problems apparently with rundll32 when loading drivers

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

With apologies for the repost - one positive outcome of the first one
was that I discovered that what I thought was a valid cut-and-paste
wasn't: for some reason the two surviving newsgroups have slightly
different punctuations in their name.

(Positive suggestions only, please - the details of my problem have been
lost in the heat on the other thread, and please post to that one if
your only contribution is to say I'm in the wrong place!)

In message >, "J. P. Gilliver
(John)" > writes
>'95 'group included as I use the '95 shell, via 98lite "Sleek" option.
>
>I recently had a play with soporific's UBCD, a. k. a. "Windows 98, 10th
>anniversary edition". I think a vast amount of work has gone into it,
>and when installed from scratch as I did on a laptop for a friend, it
>worked well (including the universal USB driver).
>
>However, as with many such things, trying to install over an existing
>system (even though it does include an option to do so) is more
>problematical.
>
>Anyway: I've finally got my original system back, due to use of some
>ERDs from before I tried it, with one exception (that I know so far,
>anyway): it initially manifested as the sound, but I think is more
>fundamental.
>
>My sound isn't working. I've obtained the drivers from the manufacturer
>(A??? motherboard; "Realtek AC'97 Audio"), since I couldn't find the
>mobo CD.
>
>Device Manager shows it, with a black-on-yellow "!". Properties shows
>under Device status "The NTKERN.VXD, MMDEVLDR.VXD device loader(s) for
>this device could not load the device driver. (Code 2.)\\To Fix this,
>click Update Driver to update the device driver." When I do, I get the
>usual wizard. Whether I let this look for the right driver (they're
>sort of in place, the install software having done its stuff to that
>extent, or I unzipped something, I can't remember) or I tell it where
>to look, I get to the "Please wait while Windows searches ...", then I
>get a - old-fashioned style, no close button - window in screen middle
>that says "Rundll32\\An error has occurred in your program. To keep
>working anyway..." and Close and Ignore buttons. If I click Ignore,
>nothing happens; Close brings up a (Windows style this time) "This
>program has performed an illegal ..." with Close and Details>> buttons.
>If I close this, all windows (back to and including Device Manger) disappear.
>
>If I remove the Realtek from Device Manager and restart, I get found
>new hardware, with various windows appearing as normal, then it locks
>up (I can't remember with what error message): if I Ctrl-alt-Del at
>that point, I can get back to a blank desktop (no icons or taskbar,
>just a mouse pointer). The only way out of that (it happens again if I
>restart) is to use the old ERD again.
>
>My Rundll32 file is fine (I never suspected it anyway, as it usually
>gets "blamed" when something else goes wrong, but I have checked it).
>
>I get something similar when trying to install another piece of
>hardware (a microscope - i. e. basically a camera - and I am doing it
>according to the instructions, i. e. drivers before connecting):
>_something_ crashes, at the point after it's "found" the new hardware
>and is doing whatever it does next at that point.
>
>Any suggestions what is wrong and how to fix it? (Getting sound back
>would be a start, but I suspect that needs the problem solving anyway.)
>
>[It may not be UBCD that screwed things up, but I know at least one
>poster who will think it did ... (-:]

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders."
Newton [deliberately] misquoted by Hal Ableson, then quoted by chris harrison.

[MEB[_2_]]

Try using Safe Mode to remove ALL old drivers [any sound or problem
devices].

Look at the installation files in the folder from which you installed the
purported driver [look at the inf{s}], make note of registry entries created
and where files were placed and names.
Run regedit, search for the RealTek entries and remove - search the INF
folder for the Realtek INF{s} and delete - remove all files that were
installed as shown by the install INFs.

LOCATE a better driver... check to ensure the card is properly seated,
install the new driver....

When using an unofficial updater its usually best to install devices
[except USB/Firewire] and applications PRIOR to installing/updating with the
compilation.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________



"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in message
...
| With apologies for the repost - one positive outcome of the first one
| was that I discovered that what I thought was a valid cut-and-paste
| wasn't: for some reason the two surviving newsgroups have slightly
| different punctuations in their name.
|
| (Positive suggestions only, please - the details of my problem have been
| lost in the heat on the other thread, and please post to that one if
| your only contribution is to say I'm in the wrong place!)
|
| In message >, "J. P. Gilliver
| (John)" > writes
| >'95 'group included as I use the '95 shell, via 98lite "Sleek" option.
| >
| >I recently had a play with soporific's UBCD, a. k. a. "Windows 98, 10th
| >anniversary edition". I think a vast amount of work has gone into it,
| >and when installed from scratch as I did on a laptop for a friend, it
| >worked well (including the universal USB driver).
| >
| >However, as with many such things, trying to install over an existing
| >system (even though it does include an option to do so) is more
| >problematical.
| >
| >Anyway: I've finally got my original system back, due to use of some
| >ERDs from before I tried it, with one exception (that I know so far,
| >anyway): it initially manifested as the sound, but I think is more
| >fundamental.
| >
| >My sound isn't working. I've obtained the drivers from the manufacturer
| >(A??? motherboard; "Realtek AC'97 Audio"), since I couldn't find the
| >mobo CD.
| >
| >Device Manager shows it, with a black-on-yellow "!". Properties shows
| >under Device status "The NTKERN.VXD, MMDEVLDR.VXD device loader(s) for
| >this device could not load the device driver. (Code 2.)\\To Fix this,
| >click Update Driver to update the device driver." When I do, I get the
| >usual wizard. Whether I let this look for the right driver (they're
| >sort of in place, the install software having done its stuff to that
| >extent, or I unzipped something, I can't remember) or I tell it where
| >to look, I get to the "Please wait while Windows searches ...", then I
| >get a - old-fashioned style, no close button - window in screen middle
| >that says "Rundll32\\An error has occurred in your program. To keep
| >working anyway..." and Close and Ignore buttons. If I click Ignore,
| >nothing happens; Close brings up a (Windows style this time) "This
| >program has performed an illegal ..." with Close and Details>> buttons.
| >If I close this, all windows (back to and including Device Manger)
disappear.
| >
| >If I remove the Realtek from Device Manager and restart, I get found
| >new hardware, with various windows appearing as normal, then it locks
| >up (I can't remember with what error message): if I Ctrl-alt-Del at
| >that point, I can get back to a blank desktop (no icons or taskbar,
| >just a mouse pointer). The only way out of that (it happens again if I
| >restart) is to use the old ERD again.
| >
| >My Rundll32 file is fine (I never suspected it anyway, as it usually
| >gets "blamed" when something else goes wrong, but I have checked it).
| >
| >I get something similar when trying to install another piece of
| >hardware (a microscope - i. e. basically a camera - and I am doing it
| >according to the instructions, i. e. drivers before connecting):
| >_something_ crashes, at the point after it's "found" the new hardware
| >and is doing whatever it does next at that point.
| >
| >Any suggestions what is wrong and how to fix it? (Getting sound back
| >would be a start, but I suspect that needs the problem solving anyway.)
| >
| >[It may not be UBCD that screwed things up, but I know at least one
| >poster who will think it did ... (-:]
|
| --
| J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985
MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
| ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on
PCs. **
|
| "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing
on my
| shoulders."
| Newton [deliberately] misquoted by Hal Ableson, then quoted by chris
harrison.

[Gary S. Terhune[_2_]]

"...after installing a new, breed of 98Lite." You really need to fix that
Subject.

Here's the most positive advice I can give you. If you have problems with
that cross-bred child of Windows and Linux, you not only do yourself a
disservice by not dealing with them in a forum dedicated to the topic, you
also do a great disservice to the average Joe or Jane who goes searching for
procedures for their stock Windows 98 machines and happens onto this thread
half way through, sees the subject, sees a bunch of procedures that appear
to apply to his situation, and which (with any luck) do end up working for
you, but which don't apply to his machine in the slightest and which in fact
do his system a great deal of harm.

The least you could do, if you're going to *hijack* a newsgroup like this,
would be to make it clear what you're talking about in the Subject.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in message
...
> With apologies for the repost - one positive outcome of the first one was
> that I discovered that what I thought was a valid cut-and-paste wasn't:
> for some reason the two surviving newsgroups have slightly different
> punctuations in their name.
>
> (Positive suggestions only, please - the details of my problem have been
> lost in the heat on the other thread, and please post to that one if your
> only contribution is to say I'm in the wrong place!)
>
> In message >, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> > writes
>>'95 'group included as I use the '95 shell, via 98lite "Sleek" option.
>>
>>I recently had a play with soporific's UBCD, a. k. a. "Windows 98, 10th
>>anniversary edition". I think a vast amount of work has gone into it, and
>>when installed from scratch as I did on a laptop for a friend, it worked
>>well (including the universal USB driver).
>>
>>However, as with many such things, trying to install over an existing
>>system (even though it does include an option to do so) is more
>>problematical.
>>
>>Anyway: I've finally got my original system back, due to use of some ERDs
>>from before I tried it, with one exception (that I know so far, anyway):
>>it initially manifested as the sound, but I think is more fundamental.
>>
>>My sound isn't working. I've obtained the drivers from the manufacturer
>>(A??? motherboard; "Realtek AC'97 Audio"), since I couldn't find the mobo
>>CD.
>>
>>Device Manager shows it, with a black-on-yellow "!". Properties shows
>>under Device status "The NTKERN.VXD, MMDEVLDR.VXD device loader(s) for
>>this device could not load the device driver. (Code 2.)\\To Fix this,
>>click Update Driver to update the device driver." When I do, I get the
>>usual wizard. Whether I let this look for the right driver (they're sort
>>of in place, the install software having done its stuff to that extent, or
>>I unzipped something, I can't remember) or I tell it where to look, I get
>>to the "Please wait while Windows searches ...", then I get a -
>>old-fashioned style, no close button - window in screen middle that says
>>"Rundll32\\An error has occurred in your program. To keep working
>>anyway..." and Close and Ignore buttons. If I click Ignore, nothing
>>happens; Close brings up a (Windows style this time) "This program has
>>performed an illegal ..." with Close and Details>> buttons. If I close
>>this, all windows (back to and including Device Manger) disappear.
>>
>>If I remove the Realtek from Device Manager and restart, I get found new
>>hardware, with various windows appearing as normal, then it locks up (I
>>can't remember with what error message): if I Ctrl-alt-Del at that point,
>>I can get back to a blank desktop (no icons or taskbar, just a mouse
>>pointer). The only way out of that (it happens again if I restart) is to
>>use the old ERD again.
>>
>>My Rundll32 file is fine (I never suspected it anyway, as it usually gets
>>"blamed" when something else goes wrong, but I have checked it).
>>
>>I get something similar when trying to install another piece of hardware
>>(a microscope - i. e. basically a camera - and I am doing it according to
>>the instructions, i. e. drivers before connecting): _something_ crashes,
>>at the point after it's "found" the new hardware and is doing whatever it
>>does next at that point.
>>
>>Any suggestions what is wrong and how to fix it? (Getting sound back would
>>be a start, but I suspect that needs the problem solving anyway.)
>>
>>[It may not be UBCD that screwed things up, but I know at least one poster
>>who will think it did ... (-:]
>
> --
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985
> MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
> ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on
> PCs. **
>
> "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing
> on my
> shoulders."
> Newton [deliberately] misquoted by Hal Ableson, then quoted by chris
> harrison.

[Dan]

<snipped for length concerns>

I would install a clean, full version of Windows 98 Second Edition which you
can fully update to date of July 11, 2006 as per end of support date for 98
Second Edition. There are full copies on Ebay that range from around $50-$75
for an os which is really cheap and 98 Second Edition really does have that
internal safety of dos as its maintenance operating system.
My opinion is that Microsoft chose the wrong development path when choosing
NT over 9x and I hope the new source code Microsoft develops is awesome and
combines the best of 9x and its maintenance operating system of dos with a
new advanced underlying maintenance operating system of NT, with the external
security of Vista and totally redefines computing in a complex and less
toy-like manner of recent operating systems.
You can mitigate risks such as to Internet Explorer by using the latest
version of Mozilla Firefox, tools such as SpywareBlaster which imo is awesome
and my favorite blocking tool for undesirables that try to get onto your
system, read in plain text and block external remote code including html,
have a router with the proper defensive measures for external security, etc.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >, MEB
> writes
>Try using Safe Mode to remove ALL old drivers [any sound or problem
>devices].
>
>Look at the installation files in the folder from which you installed the
>purported driver [look at the inf{s}], make note of registry entries created
>and where files were placed and names.
> Run regedit, search for the RealTek entries and remove - search the INF
>folder for the Realtek INF{s} and delete - remove all files that were
>installed as shown by the install INFs.

