Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
> In news:h2950g$jim$1@news.eternal-september.org,
> ~misfit~ typed on Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:19:37 +1200:
>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>>> In news:h27pun$ho4$1@news.eternal-september.org,
>>> BillW50 typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:02:52 -0500:
>>>> In news:Xns9C37EF8E0EF58noonehomecom@74.209.131.13,
>>>> Larry typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:32:58 +0000:
>>>>> I'm using WinXPSP3 typing this message because it's convenient and
>>>>> familiar with Xnews, a very old usenet client.
>>>>
>>>> I have one machine running XPSP3 and the rest running XPSP2. And I
>>>> haven't seen any difference in stability or usability between SP2
>>>> and SP3.
>>>
>>> Oh wait! There is one small difference. SP3 breaks OE6
>>> auto-compacing mode. As it usually hangs on folder.dbx. And
>>> Microsoft doesn't support OE at all anymore, so there will never be
>>> a Microsoft fix for it. Which might be one reason to stick with
>>> SP2. <grin>
>>
>> Thanks Bill, I was going to ask why, if there was no difference with
>> stability or usability, only one of your machines was sp3.
>>
>> Oh, I find my XP Pro sp3 machines still auto-compact OE files just
>> fine.
>
> Hi Shaun. Well I don't see the big deal of having SP3 installed
> anyway. And the big plus of only staying with SP2 is that it is much
> smaller. Which is nice on small SSD drives. And I can't even install
> SP3 on my 4G SSD machines because there isn't even enough room. Even
> if I use the recovery disc to start over, that only leaves 400MB
> worth of room. SP3 claims it needs at least 450MB. Although I believe
> it actually needs at least double this amount when I installed it on
> one of my 8G machines.

Hi Bill. Even though I'm behind a hardware firewall and practice safe hex I
still like my machines to be up-to-date with patches so have sp3 on all of
them. I take an Acronis partition image of the boot partition immediately
before install, then delete the uninstall files (which I put in my own
folder so I can find them easilly). Or I should say I did do that with my
first few sp3 installs. As I haven't had a problem with it and I image my
boot partitions regularly anyway it's no longer SOP.

It's my experience that it's the uninstall files that take up all that extra
room.

> I don't know what to say about why yours works. As I have no personal
> experience with the problem, just what I have read on the OE
> newsgroup.

Ok, I don't use tiny little SSDs so space has never been an issue for me.
<grin>

> Want to see something odd? My machines report:
>
> SP2 v5.1.2600
> SP3 v5.1.2600
>
> SP2 and SP3 report the same version number. Doesn't that seem strange
> to you?

No, not really. I think 1.2600 was the final build of XP, which doesn't
change with a service pack added, hence the service pack status is indicated
at the start of the report. (At least that's how I understand it.)

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll
be warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.

Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in news:h23k34$r8v$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> One and also with some models (but not all models) of the Asus Eee.
>

One of my old friends is going blind from way too many visits to optical
doctors who've ruined his sight with injections of chemicals and drugs. He
gave me a eeePC 701 Linux little netbook with the 4GB SSD he was using as a
Skype phone. I noted it only had 512M of RAM in it so I mistakenly ordered
a 2GB stick for it when I ordered them for my other netbooks.

The 701 Linux box doesn't support 2GB of RAM, but supports the 1GB I took
out of the Samsung NC10 just fine and it did improve its speed, especially
when playing large movies in various formats.

Sure wish I could take the speakers out of the ASUS and swap them with the
crap speakers in the NC10.

The stick I took out of the 701 says it's an SiS Module DDR2 512M-667Mhz
200 pin stick. It needs a home. Memory is so cheap.

I just got a 32GB SDHC card for media storage on the 701. There's no room
on the 4GB drive for anything, much, rendering it quite useless as a media
player, except at home where it can logon to my 4TB of network drives over
wifi or Ethernet and play them directly. The 701 is a cute toy, though.

--
-----
Larry

If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something,
is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him?

In news:Xns9C3AF3AF03DBDnoonehomecom@74.209.131.13,
Larry typed on Wed, 01 Jul 2009 03:57:19 +0000:
> Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in news:h23k34$r8v$1
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> One and also with some models (but not all models) of the Asus Eee.
>>
>
> One of my old friends is going blind from way too many visits to
> optical doctors who've ruined his sight with injections of chemicals
> and drugs. He gave me a eeePC 701 Linux little netbook with the 4GB
> SSD he was using as a Skype phone. I noted it only had 512M of RAM
> in it so I mistakenly ordered a 2GB stick for it when I ordered them
> for my other netbooks.
>
> The 701 Linux box doesn't support 2GB of RAM, but supports the 1GB I
> took out of the Samsung NC10 just fine and it did improve its speed,
> especially when playing large movies in various formats.

