What is wrong with WinME?

Regarding mulibooting, I've never ventured in that direction (except for a
bad experience with Ubuntu) - although I did once try (not too successfully)
to run VM on XP Home. (Its incompatible!). Nor do I have SATA/RAID, so can't
really comment on those aspects.

> btw Mart, I feel this is a legitimate offshoot of the original thread,

Perhaps Shane, perhaps not. My view was even with the first of only three
posts by the OP in this thread, LM had come in 'rant' rather than 'reason'
mode. And judging by the amount of flack he's left behind him, I was
probably right. (Seems he's doing similar things in the Win98 groups)

I guess your final paragraph sums it all up. Even your expression 'Common
Sense' was applied in a not too dissimilar context elsewhere.

Mart


"Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle RemoveThis @googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:%23o799vdBJHA.1228@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>I just had "system32\ntoskrnl.exe not found". This is because I made
>another attempt to install Win2K, the way I do everything else, i.e. so
>that my boot manager can then add it and the new OS successfully boot that
>way.
>
> This time I tried adding Win2K by deleting XP then reinstalling it - and
> the boot manager - after Win2K was set up. But it did not work, again, so
> I deleted it, again, and restored XP - and the OS next to it, which I had
> also deleted.
>
> Only this time the 2nd OS got the ID 'partition(1'), which XP had been
> before. However that happened I do not know but this is a regular problem
> in restoring, multibooting - or disk management where you want the SATA
> disk listed before the PATA disk: the way the bios enumerates them is not
> the same as the way XP does, i.e. the bios (probably dependent on the make
> I suppose) lists them in the order they were created, while XP lists them
> in the order they are physically allocated.
>
> XP was 'partition(1)' and the other OS was 'partition(2)', but following
> the restore those were reversed in the bios, but not in the restored
> boot.ini, so I had to edit it to read 'partition(2)' instead of
> 'partition(1)'. Restarted and it booted right away no problem.
>
> The NT6.x partition booted from the off, despite also being reversed.
>
> btw Mart, I feel this is a legitimate offshoot of the original thread,
> since the OP states a good deal about XP being terrible and a reason to
> stick with 9x, apparently based on misunderstood first impressions or
> perhaps 'Common Sense' - which is usually shorthand for 'Completely Wrong
> On Account Of Believing What It Takes To Believe To Shore Up One's
> Comforting Delusions Rather Than What Can Be Seen Clear As Day When You
> Don't Make An Effort To Avoid Doing So'. It is easy to see why the
> shorthand is preferred - unfortunately the original meaning has been lost
> in the mists of living in the past.
>
> P.
>
> Mart wrote:
>> Thanks S - I appreciate your suggestion which sounds like a d**m good
>> idea. (Although in my case it was a failed HDD rather than just a
>> missing file) But I suppose I've veered a bit OT and we are in danger
>> of highjacking LM's thread.
>>
>> Mart
>>
>>
>> "Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle RemoveThis @googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%239tlc4RBJHA.4368@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> My own experience of an XP box (catastrophically) failing to boot
>>>> was when the HDD died - so can't really blame it on XP. But have to
>>>> admit that trying to recover data from an NTFS HDD was "difficult"
>>>> - Soon learnt to use a backup regime after that!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The one most people run into like into a brick wall is the failing
>>> to boot due to the HCL or autochk or NTDETECT or similar not being
>>> found and, usually, in my experience, that is due to an incorrect
>>> boot.ini. And apart from the fact you can correct that via booting
>>> with a BartPE disc - though that is quite a lot of effort to make in
>>> the first place - you can edit boot.ini via BootItNG (unregistered).
>>> Burn one to cd (especially since odds are you won't have a floppy
>>> drive anymore!) and there is no need to update it. With SATA and
>>> RAID (and NT6.x as well as NT5.x) I still use a BING cd from 2006,
>>> and it can be a godsend. Of course, if you make a copy of boot.ini
>>> and leave it in the root you don't even need to edit, just rename.
>>>
>>>
>>> P.
>
>

Mart wrote:
> Regarding mulibooting, I've never ventured in that direction (except
> for a bad experience with Ubuntu) - although I did once try (not too
> successfully) to run VM on XP Home. (Its incompatible!). Nor do I
> have SATA/RAID, so can't really comment on those aspects.

I don't recall how widely I publicised this before but over the years I've
been periodically trialing Linux distros, culminating in last summer when I
ran something like 8 simultaneously. I have concluded that the only one that
seriously challenges Windows is SUSE/openSUSE. Yet it too had too many
errors or too serious a bug and I deleted 10.3. This May's openSUSE 11.0 was
a great improvement - but it is still hampered by the boot
management/partition management that they all are. I just deleted it last
weekend. Because I'm sick of it insisting a Primary partition is an
Extended, Logical partition - and changing it to such if you don't stop it -
and proposing - entirely unnecessarily - to resize an actual Logical
partition that whether FAT32 or NTFS, is in use and I have already set up
where and how large I want and do not want resized! And if you allow it to
auto-install, it *will* resize that partition without consulting you.
Because like a true Linux type it knows best and cannot even comprehend
that, well, just *maybe* it does not?

Even this, the best of the distros is a pita to install - or to restore from
a backup - to a multiboot system to co-exist with Windows. Microsoft systems
are good at this; Linux is awful at it - yet the vast army of Linux
apologists think Windows is the problem.