Thanks; this is the sort of help I was after, of course.

However, I don't think it is the driver as such that is faulty; the odd
behaviour seems to happen at some point during the loading process -
and, I get something not dissimilar when attempting to load something
entirely different (a microscope, which is in effect a webcam). I don't
think it is the driver(s) as such, nor the rundll32 file.
>
>LOCATE a better driver... check to ensure the card is properly seated,
>install the new driver....
>
> When using an unofficial updater its usually best to install devices
>[except USB/Firewire] and applications PRIOR to installing/updating with the
>compilation.
[]
I have no option in this case anyway, as the hardware is the mobo's
built-in sound hardware. (And I don't _think_ there was a link to
disable it.) If I remove (the software/driver) from Device Manager and
reboot, it does the found new hardware bit, but then crashes
irretrievably while trying to load the drivers (which I've located from
the motherboard's website). If I do it without rebooting, it still
crashes, but I can get control back (I just accept a few error boxes and
it is back as it was, just still with no sound).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders."
Newton [deliberately] misquoted by Hal Ableson, then quoted by chris harrison.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >, Gary S. Terhune
> writes
>"...after installing a new, breed of 98Lite." You really need to fix that
>Subject.

Well, I'm _not_ convinced that 98lite it the cause of the problem (I
have tried reverting to the full '98 shell to see, in fact); I didn't
specifically put it in the subject because of this - I feel doing so may
make people who may have a solution ignore the thread.
>
>Here's the most positive advice I can give you. If you have problems with
>that cross-bred child of Windows and Linux, you not only do yourself a

Interesting - does 98lite have something to do with Linux then? (I ask
with no baggage: I'm just genuinely interested.)

>disservice by not dealing with them in a forum dedicated to the topic, you

Hmm, I was unaware there were any, but I've done a search after your
post, and I see that both of the newsservers I use actually include
fido7.su.f98lite, which I have now subscribed to; I suspect the "su"
means it'll be in Finnish (which I don't speak), but I'll report back.

>also do a great disservice to the average Joe or Jane who goes searching for
>procedures for their stock Windows 98 machines and happens onto this thread
>half way through, sees the subject, sees a bunch of procedures that appear
>to apply to his situation, and which (with any luck) do end up working for
>you, but which don't apply to his machine in the slightest and which in fact
>do his system a great deal of harm.

I take your point; I'll endeavour to ensure that some mention of 98lite
remains in the body of any post I put into the thread. (Though I still
maintain that it's not the cause of the problem; the problem did not
exist - on a machine that had been running 98lite for years - until I
tried something of soporific's. Now while I don't fully share your views
on _that_ either, I do agree that it was a dangerous thing to do without
more knowledge than I have, and am hoping to find out what it broke.)
>
>The least you could do, if you're going to *hijack* a newsgroup like this,
>would be to make it clear what you're talking about in the Subject.
>
Well, I'll try to keep some warning in the body. I'm not "hijacking the
newsgroup".
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders."
Newton [deliberately] misquoted by Hal Ableson, then quoted by chris harrison.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >, Dan
> writes
><snipped for length concerns>
>
>I would install a clean, full version of Windows 98 Second Edition which you
>can fully update to date of July 11, 2006 as per end of support date for 98
>Second Edition. There are full copies on Ebay that range from around $50-$75
>for an os which is really cheap and 98 Second Edition really does have that
>internal safety of dos as its maintenance operating system.

I have a full 98SE (which I paid for), should I need to go that route -
though I am beginning to feel that, if I was to consider going for a
full install (by "clean" I assume you mean formatting), I'd probably go
for XP anyway. I really don't want to do that (98 or XP) though, as the
system has been built up over _years_, and I don't even _know_ (at the
very least, I don't remember - in some cases I suspect I really don't
know) some of how it got to how it is, so reinstalling everything would
be not only time-consuming but frustrating.

>My opinion is that Microsoft chose the wrong development path when choosing
>NT over 9x and I hope the new source code Microsoft develops is awesome and

Mine too, but we're not going to change them. Also, we're in a minority,
at least as far as the disc system is concerned.

>combines the best of 9x and its maintenance operating system of dos with a
>new advanced underlying maintenance operating system of NT, with the external
>security of Vista and totally redefines computing in a complex and less
>toy-like manner of recent operating systems.

I think the *x people are calling you ... (-:
[i]
>You can mitigate risks such as to Internet Explorer by using the latest
>version of Mozilla Firefox, tools such as SpywareBlaster which imo is awesome

I do (or will one of these days - I'm using Netscape 7.2 ATM)

>and my favorite blocking tool for undesirables that try to get onto your
>system, read in plain text and block external remote code including html,

I read in a reader (Turnpike) that doesn't follow any scripts or
similar, I control Java and Javascript ... haven't had a virus in
decades, AFAIK ...

>have a router with the proper defensive measures for external security, etc.
Yup.

I think that what has broken my system is not malware as such, just
something in soporific's UBCD (or, as he would point out, one of the
constituent parts to which all he's done is provide a wrapper), which
has changed/deleted/altered some file and/or setting in a way which has
had unforeseen consequences (basically something goes wrong when it's
trying to _load_ drivers). I'm just hoping someone has seen something
similar before and knows what has been broken. (Ideally someone using
98lite, but I don't want to exclude suggestions from anyone.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders."
Newton [deliberately] misquoted by Hal Ableson, then quoted by chris harrison.

[MEB[_2_]]

I see you installed something new from soporific, what was it?

I have outlined what would likely be the normal procedure in this situation
and the procedure when installing an un-official compilation. Perhaps it
might be beneficial for you to outline what you have already done. You
should also note that unless you follow the procedures and updates/patch
process being used in unofficial patchings by the creator of the patch, your
results will likely NOT reflect the same success.
That type of process requires one be prepared to re-install an image should
the testing fail or corrupt one's system.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________



"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in message
...
| In message >, MEB
| > writes
| >Try using Safe Mode to remove ALL old drivers [any sound or problem
| >devices].
| >
| >Look at the installation files in the folder from which you installed the
| >purported driver [look at the inf{s}], make note of registry entries
created
| >and where files were placed and names.
| > Run regedit, search for the RealTek entries and remove - search the INF
| >folder for the Realtek INF{s} and delete - remove all files that were
| >installed as shown by the install INFs.
|
| Thanks; this is the sort of help I was after, of course.
|
| However, I don't think it is the driver as such that is faulty; the odd
| behaviour seems to happen at some point during the loading process -
| and, I get something not dissimilar when attempting to load something
| entirely different (a microscope, which is in effect a webcam). I don't
| think it is the driver(s) as such, nor the rundll32 file.
| >
| >LOCATE a better driver... check to ensure the card is properly seated,
| >install the new driver....
| >
| > When using an unofficial updater its usually best to install devices
| >[except USB/Firewire] and applications PRIOR to installing/updating with
the
| >compilation.
| []
| I have no option in this case anyway, as the hardware is the mobo's
| built-in sound hardware. (And I don't _think_ there was a link to
| disable it.) If I remove (the software/driver) from Device Manager and
| reboot, it does the found new hardware bit, but then crashes
| irretrievably while trying to load the drivers (which I've located from
| the motherboard's website). If I do it without rebooting, it still
| crashes, but I can get control back (I just accept a few error boxes and
| it is back as it was, just still with no sound).
| --
| J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985
MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
| ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on
PCs. **
|
| "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing
on my
| shoulders."
| Newton [deliberately] misquoted by Hal Ableson, then quoted by chris
harrison.

[Gary S. Terhune[_2_]]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Gary S. Terhune
> > writes
>>"...after installing a new, breed of 98Lite." You really need to fix that
>>Subject.
>
> Well, I'm _not_ convinced that 98lite it the cause of the problem (I have
> tried reverting to the full '98 shell to see, in fact); I didn't
> specifically put it in the subject because of this - I feel doing so may
> make people who may have a solution ignore the thread.

If you'll notice, nobody is responding to it, anyway, except me. Your
statement "I have tried to revert...." is exactly what takes this out of the
realm of stock Windows 98. You can't fix a problem until you know what it
is, and in this case the problem is almost certainly caused by a serious
screwing up of your system caused by your experiment. And, possibly, due to
your total lack of preparation for said experiment by making sure you have
the drivers to install your system stored carefully away, preferably in a
couple of places. In short, you did not approach your adventure with any
kind of responsible preparation. Note your phrase, "I have tried reverting
to the '98 shell..."

>>
>>Here's the most positive advice I can give you. If you have problems with
>>that cross-bred child of Windows and Linux, you not only do yourself a
>
> Interesting - does 98lite have something to do with Linux then? (I ask
> with no baggage: I'm just genuinely interested.)

As far as code goes, nothing (I presume.) I was referring to the fact that
98Lite and it's brethren tear the 98 OS into pieces, rip out whole chunks,
and then (and here's where the Linux reference comes in), replace it (or
rather, some of it) with homegrown, "Open Source"--style code. Then claim
that because it still has the 98 kernel, it's Windows 98, just tweaked.
That's a load of bullcrap. At that point, it is no longer Windows 98 in the
slightest. Note your phrase, above: "I have tried reverting to the '98
shell..." Far more than the kernel, it is the shell that defines an OS from
the point of view of the user, and just because some nerds want to turn that
logic on its head doesn't mean squat.

You've got two problems.
1. You don't have a functional '98 machine anymore because you ripped out
huge chunks and replaced them, and then the aptly named "soporific"
obviously either didn't do a good enough job with the installer (referring
to it's uninstall functions) or didn't expect anyone to bother trying to go
back to the original shell. And you, due to total lack of foresight and
professionalism, haven't the slightest idea just how different from your
original system your current one is, just how much DLL Hell exists, etc., ad
infinitum.

2.You don't have the original drivers for your Win98 system. That's just a
failure on your part, period. I don't think it would mater if you did --
what you describe doesn't sound like it's at all that simple, sounds more
like rampant DLL Hell in the Hardware/PnP/Drivers installation layer. I
won't go through all the steps in my logic, but if it were my machine, and I
just wanted to get my real Windows 98 back, it would have been flattened and
rebuilt by now.

Except that you still apparently want to play with the big boys and make it
your holy grail to find out what went wrong and fix it. Problems is, you
didn't set out with a pro's mentality, you just slapped the thing in and
went for broke. I do that on one or more of my test machine regularly, but
not even on a separate partition of my main work machine. Only on totally
throw-away boxes. Believe it or not, software CAN wreck hardware, and more
importantly, what gets installed on one partition may not behave and STAY on
that partition and totally leave the others untouched. Windows XP and even
more, Vista, are excellent examples of this. I do install all of them on
adjacent partitions on my main machine, but I also know fairly well what
they will do to each other, and I generally keep them at least mostly hidden
from each other and ameliorate the rest.

But then, I'm pretty much the same brand of fool that you are. That's how I
learned Windows 98. Install it, do whatever I can to it, while keeping track
of what happens when I install this or that, until I get myself into such a
deep hole, I'd reformat and reinstall. I did that up to a dozen times a day,
over 300 times in the first year I owned it, until I got it right or gave up
on whatever application or hardware I was playing with. I've had to curb
that restlessness since then, due to my having to actually use this machine
for real work and to store vast archives of raster and vector graphics files
so that I can pull them up at a moments notice. (They are, of course,
regularly backed up to CD or DVD.) But to learn anything in that kind of
reckless environment I was speaking of, you have to keep total track of what
is happening at every moment. Otherwise, the exercise is a total waste of
time. You, being accustomed to having access to excellent support forums
where you can try your best to rescue your bacon from the fire, seem to have
relied upon that as your last-resort rescue strategy, instead.