Actually Larry, it *can* support 2GB if you want to edit some scripts. I
haven't done it myself yet. But like you, I just threw a 1GB in that
machine too. And if you think Xandros plays media files well, wait until
you try Windows XP on that machine. Media files flies even if you hook
them up to a large external monitor like I do. Linux doing the same
falls flat on its face.

> Sure wish I could take the speakers out of the ASUS and swap them
> with the crap speakers in the NC10.

Well actually, I believe you can. And why do you think I own five of
these Asus 700 series EeePCs? I love the sound from the speakers.

> The stick I took out of the 701 says it's an SiS Module DDR2
> 512M-667Mhz 200 pin stick. It needs a home. Memory is so cheap.

I have those and now a bunch of 1GB ones in my junk drawer.

> I just got a 32GB SDHC card for media storage on the 701. There's no
> room on the 4GB drive for anything, much, rendering it quite useless
> as a media player, except at home where it can logon to my 4TB of
> network drives over wifi or Ethernet and play them directly. The 701
> is a cute toy, though.

I see the 4G SSD as just for the OS and some applications. As for
storing data, SDHC is a handy way to go. I have three 16G SDHC myself.
And I have one 16G SSD coming in to try Windows 7 running on it.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP Home SP2

In news:h2bjt1$3pj$1@news.eternal-september.org,
~misfit~ typed on Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:45:52 +1200:
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>> In news:h2950g$jim$1@news.eternal-september.org,
>> ~misfit~ typed on Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:19:37 +1200:
>>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>>>> In news:h27pun$ho4$1@news.eternal-september.org,
>>>> BillW50 typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:02:52 -0500:
>>>>> In news:Xns9C37EF8E0EF58noonehomecom@74.209.131.13,
>>>>> Larry typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:32:58 +0000:
>>>>>> I'm using WinXPSP3 typing this message because it's convenient
>>>>>> and familiar with Xnews, a very old usenet client.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have one machine running XPSP3 and the rest running XPSP2. And I
>>>>> haven't seen any difference in stability or usability between SP2
>>>>> and SP3.
>>>>
>>>> Oh wait! There is one small difference. SP3 breaks OE6
>>>> auto-compacing mode. As it usually hangs on folder.dbx. And
>>>> Microsoft doesn't support OE at all anymore, so there will never be
>>>> a Microsoft fix for it. Which might be one reason to stick with
>>>> SP2. <grin>
>>>
>>> Thanks Bill, I was going to ask why, if there was no difference with
>>> stability or usability, only one of your machines was sp3.
>>>
>>> Oh, I find my XP Pro sp3 machines still auto-compact OE files just
>>> fine.
>>
>> Hi Shaun. Well I don't see the big deal of having SP3 installed
>> anyway. And the big plus of only staying with SP2 is that it is much
>> smaller. Which is nice on small SSD drives. And I can't even install
>> SP3 on my 4G SSD machines because there isn't even enough room. Even
>> if I use the recovery disc to start over, that only leaves 400MB
>> worth of room. SP3 claims it needs at least 450MB. Although I believe
>> it actually needs at least double this amount when I installed it on
>> one of my 8G machines.
>
> Hi Bill. Even though I'm behind a hardware firewall and practice safe
> hex I still like my machines to be up-to-date with patches so have
> sp3 on all of them. I take an Acronis partition image of the boot
> partition immediately before install, then delete the uninstall files
> (which I put in my own folder so I can find them easilly). Or I
> should say I did do that with my first few sp3 installs. As I haven't
> had a problem with it and I image my boot partitions regularly anyway
> it's no longer SOP.

Hi Shaun. I too image my OS and applications whenever I make any major
changes. Although I use Ghost v11 that I have on BartPE SDHC bootable
cards. Acronis is said to break if you move the images to another drive,
is this true? Ghost is okay with this.

I don't know about you, but after doing these updates and fixes for
about 15 years have noticed something. That is sometimes they break
things. IBM's OS/2 was the worst for this. As most of the FixPac
actually broke more than they fixed. And OS/2 was one of the most
unstable OS I ever ran in my life. Well v3 anyway, v2.1 was much better.

