Check if path + filename exceeds 255 chars

[sp_mc...@yahoo.com]

Hi. A post with a similar name was started in this group a year or so
back, but I thought I'd put this in a new thread... I recently setup a
dedicated hard drive for making regular backups for a large number of
files (well, over 20gb anyways). The computer is currently running
Win2k, and will soon use XP. The main drive and the backup drive are
formatted using NTFS. The first time I tried to copy my files to the
backup drive, I got an error:

"Error Copying File or Folder" - "Cannot copy file: The filename you
specified is invalid or too long. Specify a different filename."

Since the copy window itself was still showing the last filename, it
was obvious which files were causing problems. However, manually
changing each offending file would be a complete pain -- it sometimes
took 20 minutes for an error to come up. Then, the WHOLE copy process
was aborted, and I'd have to fix that one file, and then try again.
With hundreds of offending files (or more), this could have taken
weeks.

None of the offending files had invalid characters anywhere in their
paths. Also, none of the filenames were long at all. It was purely the
*LENGTH* of the *PATH* that was causing problems... There were lots of
nested folders. So of course I started searching about the issue on
google... It kind of pissed me off that Windows would let me *create*
files whose paths were so long (no warnings in Win2k), but would then
choke up on copying them.

I found that this was a known issue. NTFS can handle *VERY* long path
names using special Unicode based file access methods. However, many
programs (including some operating system routines -- apparently the
explorer COPY routine!) still use methods which limit the path length
to 260 characters (includes a trailing null termination). Lots of
people were having problems *deleting* files whose path lengths were
too long. And of course, some people had the same problem as me --
making backups.

Anyways, since making these backups was really important to me, I spent
half a day trying to figure out a good solution... I thought I'd post
my results here. Hopefully it'll help someone down the line !!

**********
**********
TO FIND FILES WHOSE PATH LENGTH IS VERY LONG
**********
**********

There are some utilities which automatically *rename* files whose
*filenames* are very long. These are mostly used for people who want to
burn a folder onto a CD using ISO 9660 or some similar standard. I
didn't want something like that. I wanted a way to simply get a *LIST*
of all the files whose *path* names were greater than 260 characters
(259 if the null termination character is excluded). Then I can
manually go down the list and rename any offending files. I know it's
tedious, but I don't want some program lopping off parts of my file and
folder names according to some arbitrary rules. Especially when web
pages are involved... In reality, I only found one program that *could*
do that if I wanted it to, so it's a non-issue.

About the last comment: While I found lots of programs to list files
with long filenames, most of them ignored the complete path name. This
was the number-one feature I was looking for...

The methods and programs/utilities I found on the web are listed below:

Method 1 - dir to find offending files
----------

Except for really young people, I think even most non-techie people
have used the "dir" command in DOS at one time or another. It provides
a really easy way to solve this particular problem, but for some
reason, I would never have thought of it if someone else hadn't
suggested using it.

You can just use some parameters to force it to output *only* the path
+ filename + extension, one per line. You also (probably) want it to
traverse all subdirectories on a given hard drive. And of course, you
want to pipe the output to a file, rather than displaying it on the
screen. Once you have this file (and this method takes only a second),
you can use whatever method you like to search for lines containing
more than 255 (or however many) characters.

Method 1a - example
----------

dir c:\ /s /b | sort /+256 /r > LongName.txt

Type that into a command prompt, then open up LongName.txt in your
favorite text editor. It will contain a list of all the files on your
hard drive (as typed above, c:\ only), sorted by the length of their
path names. If you want, you can just manually count the number of
characters per line, and see which ones are greater than 259
characters. Or, use a nice text file utility to do the counting for
you.

Method 1b - dir using SED
----------

Same as above, but using a standardized library called "SED" for
post-processing. Credit goes to Bjorn Simonsen. Use the following batch
script:

VLFN.cmd (or VLFN.BAT, works the same)
<--------------cut below ------------->
IF EXIST max_path_warning.txt DEL max_path_warning.txt
pause
DIR c: d: /B /S | SED -n '/^.\{255\}/p' >>max_path_warning.txt
START max_path_warning.txt
<--------------cut above ------------->

The "pause" line can be removed, and you might have to fiddle with
single quotes versus double quotes.

You need to download SED from one of the following:
http://www.student.northpark.edu/pemente/sed/
http://sed.sourceforge.net/

Method 1c - dir using gawk
----------

Type the following in a command prompt:

dir /b /s | gawk "{if (length($0) > 255) print $0 \" (\" length($0) \"
chars)\"}" > longfiles.txt

You need to have a Windows version of gawk installed (search google).

Method 1d - dir using other utilities
----------

Other utilities:
- ORTXL from http://home.mnet-online.de/horst.muc/
- SPF, SPFPC

Method 2 - CutLongNames.exe to find offending files
----------

I put this in it's own category because it's the ***ONLY*** premade
user-friendly utility I could find to do the job. I searched for half a
day and didn't find any alternatives that actually did what I needed.

There are lots of utilities that find *filenames* longer than 255 (or
however many) characters. A lot of them will even automatically rename
such files according some rule. But I didn't find anything that worked
for long *path* names. This does. It's free too (some of their other
software, like "Useful File Utilities," is not free, but this one
is)...

http://www.replsoft.com/cutlongnames.html

The biggest feature it lacks is the ability to search *only* a specific
folder. This program only lets you search entire drives. It's still
very useful. You can map a folder to a virtual drive letter if you
really want to search only a specific folder (see "net use" command).
Also, it would be nice if the program could save a list of the
offending files to a txt file.

Method 3 - Other utilities to find offending files
----------

Some utilities that can search for long *filenames* (but maybe not
*path* names):

- Siren
- The Renamer
- Multirename
- 1-4a Rename
- DCSoft Long Filename Finder

I haven't personally tried these ones, I found the names in a newsgroup
post from alt.comp.freeware (great thread!!) You could probably find a
whole slew more from download.com or a google search...

Method 4 - Scandisk ???
----------

I have no idea if this works. If you're running Win9x with a FAT32
drive, maybe you can use scandisk to find files whose pathnames are too
long. I don't know if the problem even **exists** for FAT32 drives...
Can you even create a file with such a long pathname on FAT32???

As far as similar utilities for Win2k, XP, etc: I've heard that chkdsk
does *not* offer any help.

Method 5
----------

This seems to be made just for filenames, but I included it anyway.
Credit goes to "Pegasus (MVP)":

Batch file:

@echo off
setlocal EnableDelayedExpansion
for %%a in (*.*) do (
set name=%cd%%%a
if not "!name:~253,1!"=="" echo Excessively long name: %%a
)
endlocal

If you run this batch file from your the folder to be
examined then it will flag excessively long file names.
Note that it won't process files names that contain
certain special symbols such & (e.g. P&Q.txt).

**********
**********
TO COPY FILES WHOSE PATH LENGTH IS VERY LONG
**********
**********

If you want to be stubborn and try to keep the files as they are, or if
you don't have permission to rename other people's files, these methods
might still let you make a backup...

Method 1
----------

Use a special (proprietary) backup program.

Method 2
----------
Use a zip/rar program, and save the archive to the backup drive.

Method 3 - Copy utilities which even copy offending files, or at least
skip them
----------

The standard windows copy completely aborts when it encounters a file
whose pathname is too long. If you're doing a huge copy (like backups),
you might have to wait 20 minutes before getting an error, then have to
start all over again. There is no "skip and continue" option. The
following programs may either skip offending files, or possibly even
manage to copy them (still have to try):

- xxcopy
- robocopy
- ZTree Bold
- KillCopy
- LBACK

Method 3a - using xcopy
----------

Found this snippet from a forum posting, credit goes to "CrazyOne":

xcopy /e/h/k/c/y/r C:\*.* D:\ >C:\WinCopy.txt 2>&1

C is the source drive and D is the destination drive. If your letters
don't correspond to these then use the appropriate letters.