At all times, even now with my main XP installation (that has four other
Windows OS partitions that I multi-boot), I am always conscious of the fact
that I might lose the use of it at any moment and constantly ask myself what
will I do in that case, with, of course, dozens upon dozens of possible
strategies available to ponder and perfect (even practice) while I wait for
the inevitable -- and that is how you have to think about computers: That it
is inevitable that at any moment it will be destroyed, with absolutely
nothing to recover, neither hardware or data, a blackened chunk of melted
metal and silicon, ready for immediate delivery to the recycler.

>>disservice by not dealing with them in a forum dedicated to the topic, you
>
> Hmm, I was unaware there were any, but I've done a search after your post,
> and I see that both of the newsservers I use actually include
> fido7.su.f98lite, which I have now subscribed to; I suspect the "su" means
> it'll be in Finnish (which I don't speak), but I'll report back.

Doesn't look to me like there's even a forum for 98Lite, let alone
associated hackers. Which does nothing but lower my already low opinion of
the product and the crowd that uses it. Unless maybe if you pay for
98Lite... there's a member's login -- maybe there's a forum hiding in there.
Otherwise, it indicates to me that there is no seriousness on the part of
these cross-breeders. That they're just a bunch of silly hackers who don't
give a crap about anyone else, especially not the people who are interested
in supporting their efforts, if not with money, then with ideas and
feedback. That's how the people I know who have developed very successful
applications for computers have always conducted their business. Seeks
experts to get behind their effort and have a very open and lively forum.

Instead, you great experimenters have *hijacked* the MS groups to deal with
98Lite issues, which is about as much a Windows 98 issue as AOL, which is to
say not at all. Difference is, most AOL users knew better than to hijack a
real Windows group for their problems, because they're essentially told from
the outset that standard Windows procedures and advice regarding
configuration and repair, etc., don't apply once AOL is installed, and AOL
properly provides many forums and volunteer assistants (Nannies, Mommies, I
forget what they call themselves -- my sister-in-law has been doing it for
years.) This is at least historically true. I haven't kept up with AOL in
recent years, but it seems to me that they have at least lessoned their
efforts to reprogram the OS, and instead learned to work within its bounds.

>>also do a great disservice to the average Joe or Jane who goes searching
>>for
>>procedures for their stock Windows 98 machines and happens onto this
>>thread
>>half way through, sees the subject, sees a bunch of procedures that appear
>>to apply to his situation, and which (with any luck) do end up working for
>>you, but which don't apply to his machine in the slightest and which in
>>fact
>>do his system a great deal of harm.
>
> I take your point; I'll endeavour to ensure that some mention of 98lite
> remains in the body of any post I put into the thread. (Though I still
> maintain that it's not the cause of the problem; the problem did not
> exist - on a machine that had been running 98lite for years - until I
> tried something of soporific's. Now while I don't fully share your views
> on _that_ either, I do agree that it was a dangerous thing to do without
> more knowledge than I have, and am hoping to find out what it broke.)
>>
>>The least you could do, if you're going to *hijack* a newsgroup like this,
>>would be to make it clear what you're talking about in the Subject.
>>
> Well, I'll try to keep some warning in the body. I'm not "hijacking the
> newsgroup".

I honestly beg to differ. Hijack these NGs is exactly what you did, not that
you had much choice. But your issue is NOT a Windows 98 issue, it's a 98Lite
issue. And 98Lite users, if they have any respect whatsoever for the stock
98 users that regularly attend these groups, they'd get their own room.
Otherwise, they're no less obnoxious than any other trolls.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

[Dan]

Well, I appreciate your feedback, however, I thought Netscape was not
supported anymore and so that would give you safety and security
vulnerabilities just with using that browser. In addition, why not just go
with Ubuntu Linux instead of Windows 98 Lite and use a real operating system
instead whether it be Microsoft Windows, Apple, and or Unix/Linux? Chris
Quirke, MVP has some great feedback about the external security of NT (2000,
XP and Vista) and internal safety of 9x (98 Second Edition at its peak, imo)
and perhaps it may help you if you read his websites.

http://cquirke.blogspot.com/

http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/

http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/riskfix.htm

http://www.us-cert.gov/current/

http://onecare.live.com/site/en-au/default.htm?mkt=en-au

http://www.microsoft.com/security/default.mspx

http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

Hopefully, these websites will help you to have a secure and safe computing
environment.

[thanatoid]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in
:

> In message >, Gary S.
> Terhune > writes

<SNIP>

> I thought a troll was someone who deliberately posted
> something inflammatory, hoping to start a flamewar or
> similar. I certainly didn't intend to do that - mine was
> (and still is) a genuine request of the "has anyone else
> come across anything like this, and know what the cause is"
> sort.

Don't waste your time with Terhune and 98SELite. He has said
more than once he does not consider it a Windows OS. Then he
loves spouting off about how he can't help you since he deals
with Windows and not (apparent) figments of imagination of
thousands of happy Lite users around the world. Then he freaks
out and gets belligerent.


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

[thanatoid]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in
:

> In message >, Gary S.
> Terhune > writes
>>Just to keep me happy, eh? So you really don't care about
>>the innocent user who might stumble upon this thread and
>>not realize that it isn't about Windows 98?
>>
> I do, actually.

See what I mean? According to Terhune, Windows xLite is NOT
Windows. I have asked him to show me a single file in
Win98SELite which did not come from MS, but he prefers to argue
in ignorance and refuses to even look at the program. After all,
it's a figment of our imagination.


--
[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 (John)]

In message >, MEB
> writes
>I see you installed something new from soporific, what was it?

It was the full UBCD, but with the option - which it offers - to install
over an existing system, keeping settings etcetera. I should have known
better - this sort of thing is always better done as a full clean
install. And I don't _really_ hold soporific responsible.
>
> I have outlined what would likely be the normal procedure in this situation
>and the procedure when installing an un-official compilation. Perhaps it
>might be beneficial for you to outline what you have already done. You

The installation proceeded quite far, but did get to a point (after one
- I think - reboot) where it went into a loop, repeatedly encountering
some error message.

>should also note that unless you follow the procedures and updates/patch
>process being used in unofficial patchings by the creator of the patch, your
>results will likely NOT reflect the same success.
> That type of process requires one be prepared to re-install an image should
>the testing fail or corrupt one's system.
[]
Indeed. I managed to restore my system to how I had it by use of an ERD
saveset from before I started with UBCD; this is not a full image, but
is a Microsoft utility. Unfortunately, as I've only discovered
subsequently, it (a) didn't bring back sound - which I didn't notice
immediately - and (b) has damaged _some_thing involved with the loading
of drivers in general. (I've now found it with _three_ things - the
sound, the microscope [webcam], and a new USB stick.)

To keep some people happy I will say: I am using 98lite; any advice
given may not be applicable to those who are not.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

it is no use hitting all the targets and missing the point. - chief executive of
the Disability and Carers Service, quoted in computing, 23 March 2006, page 26.

[Gary S. Terhune[_2_]]

Just to keep me happy, eh? So you really don't care about the innocent user
who might stumble upon this thread and not realize that it isn't about
Windows 98?

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, MEB
> > writes

<SNIP OT material>
>
> To keep some people happy I will say: I am using 98lite; any advice given
> may not be applicable to those who are not.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >, Gary S. Terhune
> writes
[]
>If you'll notice, nobody is responding to it, anyway, except me. Your
>statement "I have tried to revert...." is exactly what takes this out of the
>realm of stock Windows 98. You can't fix a problem until you know what it

This reversion is one of the functions offered by 98lite - a shell swap,
between the 95 shell and the 98 shell. (It does more than just change
explorer.exe and shell32.dll - it also amends several files, such as
notepad.exe, such that they work properly with whichever shell.)

>is, and in this case the problem is almost certainly caused by a serious
>screwing up of your system caused by your experiment. And, possibly, due to

I am pretty sure you are right there.

>your total lack of preparation for said experiment by making sure you have
>the drivers to install your system stored carefully away, preferably in a

I have the drivers for the sound circuitry. The problem does not seem to
be the drivers themselves, but the process (?) which handles the
installation of (any) driver: when I add new hardware (or delete the
sound circuitry and then reboot), I get the usual "found new hardware",
and either it finds the drivers or I tell it where they are, and it
starts to load them - and then I get the rundll32 error box.
[]
>> Interesting - does 98lite have something to do with Linux then? (I ask
>> with no baggage: I'm just genuinely interested.)
>
>As far as code goes, nothing (I presume.) I was referring to the fact that
>98Lite and it's brethren tear the 98 OS into pieces, rip out whole chunks,
>and then (and here's where the Linux reference comes in), replace it (or
>rather, some of it) with homegrown, "Open Source"--style code. Then claim
>that because it still has the 98 kernel, it's Windows 98, just tweaked.
>That's a load of bullcrap. At that point, it is no longer Windows 98 in the
>slightest. Note your phrase, above: "I have tried reverting to the '98
>shell..." Far more than the kernel, it is the shell that defines an OS from
>the point of view of the user, and just because some nerds want to turn that
>logic on its head doesn't mean squat.

I'm confused by the difference between "shell" and "kernel" in what you
say above; it seems to me that you mean different things by the two
terms. (Please don't gloat in your answer! If I don't ask, I won't
learn, will I!)
>
>You've got two problems.
>1. You don't have a functional '98 machine anymore because you ripped out
>huge chunks and replaced them, and then the aptly named "soporific"
>obviously either didn't do a good enough job with the installer (referring
>to it's uninstall functions) or didn't expect anyone to bother trying to go
>back to the original shell. And you, due to total lack of foresight and
>professionalism, haven't the slightest idea just how different from your
>original system your current one is, just how much DLL Hell exists, etc., ad
>infinitum.

Well, my "shredded" system had been working fairly reliably for several
years before I tried the soporific stuff.
>
>2.You don't have the original drivers for your Win98 system. That's just a
>failure on your part, period. I don't think it would mater if you did --

I almost certainly _do_ still have the original motherboard CD somewhere
- I certainly wouldn't throw something like that out; however, I've
moved house since I built the PC. I went to the motherboard
manufacturer's website and fetched a - Windows 98 - driver for the only
part that isn't working, the sound circuitry.

>what you describe doesn't sound like it's at all that simple, sounds more
>like rampant DLL Hell in the Hardware/PnP/Drivers installation layer. I
>won't go through all the steps in my logic, but if it were my machine, and I
>just wanted to get my real Windows 98 back, it would have been flattened and
>rebuilt by now.

If I were going to do that, I think I'd go for XP.
>
>Except that you still apparently want to play with the big boys and make it
>your holy grail to find out what went wrong and fix it. Problems is, you

I'm very puzzled why you consider this to be such a satanic wish: what,
exactly, is wrong with wanting to know what has gone wrong?

>didn't set out with a pro's mentality, you just slapped the thing in and
>went for broke. I do that on one or more of my test machine regularly, but

No, I did an ERD, which though not a complete backup by any means, has
nearly always allowed me to restore a working system in the past. In the
very few cases where it hasn't, it has got me back to a situation where
I just had to reinstall one piece of software (usually Easy CD Creator)
manually.

>not even on a separate partition of my main work machine. Only on totally
>throw-away boxes. Believe it or not, software CAN wreck hardware, and more

I remember there was (allegedly - I never investigated!) a command you
could type on the Commodore PET that would cause it to do harm to
itself! But yes, even on PCs, there certainly are things. (I suppose
some of the utilities that thoroughly exercise bits of the system - such
as hard drives, or in extremis processors, are the most likely these
days, but I'm sure there are some unexpected ones too.)

>importantly, what gets installed on one partition may not behave and STAY on
>that partition and totally leave the others untouched. Windows XP and even
>more, Vista, are excellent examples of this. I do install all of them on
>adjacent partitions on my main machine, but I also know fairly well what
>they will do to each other, and I generally keep them at least mostly hidden
>from each other and ameliorate the rest.
>
>But then, I'm pretty much the same brand of fool that you are. That's how I
>learned Windows 98. Install it, do whatever I can to it, while keeping track
>of what happens when I install this or that, until I get myself into such a
>deep hole, I'd reformat and reinstall. I did that up to a dozen times a day,
>over 300 times in the first year I owned it, until I got it right or gave up
>on whatever application or hardware I was playing with. I've had to curb

Wow! Well, it was the (presumed) expertise that I sensed you had
developed as a result of all that, that I'd hoped I could tap into.
[]
>At all times, even now with my main XP installation (that has four other
>Windows OS partitions that I multi-boot), I am always conscious of the fact
>that I might lose the use of it at any moment and constantly ask myself what
>will I do in that case, with, of course, dozens upon dozens of possible
>strategies available to ponder and perfect (even practice) while I wait for

Well, except for actual hardware failure or perhaps FAT corruption, I am
fairly certain I can extract my _data_ files, if necessary by booting
into DOS. (I frequently dump them to CD as well.)

