>large drive... both for the computer and for the user. I tend to feel that if AZ>it takes too much scrolling to display the contents of a folder, you should be AZ>using more sub-folders, and similarly, if it takes to much scrolling to AZ>display the list of folders on a drive, you should have multiple partitions. Alan, that was well-said, of course, but it didn't mention a couple of really important other considerations. I encourage you to add them, or something like them, when giving that advice in the future. Compare the maintenance of one huge partition to some number of smaller partitions. If you wish to do a defrag or virus-scan or many other chores, to do so on a huge partition requires you sit and wait for a much longer time, and also waste hard drive life by going over and over what may be rarely used portions of the drive. I have some partitions that seldom get changed, so they don't require defragging often. Another major consideration is backing up the system, on whatever media you choose. Backing up smaller partitions that are used frequently is cheaper and easier, and uses less time. One of my partitions is only used to store reference data. One backup on-site and one off-site is adequate. I don't need to tape it over, and over, and over again. If "1 backup" of "1 huge partition" fails because of bad media, doom on you. If 1 backup of one of my partitions fails, I need to retape only the stuff in that one area, not the whole bloody thing. FWIW, my puny 5.1 GB is split up into 750 MB pieces, plus a smaller piece on the end. Either partition would back up easily on a CD-RW if I used one (I never load a partition beyond 80%). I use TR-1 400/800 tapes, and have each partition on 1 or 2 tapes. Busy partitions get backed up frequently, and quickly. Seldom used partitions can wait for the weekend, if then. I have a smaller HDD from a previous system just for all the TEMP stuff and .SWP file. If it ever gets corrupted, I'll just hose it and start over. Sure did speed things up, though! the Jerry Murphy in Lakewood, Ohio, USA * DeLuxe2 1.21 #8814 * This tagline intentionally left [ ]. --- InterEcho 1.19 * Origin: Nerd's Nook, Westlake OH, U.S.A. (1:157/3) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 263 WINDOWS '95 Ref: F5P00116 Date: 05/13/98 From: JOHN DAVID Time: 06:00pm \/To: JEAN PARROT (Read 7 times) Subj: Re: 95 on 386 JP> And a nice morning to you Spaceman John. How did you know I was from Outerspace. :) JP> You were mentioning drive compression. My daughter who codes JP> for MS, is totally against this. It will give you more space, virtual JP> as it is. But I really slows down a system. I have noticed that, and I used the system before I got flash here and what a difference. JP> She got me to twin up two HDDs, large for what I need but I JP> will never have to compress them, one is 2.1 and the other 2.4 gigs. JP> So far, I only use maybe 1 gig, there is room for expansion here. JP> Keep this in mind. I will, and thanks I believe I will hit a computer show and find some bargains on memory and maybey a 1 gig or so before I take the pepsi plunge to 95. I will have to do this fairly soon because I can't keep her off of mine most of the time. :) Teenagers, whew trying to keep my wits with a fifteen year old computer hog. :) Have to keep my fingers crossed the 12 year old son is starting to fight for a seat. Guess I will have spring for more greenstamps and get two more systems. Mabey I should network them in the house. Hey there's an idea. :) Regards... ... John David, Sysop/SafeHaven BBS, john.david@fh.fg.sevenstar.com ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 * LAKOTA v1.5 --- Alexi/Mail 2.02b (#10000) * Origin: THE FIREHOUSE BBS - HANOVER,PA 717.633.9202 (1:2700/911) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 263 WINDOWS '95 Ref: F5P00117 Date: 05/15/98 From: BUD JAMISON Time: 02:40am \/To: DOUG SORBER (Read 7 times) Subj: win98 -> I have been running win98 since the early builds, and even the early -> beat OSR2 in stability. RC5 is the fastest build, and most stable What's the 'build number' for RC5? --- Platinum Xpress/386/Wildcat! v1.3e * Origin: FidoNet International Coordinator Emeritus, for life. (1:202/746) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 263 WINDOWS '95 Ref: F5P00118 Date: 05/11/98 From: DAVE WRIGHT Time: 12:44am \/To: GERALD PARKER (Read 7 times) Subj: CD-ROM -=> Gerald Parker spoke these words to ALL <=- GP> I have a Packard Bell 486DX2 at 66 mhz. It's running Windows 95. GP> I have a question about the CD-ROM drive. It's an old 2X. It works GP> just fine in Windows but when I change to DOS mode it gives me an GP> "INVALID DRIVE SPECIFICATION" error. I can't re-install Win 95 GP> because I only have the CD version. GP> Please help me. Re-installing Windows is not probably necessary. It sounds to me like it is simply not loading your CD ROM driver in DOS Mode. Look at your CONFIG.SYS file. Do you have a driver line for the CD ROM Driver? My config.sys file appears below, and yours will probably vary or have a different driver, but as long as it is a valid driver for your CD ROM Drive it should work. DEVICEHIGH /L:1,11264 =D:\CDPRO\VIDE-CDD.SYS /D:MSCD001 Now if a line similar to that is already present, check your autoexec.bat You will probably find a line like this: REM -- By Windows Setup -- LH C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\MSCDEX.EXE /D:MSCD001 /M:12 Create yourself a batch file called CDROM.BAT and copy that line to it just as it appears making sure the /D: parameter is identical to the one in your config.sys file. Then delete the REM -- By Windows Setup -- portion of the line so it reads somthing like. LH C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\MSCDEX.EXE /D:MSCD001 /M:12 Now, everytime you boot into DOS Mode to access the CD ROM all you need to is run the CDROM.BAT file, and voila... access to your CD ROM. EXPLANATION: Windows 95 does not require MSCDEX in order to access CD ROM drives. In fact, using MSCDEX will often force Windows 95 to run in MS-DOS Compatibility Mode, which reduces system performance considerably. So, when Windows installed, it remarked out the line in your autoexec.bat file. However, after going into DOS Mode, you need to load MSCDEX in order to access the CD ROM Drives. -=| Dave Wright |=- Moderator of these Fine FidoNet Conferences ------------------------------------------------------------- LOVE_&_MARRIAGE STEP_PARENT