The above command will write to a text file and in it you will see
which files it did not copy. This does not mean they are all files with
invalid lengths but you can at least check them out.
xcopy /e/h/k/c/y/r C:\*.* D:\ >C:\WinCopy.txt 2>&1

C is the source drive and D is the destination drive. If your letters
don't correspond to these then use the appropriate letters.

The above command will write to a text file and in it you will see
which files it did not copy. This does not mean they are all files with
invalid lengths but you can at least check them out.

**********
**********
TO DELETE FILES WHOSE PATH LENGTH IS VERY LONG
**********
**********

Method 1 - Map deep directories to a virtual drive letter
----------

I believe you can do this with the "net use" command, but I haven't
looked into this much. There are lots of freeware utilities which do
this, search download.com. You might need to do this, for example, to
delete a temporary file or an IE favorite (sometimes web page titles
can be excessively long).

Method 2
----------

Use the command line to delete the offending file(s), using short
filenames (8.3) if needed.

[rjulia...@gmail.com]

Excellent! Thank you!!

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <f3a5ab07-79cf-489d...@googlegroups.com>,

rjulia...@gmail.com writes:
>On Saturday, January 13, 2007 10:23:17 PM UTC, sp_mc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Hi. A post with a similar name was started in this group a year or so
>> back, but I thought I'd put this in a new thread... I recently setup a

[]

>> Same as above, but using a standardized library called "SED" for
>> post-processing. Credit goes to Bjorn Simonsen. Use the following batch
>> script:
>>
>> VLFN.cmd (or VLFN.BAT, works the same)
>> <--------------cut below ------------->
>> IF EXIST max_path_warning.txt DEL max_path_warning.txt
>> pause
>> DIR c: d: /B /S | SED -n '/^.\{255\}/p' >>max_path_warning.txt
>> START max_path_warning.txt
>> <--------------cut above ------------->

(There's no need to make a batch file, as far as I can see: the DIR
command is the important bit. The rest just deletes the log file if it
exists before starting, and then opens it after finishing.)
[]

>> Method 1 - Map deep directories to a virtual drive letter
>> ----------
>>
>> I believe you can do this with the "net use" command, but I haven't
>> looked into this much. There are lots of freeware utilities which do

[]
The SUBST command works well under XP, too (I use it for a mirror of my
website).

>Excellent! Thank you!!

Seconded; thanks for reposting what looks like a most useful article.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

... the pleasure of the mind is an amazing thing. My life has been driven by
the satisfaction of curiosity. - Jeremy Paxman (being interviewed by Anne
Widdecombe), Radio Times, 2-8 July 2011.

[dabangg...@gmail.com]

thanks for the info.,you could also try long path tool. it helped me with error 1320 in Win 7. ricktor

[rlwa...@gmail.com]

I'm an old DOS expert (truly) and I NEVER thought of using the DIR and SORT commands to do this job. THANK YOU.
When Microsoft doesn't care (and they don't) it is nice to find people who can and will provide a helping hand when one is needed.
This problem was a booger.

[gito...@gmail.com]

Thanks for your comprehensive post and I can say that scanning a NAS drive containing a couple hundred thousand files http://www.replsoft.com/cutlongnames.html was the ideal solution. Saved me from a massive headache.

Why Windows allows creation of such files with no utility to identify them is beyond me.

Greg

[cas...@home.com]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:05:01 -0700 (PDT), gito...@gmail.com wrote:

>>
>> Method 1 - Map deep directories to a virtual drive letter
>> ----------
>>
>> I believe you can do this with the "net use" command, but I haven't
>> looked into this much. There are lots of freeware utilities which do
>> this, search download.com. You might need to do this, for example, to
>> delete a temporary file or an IE favorite (sometimes web page titles
>> can be excessively long).
>>
>>
>> Method 2
>> ----------
>>
>> Use the command line to delete the offending file(s), using short
>> filenames (8.3) if needed.

I snipped most of this because of AIOE's limits on quotes, but this is
real helpful info. I have used the dos command dir > filemane.txt to
create text lists of files and using certain /x addons to it, it is
possible to make a text file of every file in a partition. I;ve done
this to simplify locating duplicate files, because I can use the
"search" feature in notepad (or other text editor) to search for a
specific filename. But I never thought of doing this...... I'm saving
this message as a reference.

One of the biggest offenders for excessively long files is by saving web
pages, using the "Save as" in a browser. Some web pages have
ridiculously long names. This used to be the #1 offender causing my
file copy backups to quit and fail. Since that happened, I look at the
filenames of websites when I save them, and rename them to shorten them.
For example, Wikipedia always puts "Wikipedia the free encyclopedia" at
the end of every site. I dont need that..... it says "Wikipedia" inside
the saved site anyhow. So I clip off that part of the filename.
Youtube tends to have some extremely long names too, so if I save a
video, I check the name before hitting the "save" button. Another tip
is to avoid extremely long chains of folders inside of folders, inside
of folders.

I agree that MS should have not allowed this to happen, by simply
clipping off anything that exceeded the limit. The one thing I never
understood, is why there is a limit anyhow? What's the point or purpose
of setting a limit of 255 characters? I still dont understand why????

[Mayayana]

| I agree that MS should have not allowed this to happen, by simply
| clipping off anything that exceeded the limit. The one thing I never
| understood, is why there is a limit anyhow? What's the point or purpose
| of setting a limit of 255 characters? I still dont understand why????
|

There are lots of limits that seemed to make sense at
the time. The 2 bedroom house seems perfect until you
end up having 3 kids. 16-bit OSs were plenty until they
weren't. Likewise with 32-bit OSs.

The limit in Explorer is actually something like 248
characters, even though the standard value used in
programming is 260. On the bright side, it's not really
a limitation. If one puts a little effort into organizing
data so that it can be found later then there's no
reason to have excessively long file paths.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <lj8ebj$r3a$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<maya...@invalid.nospam> writes

The main problems I've found are:
1. When I've saved a website as html (and also probably htm). Some
websites have horrendously long URLs.
2. When I've moved folders into subfolders, and those subfolders into
sub-subfolders (etc).
--
Ian

[cas...@home.com]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:47:19 +0100, Ian Jackson
<ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>
>The main problems I've found are:
>1. When I've saved a website as html (and also probably htm). Some
>websites have horrendously long URLs.
>2. When I've moved folders into subfolders, and those subfolders into
>sub-subfolders (etc).
>--
>Ian

I agree, and I often wonder why some websites have to be so long. I've
tried to post weblinks on a newsgroup and it can totally blow up (not
literally) my newsreader. Meaning the line length wont post. But if
broken up to something like 70 characters per line, they may consume 5
or 6 lines (6 lines of 70 char = 420 char). Thank (someone) we have
TINYURL.com

I'd like to find some sort of utility program that would list the line
lenghts (including the folders) of everything on my computer, or do it
by individual folders. At least with some such utility, I'd know about
specific folders that are getting close to the limits.

I try not to get carried away with folders, but when I categorize stuff,
such as MP3 files, they can tend to get long, because I so something
like this

MUSIC/ROCK/OLDIES/BEATLES/FULL_ALBUMS/FIRST_ALBUM/(song names).

Using this example, the folder length is getting long, and if the song
names are long, it can get near the limit...

If anyone knows about some utility program that can be run to view total
lengths of any folders/sub-folders and files, I'd like to get it.

---

This brings up another question/comment.

Back in the days of DOS, and early dos-based windows, we called them
DIRECTORIES. Sometime around the time XP came to exist we bagan calling
them FOLDERS. (Macintosh computers already called them folders).
But dont you dare call them FOLDERS if they are Linux, in Linux, they
are called DIRECTORIES.
Yea, I know it's just words, which mean the same thing, but I never
understood why they changed from Directories to Folders in Windows?????