>the inevitable -- and that is how you have to think about computers: That it
>is inevitable that at any moment it will be destroyed, with absolutely
>nothing to recover, neither hardware or data, a blackened chunk of melted
>metal and silicon, ready for immediate delivery to the recycler.

Indeed.
>
>>>disservice by not dealing with them in a forum dedicated to the topic, you
>>
>> Hmm, I was unaware there were any, but I've done a search after your post,
>> and I see that both of the newsservers I use actually include
>> fido7.su.f98lite, which I have now subscribed to; I suspect the "su" means
>> it'll be in Finnish (which I don't speak), but I'll report back.
>
>Doesn't look to me like there's even a forum for 98Lite, let alone

Well, I've now loaded some posts from that, and they're certainly not in
a language I can understand - it could well be Finnish.

>associated hackers. Which does nothing but lower my already low opinion of
>the product and the crowd that uses it. Unless maybe if you pay for
>98Lite... there's a member's login -- maybe there's a forum hiding in there.

What is your opinion of TweakUI, and the other PowerTools?

>Otherwise, it indicates to me that there is no seriousness on the part of
>these cross-breeders. That they're just a bunch of silly hackers who don't
>give a crap about anyone else, especially not the people who are interested
>in supporting their efforts, if not with money, then with ideas and
>feedback. That's how the people I know who have developed very successful
>applications for computers have always conducted their business. Seeks
>experts to get behind their effort and have a very open and lively forum.

Agreed - or, do it all themself, but still have plenty of dialog (about
both problems and suggestions) with the users. A couple of examples of
that, I would say, are Irfan Skiljan's IrfanView, John Steed's Brother's
Keeper (genealogy software), and GoldWave (sound editing); all of these,
but particularly the first two, deal openly with the users. I have
actually bought all of these (and some others), even though at least one
(IrfanView) is free for home use, as I believe in encouraging them.
[]
>years.) This is at least historically true. I haven't kept up with AOL in
>recent years, but it seems to me that they have at least lessoned their
>efforts to reprogram the OS, and instead learned to work within its bounds.

Just about - I've had to do battle with it for a friend recently, and it
still seems to have very much its own way of doing things, at least the
interface to BB, for no advantage to the user that I can see.
[]
>I honestly beg to differ. Hijack these NGs is exactly what you did, not that
>you had much choice. But your issue is NOT a Windows 98 issue, it's a 98Lite
>issue. And 98Lite users, if they have any respect whatsoever for the stock
>98 users that regularly attend these groups, they'd get their own room.
>Otherwise, they're no less obnoxious than any other trolls.
>
I thought a troll was someone who deliberately posted something
inflammatory, hoping to start a flamewar or similar. I certainly didn't
intend to do that - mine was (and still is) a genuine request of the
"has anyone else come across anything like this, and know what the cause
is" sort.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

it is no use hitting all the targets and missing the point. - chief executive
of
the Disability and Carers Service, quoted in computing, 23 March 2006, page 26.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >, Gary S. Terhune
> writes
>Just to keep me happy, eh? So you really don't care about the innocent user
>who might stumble upon this thread and not realize that it isn't about
>Windows 98?
>
I do, actually.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

it is no use hitting all the targets and missing the point. - chief executive
of
the Disability and Carers Service, quoted in computing, 23 March 2006, page 26.

[Gary S. Terhune[_2_]]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Gary S. Terhune
> > writes
> []
>>If you'll notice, nobody is responding to it, anyway, except me. Your
>>statement "I have tried to revert...." is exactly what takes this out of
>>the
>>realm of stock Windows 98. You can't fix a problem until you know what it
>
> This reversion is one of the functions offered by 98lite - a shell swap,
> between the 95 shell and the 98 shell. (It does more than just change
> explorer.exe and shell32.dll - it also amends several files, such as
> notepad.exe, such that they work properly with whichever shell.)

The reversion function failed this time, which is a 98Lite problem, not a
Windows 98 problem. Please take it to a 98Lite forum.

>>is, and in this case the problem is almost certainly caused by a serious
>>screwing up of your system caused by your experiment. And, possibly, due
>>to
>
> I am pretty sure you are right there.
>
>>your total lack of preparation for said experiment by making sure you have
>>the drivers to install your system stored carefully away, preferably in a
>
> I have the drivers for the sound circuitry. The problem does not seem to
> be the drivers themselves, but the process (?) which handles the
> installation of (any) driver: when I add new hardware (or delete the sound
> circuitry and then reboot), I get the usual "found new hardware", and
> either it finds the drivers or I tell it where they are, and it starts to
> load them - and then I get the rundll32 error box.

Then I must have misread an earlier post that I thought said you couldn't
decently reinstall the system from scratch because you lacked all the
drivers. I in no way thought that the sound drivers were to blame, as I
explain farther down.

>>> Interesting - does 98lite have something to do with Linux then? (I ask
>>> with no baggage: I'm just genuinely interested.)
>>
>>As far as code goes, nothing (I presume.) I was referring to the fact that
>>98Lite and it's brethren tear the 98 OS into pieces, rip out whole chunks,
>>and then (and here's where the Linux reference comes in), replace it (or
>>rather, some of it) with homegrown, "Open Source"--style code. Then claim
>>that because it still has the 98 kernel, it's Windows 98, just tweaked.
>>That's a load of bullcrap. At that point, it is no longer Windows 98 in
>>the
>>slightest. Note your phrase, above: "I have tried reverting to the '98
>>shell..." Far more than the kernel, it is the shell that defines an OS
>>from
>>the point of view of the user, and just because some nerds want to turn
>>that
>>logic on its head doesn't mean squat.
>
> I'm confused by the difference between "shell" and "kernel" in what you
> say above; it seems to me that you mean different things by the two terms.
> (Please don't gloat in your answer! If I don't ask, I won't learn, will
> I!)

These may not be the best explanations, but they'll do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_%28computer_science%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_(computing)

>>
>>You've got two problems.
>>1. You don't have a functional '98 machine anymore because you ripped out
>>huge chunks and replaced them, and then the aptly named "soporific"
>>obviously either didn't do a good enough job with the installer (referring
>>to it's uninstall functions) or didn't expect anyone to bother trying to
>>go
>>back to the original shell. And you, due to total lack of foresight and
>>professionalism, haven't the slightest idea just how different from your
>>original system your current one is, just how much DLL Hell exists, etc.,
>>ad
>>infinitum.
>
> Well, my "shredded" system had been working fairly reliably for several
> years before I tried the soporific stuff.

You've had 98Lite installed for years? Regardless, I didn't say that 98Lite
doesn't work, I say that installing it shreds your Windows 98 system. And
that's exactly what it does. That's its *intent*. The rip out great gobs of
Windows 98 that the creators and users don't want in there. Fine, but it is
no longer Windows 98 and I doubt that it's even close to possible to restore
a functioning Windows 98 System once 98Lite has been installed.

>>2.You don't have the original drivers for your Win98 system. That's just a
>>failure on your part, period. I don't think it would mater if you did --
>
> I almost certainly _do_ still have the original motherboard CD somewhere -
> I certainly wouldn't throw something like that out; however, I've moved
> house since I built the PC. I went to the motherboard manufacturer's
> website and fetched a - Windows 98 - driver for the only part that isn't
> working, the sound circuitry.

Again, that was a misread on my part and I've clearly explained what I think
is wrong in another in the next paragraph.

>>what you describe doesn't sound like it's at all that simple, sounds more
>>like rampant DLL Hell in the Hardware/PnP/Drivers installation layer. I
>>won't go through all the steps in my logic, but if it were my machine, and
>>I
>>just wanted to get my real Windows 98 back, it would have been flattened
>>and
>>rebuilt by now.
>
> If I were going to do that, I think I'd go for XP.

If you've been running Windows 98 and/or 98Lite for "years" on that machine,
I doubt it's built to handle XP in any manner that would satisfy you. But I
don't know the machine's specs, so I'm just guessing.

>>Except that you still apparently want to play with the big boys and make
>>it
>>your holy grail to find out what went wrong and fix it. Problems is, you
>
> I'm very puzzled why you consider this to be such a satanic wish: what,
> exactly, is wrong with wanting to know what has gone wrong.

Absolutely nothing! You just didn't prepare for your experiment in a manner
that would have allowed you to determine what went wrong. You have no data
from your experiment except that you installed it, then tried to get out and
can't. Beyond that, you only have my *guess* that the issue is in the
hardware installation programming.

>>didn't set out with a pro's mentality, you just slapped the thing in and
>>went for broke. I do that on one or more of my test machine regularly, but
>
> No, I did an ERD, which though not a complete backup by any means, has
> nearly always allowed me to restore a working system in the past. In the
> very few cases where it hasn't, it has got me back to a situation where I
> just had to reinstall one piece of software (usually Easy CD Creator)
> manually.

So I hope you've learned a valuable lesson from this. Just because you got
away with half-measure tools in the past (ERD, SCANREGW /BACKUP, Windows
ME/XP/Vista's System Restore) NOTHING takes the place of a full backup that
can be quickly restored to a reformatted or new hard drive.

>>not even on a separate partition of my main work machine. Only on totally
>>throw-away boxes. Believe it or not, software CAN wreck hardware, and more
>
> I remember there was (allegedly - I never investigated!) a command you
> could type on the Commodore PET that would cause it to do harm to itself!
> But yes, even on PCs, there certainly are things. (I suppose some of the
> utilities that thoroughly exercise bits of the system - such as hard
> drives, or in extremis processors, are the most likely these days, but I'm
> sure there are some unexpected ones too.)
>
>>importantly, what gets installed on one partition may not behave and STAY
>>on
>>that partition and totally leave the others untouched. Windows XP and even
>>more, Vista, are excellent examples of this. I do install all of them on
>>adjacent partitions on my main machine, but I also know fairly well what
>>they will do to each other, and I generally keep them at least mostly
>>hidden
>>from each other and ameliorate the rest.
>>
>>But then, I'm pretty much the same brand of fool that you are. That's how
>>I
>>learned Windows 98. Install it, do whatever I can to it, while keeping
>>track
>>of what happens when I install this or that, until I get myself into such
>>a
>>deep hole, I'd reformat and reinstall. I did that up to a dozen times a
>>day,
>>over 300 times in the first year I owned it, until I got it right or gave
>>up
>>on whatever application or hardware I was playing with. I've had to curb
>
> Wow! Well, it was the (presumed) expertise that I sensed you had developed
> as a result of all that, that I'd hoped I could tap into.

Nope. If I haven't made it plain, yet, I think your system is totally hosed.
If you can't get into it, then an Overinstall of Win98 might get it working
sufficiently well enough that you can more easily copy off your personal
files before reformatting and reinstalling from scratch..

>>At all times, even now with my main XP installation (that has four other
>>Windows OS partitions that I multi-boot), I am always conscious of the
>>fact
>>that I might lose the use of it at any moment and constantly ask myself
>>what
>>will I do in that case, with, of course, dozens upon dozens of possible
>>strategies available to ponder and perfect (even practice) while I wait
>>for
>
> Well, except for actual hardware failure or perhaps FAT corruption, I am
> fairly certain I can extract my _data_ files, if necessary by booting into
> DOS. (I frequently dump them to CD as well.)

Extract your data files in DOS to where? You have a DOS CD burning utility?
Easiest way is to put the drive into another machine and use that machine to
back up the files to CD or DVD (or get an external drive if your system is
new enough that BIOS sees and recognizes them, then use a bootable CD system
like BartPE to copy the files from your system to the external HD.) Now that
I say that, I think there are bootable CD systems out there that include
burner utilities. Might check them out.