And while not as bad, but Windows updates also can break things as well.
I remember one HP machine I had with Windows 2000 on it. Every other
update would either fix or break Windows Explorer. This when on for
years and then one day one update finally fixed it for good.

Today I have one Windows XP Pro that is very slow to shutdown if I don't
close two programs running in the System Tray first. This started after
one of those bloody updates. Then the next one broke it again. Next one
fixed it, and this continues on even today. It is all updated and it is
broke once again.

> It's my experience that it's the uninstall files that take up all
> that extra room.

Yes they can take up a lot of room. Although that "$hf_mig$" one is the
worst offender. And that one is required to make sure an older hotfix
doesn't write over a newer one that was installed earlier. This folder
on this 4G XP SP2 is taking up 200MB right now.

>> I don't know what to say about why yours works. As I have no personal
>> experience with the problem, just what I have read on the OE
>> newsgroup.
>
> Ok, I don't use tiny little SSDs so space has never been an issue for
> me. <grin>

Well it was desktop users who was complaining about it actually. Two of
my XP machines has SP3 on them and I am thinking about doing it for
another one. Although one is on a 4G SSD and I don't see that one of
ever having SP3 on it. At least not with the Asus Windows XP SP2 OEM
version anyway.

As for that OE6 autocompacking problem with SP3. I have to wait until
the counter hits on one of them to 100 and then I'll see if I am
effected. Well I guess I can edit the registry to make it 100. <grin>

>> Want to see something odd? My machines report:
>>
>> SP2 v5.1.2600
>> SP3 v5.1.2600
>>
>> SP2 and SP3 report the same version number. Doesn't that seem strange
>> to you?
>
> No, not really. I think 1.2600 was the final build of XP, which
> doesn't change with a service pack added, hence the service pack
> status is indicated at the start of the report. (At least that's how
> I understand it.)

That is pretty strange to me. That isn't how I remember it. For example,
I just did this for one Office 2000 machine. Here is the build record.

Microsoft Word 2000 (9.0.2720)
Microsoft Word 2000 (9.0.3821 SR-1)
Microsoft Word 2000 (9.0.6926 SP-3)
Microsoft Word 2000 (9.0.8968 SP-3) after 13 more updates

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP Home SP2

Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
> In news:h2bjt1$3pj$1@news.eternal-september.org,
> ~misfit~ typed on Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:45:52 +1200:
>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>>> In news:h2950g$jim$1@news.eternal-september.org,
>>> ~misfit~ typed on Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:19:37 +1200:
>>>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>>>>> In news:h27pun$ho4$1@news.eternal-september.org,
>>>>> BillW50 typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:02:52 -0500:
>>>>>> In news:Xns9C37EF8E0EF58noonehomecom@74.209.131.13,
>>>>>> Larry typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:32:58 +0000:
>>>>>>> I'm using WinXPSP3 typing this message because it's convenient
>>>>>>> and familiar with Xnews, a very old usenet client.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have one machine running XPSP3 and the rest running XPSP2. And
>>>>>> I haven't seen any difference in stability or usability between
>>>>>> SP2 and SP3.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh wait! There is one small difference. SP3 breaks OE6
>>>>> auto-compacing mode. As it usually hangs on folder.dbx. And
>>>>> Microsoft doesn't support OE at all anymore, so there will never
>>>>> be a Microsoft fix for it. Which might be one reason to stick with
>>>>> SP2. <grin>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Bill, I was going to ask why, if there was no difference
>>>> with stability or usability, only one of your machines was sp3.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, I find my XP Pro sp3 machines still auto-compact OE files just
>>>> fine.
>>>
>>> Hi Shaun. Well I don't see the big deal of having SP3 installed
>>> anyway. And the big plus of only staying with SP2 is that it is much
>>> smaller. Which is nice on small SSD drives. And I can't even install
>>> SP3 on my 4G SSD machines because there isn't even enough room. Even
>>> if I use the recovery disc to start over, that only leaves 400MB
>>> worth of room. SP3 claims it needs at least 450MB. Although I
>>> believe it actually needs at least double this amount when I
>>> installed it on one of my 8G machines.
>>
>> Hi Bill. Even though I'm behind a hardware firewall and practice safe
>> hex I still like my machines to be up-to-date with patches so have
>> sp3 on all of them. I take an Acronis partition image of the boot
>> partition immediately before install, then delete the uninstall files
>> (which I put in my own folder so I can find them easilly). Or I
>> should say I did do that with my first few sp3 installs. As I haven't
>> had a problem with it and I image my boot partitions regularly anyway
>> it's no longer SOP.
>
> Hi Shaun. I too image my OS and applications whenever I make any major
> changes. Although I use Ghost v11 that I have on BartPE SDHC bootable
> cards. Acronis is said to break if you move the images to another
> drive, is this true? Ghost is okay with this.