Anyway - if you want to try Linux again, try openSUSE. Possibly it is better
for being produced these days by Novell, who as we know have been in the
business a long time and not as amateurs. They are derided for the deal made
with MS - possibly rightly so. But the problem with the Linux apologists is
what matters to them is drowning out criticism.

Debian and it's derivatives (notably *buntu) are the worse at installing on
a multiboot system. Fedora and Mandriva are lots better, but Mandriva still
has too many bugs though certainly no more than *buntu (all the distros have
lists of bugs in the 'latest release' that run into thousands).

*buntu and Fedora limit far too much what you can do; Fedora because it is
derived from a server system (Red Hat) and *buntu because it is aimed at the
inexpert user, so they are no good for a 'power user' - in the same way that
XP Pro is more suited than XP Home.

>
>> btw Mart, I feel this is a legitimate offshoot of the original
>> thread,
>
> Perhaps Shane, perhaps not. My view was even with the first of only
> three posts by the OP in this thread, LM had come in 'rant' rather
> than 'reason' mode. And judging by the amount of flack he's left
> behind him, I was probably right. (Seems he's doing similar things in
> the Win98 groups)

Oh, really.

Well, I do feel such ill-informed diatribes need to be corrected for the
sake of others who have heard something like it and would possibly take it
as the reinforcement that finally tips their scales.

> I guess your final paragraph sums it all up. Even your expression
> 'Common Sense' was applied in a not too dissimilar context elsewhere.

I'm well used to the notion of 'Common Sense' being more of an effort
to defend long-held misconceptions than to arrive at any sort of truth. It
is something of a hobbyhorse. Probably began when reading Quantum Physics
and dropping acid.

P.

I did <g> if you remember I put XP on that WinME machine I have and was
multibooting quite happily for quite a while.
The only reason it didn't last is that I don't like anyone touching my
machine so wanted one all to myself <g> I can't help being selfish <g>
It's a good job as John is very good at screwing up the machines so at least
he can't do it to mine <g>
I kept that XP machine going for years without problems or nasties getting
in John has it a couple of weeks and gets hit with Antivirus 2008, just
after that conversation Mike where he said he was working on it, do you
remember <vbg>

--
Joan Archer
http://www.freewebs.com/crossstitcher
http://lachsoft.com/photogallery

"Mart" <mart(NoSpam)@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:uVewHfeBJHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Regarding mulibooting, I've never ventured in that direction (except for a
> bad experience with Ubuntu) - although I did once try (not too
> successfully) to run VM on XP Home. (Its incompatible!). Nor do I have
> SATA/RAID, so can't really comment on those aspects.
>

Should have known, sorry about that, Pogle.

Harry.


"Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle.RemoveThis@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:ulJW4ubBJHA.3496@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> webster72n wrote:
> > How about trying this link:
> >
> >
http://www.freedownloadscenter.com/Utilities/Misc__Utilities/Acronis_T..._Image.
> >
> > It says 'free download', but I didn't test it myself.
> > Let us know either way, please.
> >
>
> It says "Shareware / $49.50"
>
>
> P.
>
>

webster72n wrote:
> It just may sound complicated or confusing only to me and my remark
> was aimed at a simpler solution, that's all.

But what I want to know is 'a simpler solution' to what? What is it you want
to do?

> As you explained, your given details were meant for advanced or
> expert users and I am neither one of those.

Rather it was meant for the person who was making claims verging on the
wildly inaccurate. To be so comprehensively wrong after seven years in which
to learn some facts, does not auger at all well for the chances of getting
an informed dialogue.

> Therefore I shall respectfully resign.
> Hopefully letterman encountered the information needed to solve his
> problem.
>
Well, as I understood it, he wanted to know what was wrong with WinME, if
anything. Then he made a series of statements about XP and Vista and modern
computers, whose only virtue that I could see was an impressive level of
intolerance. But my response was, as I tend to respond to posts that imply
that if proven wrong the author will take another chance on whatever it is
he or she has been rubbishing, tending towards tips and suggestions - in
this case for running XP.


P.

"Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle.TakeThisOut@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:uOwUMLlBJHA.1228@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> webster72n wrote:
> > It just may sound complicated or confusing only to me and my remark
> > was aimed at a simpler solution, that's all.
>
> But what I want to know is 'a simpler solution' to what? What is it you
want
> to do?

I was referring to your layout and the actions involved.
This guy doesn't want to do anything too complicated on his machine.
I like it the way it's running and whenever changes have to be made, they
must be plausible to me - and safe. Along the way I'm always trying to
learn.
Otherwise: no hard feelings. <H>.

>
> > As you explained, your given details were meant for advanced or
> > expert users and I am neither one of those.
>
> Rather it was meant for the person who was making claims verging on the
> wildly inaccurate. To be so comprehensively wrong after seven years in
which
> to learn some facts, does not auger at all well for the chances of getting
> an informed dialogue.
>
> > Therefore I shall respectfully resign.
> > Hopefully letterman encountered the information needed to solve his
> > problem.
> >
> Well, as I understood it, he wanted to know what was wrong with WinME, if
> anything. Then he made a series of statements about XP and Vista and
modern
> computers, whose only virtue that I could see was an impressive level of
> intolerance. But my response was, as I tend to respond to posts that imply
> that if proven wrong the author will take another chance on whatever it is
> he or she has been rubbishing, tending towards tips and suggestions - in
> this case for running XP.
>
>
> P.
>
>