install printer drivers

"J. P. Gilliver" <john.gilliver.DeleteThis@baesystems.com> wrote in
news:48a14ffa$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:

> thanatoid wrote:

<SNIP>

>> 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! []

If you mean the pane, well, for /me/ it is, I can not function
with one pane, but it seems many people are so "accustomed" to
what comes with Windows (I don't know how long it's been since
File Manager was dropped, but even though it was included in W95
and maybe even W98 or 2000, hardly anyone used it) that maybe
the two pane thing is just too difficult for some. After all, "I
have one computer, [usually] one partition [another subject,
sigh...] so WHY would there be /two/ panes?"

Or did you mean something else?

>> (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.

It is only worse in that the unbelievable screen clutter it
shows would instantly eliminate it as anything I would even want
to try. Albeit I find the red pointers to what is what helpful.
(I admit I have not read any of the text - the clutter may be
from cramming ALL the functions into one screen to prove what it
can do - nor have I enlarged the image - if it's possible.)

The current Ghisler screen shot is OK, but it suffers from the
same clutter - although it IS about 1/10 of the clutter in
zabkat. I guess Ghisler wants to show most options visible,
whereas even if you've never used a 2-paner before, shortcuts
become automatic very quickly. Also, he is even showing the FTP
connection (IMHO one of the very few unnecessary extras the
program has - there are SO many free FTP programs), and a bunch
of other things which just clutter it up. Not to mention the
godawful XP style box.

(The good thing is he has just released 7.04a as a successor to
7.02a - which I had installed and went back to 6.55 because he
gave it too much of an XP look: just the mere icons for the
drives were bugging me. The latest version seems to compromise
between the old simple rectangular drive icon and the new
horror, IOW /may/ be very slightly rounded but they are smaller
and the color is less offensive. Also, there actually ARE 2 or 3
new features that are worthwhile. [Of course, I still have not
learned of all the original features. Astounding program.])

FWIW, all I have on /my/ TC screen are the drive boxes (which I
should probably take out since I have them all shortcutted
anyway, along with the most important directories) and one line
above each pane which tells me the used/free space on that
partition. I /do/ have the status bar on at the bottom - it is
quite essential to everyday operations (shows # of files or dirs
selected, their sizes, etc.)

This is /not/ the picture I was referring to, in any case.
Several years ago he had a different screenshot on the main
page, which was about the size of zabkat's screenshot, and also
showed most options enabled, but also had an absolutely /horrid/
color scheme.

After playing with colors for quite a few years when I was a wee
lad (said desktop color schemes often eliciting exclamations of
astonishment from co-workers, who did not even know it was
possible to change the colors, or that File Manager existed in
95, for that matter) , I have now gone to an all-grey scheme.
Much nicer.

I used PC Magazine's "DisplaySet" to achieve this, since it is
/considerably/ more comprehensive than the built-in Windows
color schemer, to put it mildly.

>> 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]

Definitely true, but not many. But of course there are things
that can ONLY be done with a mouse no matter how much you'd like
to use the keyboard (although there ARE utilities to replace the
mouse with the arrow keys, they are an even bigger drag (DRAG!
HAAAAR!) than the mouse itself. And tablets are nice for image
retouching etc. I have a really old one.

> I have another interest: computing for the blind.

Hearing that kind of thing makes me feel I am a totally useless
space-wasting creature. But let's not get into personal problems
and lifestyles...

I would assume you have heard of Ray Kurzweil, a true genius,
responsible for a fantastic music synthesizer (since bought by
Kawaii - I believe - as Kurzweil moved on to other interests)
who also made the first ever book-reading machine for the blind.
I have no idea how much it cost, but I know that Stevie Wonder
had one. That was in the late 70's IIRC.

<SNIP>

>> 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.

I still remember the astonishment and bewilderment as my co-
workers saw me use the alt-tab combination... "I did not know
whether to laugh or to cry..."

<SNIP>

>> 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.

I asked and was told in another group - they were VERY helpful -
that XP allows you to install it ALONG with another Win OS,
usually 98 or ME. /And/ it appears XP does /not/ have to be on
C:, where the previous OS obviously resides. And it /appears/
the two can coexist. Once I clean out my other machine's drive,
I may find out. I am still not sure whether it is just temporary
insanity or what.

<SNIP>

> 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.)

Same here. And thanks for the add'l info about XP.

<SNIP>

You mean a microscope whose image is shown on the screen, and it
works with XP out of the box? Surely you MUST have installed
SOME drivers!

(Just read your recent post in the 98 group. Didn't you say it
worked perfectly well in the post I'm replying to? BTW, booting
in "safe mode" and adding drivers 1 by 1 is a nightmare. Just my
opinion. Hope you figure out another way.)

> 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.

Well, so far I have been forced to just junk them. But there has
really been VERY little really innovative written since the
90's, IMO. The old programs are smaller, run faster, have no
bloat, and their authors should be suing the people who are re-
writing them with new names and 30 MB of eye candy and
/occasionally/ some (mostly useless) add'l "features".

Of course, I am just a home user. I'm sure it's a different
story with scientists etc.

>> 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.)

Huh? I just use Micrografx Picture Publisher (I don't do pre-
press for $250 coffee-table books so I don't need Photoshop, and
MPP had multiple undo and other great features YEARS before
Photoshop did).

>> 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:

It already did when I saw shots of it on web pages. Ugh.

I never made the Teletubs connection, but you are /so/ correct.
I saw a few moments of a TT episode once, and it /really/
creeped me out. I don't know WHAT the future generations will be
like, and I don't WANT to know.

> 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 ...)

Well, you MUST have heard this famous quote:
"Let's face it, the average computer user has the brain of a
Spider Monkey." - Bill Gates, about his customers.

>> 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.

So I hear, and so as long as I can make it not look like a 5
year old's (Spider Monkey's?) playroom and /hopefully/ use
Display Set to further customize it (who knows, maybe the
functions ARE in XP already - hidden, as you say), it may not be
so bad. My biggest concern was that some of my main programs
would not run on XP - but if I can keep 98SE, there is obviously
no problem.

>> and "supporting" an OS, THEN is the time to start using it
>>
>
> Are you me (-!?

Heh heh.

> []
>> <SNIP>
>
> (Sorry, that's what my "[]" mean.)

I took me a few minutes but I figured it out. I MUST admit it is
a LOT faster than typing <SNIP>.

(Just added it to my Short Keys list. WHY didn't I do that years
ago?????)

<SNIP>
<SNIP>
<SNIP>
ahhh...

>> 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 doubt I will ever own a digital camera. I did a lot of 35mm
photography when I was in my late teens and 20's, but the last
time I took any photos and enjoyed doing it was about 20 years
ago. I have two 35mm cameras (a $10 Vivitar and a used East-
German Practica SLR with a Japanese 'Takumar' lens which is not
bad at all), but I can not even remember when I last used either
one.

>> 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.

I hate crosswords. I can't even do the National Enquirer ones! I
tried the NYT (or Harper's, or something) crossword once and I
decided my IQ tests results (which have been consistent over the
years and fairly respectable) must be a hallucination.

(Out of curiosity, tried to do one from the Chicago Tribune
yesterday. What a nightmare. It's official - I have become a
moron.)

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

Oh no, I like aliens, but you MUST admit the Japanese culture,
aside from regaling the civilization with the Trinitron and
geishas, has also contributed things like sumo wrestling and
Transformers. On sushi I can go either way depending on the
slime factor

<SNIP>

>> 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.

I think all BIOS's from 95-96 or so onwards can boot from "any"
source, but there's more to it than that. I have my current
image on the HD as well as on CD-R's with all the older ones and
if you reboot from Acronis it will restore the image from the HD
as well - never even entering into DOS - I /assume/ it passes
through the BIOS.

> 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?

Yes, it's come in handy a few times.

> (I've tried a couple of others too - http://www.oldapps.com/

That one was only introduced to me a few months ago and I was
quite disappointed. I find places like Garbo etc. infinitely
richer in nice old stuff.

> Do
> you know the Last Freeware version site, as well
> (http://www.321download.com/)?

Yes. I have links to a bunch of software collection sites (there
are way too many!) but what REALLY annoys me is that they always
have the latest version ONLY, and quite often when it's an older
program, often the DL link is to the author's web site, which in
many cases no longer exists. INFURIATING. But then again, WHO
could keep up?

Here's a nice one if you're not familiar with it:
http://freeware.intrastar.net

> 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.)

I am pretty sure all versions work with 95 (except maybe the
latest) and I am also pretty sure ver 6 and 7 were still
relatively unbloated.

> 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.

I have looked at ERUNT and it was a little confusing, and I
think unnecessary...

What I like about Acronis is that ALL the programs I had to have
to make sure I could salvage my machine when it "went boom" have
gone into retirement.

Anyway, I looked for drive imaging freeware that would run on
any system and here's one I found that looks fairly good. (There
were several free ones but they only run on 2000 and up, VERY
annoying.)

http://www.miray.de/products/sat.hdclone.html

There is also an apparently /fantastic/ freeware image burner
called imgburn. It is not a "disc imager" but I think it could
work as one. I believe it will create bootable discs as many
other CD/DVD burners will do - and with the most enthusiastic
reviews I have /ever/ seen ("THE best freeware program I've ever
used" etc.) this one sounds like it actually works (I tried
about 10 various CD burner programs - most didn't work or were
VERY buggy - and ended up buying the one from
www.goldenhawk.com - it is excellent, but it is $40).

I checked the Acronis site and it is as bloated now as the
latest versions. I was going to offer to post the zip of my
version along with the serial in some binaries group for you,
but there are a few "problems" associated with doing this. I
wrote to Acronis to see if they'll give me another license
number "for a friend" so we'll see what they say.


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

(I think I chose a good name for this thread - I suspect it will run and
run, even if mostly with the two of us!)

In message <Xns9AFDC7C32F77thanexit.TakeThisOut@66.250.146.158>, thanatoid
<waiting.TakeThisOut@the.exit.invalid> writes
[]
>File Manager was dropped, but even though it was included in W95
>and maybe even W98 or 2000, hardly anyone used it) that maybe

I _think_ it was still stuck with 8.3 filenames. (Which reminds me: at
least the file load/save window in 3.x was a bit more intuitive. The
file load and save windows, in '9x and beyond, present "where you are"
in a way that's _so_ different from how Explorer does [and how I
visualise things], that I have considerable trouble with at least two
friends who are new to computing [well, several years now actually], in
explaining how to navigate these windows, whereas he's just about
understanding Explorer.)

>the two pane thing is just too difficult for some. After all, "I
>have one computer, [usually] one partition [another subject,
>sigh...] so WHY would there be /two/ panes?"

I use several partitions, too (I assume that's what you are signing
about) ...
[]
>It is only worse in that the unbelievable screen clutter it
>shows would instantly eliminate it as anything I would even want
>to try. Albeit I find the red pointers to what is what helpful.

Agreed on that last point.
[much about TC]
>This is /not/ the picture I was referring to, in any case.
>Several years ago he had a different screenshot on the main
>page, which was about the size of zabkat's screenshot, and also
>showed most options enabled, but also had an absolutely /horrid/
>color scheme.

I fear I soldier on with Explorer (sometimes two instances). I'm sure
both TC and explorer2 or whatever zabkat's one is called (and which I
already have) are much better; it's just a matter of the time needed to
learn any new prog., versus the time that will be saved by using it
after I've done so. (And, you and I may - almost certainly do - do
different things.)
>
>After playing with colors for quite a few years when I was a wee
>lad (said desktop color schemes often eliciting exclamations of
>astonishment from co-workers, who did not even know it was

I think I have the defaults, other than cyan instead of white for
backgrounds; this does elicit some comments, though I don't think any
for a couple of years.
[]
>> I have another interest: computing for the blind.
>
>Hearing that kind of thing makes me feel I am a totally useless
>space-wasting creature. But let's not get into personal problems
>and lifestyles...

Oh, I don't actually _produce_ anything, I'm just interested in the
subject. I do have a blind couple (in their fifties, but very young at
heart, as is often the case I've found) who are friends, and I observe
with interest their experiences; I've helped them out a lot, but not
written any of the software they use (in fact I've done very little
programming for decades [other than VHDL which is a very different
matter, and that not for a few years]); my help has been in building,
installing, and so on, and also describing.
>
>I would assume you have heard of Ray Kurzweil, a true genius,
>responsible for a fantastic music synthesizer (since bought by
>Kawaii - I believe - as Kurzweil moved on to other interests)
>who also made the first ever book-reading machine for the blind.
>I have no idea how much it cost, but I know that Stevie Wonder
>had one. That was in the late 70's IIRC.

I didn't know the Ray part, or in fact that it was an individual, or the
music bit; I was aware of the concept of "a Kurzweill machine", as a
stand-alone scanner/speech synthesizer, which apparently was in some
public libraries (very few in this country, I think). Of course now
scanning and OCR are functions of most PCs, and in fact the OCR that
comes free with scanners these days really isn't bad (though the ability
to read light-text-on-dark arrived quite late in the day, and may still
not be in some of the free ones); having attended a few exhibitions with
my friends, I know that stand-alone scanners still exist (not everybody
can use or even wants to a computer), though these days they tend to be
about the size of a large A4 flatbed scanner only (though somewhat
deeper), rather than the big-photocopier-like thing I saw telly coverage
of when I first became aware of the Kurzweills.
[]
>I still remember the astonishment and bewilderment as my co-
>workers saw me use the alt-tab combination... "I did not know
>whether to laugh or to cry..."

I must admit that there's an add-on to Alt-Tab in XP (Microsoft produced
but not official - bit like TweakUI, in fact I think it is called a
powertoy) which I like, which gives you a miniaturised screenshot of the
tasks you're switching through rather than just an icon - useful if
you've got more than one instance of the same thing running. (The Vista
alt-tab is way over the top - a sort of 3d thing a bit like a
pharmacist's rolling cupboard ...)
[]
>I asked and was told in another group - they were VERY helpful -
>that XP allows you to install it ALONG with another Win OS,
>usually 98 or ME. /And/ it appears XP does /not/ have to be on

That is my understanding too. However (and this may depend on the
version of XP, and/or what you answer at various points), if you just
try to install it, it _does_ take over; I'm not sure what you have to do
to force it to be (a) boot-menuable (b) on other than C: - if you find
out, please share.
[]
>You mean a microscope whose image is shown on the screen, and it
>works with XP out of the box? Surely you MUST have installed
>SOME drivers!

No - if you think about it, a microscope is just a camera as far as the
OS is concerned - at least a cheap one like this one is, there's no
software control of magnification, focusing, or lighting, those are all
just switches/knobs on the body. XP has basic interfacing with
(web)cameras built in. I can't remember if it just popped up a preview
screen after connection or if I had to start from a TWAIN-compliant app.
(in my case IrfanView but I lent it to a colleague who just used the
built-in - and not bad - image software).
>
>(Just read your recent post in the 98 group. Didn't you say it
>worked perfectly well in the post I'm replying to? BTW, booting

The microscope worked fine under XP; is it the microscope you're
referring to?

>in "safe mode" and adding drivers 1 by 1 is a nightmare. Just my
>opinion. Hope you figure out another way.)

Yes, especially since I don't think it is the driver as such that is at
fault.
>
>> 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.
>
>Well, so far I have been forced to just junk them. But there has

What, you've bought hardware and chucked it?

>really been VERY little really innovative written since the
>90's, IMO. The old programs are smaller, run faster, have no
>bloat, and their authors should be suing the people who are re-
>writing them with new names and 30 MB of eye candy and
>/occasionally/ some (mostly useless) add'l "features".

Well, things to do with video _are_ better, I think.
>
>Of course, I am just a home user. I'm sure it's a different
>story with scientists etc.

If you mean those who use computers as part of their work (for other
than general "office" tasks), I don't know that a lot of them use
Windows at all, other than in some cases as a front end.
>
>>> 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.)
>
>Huh? I just use Micrografx Picture Publisher (I don't do pre-
>press for $250 coffee-table books so I don't need Photoshop, and
>MPP had multiple undo and other great features YEARS before
>Photoshop did).

I just meant that the wallpaper-changer I use is Panorama 32
(http://www.ivory.org/oldwebsite/panorama.html).
[]
>I never made the Teletubs connection, but you are /so/ correct.
>I saw a few moments of a TT episode once, and it /really/
>creeped me out. I don't know WHAT the future generations will be
>like, and I don't WANT to know.

British children's TV has a long history of being surreal, and
(allegedly - though I think unintentionally) subversive. From the
flowerpot men, through the Magic Roundabout (a French or Belgian puppet
series, perfectly ordinary in the original; however, the chap who put
English words to it didn't speak that language, so made up his own
storylines, which were a bit - other. Eric Thompson, father of actress
Emma).
[]
>Well, you MUST have heard this famous quote:
>"Let's face it, the average computer user has the brain of a
>Spider Monkey." - Bill Gates, about his customers.

To be fair, he's probably right. I think he gets a bad press: I'm fairly
sure he was a good software engineer in the early days - my first
computer (which I built myself, really built with a soldering iron),
with its 8K of memory, had a Microsoft BASIC, as did many other home
computers of that period. I think a lot of what Bill himself gets
accused of is largely due to what Microsoft has become - plus, he has
handed over control for a lot of things (I don't just mean to do with
his recent "retirement"), in a way with which I can sympathise as I get
older. He's made some fine howlers too of course (the 640K one is
oft-quoted, though usually out of context) - but haven't we all?
[]
>So I hear, and so as long as I can make it not look like a 5
>year old's (Spider Monkey's?) playroom and /hopefully/ use
>Display Set to further customize it (who knows, maybe the
>functions ARE in XP already - hidden, as you say), it may not be
>so bad. My biggest concern was that some of my main programs
>would not run on XP - but if I can keep 98SE, there is obviously
>no problem.

Well, I don't think they can co-exist to _that_ extent - I think it's a
boot choice, i. e. you're running one or the other. But as I said in an
earlier post, _I_ haven't found anything that I still actually want to
use that won't run under XP (even Xtree, in as much as it ran under '9x
[i. e. no long filenames], which even works with external drives like
pen drives and so on).
[]
><SNIP>
><SNIP>
><SNIP>
>ahhh...
>
>>> 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 doubt I will ever own a digital camera. I did a lot of 35mm
>photography when I was in my late teens and 20's, but the last
>time I took any photos and enjoyed doing it was about 20 years

Do get a cheap one and play a bit - the enjoyment comes back, enhanced
by (a) instant review (within the limits of the display) and (b) no
worries about the cost of film. Oh, and unless you're going to print
things out on A4, don't use maximum resolution all the time! I still use
my old - and first, really - Fuji 0.8 megapixel one, and most of the
time don't feel the need for anything else. (After all, how many
megapixels does my graphics card produce, and that's where I'll look at
them most of the time.)

>ago. I have two 35mm cameras (a $10 Vivitar and a used East-
>German Practica SLR with a Japanese 'Takumar' lens which is not
>bad at all), but I can not even remember when I last used either
>one.
Ah, the old M42 screw thread lenses - you could get excellent ones for a
song, because everyone wanted bayonet fittings. I still have my old
Zenit [Russian, I think; very heavy!], though like you haven't used it
in anger for years. (I do use the digital - it's just a point-and-shoot,
no zoom or anything [and IGNORE digital zoom] - a fair bit, though.)
>
>>> I once spent about 15 seconds trying to comprehend the
>>> principle behind Sudoku and what pleasure can be gained
[]
>I hate crosswords. I can't even do the National Enquirer ones! I

I take it that's general knowledge rather than cryptic.
[]
>(Out of curiosity, tried to do one from the Chicago Tribune
>yesterday. What a nightmare. It's official - I have become a
>moron.)

No, you just have better things to do with your mind/time (-:!
[Acronis etc.]
>> Does imply a BIOS that can boot from CD.
>
>I think all BIOS's from 95-96 or so onwards can boot from "any"
>source, but there's more to it than that. I have my current

Hmm, I thought it was a bit later than that that it became universal
(for example, I'm pretty sure the '98 CD isn't self-booting), but you
could be right.

>image on the HD as well as on CD-R's with all the older ones and
>if you reboot from Acronis it will restore the image from the HD
>as well - never even entering into DOS - I /assume/ it passes
>through the BIOS.

Ah, can it make a floppy version of itself (to use an HD backup)?
Realistically, unless it uses some fiendish compression/encryption
algorithm (for which I can see no justification), it doesn't actually
[]
>> Do
>> you know the Last Freeware version site, as well
>> (http://www.321download.com/)?
>
>Yes. I have links to a bunch of software collection sites (there
>are way too many!) but what REALLY annoys me is that they always
>have the latest version ONLY, and quite often when it's an older

Indeed. That's why I like oldversion and LastFreewareVersion.
(Incidentally, I have somewhere copies of Windows 1 and 2, though I've
never played with them, and Netscape 0.9, which I remember actually
using. Oh, and an early Word, too [I normally use Word 97 Burgundy].)

>program, often the DL link is to the author's web site, which in
>many cases no longer exists. INFURIATING. But then again, WHO
>could keep up?

Indeed.
>
>Here's a nice one if you're not familiar with it:
>http://freeware.intrastar.net

Hmm. Your post pinned as "keep".
[]
>I am pretty sure all versions work with 95 (except maybe the
>latest) and I am also pretty sure ver 6 and 7 were still
>relatively unbloated.

(Acronis)
>
>> 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.
>
>I have looked at ERUNT and it was a little confusing, and I
>think unnecessary...

Hmm - you've probably never used ERU/ERD, then. Although not a full
backup by any means, it _does_ backup about a dozen files - including
the registry - and is much quicker to restore from than any full backup
could be, since it only restores those files; I've quite often used it
to restore machines that wouldn't even go into Windows, or did so but
with some infuriating quirk, including an endless rebooting loop.
Basically, you just run it from a working system, tell it where to put
the saved files (it asks; if I was doing it now on this machine, I'd
specify C:\ERD\20080817.000 - keeping to 8.3 filenames of course, though
it doesn't force you to). If I then wanted to restore to how it is now,
I'd start up in DOS, navigate to that directory, and type erd, and it
would restore things. (It puts a little executable with the saved
files.) If you haven't used it, try it, it won't break anything
(assuming you've got a '95 disc - I'm not sure it's on the '98 one).
>
>What I like about Acronis is that ALL the programs I had to have
>to make sure I could salvage my machine when it "went boom" have
>gone into retirement.

)-:
>
>Anyway, I looked for drive imaging freeware that would run on
>any system and here's one I found that looks fairly good. (There
>were several free ones but they only run on 2000 and up, VERY
>annoying.)
>
>http://www.miray.de/products/sat.hdclone.html

As I say, posting marked for keeping ... it's always the restore side
that concerns me. I may have a look.
[]
--
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.