Hi Bill. No, that's not true with Acronis. Just yesterday I imaged the boot
and programme partitions on the 160GB drive to an external USB drive,
swapped the 160GB out for a new 320GB drive, booted from the Acronis CD and
restored the images off the USB drive to the new drive. (I prefer to do that
rather than the 'clone' option, although that works fine too.)

It worked perfectly. I even re-sized the partitions as I did it. I then
simply used the rest of the space to make a data partition, put the old
internal drive in a dock and copied my data over USB to the new drive. To
use the machine you wouldn't notice any difference (except it's a bit faster
to respond and there's lots more room).

I'm using Acronis True Image Home version 11.

> I don't know about you, but after doing these updates and fixes for
> about 15 years have noticed something. That is sometimes they break
> things. IBM's OS/2 was the worst for this. As most of the FixPac
> actually broke more than they fixed. And OS/2 was one of the most
> unstable OS I ever ran in my life. Well v3 anyway, v2.1 was much
> better.
> And while not as bad, but Windows updates also can break things as
> well. I remember one HP machine I had with Windows 2000 on it. Every
> other update would either fix or break Windows Explorer. This when on
> for years and then one day one update finally fixed it for good.
>
> Today I have one Windows XP Pro that is very slow to shutdown if I
> don't close two programs running in the System Tray first. This
> started after one of those bloody updates. Then the next one broke it
> again. Next one fixed it, and this continues on even today. It is all
> updated and it is broke once again.

I've found that MS have got better at this. It used to occur often but now I
find it rare.

>> It's my experience that it's the uninstall files that take up all
>> that extra room.
>
> Yes they can take up a lot of room. Although that "$hf_mig$" one is
> the worst offender. And that one is required to make sure an older
> hotfix doesn't write over a newer one that was installed earlier.
> This folder on this 4G XP SP2 is taking up 200MB right now.

I've always deleted the "$hf_mig$" folder and have never had a problem.

>>> I don't know what to say about why yours works. As I have no
>>> personal experience with the problem, just what I have read on the
>>> OE newsgroup.
>>
>> Ok, I don't use tiny little SSDs so space has never been an issue for
>> me. <grin>
>
> Well it was desktop users who was complaining about it actually. Two
> of my XP machines has SP3 on them and I am thinking about doing it for
> another one. Although one is on a 4G SSD and I don't see that one of
> ever having SP3 on it. At least not with the Asus Windows XP SP2 OEM
> version anyway.
>
> As for that OE6 autocompacking problem with SP3. I have to wait until
> the counter hits on one of them to 100 and then I'll see if I am
> effected. Well I guess I can edit the registry to make it 100. <grin>
>
>>> Want to see something odd? My machines report:
>>>
>>> SP2 v5.1.2600
>>> SP3 v5.1.2600
>>>
>>> SP2 and SP3 report the same version number. Doesn't that seem
>>> strange to you?
>>
>> No, not really. I think 1.2600 was the final build of XP, which
>> doesn't change with a service pack added, hence the service pack
>> status is indicated at the start of the report. (At least that's how
>> I understand it.)
>
> That is pretty strange to me. That isn't how I remember it. For
> example, I just did this for one Office 2000 machine. Here is the
> build record.
> Microsoft Word 2000 (9.0.2720)
> Microsoft Word 2000 (9.0.3821 SR-1)
> Microsoft Word 2000 (9.0.6926 SP-3)
> Microsoft Word 2000 (9.0.8968 SP-3) after 13 more updates

I have XP Powertoys and Tweak UI installed and have chosen the option to
show my Windows version on the desktop. I've installed every update offered
and currently, in the bottom right of my desktop there is written:

"Windows XP Professional
Build 2600.xpsp_sp3_gdr.090206-1234 (Service Pack 3)"

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll
be warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.

