install printer drivers

"J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver.RemoveThis@baesystems.com> wrote in
news:486e43e9$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:

> thanatoid wrote:
>> "mc" <wcwall.awm.RemoveThis@verizon.net> wrote in
>> news:ePXsK5HpIHA.4884@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:
> []
>> Also, you are making a big mistake by reinstalling Win95A.
>> Win 95B or C was ALMOST Win 98 (without the stupid IE
>> "integration"/Active Desktop) and is vastly superior. You
>> can fdisk with FAT32, to begin with. You can get 95B/C
>> from a warez group (even the floppy version!) or at a
>> garage sale or eBay - if you think MS cares and/or were
>> harshly toilet-trained.
> []
> Equally, if you actually install '98 but via (or modify it
> afterwards by using) 98lite, this will give you the
> opportuinity to use the '95 shell (thus much faster, as it
> doesn't have the eye candy and so on), but with most of the
> extra robustness, and some things like USB, that come with
> '98. (You can get rid of IE too - altogether if you wish.)

Since the OP was talking about 95A (and because I get lazy), I
did not bother getting into 98SE, let alone Lite.

I have been a happy user of 98SE Lite for about 4 years, since I
got a second computer for audio conversions etc. It was a used
but very clean 2GHz machine which originally had XP on it. It
came with a wiped "factory-new condition" (I tested it) Maxtor
drive on which I installed the aforementioned 98SE Lite. I left
IE in because it is necessary to read chm files, but that
machine is not even connected to the internet, so no IE
"problems"

My internet machine (this one) is a 10.5 year old 166 w/ 96MB
RAM running highly tweaked 95B. It boots in less than 45 seconds
and never crashes. Take that, Vista.


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

thanatoid wrote:
[]
> Since the OP was talking about 95A (and because I get lazy), I
> did not bother getting into 98SE, let alone Lite.
>
> I have been a happy user of 98SE Lite for about 4 years, since I

Nice to meet another fan; lite seems to be viewed somewhat suspiciously in
at least one of the '98 'groups.
[]
> drive on which I installed the aforementioned 98SE Lite. I left
> IE in because it is necessary to read chm files, but that

If those are HTML-style help files, then you don't need the full IE - just
it's "rendering engine" (which I think is a couple of .dll files). I can't
remember the details though, nor where I learnt this.

> machine is not even connected to the internet, so no IE
> "problems"
>
> My internet machine (this one) is a 10.5 year old 166 w/ 96MB
> RAM running highly tweaked 95B. It boots in less than 45 seconds
> and never crashes. Take that, Vista.

My internet machine is a 400MHz laptop w/128M running highly tweaked
98lite - it does most of what I want, fairly reliably - _rarely_ crashes.
The assorted spoilsports keep making things difficult for we '9x fans,
though (mainly by withdrawing support in new versions of things).
--
J. P. Gilliver | Tel. +44 1634 203298

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<SNIP>

> Ah, misunderstanding there.

<SNIP>

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

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

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

<SNIP>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, you DO have a point there

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

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

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

<SNIP>

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

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

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

Small is beautiful.

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

Regards,
t.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Panorama? (Works under XP by the way.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does imply a BIOS that can boot from CD.

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

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

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

Nor would I.

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