(Of course anyone who knows DOS knows you type "DIR" to get a lit of
directories..... But that could have been "FOL" to get a list of folders
too....

[Bill in Co]

cas...@home.com wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:47:19 +0100, Ian Jackson
> <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>
>> The main problems I've found are:
>> 1. When I've saved a website as html (and also probably htm). Some
>> websites have horrendously long URLs.
>> 2. When I've moved folders into subfolders, and those subfolders into
>> sub-subfolders (etc).
>> --
>> Ian

<snip>

> This brings up another question/comment.
>
> Back in the days of DOS, and early dos-based windows, we called them
> DIRECTORIES. Sometime around the time XP came to exist we bagan calling
> them FOLDERS. (Macintosh computers already called them folders).
> But dont you dare call them FOLDERS if they are Linux, in Linux, they
> are called DIRECTORIES.
> Yea, I know it's just words, which mean the same thing, but I never
> understood why they changed from Directories to Folders in Windows?????

I think it was part of the dumbing down process that's been happening with
each succeeding edition of Windows (and actually, with our world in
general). "Folders" is more friendly or intutitive to the average
consumer. But at least we don't have Microsoft Bob (or whatever it was
called) anymore. I guess it's been "replaced" with "smartphones" (attached
to the hip - or head).

[cas...@home.com]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:29:20 -0600, "Bill in Co"
<surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>I think it was part of the dumbing down process that's been happening with
>each succeeding edition of Windows (and actually, with our world in
>general). "Folders" is more friendly or intutitive to the average
>consumer. But at least we don't have Microsoft Bob (or whatever it was
>called) anymore. I guess it's been "replaced" with "smartphones" (attached
>to the hip - or head).

I tried Microsoft Bob. I only used it once!!! Never saw the putrpose
of it.....

Soon, cellphones will be surgically embedded in the brains of newborn
babies.......
Not only will that person be totally controlled by computers and cell
signals, but everyone on earth will be able to see what that person is
thinking, know whenever the person drinks alcohol or uses drugs, and/or
has an urge to commit a crime. That's scarey......

Personally, being an old guy, the more I fight with all this technology,
the more I'm realizing that the old typewriters and rotary telephones
were the REAL way to go. You'd plug in a rotary phone, and when ity
rang, picked up the receiver and started to talk. As for the
typewriter, you inserted paper and began typing. Once a year or so you
changed the ribbon and oiled the keys.

When I start to think about all the hours and hours I have spent setting
up computers in the past 25 or so years, I tend to question if it's all
worth it. They claim computers and the internet simplify life, and
while it does make it easier to share an email or photo, rather than
using the mail, and one can shop online and access libraries without
leaving home, it has it's value. But when you start to add u7p the days
and weeks and months trying to setup the computer, and do backups and
fix stuff, and so on, one begins to question if it's all worth it. If
this is not bad enough, companies like Microsoft continue to make our
lives more difficult, by constantly changing the operating systems, and
software. Worse yet, they obsolete the old stuff, making it near
impossible to keep using the older stuff, and forcing us ot waste many
more hours of our time and spend a lot more money.

For example, I have a fully usable computer with years of installations,
tweaking, other personal touches to make it work just the way I like it.
I also know how to use it real well. It connects well to the internet
without lot of fuss, but it's Windows 98, and it's obsolete. For years,
I didn't care if it was obsolete, but lately, I cant access many new
websites and can not get a workable browser for it anymore, thus, I feel
forced to upgrade to XP. If it was merely just a matter of installing
an upgrade, I would not complain, but to install any new OS, means
starting all over, relearning it, installing all the programs, adjusting
all the settings, working out the bugs, tweaking, and on and on. On top
of that, byuying newer hardware, and spending many more hours installing
and setting everything up. If it ended there, I might go with the flow,
but XP is obsolete too, and to upgrade beyond XP means buying an entire
new computer, new softaware, re-learning it all, and quite honestly, it
appears the end result is to leave all of us financially broke, and
insane from all the frustration.

In all honesty, ever since I recently started trying to use XP, the
frustration has become much worse for me. With Win98, I had reached a
point, where I didn't have to fuss with the computer much. It just
worked and worked well. I just did the normal maintenance like backing
it up and defragging. Occasionally I added some software or a bigger
hard drive. the good part, is that I finally achieved the point that I
actually got some USE out of the computer.

Since trying to make the switch to XP, not because I wanted to, but
because I HAD to (at least for the internet), I am wasting most of my
spare time fighting with the damn computer and not getting much use out
of it. Yea, XP xcan do some things that I like, which W98 could not do,
but is it really all worth it? I cant answer that in 100% certainty.
Half the time lately, I get so pissed off at all this stuff, I feel like
tossing all of it in the trash, or dumping it on ebay at a $$$ loss.
More than once in the last few months, I've packed it all up, and taken
it all out to the garage for the next rummage sale. At least I still
have my trusty old Win98 machine to fall back on, and just use it and
enjoy it. I'd be perfectly happy just staying with that, and I'd even
pay some good money to someone to make a browser for W98 that works on
these new bloated websites. (because I'll end up spending all that
money on new hardware anyhow).

I can say the same thing for cellphones. There was a time I'd never own
one, but when the price came way down, I finally got a prepaid
no-contract one, which I will admit is handy when I get a flat tire in
the middle of January, or need to call a local business to ask them to
please stay open for another 5 minutes (after their closing time),
because I have no power and need a circuit breaker. Yea, the phones can
be handy, but who the hell needs a "smartphone". I sure dont. I would
not even know how to use one of them, not would I want to learn. My
latest cellphone does allow me to get weather reports, and I find that
very useful, but beyond that, who needs all that crap on the
smartphones.

One of these days, I might just take all this technology and sell it to
the highest bidder, and go back to a wired rotary phone, and a
typewriter, and begin getting more use out of my mailbox again....

[Bill in Co]

Yup, the good old days. And back then when you got a call, it was a
*personal call*, and ONLY a personal call. No telemarking crap. Something
unheard of today. Although I do have to concede I like using a *simple*
word processor more than using a typewriter and whiteout.

I'm stickin with XP for quite a spell, all that notwithstanding! I don't
see any need for a newer OS for me in the foreseeable future - until (or if)
the day finally comes when I can't get any Internet browser to work with XP,
like you have found with Win98. But I think that day is still quite a ways
off, however.

Oh, and by the way, since I had customized my older Win98SE computer to the
nth degree, like you have, I did NOT do a clean install of XP! Instead, I
bought "PC Mover", which moved all of my programs and applications and
settings right over to the new WinXP computer, which was a GREAT time saver,
and it was sure worth it, to me. After that, it took a little bit of
housekeeping to get everything hunky-dory, but it was sure worth it to me.
The idea of having to install all my software all over again, and to
customize it all to make it the way I like it again, is NOT something I
would look forward to, if I could help it (and I could).

> In all honesty, ever since I recently started trying to use XP, the
> frustration has become much worse for me. With Win98, I had reached a
> point, where I didn't have to fuss with the computer much. It just
> worked and worked well. I just did the normal maintenance like backing
> it up and defragging. Occasionally I added some software or a bigger
> hard drive. the good part, is that I finally achieved the point that I
> actually got some USE out of the computer.
>
> Since trying to make the switch to XP, not because I wanted to, but
> because I HAD to (at least for the internet), I am wasting most of my
> spare time fighting with the damn computer and not getting much use out
> of it. Yea, XP xcan do some things that I like, which W98 could not do,
> but is it really all worth it? I cant answer that in 100% certainty.
> Half the time lately, I get so pissed off at all this stuff, I feel like
> tossing all of it in the trash, or dumping it on ebay at a $$$ loss.
> More than once in the last few months, I've packed it all up, and taken
> it all out to the garage for the next rummage sale. At least I still
> have my trusty old Win98 machine to fall back on, and just use it and
> enjoy it. I'd be perfectly happy just staying with that, and I'd even
> pay some good money to someone to make a browser for W98 that works
> on these new bloated websites. (because I'll end up spending all that
> money on new hardware anyhow).