In news:h2jg32$ale$1@news.eternal-september.org,
~misfit~ typed on Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:29:19 +1200:
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>> In news:h2bjt1$3pj$1@news.eternal-september.org,
>> ~misfit~ typed on Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:45:52 +1200:
>>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>>>> In news:h2950g$jim$1@news.eternal-september.org,
>>>> ~misfit~ typed on Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:19:37 +1200:
>>>>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>> In news:h27pun$ho4$1@news.eternal-september.org,
>>>>>> BillW50 typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:02:52 -0500:
>>>>>>> In news:Xns9C37EF8E0EF58noonehomecom@74.209.131.13,
>>>>>>> Larry typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:32:58 +0000:
>>>>>>>> I'm using WinXPSP3 typing this message because it's convenient
>>>>>>>> and familiar with Xnews, a very old usenet client.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have one machine running XPSP3 and the rest running XPSP2. And
>>>>>>> I haven't seen any difference in stability or usability between
>>>>>>> SP2 and SP3.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh wait! There is one small difference. SP3 breaks OE6
>>>>>> auto-compacing mode. As it usually hangs on folder.dbx. And
>>>>>> Microsoft doesn't support OE at all anymore, so there will never
>>>>>> be a Microsoft fix for it. Which might be one reason to stick
>>>>>> with SP2. <grin>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Bill, I was going to ask why, if there was no difference
>>>>> with stability or usability, only one of your machines was sp3.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, I find my XP Pro sp3 machines still auto-compact OE files just
>>>>> fine.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Shaun. Well I don't see the big deal of having SP3 installed
>>>> anyway. And the big plus of only staying with SP2 is that it is
>>>> much smaller. Which is nice on small SSD drives. And I can't even
>>>> install SP3 on my 4G SSD machines because there isn't even enough
>>>> room. Even if I use the recovery disc to start over, that only
>>>> leaves 400MB worth of room. SP3 claims it needs at least 450MB.
>>>> Although I believe it actually needs at least double this amount
>>>> when I installed it on one of my 8G machines.
>>>
>>> Hi Bill. Even though I'm behind a hardware firewall and practice
>>> safe hex I still like my machines to be up-to-date with patches so
>>> have sp3 on all of them. I take an Acronis partition image of the
>>> boot partition immediately before install, then delete the
>>> uninstall files (which I put in my own folder so I can find them
>>> easilly). Or I should say I did do that with my first few sp3
>>> installs. As I haven't had a problem with it and I image my boot
>>> partitions regularly anyway it's no longer SOP.
>>
>> Hi Shaun. I too image my OS and applications whenever I make any
>> major changes. Although I use Ghost v11 that I have on BartPE SDHC
>> bootable cards. Acronis is said to break if you move the images to
>> another drive, is this true? Ghost is okay with this.
>
> Hi Bill. No, that's not true with Acronis. Just yesterday I imaged
> the boot and programme partitions on the 160GB drive to an external
> USB drive, swapped the 160GB out for a new 320GB drive, booted from
> the Acronis CD and restored the images off the USB drive to the new
> drive. (I prefer to do that rather than the 'clone' option, although
> that works fine too.)
> It worked perfectly. I even re-sized the partitions as I did it. I
> then simply used the rest of the space to make a data partition, put
> the old internal drive in a dock and copied my data over USB to the
> new drive. To use the machine you wouldn't notice any difference
> (except it's a bit faster to respond and there's lots more room).
>
> I'm using Acronis True Image Home version 11.

Hi Shaun! Oh I meant where ever you save it to, if you move that copy to
somewhere else, it won't work is what I have heard. Just the later
versions of Acronis is supposed to have this problem.

>> I don't know about you, but after doing these updates and fixes for
>> about 15 years have noticed something. That is sometimes they break
>> things. IBM's OS/2 was the worst for this. As most of the FixPac
>> actually broke more than they fixed. And OS/2 was one of the most
>> unstable OS I ever ran in my life. Well v3 anyway, v2.1 was much
>> better.
>> And while not as bad, but Windows updates also can break things as
>> well. I remember one HP machine I had with Windows 2000 on it. Every
>> other update would either fix or break Windows Explorer. This when on
>> for years and then one day one update finally fixed it for good.
>>
>> Today I have one Windows XP Pro that is very slow to shutdown if I
>> don't close two programs running in the System Tray first. This
>> started after one of those bloody updates. Then the next one broke it
>> again. Next one fixed it, and this continues on even today. It is all
>> updated and it is broke once again.
>
> I've found that MS have got better at this. It used to occur often
> but now I find it rare.

Yes they normally do get better at this. Although they are still
breaking stuff. But it isn't just Microsoft, everybody else has the same
problem. Although Microsoft is usually easier to deal with. <grin>

>>> It's my experience that it's the uninstall files that take up all
>>> that extra room.
>>
>> Yes they can take up a lot of room. Although that "$hf_mig$" one is
>> the worst offender. And that one is required to make sure an older
>> hotfix doesn't write over a newer one that was installed earlier.
>> This folder on this 4G XP SP2 is taking up 200MB right now.
>
> I've always deleted the "$hf_mig$" folder and have never had a
> problem.