>>the inevitable -- and that is how you have to think about computers: That
>>it
>>is inevitable that at any moment it will be destroyed, with absolutely
>>nothing to recover, neither hardware or data, a blackened chunk of melted
>>metal and silicon, ready for immediate delivery to the recycler.
>
> Indeed.
>>
>>>>disservice by not dealing with them in a forum dedicated to the topic,
>>>>you
>>>
>>> Hmm, I was unaware there were any, but I've done a search after your
>>> post,
>>> and I see that both of the newsservers I use actually include
>>> fido7.su.f98lite, which I have now subscribed to; I suspect the "su"
>>> means
>>> it'll be in Finnish (which I don't speak), but I'll report back.
>>
>>Doesn't look to me like there's even a forum for 98Lite, let alone
>
> Well, I've now loaded some posts from that, and they're certainly not in a
> language I can understand - it could well be Finnish.
>
>>associated hackers. Which does nothing but lower my already low opinion of
>>the product and the crowd that uses it. Unless maybe if you pay for
>>98Lite... there's a member's login -- maybe there's a forum hiding in
>>there.
>
> What is your opinion of TweakUI, and the other PowerTools?

For the most part, I think they are too dangerous for the average user. I
don't use them, I prefer to do things manually for the most part. The short
and sweet is that I don't trust them, and every one of them contains
functions that can wreck your system, either immediately or in the form of a
time bomb. Using TUI to get rid of IE4 integration into Win98 was one such.
I forget what the actual wording is of the settings involved, but once they
were involved, it turned out the functions they supposedly "turned off"
ended up completely hosed, with some secondary damage that was MUCH worse
than just not being able to view the desktop as a webpage. IOW, the
presumably simple tweaks had hidden parts that you aren't warned about and
that most people found out they wanted after all. Coincidentally, those
functions are among the same exact things 98Lite hoses.

>>Otherwise, it indicates to me that there is no seriousness on the part of
>>these cross-breeders. That they're just a bunch of silly hackers who don't
>>give a crap about anyone else, especially not the people who are
>>interested
>>in supporting their efforts, if not with money, then with ideas and
>>feedback. That's how the people I know who have developed very successful
>>applications for computers have always conducted their business. Seeks
>>experts to get behind their effort and have a very open and lively forum.
>
> Agreed - or, do it all themself, but still have plenty of dialog (about
> both problems and suggestions) with the users. A couple of examples of
> that, I would say, are Irfan Skiljan's IrfanView, John Steed's Brother's
> Keeper (genealogy software), and GoldWave (sound editing); all of these,
> but particularly the first two, deal openly with the users. I have
> actually bought all of these (and some others), even though at least one
> (IrfanView) is free for home use, as I believe in encouraging them.
> []
>>years.) This is at least historically true. I haven't kept up with AOL in
>>recent years, but it seems to me that they have at least lessoned their
>>efforts to reprogram the OS, and instead learned to work within its
>>bounds.
>
> Just about - I've had to do battle with it for a friend recently, and it
> still seems to have very much its own way of doing things, at least the
> interface to BB, for no advantage to the user that I can see.
> []
>>I honestly beg to differ. Hijack these NGs is exactly what you did, not
>>that
>>you had much choice. But your issue is NOT a Windows 98 issue, it's a
>>98Lite
>>issue. And 98Lite users, if they have any respect whatsoever for the stock
>>98 users that regularly attend these groups, they'd get their own room.
>>Otherwise, they're no less obnoxious than any other trolls.
>>
> I thought a troll was someone who deliberately posted something
> inflammatory, hoping to start a flamewar or similar. I certainly didn't
> intend to do that - mine was (and still is) a genuine request of the "has
> anyone else come across anything like this, and know what the cause is"
> sort.

There has been plenty of trollish behavior on the part of 98Lite promoters
in this group over the more recent years. Sorry, but in my eyes, you are
guilty by association. But that wasn't my primary intent, to call you a
troll, only "just as bad" as the others who *are* trolls. More accurately,
to define "hijacking a group" as a troll-like behavior, especially if it is
deliberately done and/or continues even after it's been pointed out to
someone less in the know what he's actually, even if unwittingly, doing.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

[Gary S. Terhune[_2_]]

Just wanted to be sure. So how about you either stop this thread that isn't
going anywhere useful, or make sure you change the Subject line if you
should happen to get a response that actually does anything about your
original issue? Make yourself useful and flatten/rebuild your hosed system.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Gary S. Terhune
> > writes
>>Just to keep me happy, eh? So you really don't care about the innocent
>>user
>>who might stumble upon this thread and not realize that it isn't about
>>Windows 98?
>>
> I do, actually.
> --
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985
> MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
> ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on
> PCs. **
>
> it is no use hitting all the targets and missing the point. - chief
> executive
> of
> the Disability and Carers Service, quoted in computing, 23 March 2006,
> page 26.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >, thanatoid
> writes
>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in
:
>
>> In message >, Gary S.
>> Terhune > writes
>>>Just to keep me happy, eh? So you really don't care about
>>>the innocent user who might stumble upon this thread and
>>>not realize that it isn't about Windows 98?
>>>
>> I do, actually.
>
>See what I mean? According to Terhune, Windows xLite is NOT
>Windows. I have asked him to show me a single file in
>Win98SELite which did not come from MS, but he prefers to argue
>in ignorance and refuses to even look at the program. After all,
>it's a figment of our imagination.
>
>
Well, to be fair, I rather suspect 98lite.exe is not M$ (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

it is no use hitting all the targets and missing the point. - chief executive
of
the Disability and Carers Service, quoted in computing, 23 March 2006, page 26.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >, Gary S. Terhune
> writes
>Just wanted to be sure. So how about you either stop this thread that isn't
>going anywhere useful, or make sure you change the Subject line if you
>should happen to get a response that actually does anything about your
>original issue? Make yourself useful and flatten/rebuild your hosed system.
>
Oh, I certainly will (though I see you've done so anyway) - _if_ anyone
does come up with an actual suggestion (of something I might try, rather
than just of what might be wrong. And I know you've suggested a complete
reinstallation). I rather fear that anyone who might, has been
frightened off.

I will answer your longer post later; despite what some may think, I
like to try to remain on speaking terms with everybody!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

it is no use hitting all the targets and missing the point. - chief executive
of
the Disability and Carers Service, quoted in computing, 23 March 2006, page 26.

[Gary S. Terhune[_2_]]

You can tell the King of Idiots that his statement is about as stupid as any
I've seen him make. The issue isn't whether the crap is built from MS files,
it's that they aren't Windows 98 files, in their entirety, as distributed
under the name "Windows 98 Operating System". It's a butchery of Windows 98,
regardless of the goals, efficacy or failures that result.

You can chop off the top of a certain type of fruit tree (I don't remember
which, but let's say it's a pear tree) and graft all kinds of other closely
related fruit trees onto it. You no longer have a pear tree, it will never
produce pears, even though it has a "kernel" that can be called "pear". Yes,
it produces fruit, but they are not pears. It is no longer a "pear tree" and
a club devoted to the growth and care of pear trees would have nothing to do
with your grafted monstrosity and probably vote you out of the club and show
you the door with little to say other than, "Good Luck. Hope you can find
someone to help you with that one graft that's failing. But you and your
tree don't belong here."

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, thanatoid
> > writes
>>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in
:
>>
>>> In message >, Gary S.
>>> Terhune > writes
>>>>Just to keep me happy, eh? So you really don't care about
>>>>the innocent user who might stumble upon this thread and
>>>>not realize that it isn't about Windows 98?
>>>>
>>> I do, actually.
>>
>>See what I mean? According to Terhune, Windows xLite is NOT
>>Windows. I have asked him to show me a single file in
>>Win98SELite which did not come from MS, but he prefers to argue
>>in ignorance and refuses to even look at the program. After all,
>>it's a figment of our imagination.
>>
>>
> Well, to be fair, I rather suspect 98lite.exe is not M$ (-:
> --
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985
> MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
> ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on
> PCs. **
>
> it is no use hitting all the targets and missing the point. - chief
> executive
> of
> the Disability and Carers Service, quoted in computing, 23 March 2006,
> page 26.

[thanatoid]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in
:

> In message >,
> thanatoid > writes
>>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote
>>in :
>>
>>> In message >, Gary
>>> S. Terhune > writes
>>>>Just to keep me happy, eh? So you really don't care about
>>>>the innocent user who might stumble upon this thread and
>>>>not realize that it isn't about Windows 98?
>>>>
>>> I do, actually.
>>
>>See what I mean? According to Terhune, Windows xLite is NOT
>>Windows. I have asked him to show me a single file in
>>Win98SELite which did not come from MS, but he prefers to
>>argue in ignorance and refuses to even look at the program.
>>After all, it's a figment of our imagination.
>>
>>
> Well, to be fair, I rather suspect 98lite.exe is not M$ (-:

Yes, but that file is NOT in the OS! It's the customizer! It's
like saying that if the BIOS is not made by MS, it's not a
Windows machine!
(I should have said "in a finished Win98SELite install".)

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

[MEB[_2_]]

In ,
J. P. Gilliver (John) contemplated and posted:

| In message >, MEB
| > writes
|>I see you installed something new from soporific, what was it?
|
| It was the full UBCD, but with the option - which it offers - to
| install over an existing system, keeping settings etcetera. I should
| have known better - this sort of thing is always better done as a
| full clean install. And I don't _really_ hold soporific responsible.

Well you shouldn't, no one knows whether these things will work perfectly
on everyone's system.

BTW: the UBCD of this discussion is soporific's *Unattended Boot &
Installation CD* ** NOT** the Universal Boot CD, for testing and diagnostic
purposes.

IF I'm reading this and your other posts correctly: Your issue stems from a
*MIXED modified system*. 98Lite removes system files AND modifies registry
settings during its modification process, so does soporific's UBCD. Many of
these MODs require some of the IE5/6 files [and depending upon the MOD, IE
updates] be installed within the system.

|>
|> I have outlined what would likely be the normal procedure in this
|>situation and the procedure when installing an un-official
|>compilation. Perhaps it might be beneficial for you to outline what
|>you have already done. You
|
| The installation proceeded quite far, but did get to a point (after
| one - I think - reboot) where it went into a loop, repeatedly
| encountering some error message.

The problem likely arose with the massive device changes being made within
the system, During the process USB [a universal driver is installed] and
other devices [PCI, firewire, etc.] were being changed. Depending upon where
in the process it failed, the registry may not have been fully updated
[which appears to be the issue].

Potenially, you could physically remove all added adapters from the system,
which *might* allow booting to Safe Mode. From there, you may be able to
remove *all* adapters shown in Device Manager. This DID work for me once
upon a time during my testing of some of the older MODs.

As an additional FYI for potential MOD users: you will find these work
better if you uninstall/physically remove USB/Firewire devices [not the
software] *prior* to attempting the installation.

|
|>should also note that unless you follow the procedures and
|>updates/patch process being used in unofficial patchings by the
|>creator of the patch, your results will likely NOT reflect the same
|>success.
|> That type of process requires one be prepared to re-install an image
|>should the testing fail or corrupt one's system.
| []
| Indeed. I managed to restore my system to how I had it by use of an
| ERD saveset from before I started with UBCD; this is not a full
| image, but is a Microsoft utility. Unfortunately, as I've only
| discovered subsequently, it (a) didn't bring back sound - which I
| didn't notice immediately - and (b) has damaged _some_thing involved
| with the loading of drivers in general. (I've now found it with
| _three_ things - the sound, the microscope [webcam], and a new USB
| stick.)
|
| To keep some people happy I will say: I am using 98lite; any advice
| given may not be applicable to those who are not.

Again, the UBCD installs the universal driver package [among other device
changes]. That universal driver package DOES require the removal of ALL USB
and Firewire devices prior to its installation.

Wish I could be more help, but since you are stuck in a loop of failed
software installation, in a *dual modified* system, much of what I would
potentially suggest will not be viable.

*IF* Safe Mode can be entered after removing the devices, run through the
file re-registration processes outlined within the Microsoft KBs PRIOR to
re-installing the removed adapters..