I feel about the same way now too - but with WinXP. If you ever get that
modem thing resolved, and give it more time, I think you can gradually come
around to WinXP. So far I can't (won't) go any further than that, however.

I mean, I already lost a few things when I migrated from W98SE to WinXP, as
you have noted, and, enough is enough already! Despite those losses, I do
appreciate some features of XP - notably that it's been much less prone to
blue screens (with any of my experiments), and the allowance for large file
sizes (NTFS) occasionally comes in handy. But most of all, I appreciate
some of my "somewhat newer" software that runs on XP, but can't install or
run on Win98SE. At this point that's all I need and anticipate needing, for
many years to come. Let's hope it can stay that way.

> I can say the same thing for cellphones. There was a time I'd never own
> one, but when the price came way down, I finally got a prepaid
> no-contract one, which I will admit is handy when I get a flat tire in
> the middle of January, or need to call a local business to ask them to
> please stay open for another 5 minutes (after their closing time),
> because I have no power and need a circuit breaker. Yea, the phones can
> be handy, but who the hell needs a "smartphone". I sure dont. I would
> not even know how to use one of them, not would I want to learn. My
> latest cellphone does allow me to get weather reports, and I find that
> very useful, but beyond that, who needs all that crap on the
> smartphones.

I don't want a smartphone either. A cell phone for emergencies (or maybe
work, since it seems to have come down to that as an *expectation* these
days), is good enough. If I want Internet or computer access, I'll do it at
home, and on a larger screen, LOL -, not that mini 3" or 4" screen that we
need reading glasses to squint and see. Guess what? I'm not *addicted* to
a cell phone, like most folks these days. :-)

I find it somewhat ironic that people *need* to use cellphones to be in
touch with each other, rather than any face-to-face contacts (or even a
telephone, if needbe). It seems the only thing holding at least some of us
together nowadays is the smartphone - or Twitter - or Facebook. And I think
it's a sad commentary on society. And the nuclear family of yesteryear has
all but evaporated. And some call this "progress", if you can believe it.
I think I could pass out more than a few dunce caps nowadays, and some of
them should sit in the back of the class! (old school)

> One of these days, I might just take all this technology and sell it to
> the highest bidder, and go back to a wired rotary phone, and a
> typewriter, and begin getting more use out of my mailbox again....

I think we should form a Luddhites anonymous club. :-)

Actually, I feel somewhat sorry for the current generation(s), for all they
have missed. And when I try to excite them about some things and events of
the past, I get that "dear in the headlights" look.

Hey, even before our time, can you imagine how exciting it must have been to
to be there when Marconi sent - and received - the first *transoceanic*
signal over a century ago? I wish I were there back then...

[cas...@home.com]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 22:51:22 -0600, "Bill in Co"
<surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote:


>
>Yup, the good old days. And back then when you got a call, it was a
>*personal call*, and ONLY a personal call. No telemarking crap. Something
>unheard of today. Although I do have to concede I like using a *simple*
>word processor more than using a typewriter and whiteout.

Actually, I like a simple word processing program too. The main reason
I started with computers was because I was such a lousy typist that each
page was half whiteout. I bought a new word processor, which quit
working after a few weeks. I got a refund, and that same day a friend
showed me his computer (DOS) and a program called Professional Write.
It did the same as the word processor, plus lots of other cool things
like games, picture editing, and and so on. He had another computer he
was selling (8086). I used the refunded money and bought the computer.
with the agreement that he would help me use it and learn it. Which he
did. Learning dos was not all that difficult (unlike linux commands
which are horrid), and soon I was doing all kinds of stuff and loved it.
There was no internet yet, but there were local BBSs, and they had
meetings, where everyone met each other and drank some beer while
playing around with computers. Those were fun, adn unlike the internet,
you had face to face contact with local people who you met on the BBS by
something similar to email.

>
>> When I start to think about all the hours and hours I have spent setting
>> up computers in the past 25 or so years, I tend to question if it's all
>> worth it. They claim computers and the internet simplify life, and
>> while it does make it easier to share an email or photo, rather than
>> using the mail, and one can shop online and access libraries without
>> leaving home, it has it's value. But when you start to add u7p the days

>> appears the end result is to leave all of us financially broke, and
>> insane from all the frustration.
>
>I'm stickin with XP for quite a spell, all that notwithstanding! I don't
>see any need for a newer OS for me in the foreseeable future - until (or if)
>the day finally comes when I can't get any Internet browser to work with XP,
>like you have found with Win98. But I think that day is still quite a ways
>off, however.

I said the same thing for many years about Win98 and dreaded the day I
had to move on to a new OS. Unfortunately that day has come. I used to
hate XP, but I'm getting used to it, and can see some things it does
better, but it does have it's share of annoyances too, for example, it's
always asking me to go online when I change settinsg. I wish I could
kill that feature, espacially when I'm not able to get a decent
connection. XP is not as smart as some people said, because it should
KNOW that I'm not connected and not ask me to go online.....

>
>Oh, and by the way, since I had customized my older Win98SE computer to the
>nth degree, like you have, I did NOT do a clean install of XP! Instead, I
>bought "PC Mover", which moved all of my programs and applications and
>settings right over to the new WinXP computer, which was a GREAT time saver,
>and it was sure worth it, to me. After that, it took a little bit of
>housekeeping to get everything hunky-dory, but it was sure worth it to me.
>The idea of having to install all my software all over again, and to
>customize it all to make it the way I like it again, is NOT something I
>would look forward to, if I could help it (and I could).
>

I never knew such a program exists. I'd almost be tempted to buy it
myself, but I have a pretty good start for my new installation of XP
now, and I literally have probably 600 to 700 programs and utilities
installed in Win98, and need to weed some of them out. The good thing
is that I save all my software (original installers), so it's all there,
adn I'm installing a lot of the older programs from W98. For exzmple, I
installed Winzip from around 2000. I cant understand how a program like
Winzip can improve and go fr4om a 6 meg to a 36 meg installer. It zips
and unzips. What more do I need.

>> In all honesty, ever since I recently started trying to use XP, the
>> frustration has become much worse for me. With Win98, I had reached a
>> point, where I didn't have to fuss with the computer much. It just
>> worked and worked well. I just did the normal maintenance like backing
>> it up and defragging. Occasionally I added some software or a bigger
>> hard drive. the good part, is that I finally achieved the point that I
>> actually got some USE out of the computer.
>>

>

>I feel about the same way now too - but with WinXP. If you ever get that
>modem thing resolved, and give it more time, I think you can gradually come
>around to WinXP. So far I can't (won't) go any further than that, however.

That's the big "IF". Right now, the XP machine is pretty worthless. At
least with the new modem, I can stay connected, but dialup is slow
enough as it is, and when I have to wait 5 minutes for a website to load
on the XP machine, knowing I can load that same site on the W98 machine
in 2 minutes, it dont take long to switch back to the 98 machine.

I know I will never quit using Win98 anyhow. My intent was mostly just
to setup XP for internet use. Thats the other reason I want to network
the two computers. I cant even begin to imagine the nightmare of trying
to get my email on two computers, and figure out which computer has
which emails, and/or having to download the same emails twice on each
computer, sort out the junk twice, and so on..... I want all my email
and internet stuff on one computer, but I want to be able to access it
from the other. Sometimes people email me pictures they want "cleaned
up" using my photo editing programs. I use all older Win98 software for
that. I dont even want the newest bloated programs. But if the photros
arrive on the XP computer, I want a direct link to them, not where I
have to keep shuffling floppies or flash drives, and later on trying to
remember which computer they are on.