If you only install updates in order only, it should be okay that way.
Although if you install an older hotfix for something, it might be very
bad.

>>>> I don't know what to say about why yours works. As I have no
>>>> personal experience with the problem, just what I have read on the
>>>> OE newsgroup.
>>>
>>> Ok, I don't use tiny little SSDs so space has never been an issue
>>> for me. <grin>
>>
>> Well it was desktop users who was complaining about it actually. Two
>> of my XP machines has SP3 on them and I am thinking about doing it
>> for another one. Although one is on a 4G SSD and I don't see that
>> one of ever having SP3 on it. At least not with the Asus Windows XP
>> SP2 OEM version anyway.
>>
>> As for that OE6 autocompacking problem with SP3. I have to wait until
>> the counter hits on one of them to 100 and then I'll see if I am
>> effected. Well I guess I can edit the registry to make it 100. <grin>
>>
>>>> Want to see something odd? My machines report:
>>>>
>>>> SP2 v5.1.2600
>>>> SP3 v5.1.2600
>>>>
>>>> SP2 and SP3 report the same version number. Doesn't that seem
>>>> strange to you?
>>>
>>> No, not really. I think 1.2600 was the final build of XP, which
>>> doesn't change with a service pack added, hence the service pack
>>> status is indicated at the start of the report. (At least that's how
>>> I understand it.)
>>
>> That is pretty strange to me. That isn't how I remember it. For
>> example, I just did this for one Office 2000 machine. Here is the
>> build record.
>> Microsoft Word 2000 (9.0.2720)
>> Microsoft Word 2000 (9.0.3821 SR-1)
>> Microsoft Word 2000 (9.0.6926 SP-3)
>> Microsoft Word 2000 (9.0.8968 SP-3) after 13 more updates
>
> I have XP Powertoys and Tweak UI installed and have chosen the option
> to show my Windows version on the desktop. I've installed every
> update offered and currently, in the bottom right of my desktop there
> is written:
> "Windows XP Professional
> Build 2600.xpsp_sp3_gdr.090206-1234 (Service Pack 3)"

I too use TweakUI, but not that option. Previous versions of Windows
changed after updates. Keeping the same build after updates doesn't tell
anybody anything. And thus I have no idea why reporting anything at all
is worthwhile under XP. So what good is it? It used to be a sign if you
were up-to-date or not. Now it means nothing at all.

--
Bill
Windows XP Home SP3 (5.1.2600)
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
> In news:h2jg32$ale$1@news.eternal-september.org,
> ~misfit~ typed on Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:29:19 +1200:
>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
[snip]
>>> Hi Shaun. I too image my OS and applications whenever I make any
>>> major changes. Although I use Ghost v11 that I have on BartPE SDHC
>>> bootable cards. Acronis is said to break if you move the images to
>>> another drive, is this true? Ghost is okay with this.
>>
>> Hi Bill. No, that's not true with Acronis. Just yesterday I imaged
>> the boot and programme partitions on the 160GB drive to an external
>> USB drive, swapped the 160GB out for a new 320GB drive, booted from
>> the Acronis CD and restored the images off the USB drive to the new
>> drive. (I prefer to do that rather than the 'clone' option, although
>> that works fine too.)
>> It worked perfectly. I even re-sized the partitions as I did it. I
>> then simply used the rest of the space to make a data partition, put
>> the old internal drive in a dock and copied my data over USB to the
>> new drive. To use the machine you wouldn't notice any difference
>> (except it's a bit faster to respond and there's lots more room).
>>
>> I'm using Acronis True Image Home version 11.
>
> Hi Shaun! Oh I meant where ever you save it to, if you move that copy
> to somewhere else, it won't work is what I have heard. Just the later
> versions of Acronis is supposed to have this problem.

Hey Bill. Later than ver. 11? I've had no problem with moving images around
between HDDs, USB flash drives and even DVDRs. They still work just fine. I
have a library of images for all my machines on my server and have often
copied them from there to whatever media suits the occasion and restored
them just fine.

TI Home ver. 11 has *never* let me down so I've never wanted to upgrade or
patch it. No point 'fixing' something that isn't broken right?

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll
be warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.