Looks something like this from the Run or Prompt:

regsvr32 {switches} {some DLL}

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >, Gary S. Terhune
> writes
[]
>> I'm confused by the difference between "shell" and "kernel" in what you
>> say above; it seems to me that you mean different things by the two terms.
[]
>These may not be the best explanations, but they'll do.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_%28computer_science%29
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_(computing)
>
Thanks - so, basically, you (and Wikipedia) use kernel to mean the
actual engine, and shell to mean the user interface.
[]
>>>what you describe doesn't sound like it's at all that simple, sounds more
>>>like rampant DLL Hell in the Hardware/PnP/Drivers installation layer. I
>>>won't go through all the steps in my logic, but if it were my machine, and
>>>I
>>>just wanted to get my real Windows 98 back, it would have been flattened
>>>and
>>>rebuilt by now.
>>
>> If I were going to do that, I think I'd go for XP.
>
>If you've been running Windows 98 and/or 98Lite for "years" on that machine,
>I doubt it's built to handle XP in any manner that would satisfy you. But I
>don't know the machine's specs, so I'm just guessing.

I would have had the same view. However, it is actually a reasonably
modern system - Celeron 2.4, 512+256M. It is newer than the installation
it's running, having (of necessity - something died) had a motherboard
(and thus processor and memory) transplant.
>
>>>Except that you still apparently want to play with the big boys and make
>>>it
>>>your holy grail to find out what went wrong and fix it. Problems is, you
>>
>> I'm very puzzled why you consider this to be such a satanic wish: what,
>> exactly, is wrong with wanting to know what has gone wrong.
>
>Absolutely nothing! You just didn't prepare for your experiment in a manner
>that would have allowed you to determine what went wrong. You have no data
>from your experiment except that you installed it, then tried to get out and
>can't. Beyond that, you only have my *guess* that the issue is in the
>hardware installation programming.

That would be my guess too.
[]
>> Wow! Well, it was the (presumed) expertise that I sensed you had developed
>> as a result of all that, that I'd hoped I could tap into.
>
>Nope. If I haven't made it plain, yet, I think your system is totally hosed.

You have (-:

>If you can't get into it, then an Overinstall of Win98 might get it working
>sufficiently well enough that you can more easily copy off your personal
>files before reformatting and reinstalling from scratch..
[]
>> Well, except for actual hardware failure or perhaps FAT corruption, I am
>> fairly certain I can extract my _data_ files, if necessary by booting into
>> DOS. (I frequently dump them to CD as well.)
>
>Extract your data files in DOS to where? You have a DOS CD burning utility?

Good point. But, in fact, I have a 98-like (! for you) system which
allows me access to all my files (in fact appears to be working in all
respects other than sound and new driver installation).

>Easiest way is to put the drive into another machine and use that machine to
>back up the files to CD or DVD (or get an external drive if your system is

I have that option ...

>new enough that BIOS sees and recognizes them, then use a bootable CD system
>like BartPE to copy the files from your system to the external HD.) Now that

.... and have obtained (though not played with yet) BartPE, as it would
appear that that is NTFS-compatible, and thus might be usable with XP,
which I am thinking of getting soon (on a netbook).

>I say that, I think there are bootable CD systems out there that include
>burner utilities. Might check them out.

Please share what you find here (perhaps in another thread to this one)
- probably many here would be interested.
[]
>> What is your opinion of TweakUI, and the other PowerTools?
>
>For the most part, I think they are too dangerous for the average user. I
>don't use them, I prefer to do things manually for the most part. The short
>and sweet is that I don't trust them, and every one of them contains
>functions that can wreck your system, either immediately or in the form of a

Interesting. You are probably right on all counts.

>time bomb. Using TUI to get rid of IE4 integration into Win98 was one such.

I don't think I knew that was among its functions; that was the main
reason I went for 98lite. I would have just used their IEradicator, but
more configurability seemed a good idea.

>I forget what the actual wording is of the settings involved, but once they
>were involved, it turned out the functions they supposedly "turned off"
>ended up completely hosed, with some secondary damage that was MUCH worse
>than just not being able to view the desktop as a webpage. IOW, the
>presumably simple tweaks had hidden parts that you aren't warned about and
>that most people found out they wanted after all. Coincidentally, those
>functions are among the same exact things 98Lite hoses.

Sounds as if the two might well use some of the same code (or at least
methods).
[]
>> Agreed - or, do it all themself, but still have plenty of dialog (about
>> both problems and suggestions) with the users. A couple of examples of
>> that, I would say, are Irfan Skiljan's IrfanView, John Steed's Brother's
>> Keeper (genealogy software), and GoldWave (sound editing); all of these,
>> but particularly the first two, deal openly with the users. I have
>> actually bought all of these (and some others), even though at least one
>> (IrfanView) is free for home use, as I believe in encouraging them.
[]




Other than complete reinstallation, do you have any remaining
suggestions about the "rampant DLL Hell in the Hardware/PnP/Drivers
installation layer" - such as what DLLs (and versions) are involved with
that? I expect not, but thought I'd ask.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

A leader who keeps his ear to the ground allows his rear end to become a
target.
-Angie Papadakis

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Apologies for the repost of an old problem; I've read in other threads
about certain changes here, which made me think it might be worth asking
again.

Whenever I try to load drivers (e. g. for new devices), something
crashes, part way through the process. The system seems to work fine
otherwise.

I should say that it is a 98lite system, but I am sure that that is not
the source of the problem, since I have been running 98lite for years,
both on the system in question and on the laptop on which I am typing
this; on both (and still on this), I have been able to install new
drivers without problem.

It started to happen on the affected system after an abortive play with
Soporific's UBCD, alias "Windows 98 tenth anniversary edition", which
got some way through before crashing and burning; I have managed (mainly
by using ERD/ERU from just before) to get the system back how I had it,
with the exception of the drivers problem. (And sound. I only noticed
when I spotted that the sound wasn't working; I tried removing and then
reloading the drivers for the sound hardware, and that's when I first
found the problem. It was only when I later tried to load drivers for
other hardware that I decided it's in the new-drivers part of the OS
that the problem lies.)

Yes, I know I could completely reinstall, but (a) getting everything
back to how it is now would probably take years [even restoring from a
system backup, which of course I have not got anyway - silly me!, might
not fully do it], and (b) it seems to me that it is only a very small
part of the system that's corrupted; I'm hoping that someone can tell me
which files (and possibly registry settings) are involved in the loading
of new drivers, so that I may restore these. (I have '98SE install discs
etcetera.)

Thanks in advance for positive suggestions ...
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"When I was young I used to scintillate
now I only sin 'til ten past three" (Ogden Nash) [via Andy Breen]

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Apologies for the repost of an old problem; I've read in other threads
about certain changes here, which made me think it might be worth asking
again.

Whenever I try to load drivers (e. g. for new devices), something
crashes, part way through the process. The system seems to work fine
otherwise.

I should say that it is a 98lite system, but I am sure that that is not
the source of the problem, since I have been running 98lite for years,
both on the system in question and on the laptop on which I am typing
this; on both (and still on this), I have been able to install new
drivers without problem.

It started to happen on the affected system after an abortive play with
Soporific's UBCD, alias "Windows 98 tenth anniversary edition", which
got some way through before crashing and burning; I have managed (mainly
by using ERD/ERU from just before) to get the system back how I had it,
with the exception of the drivers problem. (And sound. I only noticed
when I spotted that the sound wasn't working; I tried removing and then
reloading the drivers for the sound hardware, and that's when I first
found the problem. It was only when I later tried to load drivers for
other hardware that I decided it's in the new-drivers part of the OS
that the problem lies.)

Yes, I know I could completely reinstall, but (a) getting everything
back to how it is now would probably take years [even restoring from a
system backup, which of course I have not got anyway - silly me!, might
not fully do it], and (b) it seems to me that it is only a very small
part of the system that's corrupted; I'm hoping that someone can tell me
which files (and possibly registry settings) are involved in the loading
of new drivers, so that I may restore these. (I have '98SE install discs
etcetera.)

Thanks in advance for positive suggestions ...
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"When I was young I used to scintillate
now I only sin 'til ten past three" (Ogden Nash) [via Andy Breen]

[thanatoid]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in
:

<SNIP>

> Thanks in advance for positive suggestions ...

FINALLY start using an imaging program a kind company provided
you with for free...

--
"Who knows what the OP is talking about?"
(about thanatoid)

[thanatoid]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in
:

<SNIP>

> Thanks in advance for positive suggestions ...

FINALLY start using an imaging program a kind company provided
you with for free...

--
"Who knows what the OP is talking about?"
(about thanatoid)

[MEB[_16_]]

You MAY be experiencing conflicts with an installation of one of the
'generic' driver libraries that might have been installed.
I admit I haven't used the UBCD, however, when testing some of these
compiled "upgrades/updates", I found similar issues.
If I remember correctly, you installed this UBCD over an already updated OS
[besides the "lite" aspect], and with other "unofficially updates"
previously installed. This makes it more than slightly difficult to diagnose
as there are likely too many "unknown" [to us] modifications [and which you
may not remember].

You can try monitoring the installs with *sysinternals' filemon* [available
on Microsoft] for the exact failure.

You can also attempt a "fake install" - unzip the driver to some folder,
use Dependency Walker to open the file, and *profile* the setup file or by opening the individual files, searching for the breakdown
[usually shown in red, ignore the two normal ones {missing XP files}].

Here's an old diagnostic page I created for general reference:
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/gen/sys_diagnos.htm

--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______



"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in message
...[i]
> Apologies for the repost of an old problem; I've read in other threads
> about certain changes here, which made me think it might be worth asking
> again.
>
> Whenever I try to load drivers (e. g. for new devices), something
> crashes, part way through the process. The system seems to work fine
> otherwise.
>
> I should say that it is a 98lite system, but I am sure that that is not
> the source of the problem, since I have been running 98lite for years,
> both on the system in question and on the laptop on which I am typing
> this; on both (and still on this), I have been able to install new
> drivers without problem.
>
> It started to happen on the affected system after an abortive play with
> Soporific's UBCD, alias "Windows 98 tenth anniversary edition", which
> got some way through before crashing and burning; I have managed (mainly
> by using ERD/ERU from just before) to get the system back how I had it,
> with the exception of the drivers problem. (And sound. I only noticed
> when I spotted that the sound wasn't working; I tried removing and then
> reloading the drivers for the sound hardware, and that's when I first
> found the problem. It was only when I later tried to load drivers for
> other hardware that I decided it's in the new-drivers part of the OS
> that the problem lies.)
>
> Yes, I know I could completely reinstall, but (a) getting everything
> back to how it is now would probably take years [even restoring from a
> system backup, which of course I have not got anyway - silly me!, might
> not fully do it], and (b) it seems to me that it is only a very small
> part of the system that's corrupted; I'm hoping that someone can tell me
> which files (and possibly registry settings) are involved in the loading
> of new drivers, so that I may restore these. (I have '98SE install discs
> etcetera.)
>
> Thanks in advance for positive suggestions ...
> --
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985
MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
> ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
> outdated thoughts on PCs. **
>
> "When I was young I used to scintillate
> now I only sin 'til ten past three" (Ogden Nash) [via Andy Breen]

[MEB[_16_]]

You MAY be experiencing conflicts with an installation of one of the
'generic' driver libraries that might have been installed.
I admit I haven't used the UBCD, however, when testing some of these
compiled "upgrades/updates", I found similar issues.
If I remember correctly, you installed this UBCD over an already updated OS
[besides the "lite" aspect], and with other "unofficially updates"
previously installed. This makes it more than slightly difficult to diagnose
as there are likely too many "unknown" [to us] modifications [and which you
may not remember].

You can try monitoring the installs with *sysinternals' filemon* [available
on Microsoft] for the exact failure.

You can also attempt a "fake install" - unzip the driver to some folder,
use Dependency Walker to open the file, and *profile* the setup file or by opening the individual files, searching for the breakdown
[usually shown in red, ignore the two normal ones {missing XP files}].

Here's an old diagnostic page I created for general reference:
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/gen/sys_diagnos.htm

--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______



"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in message
...[i]
> Apologies for the repost of an old problem; I've read in other threads
> about certain changes here, which made me think it might be worth asking
> again.
>
> Whenever I try to load drivers (e. g. for new devices), something
> crashes, part way through the process. The system seems to work fine
> otherwise.
>
> I should say that it is a 98lite system, but I am sure that that is not
> the source of the problem, since I have been running 98lite for years,
> both on the system in question and on the laptop on which I am typing
> this; on both (and still on this), I have been able to install new
> drivers without problem.
>
> It started to happen on the affected system after an abortive play with
> Soporific's UBCD, alias "Windows 98 tenth anniversary edition", which
> got some way through before crashing and burning; I have managed (mainly
> by using ERD/ERU from just before) to get the system back how I had it,
> with the exception of the drivers problem. (And sound. I only noticed
> when I spotted that the sound wasn't working; I tried removing and then
> reloading the drivers for the sound hardware, and that's when I first
> found the problem. It was only when I later tried to load drivers for
> other hardware that I decided it's in the new-drivers part of the OS
> that the problem lies.)
>
> Yes, I know I could completely reinstall, but (a) getting everything
> back to how it is now would probably take years [even restoring from a
> system backup, which of course I have not got anyway - silly me!, might
> not fully do it], and (b) it seems to me that it is only a very small
> part of the system that's corrupted; I'm hoping that someone can tell me
> which files (and possibly registry settings) are involved in the loading
> of new drivers, so that I may restore these. (I have '98SE install discs
> etcetera.)
>
> Thanks in advance for positive suggestions ...
> --
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985
MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
> ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
> outdated thoughts on PCs. **
>
> "When I was young I used to scintillate
> now I only sin 'til ten past three" (Ogden Nash) [via Andy Breen]

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >, thanatoid
> writes:
>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in
:
>
><SNIP>
>
>> Thanks in advance for positive suggestions ...
>
>FINALLY start using an imaging program a kind company provided
>you with for free...
>
Won't help me restore an image of a system from before I received it
though ... (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

WANTED, Dead AND Alive: Schrodinger's Cat

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >, thanatoid
> writes:
>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in
:
>
><SNIP>
>
>> Thanks in advance for positive suggestions ...
>
>FINALLY start using an imaging program a kind company provided
>you with for free...
>
Won't help me restore an image of a system from before I received it
though ... (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

WANTED, Dead AND Alive: Schrodinger's Cat

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >, MEB
> writes:
>
> You MAY be experiencing conflicts with an installation of one of the
>'generic' driver libraries that might have been installed.
>I admit I haven't used the UBCD, however, when testing some of these
>compiled "upgrades/updates", I found similar issues.

Thanks for thinking.

> If I remember correctly, you installed this UBCD over an already updated OS
>[besides the "lite" aspect], and with other "unofficially updates"

I don't think I'd done many if any updates, other than the lite,
official or otherwise; this is a non-internet machine, and besides I
don't usually like to do updates unless I am very sure what they do.
However, the system has certainly had assorted third-party utilities
installed over the years, which probably has the same effect.

>previously installed. This makes it more than slightly difficult to diagnose
>as there are likely too many "unknown" [to us] modifications [and which you
>may not remember].

You're right there (both in that it makes it hard for you to diagnose,
and that I won't remember!).
>
> You can try monitoring the installs with *sysinternals' filemon* [available
>on Microsoft] for the exact failure.

Hmm. I have a lot of work to do.
>
> You can also attempt a "fake install" - unzip the driver to some folder,
>use Dependency Walker to open the file, and *profile* the setup file [if
>applicable] or by opening the individual files, searching for the breakdown
>[usually shown in red, ignore the two normal ones {missing XP files}].

I don't _think_ it's the installer, as I've had it for a variety of
drivers from a variety of sources - the sound hardware (Realtek), a
couple of cameras (a microscope and a binoculars camera), and assorted
novelties (dreamcheeky). It seems to stop at the same place during the
driver install, or in the case of the sound hardware if I "remove" it
and restart the machine, it locks up at the driver load during the
restart. I have tried unzipping the driver installers (usually
executables these days) and manually installing, pointing to where I'd
unzipped when prompted, and it's always the driver loading process
(usually blaming rundll32, but I know that's usually just a scapegoat)
that seems to fail, always at the same point.
>
>Here's an old diagnostic page I created for general reference:
>http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/gen/sys_diagnos.htm
>
Thanks for that - I clearly have a LOT of work to do.

Why is driver installation so complicated )-:! (It seems such a simple
process when it works.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

WANTED, Dead AND Alive: Schrodinger's Cat

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >, MEB
> writes:
>
> You MAY be experiencing conflicts with an installation of one of the
>'generic' driver libraries that might have been installed.
>I admit I haven't used the UBCD, however, when testing some of these
>compiled "upgrades/updates", I found similar issues.

Thanks for thinking.

> If I remember correctly, you installed this UBCD over an already updated OS
>[besides the "lite" aspect], and with other "unofficially updates"

I don't think I'd done many if any updates, other than the lite,
official or otherwise; this is a non-internet machine, and besides I
don't usually like to do updates unless I am very sure what they do.
However, the system has certainly had assorted third-party utilities
installed over the years, which probably has the same effect.

>previously installed. This makes it more than slightly difficult to diagnose
>as there are likely too many "unknown" [to us] modifications [and which you
>may not remember].

You're right there (both in that it makes it hard for you to diagnose,
and that I won't remember!).
>
> You can try monitoring the installs with *sysinternals' filemon* [available
>on Microsoft] for the exact failure.

Hmm. I have a lot of work to do.
>
> You can also attempt a "fake install" - unzip the driver to some folder,
>use Dependency Walker to open the file, and *profile* the setup file [if
>applicable] or by opening the individual files, searching for the breakdown
>[usually shown in red, ignore the two normal ones {missing XP files}].

I don't _think_ it's the installer, as I've had it for a variety of
drivers from a variety of sources - the sound hardware (Realtek), a
couple of cameras (a microscope and a binoculars camera), and assorted
novelties (dreamcheeky). It seems to stop at the same place during the
driver install, or in the case of the sound hardware if I "remove" it
and restart the machine, it locks up at the driver load during the
restart. I have tried unzipping the driver installers (usually
executables these days) and manually installing, pointing to where I'd
unzipped when prompted, and it's always the driver loading process
(usually blaming rundll32, but I know that's usually just a scapegoat)
that seems to fail, always at the same point.
>
>Here's an old diagnostic page I created for general reference:
>http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/gen/sys_diagnos.htm
>
Thanks for that - I clearly have a LOT of work to do.

Why is driver installation so complicated )-:! (It seems such a simple
process when it works.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

WANTED, Dead AND Alive: Schrodinger's Cat

[MEB[_16_]]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, MEB
> > writes:
> >
> > You MAY be experiencing conflicts with an installation of one of the
> >'generic' driver libraries that might have been installed.
> >I admit I haven't used the UBCD, however, when testing some of these
> >compiled "upgrades/updates", I found similar issues.
>
> Thanks for thinking.
>
> > If I remember correctly, you installed this UBCD over an already updated
OS
> >[besides the "lite" aspect], and with other "unofficially updates"
>
> I don't think I'd done many if any updates, other than the lite,
> official or otherwise; this is a non-internet machine, and besides I
> don't usually like to do updates unless I am very sure what they do.
> However, the system has certainly had assorted third-party utilities
> installed over the years, which probably has the same effect.
>
> >previously installed. This makes it more than slightly difficult to
diagnose
> >as there are likely too many "unknown" [to us] modifications [and which
you
> >may not remember].
>
> You're right there (both in that it makes it hard for you to diagnose,
> and that I won't remember!).
> >
> > You can try monitoring the installs with *sysinternals' filemon*
[available
> >on Microsoft] for the exact failure.
>
> Hmm. I have a lot of work to do.
> >
> > You can also attempt a "fake install" - unzip the driver to some folder,
> >use Dependency Walker to open the file, and *profile* the setup file [if
> >applicable] or by opening the individual files, searching for the
breakdown
> >[usually shown in red, ignore the two normal ones {missing XP files}].
>
> I don't _think_ it's the installer, as I've had it for a variety of
> drivers from a variety of sources - the sound hardware (Realtek), a
> couple of cameras (a microscope and a binoculars camera), and assorted
> novelties (dreamcheeky). It seems to stop at the same place during the
> driver install, or in the case of the sound hardware if I "remove" it
> and restart the machine, it locks up at the driver load during the
> restart. I have tried unzipping the driver installers (usually
> executables these days) and manually installing, pointing to where I'd
> unzipped when prompted, and it's always the driver loading process
> (usually blaming rundll32, but I know that's usually just a scapegoat)
> that seems to fail, always at the same point.
> >
> >Here's an old diagnostic page I created for general reference:
> >http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/gen/sys_diagnos.htm
> >
> Thanks for that - I clearly have a LOT of work to do.
>
> Why is driver installation so complicated )-:! (It seems such a simple
> process when it works.)
> --
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985
MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I realize that was more of a rant than a question, however, you answered
the issue.

The key is ALWAYS: when it works, when it doesn't the world turns on edge
and time flashes by... hours wasted, generally to find it was something
staring us in the face all the time.

ANYWAY, Dependency Walker can generally be used effectively to find the
issue [its basically a generic 32bit Windows debugger]. TRY just expanding
the installer{s} and running it on the individual files *if* PROFILING can't
find the issues.

You might want to go into Safe Mode and make sure everything that should be
gone is actually gone [like old programs and drivers]. If it were me, I
would also run my trusty registry reviewing program {RegSeeker] and see what
it finds.

You aren't running something like WinPatrol or some other registry or
scripting protection program are you? And you did disable anti-virus and as
much else as you could before attempting installation, right..

--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______

[MEB[_16_]]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, MEB
> > writes:
> >
> > You MAY be experiencing conflicts with an installation of one of the
> >'generic' driver libraries that might have been installed.
> >I admit I haven't used the UBCD, however, when testing some of these
> >compiled "upgrades/updates", I found similar issues.
>
> Thanks for thinking.
>
> > If I remember correctly, you installed this UBCD over an already updated
OS
> >[besides the "lite" aspect], and with other "unofficially updates"
>
> I don't think I'd done many if any updates, other than the lite,
> official or otherwise; this is a non-internet machine, and besides I
> don't usually like to do updates unless I am very sure what they do.
> However, the system has certainly had assorted third-party utilities
> installed over the years, which probably has the same effect.
>
> >previously installed. This makes it more than slightly difficult to
diagnose
> >as there are likely too many "unknown" [to us] modifications [and which
you
> >may not remember].
>
> You're right there (both in that it makes it hard for you to diagnose,
> and that I won't remember!).
> >
> > You can try monitoring the installs with *sysinternals' filemon*
[available
> >on Microsoft] for the exact failure.
>
> Hmm. I have a lot of work to do.
> >
> > You can also attempt a "fake install" - unzip the driver to some folder,
> >use Dependency Walker to open the file, and *profile* the setup file [if
> >applicable] or by opening the individual files, searching for the
breakdown
> >[usually shown in red, ignore the two normal ones {missing XP files}].
>
> I don't _think_ it's the installer, as I've had it for a variety of
> drivers from a variety of sources - the sound hardware (Realtek), a
> couple of cameras (a microscope and a binoculars camera), and assorted
> novelties (dreamcheeky). It seems to stop at the same place during the
> driver install, or in the case of the sound hardware if I "remove" it
> and restart the machine, it locks up at the driver load during the
> restart. I have tried unzipping the driver installers (usually
> executables these days) and manually installing, pointing to where I'd
> unzipped when prompted, and it's always the driver loading process
> (usually blaming rundll32, but I know that's usually just a scapegoat)
> that seems to fail, always at the same point.
> >
> >Here's an old diagnostic page I created for general reference:
> >http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/gen/sys_diagnos.htm
> >
> Thanks for that - I clearly have a LOT of work to do.
>
> Why is driver installation so complicated )-:! (It seems such a simple
> process when it works.)
> --
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985
MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I realize that was more of a rant than a question, however, you answered
the issue.

The key is ALWAYS: when it works, when it doesn't the world turns on edge
and time flashes by... hours wasted, generally to find it was something
staring us in the face all the time.

ANYWAY, Dependency Walker can generally be used effectively to find the
issue [its basically a generic 32bit Windows debugger]. TRY just expanding
the installer{s} and running it on the individual files *if* PROFILING can't
find the issues.

You might want to go into Safe Mode and make sure everything that should be
gone is actually gone [like old programs and drivers]. If it were me, I
would also run my trusty registry reviewing program {RegSeeker] and see what
it finds.

You aren't running something like WinPatrol or some other registry or
scripting protection program are you? And you did disable anti-virus and as
much else as you could before attempting installation, right..

--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______

[thanatoid]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in
:

> In message >,
> thanatoid > writes:
>>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote
>>in :
>>
>><SNIP>
>>
>>> Thanks in advance for positive suggestions ...
>>
>>FINALLY start using an imaging program a kind company
>>provided you with for free...
>>
> Won't help me restore an image of a system from before I
> received it though ... (-:

Would have if you didn't take your sweet time installing it, IF
you ever did.

--
"Who knows what the OP is talking about?"
(about thanatoid)

[thanatoid]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in
:

> In message >,
> thanatoid > writes:
>>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote
>>in :
>>
>><SNIP>
>>
>>> Thanks in advance for positive suggestions ...
>>
>>FINALLY start using an imaging program a kind company
>>provided you with for free...
>>
> Won't help me restore an image of a system from before I
> received it though ... (-:

Would have if you didn't take your sweet time installing it, IF
you ever did.

--
"Who knows what the OP is talking about?"
(about thanatoid)

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >, thanatoid
> writes:
[]
>>>FINALLY start using an imaging program a kind company
>>>provided you with for free...
>>>
>> Won't help me restore an image of a system from before I
>> received it though ... (-:
>
>Would have if you didn't take your sweet time installing it, IF
>you ever did.
>
How would using a backup/image program help me restore the system to how
it was before I received the backup/image program? That's what I meant,
sorry if not clear.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Imagine a world with no hypothetical situations...

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >, thanatoid
> writes:
[]
>>>FINALLY start using an imaging program a kind company
>>>provided you with for free...
>>>
>> Won't help me restore an image of a system from before I
>> received it though ... (-:
>
>Would have if you didn't take your sweet time installing it, IF
>you ever did.
>
How would using a backup/image program help me restore the system to how
it was before I received the backup/image program? That's what I meant,
sorry if not clear.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Imagine a world with no hypothetical situations...

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >, MEB
> writes:
[]
> I realize that was more of a rant than a question, however, you answered
>the issue.

(-:
>
> The key is ALWAYS: when it works, when it doesn't the world turns on edge
>and time flashes by... hours wasted, generally to find it was something
>staring us in the face all the time.

If you mean always backup, I've in general been doing an ERU before and
after installing new, and also when it's been running well for a while,
just to mop up little tweaks I may have made. This has rescued me many a
time; however, it isn't a full backup. If I ever get it sorted, I think
a full backup with Acronis will be in order.
>
> ANYWAY, Dependency Walker can generally be used effectively to find the
>issue [its basically a generic 32bit Windows debugger]. TRY just expanding
>the installer{s} and running it on the individual files *if* PROFILING can't
>find the issues.

I clearly have to do that, though I still think it's the part of the
_system_ that _handles_ new drivers, rather than the drivers themselves,
that's fubared.
>
> You might want to go into Safe Mode and make sure everything that should be
>gone is actually gone [like old programs and drivers]. If it were me, I
>would also run my trusty registry reviewing program {RegSeeker] and see what
>it finds.

I've used the one in EasyCleaner from time to time.
>
> You aren't running something like WinPatrol or some other registry or
>scripting protection program are you? And you did disable anti-virus and as
>much else as you could before attempting installation, right..
>
Interesting question about scripting. I know I've in the past changed
the default file association for script files (to Notepad IIRR); I can't
remember if anything has changed that back, though. The machine on which
I have this problem is not connected to anything, so I don't have AV
running all the time on it anyway (I have it there, and scan any new
executable - or disc - with it).

Sorry, I'm dragging my feet in getting round to dealing with the
problem, but I have definitely marked your posts as keep for when I do.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Imagine a world with no hypothetical situations...

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >, MEB
> writes:
[]
> I realize that was more of a rant than a question, however, you answered
>the issue.

(-:
>
> The key is ALWAYS: when it works, when it doesn't the world turns on edge
>and time flashes by... hours wasted, generally to find it was something
>staring us in the face all the time.

If you mean always backup, I've in general been doing an ERU before and
after installing new, and also when it's been running well for a while,
just to mop up little tweaks I may have made. This has rescued me many a
time; however, it isn't a full backup. If I ever get it sorted, I think
a full backup with Acronis will be in order.
>
> ANYWAY, Dependency Walker can generally be used effectively to find the
>issue [its basically a generic 32bit Windows debugger]. TRY just expanding
>the installer{s} and running it on the individual files *if* PROFILING can't
>find the issues.

I clearly have to do that, though I still think it's the part of the
_system_ that _handles_ new drivers, rather than the drivers themselves,
that's fubared.
>
> You might want to go into Safe Mode and make sure everything that should be
>gone is actually gone [like old programs and drivers]. If it were me, I
>would also run my trusty registry reviewing program {RegSeeker] and see what
>it finds.

I've used the one in EasyCleaner from time to time.
>
> You aren't running something like WinPatrol or some other registry or
>scripting protection program are you? And you did disable anti-virus and as
>much else as you could before attempting installation, right..
>
Interesting question about scripting. I know I've in the past changed
the default file association for script files (to Notepad IIRR); I can't
remember if anything has changed that back, though. The machine on which
I have this problem is not connected to anything, so I don't have AV
running all the time on it anyway (I have it there, and scan any new
executable - or disc - with it).

Sorry, I'm dragging my feet in getting round to dealing with the
problem, but I have definitely marked your posts as keep for when I do.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Imagine a world with no hypothetical situations...

[MEB[_16_]]

Well, you can waltz around the issue, or you "can get to it".

Download Dependency Walker and try the "profiling" aspect. I have
repeatedly used it to show issues for various programs, files, and
installation routines, sending these REPORTS back to the original
programmers so they could correct their programming problems.. It was such a
good program, that Microsoft suggested its use on many of its old support
pages to help diagnose issues, and for sending reports back to Microsoft
[during the actual 98 support cycle, not at the end when IE was the only
concern].
I have also used it to locate the exact areas/issues within my own systems,
during testing of unofficial updates, and other.
Of course its just part of the tool set I use, but it is invaluable.

--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______



"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, MEB
> > writes:
> []
> > I realize that was more of a rant than a question, however, you answered
> >the issue.
>
> (-:
> >
> > The key is ALWAYS: when it works, when it doesn't the world turns on
edge
> >and time flashes by... hours wasted, generally to find it was something
> >staring us in the face all the time.
>
> If you mean always backup, I've in general been doing an ERU before and
> after installing new, and also when it's been running well for a while,
> just to mop up little tweaks I may have made. This has rescued me many a
> time; however, it isn't a full backup. If I ever get it sorted, I think
> a full backup with Acronis will be in order.
> >
> > ANYWAY, Dependency Walker can generally be used effectively to find the
> >issue [its basically a generic 32bit Windows debugger]. TRY just
expanding
> >the installer{s} and running it on the individual files *if* PROFILING
can't
> >find the issues.
>
> I clearly have to do that, though I still think it's the part of the
> _system_ that _handles_ new drivers, rather than the drivers themselves,
> that's fubared.
> >
> > You might want to go into Safe Mode and make sure everything that should
be
> >gone is actually gone [like old programs and drivers]. If it were me, I
> >would also run my trusty registry reviewing program {RegSeeker] and see
what
> >it finds.
>
> I've used the one in EasyCleaner from time to time.
> >
> > You aren't running something like WinPatrol or some other registry or
> >scripting protection program are you? And you did disable anti-virus and
as
> >much else as you could before attempting installation, right..
> >
> Interesting question about scripting. I know I've in the past changed
> the default file association for script files (to Notepad IIRR); I can't
> remember if anything has changed that back, though. The machine on which
> I have this problem is not connected to anything, so I don't have AV
> running all the time on it anyway (I have it there, and scan any new
> executable - or disc - with it).
>
> Sorry, I'm dragging my feet in getting round to dealing with the
> problem, but I have definitely marked your posts as keep for when I do.
> --
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985
MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
> ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
> outdated thoughts on PCs. **
>
> Imagine a world with no hypothetical situations...

[MEB[_16_]]

Well, you can waltz around the issue, or you "can get to it".

Download Dependency Walker and try the "profiling" aspect. I have
repeatedly used it to show issues for various programs, files, and
installation routines, sending these REPORTS back to the original
programmers so they could correct their programming problems.. It was such a
good program, that Microsoft suggested its use on many of its old support
pages to help diagnose issues, and for sending reports back to Microsoft
[during the actual 98 support cycle, not at the end when IE was the only
concern].
I have also used it to locate the exact areas/issues within my own systems,
during testing of unofficial updates, and other.
Of course its just part of the tool set I use, but it is invaluable.

--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______



"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, MEB
> > writes:
> []
> > I realize that was more of a rant than a question, however, you answered
> >the issue.
>
> (-:
> >
> > The key is ALWAYS: when it works, when it doesn't the world turns on
edge
> >and time flashes by... hours wasted, generally to find it was something
> >staring us in the face all the time.
>
> If you mean always backup, I've in general been doing an ERU before and
> after installing new, and also when it's been running well for a while,
> just to mop up little tweaks I may have made. This has rescued me many a
> time; however, it isn't a full backup. If I ever get it sorted, I think
> a full backup with Acronis will be in order.
> >
> > ANYWAY, Dependency Walker can generally be used effectively to find the
> >issue [its basically a generic 32bit Windows debugger]. TRY just
expanding
> >the installer{s} and running it on the individual files *if* PROFILING
can't
> >find the issues.
>
> I clearly have to do that, though I still think it's the part of the
> _system_ that _handles_ new drivers, rather than the drivers themselves,
> that's fubared.
> >
> > You might want to go into Safe Mode and make sure everything that should
be
> >gone is actually gone [like old programs and drivers]. If it were me, I
> >would also run my trusty registry reviewing program {RegSeeker] and see
what
> >it finds.
>
> I've used the one in EasyCleaner from time to time.
> >
> > You aren't running something like WinPatrol or some other registry or
> >scripting protection program are you? And you did disable anti-virus and
as
> >much else as you could before attempting installation, right..
> >
> Interesting question about scripting. I know I've in the past changed
> the default file association for script files (to Notepad IIRR); I can't
> remember if anything has changed that back, though. The machine on which
> I have this problem is not connected to anything, so I don't have AV
> running all the time on it anyway (I have it there, and scan any new
> executable - or disc - with it).
>
> Sorry, I'm dragging my feet in getting round to dealing with the
> problem, but I have definitely marked your posts as keep for when I do.
> --
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985
MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
> ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
> outdated thoughts on PCs. **
>
> Imagine a world with no hypothetical situations...

[thanatoid]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in
:

> In message >,
> thanatoid > writes:
> []
>>>>FINALLY start using an imaging program a kind company
>>>>provided you with for free...
>>>>
>>> Won't help me restore an image of a system from before I
>>> received it though ... (-:
>>
>>Would have if you didn't take your sweet time installing
>>it, IF you ever did.
>>
> How would using a backup/image program help me restore the
> system to how it was before I received the backup/image
> program? That's what I meant, sorry if not clear.

OK. sorry, read too fast. Anyway, INSTALL IT ALREADY so it
doesn't happen again.

--
"Who knows what the OP is talking about?"
(about thanatoid)

[thanatoid]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in
:

> In message >,
> thanatoid > writes:
> []
>>>>FINALLY start using an imaging program a kind company
>>>>provided you with for free...
>>>>
>>> Won't help me restore an image of a system from before I
>>> received it though ... (-:
>>
>>Would have if you didn't take your sweet time installing
>>it, IF you ever did.
>>
> How would using a backup/image program help me restore the
> system to how it was before I received the backup/image
> program? That's what I meant, sorry if not clear.

OK. sorry, read too fast. Anyway, INSTALL IT ALREADY so it
doesn't happen again.

--
"Who knows what the OP is talking about?"
(about thanatoid)