>
>I mean, I already lost a few things when I migrated from W98SE to WinXP, as
>you have noted, and, enough is enough already! Despite those losses, I do
>appreciate some features of XP - notably that it's been much less prone to
>blue screens (with any of my experiments), and the allowance for large file
>sizes (NTFS) occasionally comes in handy. But most of all, I appreciate
>some of my "somewhat newer" software that runs on XP, but can't install or
>run on Win98SE. At this point that's all I need and anticipate needing, for
>many years to come. Let's hope it can stay that way.
>

I had an old dos program that I loved. It was a graphic program that
would take inages and turn them into round buttons and create curved
text to make pin on buttons. (I have a button making machine) The
program refused to work in the dos from Windows 98. The program's
development died and there never was a Windows version made. That
pissed me off, but I did manage to create a boot floppy with older dos
and be able to run it on the hard drive, but a reboot was required.

>> I can say the same thing for cellphones. There was a time I'd never own
>> one, but when the price came way down, I finally got a prepaid
>> no-contract one, which I will admit is handy when I get a flat tire in
>> the middle of January, or need to call a local business to ask them to
>> please stay open for another 5 minutes (after their closing time),
>> because I have no power and need a circuit breaker. Yea, the phones can
>> be handy, but who the hell needs a "smartphone". I sure dont. I would
>> not even know how to use one of them, not would I want to learn. My
>> latest cellphone does allow me to get weather reports, and I find that
>> very useful, but beyond that, who needs all that crap on the
>> smartphones.
>
>I don't want a smartphone either. A cell phone for emergencies (or maybe
>work, since it seems to have come down to that as an *expectation* these
>days), is good enough. If I want Internet or computer access, I'll do it at
>home, and on a larger screen, LOL -, not that mini 3" or 4" screen that we
>need reading glasses to squint and see. Guess what? I'm not *addicted* to
>a cell phone, like most folks these days. :-)

My cheap prepaid cellphone dioes have internet access, but it's very
limited. I can get weather reports and radar maps. I can access some
very basic google reference materials (if I can read it on that tiny
screen). I cant operate ebay, craigslist watch videos or listen to
music. Supposedly I can read gmail and yahoo mail too, but I never
tried it. I do use the weather stuff often, occasionally read about
some sudden major news event, or look up the meaning of some word or
term. Thats about it. People bitch that I dont reply to their texts or
voicemails, immediately. Well, I may not turn that cellphone on for 3
or 4 days sometimes. I do have a home phone and email on my computer.
In one case, I got pissed off at some guy who drank too much and would
leave me 10 or more voicemails when he was drunk. None of which made
sense. I finally told him to remove my phone number, or I'd report him
to the phone company (even though I dont think that is possible). Every
one of those voice mails cost me a minute or more, and it was pissing me
off.

>
>I find it somewhat ironic that people *need* to use cellphones to be in
>touch with each other, rather than any face-to-face contacts (or even a
>telephone, if needbe). It seems the only thing holding at least some of us
>together nowadays is the smartphone - or Twitter - or Facebook. And I think
>it's a sad commentary on society. And the nuclear family of yesteryear has
>all but evaporated. And some call this "progress", if you can believe it.
>I think I could pass out more than a few dunce caps nowadays, and some of
>them should sit in the back of the class! (old school)

You got that right!!!!
I do wish my cell had a camera though. I carry my regular digital
camera when I go to an event, but there are times I'd just like to take
a picture of something and dont have a camera with me. I usually keep
the cell in my car, so I could take pictures. I dont need it in my
pocket annoying me with it's beeping, and it makes no senseto leave it
at home in case of emergency. So it just lives in the car.
Unfortunately these prepaid cells dont have cameras. The one and only
feature I'd like.

>
>> One of these days, I might just take all this technology and sell it to
>> the highest bidder, and go back to a wired rotary phone, and a
>> typewriter, and begin getting more use out of my mailbox again....
>
>I think we should form a Luddhites anonymous club. :-)

That might be a good idea :)

>
>Actually, I feel somewhat sorry for the current generation(s), for all they
>have missed. And when I try to excite them about some things and events of
>the past, I get that "dear in the headlights" look.
>
>Hey, even before our time, can you imagine how exciting it must have been to
>to be there when Marconi sent - and received - the first *transoceanic*
>signal over a century ago? I wish I were there back then...
>

Ya know, it's funny. I like the old ways so much that I became a
reenactor. I do reenactments of the mid 1800's, Wild west shows and all
sorts of similar stuff. It's just for fun, not pay. We camp in tipis
and/or civil war type tents (I love camping anyhow), and spend a week or
weekend living in that era, wearing all the authentic clothing and
cooking over a campfire. It's mostly all older people. The young
"kids" these days are not interested in doing it, and those who do come
are always getting hollared at (by us old guys) for using cellphones and
other modern gizmos, or not dressing in proper period clothing, or for
having rubbermaid plastic containers outside their tents. Even though
we do this for no pay, and just for fun, the public come to see us, and
we need our camps to look like the actual time period, not like a flea
market. This is the only way I like to camp. Modern camping sucks,
with all the fancy houses on wheels, radios blasting 24 hours a day, and
all that shit.

My other connection to the old ways are my horses. Aside from the
"phoney show horse types", horses dont need upgrades, new operating
systems, or get obsolete (other than old age retirement). Sure, saddles
and other tack changes and every year there is some new fad gizmo that's
supposed to make the ride better, but none of that is needed. All that
is needed is a good horse, solid saddle and well made bridal and bit.
Everything else is optional, but most people carry a canteen and saddle
bag on trail rides.

I recently went ot a seminar put on by Purina. They do these all over
the country to advertise their feed products. While it's much
advertising, they are free, and always have a good meal, plus a
veterinarian is always at them explaining any current horse diseases or
viruses. This is good information to know, because just like the human
flu viruses, horses do get sick and some of these viruses spread quickly
by contact with other horses. So, for free, we learn about what the
current illnesses and viruses are and how to avoid them, plus get a good
meal. Then we get to listen to a half hour of Purina bragging how their
feed is the best. It's really a joke, because every year they come out
with a "new product". It looks and smells just like their old product,
but the bag has a new design and name. They claim it's "new and
improved", but it's really the same as last year. After all, it's made
from oats, cracked corn, alfalfa, soy meal, molassses and some vegetable
oils. Some have added minerals and vitamins. Unlike computer changes,
horse feed has been pretty much the same for centuries. But for these
companies, adding .05% more oil means a NEW FORMULA. Personally, I
rarely buy any of that commercial feed. I can buy raw oats, corn, and
soy meal in it's raw form, and toss it in a bucket and mix it up. The
molasses is just something to get horses addicted to the commercial feed
cuz it tastes good, but does nothing for the horse., in fact it can
cause diabetes, if too much is given. Oils are helpful to keep weight
on older horses, byut a cup of plain vegetable oil mixed into a 5 gallon
pail of grains is easy enough to mix up. And the vitamins and minerals
can be purchased cheaply in a powder which is sprinkled over their feed.
So, why should I spend $23 for 50lbs of commercial feed, when I can make
my own for about $8 for 50lbs. Plus I can adjust the mixture for
different ages or types of horses.

Everything these days is based on advertising and often it's little more
than trickery. What is really needed to feed that horse, is hay, water,
and grains. Now comparing this to computers, what is REALLY needed to
send email.... Email is simply text. Sometimes photos are sent. Why
is a 60 meg installer needed, which contains tons of bells and whistles,
mostly bloat that just gets in the way and makes it hard to learn.....
Win98 did everything I needed. I could go online, send email, read
websites, newsgroups, edit photos, word process, run a database or
spreadsheet, watch videos, play music, play games and more...... I
could do all of this in Win98. I could do most of this in Dos too, but
dos did have it's limitations. But comparing a well running Win98
computer to XP is really not all that different. In fact this XP
computer is 3.2 times faster than my W98 machine, and has 8 times more
ram. Yet Win98 operates faster..... XP seems to have this pause when I
click on something. I dont see that in Win98. Win98 plays videos just
as well as XP for me. So, where are the real improvements? I rarely
ever have Win98 crash. But lately I have constant browser lockups and a
lot of script errors, all because these idiots that write websites seem
to thing all those goddamn scripts are needed. I learned just as much
from the older websites that were mostly just text and photos, and they
loade a lot faster. The old websites could be made to look just as
pretty as the new ones if made well. So, what has really improved?????

Honestly, I have to ask where are all the guys who still use Win98. I
know I'm not alone. Where are these guys who can program and develop a
web browser or other software. Why have the Mozilla people abandones us
Win98 users anyhow? After all, their browsers are free.....

One last thought. Why has no one made some sort of emulator that allows
XP browswer to work in Win98? Better yet, a browser that kills all the
unneeded scripts,yet allows the user to still be able to click on a link
and have it work...... In other words *KILL THE BLOAT*.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <pMOdnXkG4p3RBcXO...@earthlink.com>, Bill in Co

<surly_cu...@earthlink.net> writes:
>cas...@home.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:29:20 -0600, "Bill in Co"
>> <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I think it was part of the dumbing down process that's been happening
>>> with
>>> each succeeding edition of Windows (and actually, with our world in
>>> general). "Folders" is more friendly or intutitive to the average

If you think about the actual words, "directory" used to mean - and
still does, outside computers - a list of things, sometimes in some sort
of sorted order, such as alphabetic or by business type (for the yellow
'phone book). Originally in computing, it was the same - a list of
filenames; eventually, however, it came to mean the files themselves
too. Especially when the idea of having more than one level came along.
I can see that "folder" is easier to explain to newcomers, especially
the idea of folders within folders, and certainly the icons look like
folders, or are supposed to. (I still use the term "directory" a lot
though!)
[]

>> Soon, cellphones will be surgically embedded in the brains of newborn
>> babies.......
>> Not only will that person be totally controlled by computers and cell
>> signals, but everyone on earth will be able to see what that person is
>> thinking, know whenever the person drinks alcohol or uses drugs, and/or
>> has an urge to commit a crime. That's scarey......

I remember a (short IIRR) story in the science fiction genre, well
before such things (before mobile 'phones at all I think); it involved a
disc in the forehead, which - the first kind - showed when someone
fancied someone else by changing colour; the second kind showed when the
person was lying. I forget the outcome or who the author was.

>>
>> Personally, being an old guy, the more I fight with all this technology,
>> the more I'm realizing that the old typewriters and rotary telephones
>> were the REAL way to go. You'd plug in a rotary phone, and when ity

Not in the UK you wouldn't. Until BT (then the GPO) was privatised, and
legislation was introduced to increase competition, you'd go to where
they'd wired in your 'phone - none of this plugging.

>> rang, picked up the receiver and started to talk. As for the
>> typewriter, you inserted paper and began typing. Once a year or so you
>> changed the ribbon and oiled the keys.
>
>Yup, the good old days. And back then when you got a call, it was a
>*personal call*, and ONLY a personal call. No telemarking crap. Something
>unheard of today. Although I do have to concede I like using a *simple*
>word processor more than using a typewriter and whiteout.

Definitely.
[]

>> and weeks and months trying to setup the computer, and do backups and

Didn't you keep copies of correspondence done on the typewriter?

>> fix stuff, and so on, one begins to question if it's all worth it. If
>> this is not bad enough, companies like Microsoft continue to make our
>> lives more difficult, by constantly changing the operating systems, and

I think that's called progress, and don't really mind that ...

>> software. Worse yet, they obsolete the old stuff, making it near
>> impossible to keep using the older stuff, and forcing us ot waste many
>> more hours of our time and spend a lot more money.

... but I'm with you there.

>>
>> For example, I have a fully usable computer with years of installations,
>> tweaking, other personal touches to make it work just the way I like it.
>> I also know how to use it real well. It connects well to the internet
>> without lot of fuss, but it's Windows 98, and it's obsolete. For years,

I'm more or less in the same position with XP now. (More below.)
[]

>> and setting everything up. If it ended there, I might go with the flow,
>> but XP is obsolete too, and to upgrade beyond XP means buying an entire
>> new computer, new softaware, re-learning it all, and quite honestly, it
>> appears the end result is to leave all of us financially broke, and
>> insane from all the frustration.

To be fair, Windows 7 - I bought a 7 computer (not new!) to be able to
support several friends, including a blind couple (you think _you_'ve
got problems!) - is sufficiently similar to XP that it's usable. But I
intend to continue using this XP machine for the foreseeable future (-:!

>
>I'm stickin with XP for quite a spell, all that notwithstanding! I don't
>see any need for a newer OS for me in the foreseeable future - until (or if)
>the day finally comes when I can't get any Internet browser to work with XP,
>like you have found with Win98. But I think that day is still quite a ways
>off, however.

[]

>bought "PC Mover", which moved all of my programs and applications and
>settings right over to the new WinXP computer, which was a GREAT time saver,
>and it was sure worth it, to me. After that, it took a little bit of

Is it still available, though it's probably a bit late for casey.o now?
(Does it do XP to 7 or 8, or does something else similar? [I've heard of
something called WET - Windows easy transfer, I think - which may do.)
[]

>> frustration has become much worse for me. With Win98, I had reached a
>> point, where I didn't have to fuss with the computer much. It just
>> worked and worked well. I just did the normal maintenance like backing

[]

>> actually got some USE out of the computer.

[]

>I feel about the same way now too - but with WinXP. If you ever get that
>modem thing resolved, and give it more time, I think you can gradually come
>around to WinXP. So far I can't (won't) go any further than that, however.

Yes, Casey - stick with it; Bill and I are about where you were/are with
98, with XP, and I think a lot of those here are too; do ask for help
and we'll try to. (Though try to hide your dislike of it a bit more: we
mostly feel the same about XP as you do about 98 - this is an XP 'group,
after all.)

>
>I mean, I already lost a few things when I migrated from W98SE to WinXP, as
>you have noted, and, enough is enough already! Despite those losses, I do
>appreciate some features of XP - notably that it's been much less prone to
>blue screens (with any of my experiments), and the allowance for large file

I felt the same: I moved to XP under protest initially, having been with
98 - and with the (faster and more reliable) 95 shell, too (98SElite);
however, I _did_ find far fewer blue screens. (In fact I don't remember
ever having any, though I did get freezes when I did one video driver
update too many. But the sammynetbook forum [ugh, forums] helped me out
there [basically saying go back one video driver].)
[]

>run on Win98SE. At this point that's all I need and anticipate needing, for
>many years to come. Let's hope it can stay that way.

Indeed.

>
>> I can say the same thing for cellphones. There was a time I'd never own
>> one, but when the price came way down, I finally got a prepaid
>> no-contract one, which I will admit is handy when I get a flat tire in

(etc.). Until mine died about last September, I intended to stay with my
early mobile (Nokia 1018s) - display only monochrome with 2 lines of
text, no pictures; the cheapest I could find to replace it includes a
good FM radio and a torch, and I still use it more as a radio than a
'phone! But it is handy in emergencies.
[]

>I don't want a smartphone either. A cell phone for emergencies (or maybe

[]
I must admit to being impressed with how my blind friend uses her
iphone!
[]

>I think we should form a Luddhites anonymous club. :-)

This 'group (let alone the '98 one) _is_ that, in large part! Except
we're far from anonymous, and that also implies we want to change/quit,
which we don't ... (-:

>
>Actually, I feel somewhat sorry for the current generation(s), for all they
>have missed. And when I try to excite them about some things and events of
>the past, I get that "dear in the headlights" look.

I think you mean "deer" - though I rather like the idea of some old dear
in the same situation!

>
>Hey, even before our time, can you imagine how exciting it must have been to
>to be there when Marconi sent - and received - the first *transoceanic*
>signal over a century ago? I wish I were there back then...
>
>

Or telegraphs ...

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists
to
adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable
man. -George Bernard Shaw, writer, Nobel laureate (1856-1950)

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <qlnhl9dudp19o0q6a...@4ax.com>,

cas...@home.com writes:
>On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 22:51:22 -0600, "Bill in Co"
><surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote:

[]

>adn I'm installing a lot of the older programs from W98. For exzmple, I
>installed Winzip from around 2000. I cant understand how a program like
>Winzip can improve and go fr4om a 6 meg to a 36 meg installer. It zips
>and unzips. What more do I need.

Later versions do more formats - such as .tar, 7z (I think), and so on.
You may never zip into those formats (I don't), but if someone sends you
something in one of those, or it's only available in one of them, you
need to be able to unpack them. Whether they need a sixfold increase in
size to do that, of course, is dubious!
[]

>>I feel about the same way now too - but with WinXP. If you ever get that
>>modem thing resolved, and give it more time, I think you can gradually come
>>around to WinXP. So far I can't (won't) go any further than that, however.

What _is_ your situation, that you can't get broadband: are you in a
very isolated location? You do mention that you can get some things on
your cellphone, so you obviously have coverage of that level: have you
considered a dongle? (Or would a suitable contract be expensive where
you are?)

>
>That's the big "IF". Right now, the XP machine is pretty worthless. At
>least with the new modem, I can stay connected, but dialup is slow
>enough as it is, and when I have to wait 5 minutes for a website to load
>on the XP machine, knowing I can load that same site on the W98 machine
>in 2 minutes, it dont take long to switch back to the 98 machine.

Well, assuming it isn't that your XP machine is loading more of the
website in some way, then we need to get this sorted. An external,
hardware, serial port MoDem: if you load the same page, using such a
MoDem rather than any internal, with both your 98 and your XP machine, I
can't see why there should be any difference in loading time.

>
>I know I will never quit using Win98 anyhow. My intent was mostly just

That was what I thought - that I'd just use XP for some things, much as
I do with my 7 machine now. I did change. At the moment, I don't use my
7 machine much, and don't see that changing - but you never know!
[]

>>appreciate some features of XP - notably that it's been much less prone to
>>blue screens (with any of my experiments), and the allowance for large file

Have you actually had some, then?
[]

>I had an old dos program that I loved. It was a graphic program that

I still use XTree Gold for some things ... (most often, actually, the
[text] editor that is part of it, to edit my quotes file. My fingers
know its shortcuts.)

>would take inages and turn them into round buttons and create curved
>text to make pin on buttons. (I have a button making machine) The

[FWIW: we call those badges in UK; buttons are just clothing-fasteners.]
[]

>>> I can say the same thing for cellphones. There was a time I'd never own

[]

>>I don't want a smartphone either. A cell phone for emergencies (or maybe
>>work, since it seems to have come down to that as an *expectation* these

(Get work to pay for it then!)

>>days), is good enough. If I want Internet or computer access, I'll do it at

[]

>My cheap prepaid cellphone dioes have internet access, but it's very
>limited. I can get weather reports and radar maps. I can access some

Any idea what speed?

>very basic google reference materials (if I can read it on that tiny
>screen). I cant operate ebay, craigslist watch videos or listen to
>music. Supposedly I can read gmail and yahoo mail too, but I never
>tried it. I do use the weather stuff often, occasionally read about
>some sudden major news event, or look up the meaning of some word or
>term. Thats about it. People bitch that I dont reply to their texts or
>voicemails, immediately. Well, I may not turn that cellphone on for 3
>or 4 days sometimes. I do have a home phone and email on my computer.

(Used to be weeks or even months for mine!)
[]

>>touch with each other, rather than any face-to-face contacts (or even a
>>telephone, if needbe). It seems the only thing holding at least some of us
>>together nowadays is the smartphone - or Twitter - or Facebook. And I think
>>it's a sad commentary on society. And the nuclear family of yesteryear has

I'm sure people said the same about email/newsgroups, and before that
letters ... (-: [I'm not on facebook or twitter, but unlike many folk
who aren't, I don't have any animosity to those who are, as long as they
leave me be.]
[]

>I do wish my cell had a camera though. I carry my regular digital
>camera when I go to an event, but there are times I'd just like to take
>a picture of something and dont have a camera with me. I usually keep
>the cell in my car, so I could take pictures. I dont need it in my
>pocket annoying me with it's beeping, and it makes no senseto leave it
>at home in case of emergency. So it just lives in the car.
>Unfortunately these prepaid cells dont have cameras. The one and only
>feature I'd like.
>

Get a small pocket ("sports" or "spy") camera; I can't find the model
I've got (it's like a wide USB stick), or keyfob one
(http://ebay.eu/1gVe97E or US equivalent) - you could even actually
_use_ it as a keyfob! Or the pen cams are ridiculously cheap and just
fit in your pocket, though I'm not sure those do stills. (I know the
keyfob ones do.)
[]

>Ya know, it's funny. I like the old ways so much that I became a
>reenactor. I do reenactments of the mid 1800's, Wild west shows and all

[]
I wonder if there'll ever be groups who re-enact early computer
activites - floppies, DOS, impact printers (or daisywheels: whatever
happened to those?), that sort of thing ...
[]

>ram. Yet Win98 operates faster..... XP seems to have this pause when I
>click on something. I dont see that in Win98. Win98 plays videos just

I don't see it in XP.
[]

>Honestly, I have to ask where are all the guys who still use Win98. I

On the '98 newsgroups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion is one
worth trying.

>know I'm not alone. Where are these guys who can program and develop a
>web browser or other software. Why have the Mozilla people abandones us
>Win98 users anyhow? After all, their browsers are free.....

Because there's only limited effort available, and continuing to support
98 would require an unfair amount of the resources available. The same
will happen to XP in time.

>
>One last thought. Why has no one made some sort of emulator that allows
>XP browswer to work in Win98? Better yet, a browser that kills all the
>unneeded scripts,yet allows the user to still be able to click on a link
>and have it work...... In other words *KILL THE BLOAT*.
>

It's not the browser writers: script-blocking add-ons have been around
for some while. It's the site designers: you can't blame the browser (or
add-on) programmers if their code blocks a script some site needs in
order to function: they can't know which is necessary and which is
fluff.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

All humanity is divided into three classes: those who are immovable, those who
are movable, and those who move! - Benjamin Franklin

[Bill in Co]

>>> has an urge to commit a crime. That's scary......

If you believe that Windows 7 and 8 represent "progress". :-)

>>> software. Worse yet, they obsolete the old stuff, making it near
>>> impossible to keep using the older stuff, and forcing us ot waste many
>>> more hours of our time and spend a lot more money.
>
> ... but I'm with you there.
>>>
>>> For example, I have a fully usable computer with years of installations,
>>> tweaking, other personal touches to make it work just the way I like it.
>>> I also know how to use it real well. It connects well to the internet
>>> without lot of fuss, but it's Windows 98, and it's obsolete. For years,
>
> I'm more or less in the same position with XP now. (More below.)
> []
>>> and setting everything up. If it ended there, I might go with the flow,
>>> but XP is obsolete too, and to upgrade beyond XP means buying an entire
>>> new computer, new softaware, re-learning it all, and quite honestly, it
>>> appears the end result is to leave all of us financially broke, and
>>> insane from all the frustration.
>
> To be fair, Windows 7 - I bought a 7 computer (not new!) to be able to
> support several friends, including a blind couple (you think _you_'ve
> got problems!) - is sufficiently similar to XP that it's usable. But I
> intend to continue using this XP machine for the foreseeable future (-:!
>>
>> I'm stickin with XP for quite a spell, all that notwithstanding! I
>> don't
>> see any need for a newer OS for me in the foreseeable future - until (or
>> if)
>> the day finally comes when I can't get any Internet browser to work with

>> >> XP like you have found with Win98. But I think that day is still

>> quite a ways off, however.
> []
>> bought "PC Mover", which moved all of my programs and applications and
>> settings right over to the new WinXP computer, which was a GREAT time
>> saver, and it was sure worth it, to me. After that, it took a little bit
>> of
>
> Is it still available, though it's probably a bit late for casey.o now?
> (Does it do XP to 7 or 8, or does something else similar? [I've heard of
> something called WET - Windows easy transfer, I think - which may do.)
> []

It is called Laplink PC Mover:

http://www.laplink.com/index.php/individuals/pcmover-for-windows-8/pcmover-home-8

Costs about $40 or $60 depending on which version you get. And at least
with the version I had, it gets installed - and registered - on the old PC,
so it only works with that one (and then it can move stuff over to a newer
PC).

It did a pretty good job, but (a very few) programs still had to be
reregistered and/or reinstalled.

>>> frustration has become much worse for me. With Win98, I had reached a
>>> point, where I didn't have to fuss with the computer much. It just
>>> worked and worked well. I just did the normal maintenance like backing
>>> []
>>> actually got some USE out of the computer.
> []
>> I feel about the same way now too - but with WinXP. If you ever get that
>> modem thing resolved, and give it more time, I think you can gradually
>> come
>> around to WinXP. So far I can't (won't) go any further than that,
>> however.
>
> Yes, Casey - stick with it; Bill and I are about where you were/are with
> 98, with XP, and I think a lot of those here are too; do ask for help
> and we'll try to. (Though try to hide your dislike of it a bit more: we
> mostly feel the same about XP as you do about 98 - this is an XP 'group,
> after all.)

I also forgot to mention the improved USB and SATA support.

>> I mean, I already lost a few things when I migrated from W98SE to WinXP,
>> as
>> you have noted, and, enough is enough already! Despite those losses, I
>> do
>> appreciate some features of XP - notably that it's been much less prone
>> to
>> blue screens (with any of my experiments), and the allowance for large
>> file
>
> I felt the same: I moved to XP under protest initially, having been with

Same here :-)

> 98 - and with the (faster and more reliable) 95 shell, too (98SElite);
> however, I _did_ find far fewer blue screens. (In fact I don't remember
> ever having any, though I did get freezes when I did one video driver
> update too many. But the sammynetbook forum [ugh, forums] helped me out
> there [basically saying go back one video driver].)
> []
>> run on Win98SE. At this point that's all I need and anticipate needing,
>> for
>> many years to come. Let's hope it can stay that way.
>
> Indeed.
>>
>>> I can say the same thing for cellphones. There was a time I'd never own
>>> one, but when the price came way down, I finally got a prepaid
>>> no-contract one, which I will admit is handy when I get a flat tire in
>
> (etc.). Until mine died about last September, I intended to stay with my
> early mobile (Nokia 1018s) - display only monochrome with 2 lines of
> text, no pictures; the cheapest I could find to replace it includes a
> good FM radio and a torch, and I still use it more as a radio than a
> 'phone! But it is handy in emergencies.
> []
>> I don't want a smartphone either. A cell phone for emergencies (or maybe
> []
> I must admit to being impressed with how my blind friend uses her
> iphone!
> []
>> I think we should form a Luddhites anonymous club. :-)
>
> This 'group (let alone the '98 one) _is_ that, in large part! Except
> we're far from anonymous, and that also implies we want to change/quit,
> which we don't ... (-:

Right. I don't, and I'm proud of it.
Heck, I (almost) could have been content with Windows 98SE. And I still
miss a few things there, including booting to a black DOS screen, and
playing around in there with some commands and occasional programs. :-)

>> Actually, I feel somewhat sorry for the current generation(s), for all
>> they
>> have missed. And when I try to excite them about some things and events
>> of the past, I get that "dear in the headlights" look.
>
> I think you mean "deer" - though I rather like the idea of some old dear
> in the same situation!

Yeah, good catch!

>> Hey, even before our time, can you imagine how exciting it must have been
>> >> to be there when Marconi sent - and received - the first
>> *transoceanic*
>> signal over a century ago? I wish I were there back then...
>>
>>
> Or telegraphs ...

Yup. That too!

> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
>
> The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
> persists to
> adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the
> unreasonable
> man. -George Bernard Shaw, writer, Nobel laureate (1856-1950)

Progress????? Is that what it's called? :-)

[cas...@home.com]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 23:31:58 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>What _is_ your situation, that you can't get broadband: are you in a
>very isolated location? You do mention that you can get some things on
>your cellphone, so you obviously have coverage of that level: have you
>considered a dongle? (Or would a suitable contract be expensive where
>you are?)
>>

Very rural area with no decent internet, I could only get it with
satellite service, which is very expensive. The phone company recently
introduced a high speed service via the phone lines, but they want a
small fortune per month for that too, not to mention almost $200 to
connect it, plus materials, which in my case, I was told would require
new wiring from the road to my house, and the road is a mile away. Just
the installation could end up costing me a couple grand, I believe they
said a dollar a foot for the wiring.

Hell, they wanted $270 to run a phone line about 100 feet from the house
to another building. I bought 100 feet of cable for $40, and a phone
jack for $5 and did it myself.

I dont get a suitable cell service to even make a call from my house. I
can usually send a text, but may have to resend it several times. I
have to either walk or drive up the hill to get as good signal. This is
the other reason I keep a landline especially for emergencies. But I
really only use the cell when I am driving. At home I use the landline.

[genry...@gmail.com]

Hi You can try Long Path tool , and hope it can help, tnx

[rexx...@gmail.com]

PLEASE START REPORTING THESE POSTS THAT ARE MENTIONING "LONG PATH TOOL"
It is spam. It is being spread by spammers across multiple forums of this same topic.

[rexx...@gmail.com]

Try TLPD.exe from SourceForge. It is totally free. It can scan a folder or an entire disk for file names and folder paths that are longer that the allowed limit. It will then create a notepad file (a text file) which will list the directories & filenames which are longer than the limit specified.
It will also display how many characters long the entire path is.

From there, you can navigate to the files or folders listed and then change them to a shorter name to make them compliant.

This is a lot more useful, quicker and easier than many suggestions I have seen on other forums. Note: I am not the author of this program. Nor do I have any affiliation with it's developer(s) or the SourceForge website. I am just an ordinary computer user who became frustrated with this type of issue and with the many forums containing useless or tedious solutions. I found this "TLPD" solution while searching the web.

Please let me know if this solution has helped you (or if you need more help with this issue).

In case this forum becomes locked, you can send a message to Rx31313(at)Gmail(dot)com

or call 669.444.0001

Thanks rexx123456

[JJ]

rexxseven *plonked*

If you trully want to contribute, don't use Google Groups. Use proper news
client.

[twel...@gmail.com]

Use FastCopy (http://ipmsg.org/tools/fastcopy.html.en) BSD license.

It can handle long filenames and long paths and its super quick.

[Mayayana]

| If you trully want to contribute, don't use Google Groups. Use proper news
| client.

This is a recurring post. I can't imagine why. It's
hard to imagine anyone *trying* to post something
that's simply nonsense. But it's been posted in
multiples at least once before.

[Bill in Co]

From what I've seen of some people in society, it's not very hard for me to
imagine. :-)

[aliim...@gmail.com]

This is Wornderful Post, hope everybody facing long file path problem could see this before trying pathatic MS knowledge base. thumbs up guru

[dforr...@gmail.com]

Helped me a bunch. Thank You

[k.im...@gmail.com]

2007年1月14日日曜日 7時23分17秒 UTC+9 sp_mc...@yahoo.com:

Thanks very much,Finally I found

[imranhos...@gmail.com]

I used to have similar problems too, but after using
"long path tool" You can use to solve this problem.

[shahjam...@gmail.com]

“Long Path Tool” is very helpful for this error !
best solution for your problem.