In news:h2rcni$55b$1@news.eternal-september.org,
~misfit~ typed on Mon, 6 Jul 2009 11:20:31 +1200:
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>> In news:h2jg32$ale$1@news.eternal-september.org,
>> ~misfit~ typed on Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:29:19 +1200:
>>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
> [snip]
>>>> Hi Shaun. I too image my OS and applications whenever I make any
>>>> major changes. Although I use Ghost v11 that I have on BartPE SDHC
>>>> bootable cards. Acronis is said to break if you move the images to
>>>> another drive, is this true? Ghost is okay with this.
>>>
>>> Hi Bill. No, that's not true with Acronis. Just yesterday I imaged
>>> the boot and programme partitions on the 160GB drive to an external
>>> USB drive, swapped the 160GB out for a new 320GB drive, booted from
>>> the Acronis CD and restored the images off the USB drive to the new
>>> drive. (I prefer to do that rather than the 'clone' option, although
>>> that works fine too.)
>>> It worked perfectly. I even re-sized the partitions as I did it. I
>>> then simply used the rest of the space to make a data partition, put
>>> the old internal drive in a dock and copied my data over USB to the
>>> new drive. To use the machine you wouldn't notice any difference
>>> (except it's a bit faster to respond and there's lots more room).
>>>
>>> I'm using Acronis True Image Home version 11.
>>
>> Hi Shaun! Oh I meant where ever you save it to, if you move that copy
>> to somewhere else, it won't work is what I have heard. Just the later
>> versions of Acronis is supposed to have this problem.
>
> Hey Bill. Later than ver. 11? I've had no problem with moving images
> around between HDDs, USB flash drives and even DVDRs. They still work
> just fine. I have a library of images for all my machines on my
> server and have often copied them from there to whatever media suits
> the occasion and restored them just fine.
>
> TI Home ver. 11 has *never* let me down so I've never wanted to
> upgrade or patch it. No point 'fixing' something that isn't broken
> right?

Hi Shaun. I don't recall what the latest version of Acronis is, but I
seem to recall the latest and the one before has this problem from what
I read. There was a version just before this that worked just fine. Is
that v11?

--
Bill
Windows XP Home SP3 (5.1.2600)
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
> In news:h2rcni$55b$1@news.eternal-september.org,
> ~misfit~ typed on Mon, 6 Jul 2009 11:20:31 +1200:
>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>>> In news:h2jg32$ale$1@news.eternal-september.org,
>>> ~misfit~ typed on Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:29:19 +1200:
>>>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>>> Hi Shaun. I too image my OS and applications whenever I make any
>>>>> major changes. Although I use Ghost v11 that I have on BartPE SDHC
>>>>> bootable cards. Acronis is said to break if you move the images to
>>>>> another drive, is this true? Ghost is okay with this.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Bill. No, that's not true with Acronis. Just yesterday I imaged
>>>> the boot and programme partitions on the 160GB drive to an external
>>>> USB drive, swapped the 160GB out for a new 320GB drive, booted from
>>>> the Acronis CD and restored the images off the USB drive to the new
>>>> drive. (I prefer to do that rather than the 'clone' option,
>>>> although that works fine too.)
>>>> It worked perfectly. I even re-sized the partitions as I did it. I
>>>> then simply used the rest of the space to make a data partition,
>>>> put the old internal drive in a dock and copied my data over USB
>>>> to the new drive. To use the machine you wouldn't notice any
>>>> difference (except it's a bit faster to respond and there's lots
>>>> more room). I'm using Acronis True Image Home version 11.
>>>
>>> Hi Shaun! Oh I meant where ever you save it to, if you move that
>>> copy to somewhere else, it won't work is what I have heard. Just
>>> the later versions of Acronis is supposed to have this problem.
>>
>> Hey Bill. Later than ver. 11? I've had no problem with moving images
>> around between HDDs, USB flash drives and even DVDRs. They still work
>> just fine. I have a library of images for all my machines on my
>> server and have often copied them from there to whatever media suits
>> the occasion and restored them just fine.
>>
>> TI Home ver. 11 has *never* let me down so I've never wanted to
>> upgrade or patch it. No point 'fixing' something that isn't broken
>> right?
>
> Hi Shaun. I don't recall what the latest version of Acronis is, but I
> seem to recall the latest and the one before has this problem from
> what I read. There was a version just before this that worked just
> fine. Is that v11?

I don't know. I've just checked Acronis' web page and they now seem to name
their products after the year (e.g. Acronis True Image Home 2009). So I'm
not sure how old my version 11 is, I've been using it maybe two years?

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll
be warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:57:51 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

> T.C. <Devil505@spamfence.net> wrote in
> news:oajf45dq0jrjj7e8t6r6n1sj26rpiidl15@4ax.com:
>
> > Maybe, but would the applications the OP might wish to use run under
> > Ubuntu too?
> >
> >
>
> Probably not. Lots of software, especially free/shareware, seems to be
> coming ported more and more to multiple OSes, so it pays to have a look.
>
> We're not quite locked into Windows like we used to be. Many Linux
> programs, such as Open Office, have been ported to Windows, which greatly
> expands their popularity and support. Running Abiword, for instance, on
> all the boxes makes using it on any box without retraining lots more
> pleasant.

I'm all happy about alternatives to the big and common products
getting more mature and competitive - even if it quite often just
means that the pressure on the companies providing the software I
actually use increases to improve their products - it gets on my
nerves though when someone feels inclined to answer a question like
"how do I do XYZ under Windows" with "install Linux", especially when
the one answering doesn't have much of a clue about the specific needs
in respect of software or the demands in respect of the hardware of
the one asking...

What people who answer that way only too often forget is that many
people don't consider soft- or hardware as a hobby and are
(understandably so) not willing or able to spend the required time and
effort into trying to reacquire the same level of proficiency with
alternative software as complex as Office or an operating system...

....not to mention that the hardware support of most Linux distros
still is considerably more restrictive than that of most recent
Windows versions, nor the fact that some people prefer for
compatibility reasons to privately use the same specific software they
use at work, their buddies use or that's simply considered common in
their field...

If an alternative actually is a valid one for the person in question
is something that usually requires to know some more specifics about
the working environment and demands of that person - in my experience
the simple advice "install Linux" more often than not is a ridiculous
one for the reasons mentioned above - from a serious advocate of
alternatives (like Linux, Mac OS, Open Office, Gimp etc...) I'd expect
more than just such a statement...

T.C.

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:34:42 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

>CP/M or OS-65/U are much better OSes

Yes!
####

--
POLICE - POLIZEI - POLITIE - POLICIA

http://www.ariplex.com/ama/amapolis.htm

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:22:02 -0700, AJL <55@fakeaddress.com> wrote:

>Naw, DOS will still be king. You will just have to run a DOS window in
>your XP window... 8-O

Give it the first partition!

--
POLICE - POLIZEI - POLITIE - POLICIA

http://www.ariplex.com/ama/amapolis.htm

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:11:57 +1200, "~misfit~" <sore_n_happy******.co.nz> wrote:

>Somewhere on teh intarwebs Larry wrote:
>[snipped]
>
>> Micro$oft's products
>>
>> Micro$oft
>
>Eeek! The sign of the OS warrior! The inability to spell Microsoft without
>prejudice.
>
>After years of usenetting in general and in comp groups in particular I've
>learned to ignore everything written about OSes by such a person. All you
>get is one-eyed biggotry.

Why would the wish of having a REALLY working OS biggotry?

--
POLICE - POLIZEI - POLITIE - POLICIA

http://www.ariplex.com/ama/amapolis.htm

In news:m7cr755htdafanr6lkel6l79f1hsruff2i@4ax.com,
Happy Oyster typed on Sat, 08 Aug 2009 18:08:20 +0100:
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:34:42 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>> CP/M or OS-65/U are much better OSes
>
> Yes!
> ####

Blame the late Gary Kildall for killing off his own product! Gary never
cared when it came to supporting customers. Which turned out to be a 100
billion dollar mistake.

--
Bill
Windows 2000 SP4 (5.00.2195)
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

In news:ifcr751ntun21cgsdm12visrq8c63f41pv@4ax.com,
Happy Oyster typed on Sat, 08 Aug 2009 18:13:13 +0100:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:11:57 +1200, "~misfit~"
> <sore_n_happy******.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Larry wrote:
>> [snipped]
>>
>>> Micro$oft's products
>>>
>>> Micro$oft
>>
>> Eeek! The sign of the OS warrior! The inability to spell Microsoft
>> without prejudice.
>>
>> After years of usenetting in general and in comp groups in
>> particular I've learned to ignore everything written about OSes by
>> such a person. All you get is one-eyed biggotry.
>
> Why would the wish of having a REALLY working OS biggotry?

You are right misfit. I have known Aribert Deckers for over 10 years
now. And you seen it right off of the bat. <grin>

--
Bill
Windows 2000 SP4 (5.00.2195)
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC