Re: Running Spybot on TWO Operating systems
Lostgallifreyan
> I have Win98se and Win2000 dual booting on this computer. To run
> Spybot Search and Destroy, do I need to install and run this program
> on BOTH OS's, or will running it from just one OS find any spyware
> problems in both OS's? Right now I have it installed in Win98 (which
> I use more often). But if needed, I can install it in Win2000 also,
> and that beings up another thing, if I do need to run it from both
> OS's, can I use the same installation, or do I need to install it
> twice?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
Depends on whether you can detect it without it being active, to see what it
does. If it's enough to see what it is as stored data, then run it from WXP
if using NTFS disks because W98 doesn't read those unless you add support to
do it.
Most spy stuff is useless if it can't report to base, so you might do better
to run a good firewall (LnS, perhaps, it spots things trying to connect to a
network, and doesn't waste resources while guarding effectively). In this
case you definitely need to run it on whatever OS is active.
Also consider imaging a system with Ghost or some other drive imager, when
you know it's fresh and uninfected. Sometimes that's the fastest way to safe
ground. Locking the registry at each boot unless you tell it otherwise is
also useful, but NOT a full protection.
Other things you can do is look at how stuff starts (StartUp dir in the start
menu system, Run and RunOnce keys in the registry, Shell=Exporer line in
System.ini it shouldn't say anything different than Explorer on that line).
Your own vigilance will keep you safer than any program, and cause you less
worry in the end.
Lostgallifreyan
> There is no NTFS allowed on any of my computers. If I cant access it
> from Dos, I dont want it. Its all Fat32, even my external USB drives
> are Fat32.
>
Same here. Makes things so much easier.
> I tried a firewall some years ago. It drove me nuts with questions
> and settings, and it seemed I spent more time fiddling with that damn
> program than using the computer. I feel pretty safe using Win98
> online without too much trouble. Win2000 on the other hand seems to
> be a magnet to attracting malware. I rarely use Win2000 online. When
> I'm booted to 2000, I may go online to load a weather map, or use the
> newsgroups, but rarely do I do any serious web browsing in 2k. I'd
> rather reboot.
>
I stayed with LnS because it didn't behave like most. For a while I had to
contend with some odd rule-setting dialog methods but I just copied stuff
that worked in the end, and mostly do that even now, the few times I have to.
LnS has a lot of good stuff you don't need to touch, and the rest it only
asks once. I save the reg file so I can add it to a reinstall without having
to be asked stuff I already told it.
> I have a complete backup which I update regularly.
Good.
>>Other things you can do is look at how stuff starts (StartUp dir in the
>>start menu system, Run and RunOnce keys in the registry, Shell=Exporer
>>line in System.ini it shouldn't say anything different than Explorer on
>>that line).
>>
>
> Thats a good idea, and "Hijack This" is a quick and easy program to
> run to see if any oddball stuff is loaded. Spybot is so damn slow,
> that I try to avoid using it too often because when it's running my
> whole system works in turtle mode. I normally run it during the night
> when I am asleep.
>
I used to consider the various spotter programs, but in the end I decided I'd
always be relying on someone else's methods of assessing a threat. Kind of
like needing the local bobby when I'd rather just check my window locks. :) A
lot of the best spotters basically do that anyway, instead of relying on
known threats, they watch what things do, and judge by the actions, directly.
Some other things to watch are config.sys, autoexec.bat, perhaps msdos.sys,
and wininit.ini as well.
>>Your own vigilance will keep you safer than any program, and cause you
>>less worry in the end.
>
> You got that right. I am very selective what sites I visit, and never
> click on executible programs on the web, unless I download them and
> scan them first. I also never open any email attachments from
> strangers. Even from friends I am careful what I open. Photos and
> MP3 files are safe, but anything else I scan first.
>
As far as I know, if the programs chosen are trustworthy, stable, and don't
have obvious points open to exploitation (lots of empty space in them, or C
functions that don't check for buffer overflows, etc), it's pretty hard for
any kind of data file to execute hidden code.
> I'm still unsure whether to install it in both OS's though.
> Doesn't some of that stuff get written into the registry? Will
> running it from one OS detect it if it's in the registry of the other
> OS?
>
Yes, but if you can find no files, no worries, if you do, you likely know
what specific threat to clear out of that registry. Once the offending files
are rooted out, the registry entries can't do much. There is a RenameFiles
key, or some such name, that can be used to copy, move, and delete files, but
if you're really sure something is that pernicious it is just another
potential startup method to watch (I think it might only exist in the
dynamic data section when created immediately before use, if so it can't
survive a reboot). The one thing I'm really unsure about is rootkits, but
I've never encountered one so I don't mind not knowing that much. I decided
one time that if I imaged the system and kept boot sector copies and other
ways to get back, I didn't care what happened so long as I stopped it before
I lost data stores.
Hot-text
<j...@myplace.com> wrote in message
news:kvqts61oa1u4cai62...@4ax.com...
> I have Win98se and Win2000 dual booting on this computer. To run
> Spybot Search and Destroy, do I need to install and run this program
> on BOTH OS's, or will running it from just one OS find any spyware
> problems in both OS's? Right now I have it installed in Win98 (which
> I use more often). But if needed, I can install it in Win2000 also,
> and that beings up another thing, if I do need to run it from both
> OS's, can I use the same installation, or do I need to install it
> twice?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
You need to have SpyBot on both O.S. to scan it on Windows Registry for
that SO and it's own Internet Temp. files!
And if the installation for SpyBot for both O.S. you can Install the same
one>>>>>
thanatoid
> I have Win98se and Win2000 dual booting on this computer.
> To run Spybot Search and Destroy, do I need to install and
> run this program on BOTH OS's, or will running it from just
> one OS find any spyware problems in both OS's? Right now I
> have it installed in Win98 (which I use more often). But
> if needed, I can install it in Win2000 also, and that
> beings up another thing, if I do need to run it from both
> OS's, can I use the same installation, or do I need to
> install it twice?
>
> Thanks in advance.
Have you actually looked at the interface? In "advanced" mode,
you have the choice of including whatever directories your
"downloaded stuff" end up in, but it has /no/ registry or drive
options. This would lead me to assume that it only scans the
registry of the OS it is running under.
Install and run in both. And don't bother doing it more than
every couple of months, unless you are very careless online.
Frankly, I can't remember the last time I ran it. Even before I
had a firewall and an AV scanning everything while online (AOT
scanning DL dirs after logging off) I never got anything. So I
just stopped bothering, especially since it IS so damn slow.
(Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware is about 500 times faster than
Spybot, although I fully believe them both to be equally good,
and they are both free.)
Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware only runs on XP but it will check
both registries and whatever drives you tell it to. No directory
selection, unfortunately, just the whole drive (I pity those who
have 1TB drives and do not believe in partitioning).
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EE612441...@88.198.244.100:
> Have you actually looked at the interface? In "advanced" mode,
> you have the choice of including whatever directories your
> "downloaded stuff" end up in, but it has /no/ registry or drive
> options. This would lead me to assume that it only scans the
> registry of the OS it is running under.
>
> Install and run in both.
Don't those tools know how to examine a registry that is inactive, stored as
a file? We can do it, so they ought to be able to.
I think the registry entries are unlikely to be harmful if you remove the
affected files anyway. About the only thing they could do is try to launch a
browser to go to some site and get re-infected with active code, and that's
the kind of thing anyone would notice.
thanatoid
news:Xns9EE68443661...@216.196.109.145:
> thanatoid <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote in
> news:Xns9EE612441...@88.198.244.100:
>
>> Have you actually looked at the interface? In "advanced"
>> mode, you have the choice of including whatever
>> directories your "downloaded stuff" end up in, but it has
>> /no/ registry or drive options. This would lead me to
>> assume that it only scans the registry of the OS it is
>> running under.
>>
>> Install and run in both.
>
> Don't those tools know how to examine a registry that is
> inactive, stored as a file? We can do it, so they ought to
> be able to.
Anti-Malware Bytes does both registries, but Spybot doesn't.
> I think the registry entries are unlikely to be harmful if
> you remove the affected files anyway. About the only thing
> they could do is try to launch a browser to go to some site
> and get re-infected with active code, and that's the kind
> of thing anyone would notice.
That's another subject altogether.
thanatoid
news:m4l0t69tsg0jaqb20...@4ax.com:
<snip>
> I have never used Malware-bytes since it requires XP, but I
> proved yesterday that Spybot does not find Malware in the
> OS that is *NOT* in use. I upgraded Spybot on my Win98
> install to the latest version, and ran it on my entire
> computer (all 6 partitions). No malware was found. It did
> bring up some cache stuff suggesting to remove it, which I
> did.
>
> Then I installed the exact same version in Win2000, and ran
> it, also scanning all partitions. It found three tracking
> cookies, plus more cache junk to remove. All of these were
> on the D: partitition (Win2000 partition).
Did it find registry pointers to those, or the actual files? In
either case, it sounds VERY minor. I have both my browsers set
up to remove ALL cookies after every session. "The site will not
work the way you like it if you delete the cookie" is total
bullshit in most cases. I do not use social networking sites but
I can see how some custom settings for a site like that, or if
you have your own YouTube channel, MIGHT be valid.
I also empty the Opera cache (with a batch file, like the above
stuff), and OffByOne uses no cache, just RAM, so there is
nothing left to delete - just one cookies file, deleted by the
same batch file.
> I suppose I could have found a way to install just one copy
> of it for both OSs, but it's not using that much drive
> space, so why hassle with it. I'm still fighting with
> trying to get Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 installed to both OSs,
> to view and use the the same mail folders and settings, and
> after hours of frustration, I have given up.
See below.
> I just have
> to boot to Win98 to do my email. Getting some of these
> programs to coexist in two OSs, just is not possible. Yet
> others, such as Forte Agent2 and Winamp run perfectly in
> either OS from the same installation. Thunderbird is not
> one of them, in fact I now believe there is no way to share
> the mail folders, and I sure as hell wont run two of them
> and have to try to remember what mail is in which OS.
I think you COULD share the TBird mail/news folders, at worst
having to edit the registry location entries, but I am pretty
sure that TBird is complex enough and OS-dependent enough that
it places various sys files in the Windows directory. You
probably could install it on both OS's but have the data folders
shared, as mentioned in the first sentence.
I emphatize with your problems of "sharing" email, Usenet etc
programs between two diff. OS's on 2 partitions. I have an XP
partition but I never installed the network drivers or any
interenet programs, since I have no intention of getting on the
internet with XP(+) unless it becomes the ONLY way to get on the
internet - and I trust that will not be the case for some time
yet.
I know nothing about TBird, but I am almost certain that XNews
could be installed in just one partition but run from either OS.
(I have several simple programs - which XNews basically is -
running the same exe with shortcuts to exes and database files
set up under the 2 OS's.)
All XNews puts in the registry is window geometrics, basically,
and it is all really unnecessary - in fact, when something fucks
up in XNews (VERY rarely) I discovered that deleting its
registry tree brings it back to 100% operational state.
All ini's are in the XNews directory, something tells me that is
NOT the case with TBird.
I am a little perplexed by you installing 98SE and 2000. AFAIK,
there is not /that/ much difference between them.
I installed XP because there is hardware for which no pre-XP
drivers exist, as well as because of several useful "XP+ only"
programs (like MBAM). But like I said, I would never go on the
internet with an unsafe demented OS which does incomprehensible
things without the user's knowledge ALL the time.
Unless you have some program that ONLY runs on Win2000 (and I do
not believe such an animal exists), I would junk either 98 or
2000 and put in a non-internet XP partition - if nothing else,
for the superior version of VLC (9x is no longer developed
although it runs all files I have thrown at it, including mp4)
and for MBAM.
BTW, have you tried this little marvel:
http://www.nakka.com/soft/npop/index_eng.html
Besides your standard POP/SMTP mail account, it can be set to
access your webmail Google and mail.com accounts (and possibly
others, instructions on sites) as well, with a few minor
limitations (you have to go in via a browser once in a while and
delete all the accumulated junk - but anyway, most people have
the peculiar habit of letting all their personal and financial
data accumulate on webmail servers for anyone to access if they
REALLY want to).
nPop and Xnews (and GrabIt for nzb binaries) are my essentials.
I use OffByOne and still consider it the best and fastest
browser, and I consider its limitations *assets*. When I need
javascript or flash (like for my bank), I use Opera10USB.
Versions 172b2, b3 and b4 of GrabIt run on 98SELite, although
they are "not supposed to". Or you can use ver. 153b which /was/
designed to run on 9x. It's a buggy program, but once you get
used to its little quirks, very convenient and time-saving.
thanatoid
news:jsh1t69p4v1tlbi87...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 16 May 2011 02:15:32 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
> <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>
>>j...@myplace.com wrote in
>>news:m4l0t69tsg0jaqb20...@4ax.com:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> I have never used Malware-bytes since it requires XP, but
>>> I proved yesterday that Spybot does not find Malware in
>>> the OS that is *NOT* in use. I upgraded Spybot on my
>>> Win98 install to the latest version, and ran it on my
>>> entire computer (all 6 partitions). No malware was
>>> found. It did bring up some cache stuff suggesting to
>>> remove it, which I did.
>>>
>>> Then I installed the exact same version in Win2000, and
>>> ran it, also scanning all partitions. It found three
>>> tracking cookies, plus more cache junk to remove. All of
>>> these were on the D: partitition (Win2000 partition).
>>
>>Did it find registry pointers to those, or the actual
>>files? In either case, it sounds VERY minor. I have both my
>>browsers set up to remove ALL cookies after every session.
>>"The site will not work the way you like it if you delete
>>the cookie" is total bullshit in most cases. I do not use
>>social networking sites but I can see how some custom
>>settings for a site like that, or if you have your own
>>YouTube channel, MIGHT be valid.
>>
> It was very minor and it was just cookies which I believe
> were registry entries. One was sometthing called Ad-Yield
> (something like that). I forgot the others. But there
> were no files. I'm sure if files existed, I would have
> noticed them in Hijack This, which I run every few days. I
> only run spybot every few months because it's so damn slow.
>
>>I also empty the Opera cache (with a batch file, like the
>>above stuff), and OffByOne uses no cache, just RAM, so
>>there is nothing left to delete - just one cookies file,
>>deleted by the same batch file.
>
> I have links on my desktop to all cache and cookies
> folders. At least once a day I empty all of them. I
> should make a batch file, but this works fast too.
The batch file also serves as a backup program. I have never
managed to actually use a real backup program more than once
after installing it. %-]
<snip>
> similar, and I like that. I really hate XP. I hated it
> when it first came out and I still hate it. I dont want a
> computer that tells me what to do. In 98 I CONTROL the
> computer. I can only imagine how worse Vista and W7 are.
> Not only that, but XP was the first MS OS where MS could
> spy on us. That's what that verification crap ia all about
> plus stopping piracy. NO THANKS.
I agree with every word you said.
> I originally installed Win2000 only for the USB support.
> It was only a few months ago that I decided to go online
> with it, because I was doing a backup on USB drives and
> needed to get something off the web, not wait a few hours
> till the backup was done. Since then I use it on occasion,
> and for soem odd reason, my dialup connection is just
> slightly faster using 2000. I often download large youtube
> videos, so I normally do that from 2000 now, because I
> download them when I am asleep. But it's annoying when I
> have to wait 2 hours for a download to complete and can not
> access my email till I reboot.
I used a 33.6 modem until about a year and a half ago so I know
what you're going through. But I find it VERY hard to believe
something about 2000 vs. 98 would make you modem work better. It
must be an MTU setting or something...
I have tweaked my 33.6 modem exctensively every time I changed
ISP's modem and it was running at something like 99.8 efficiency
according to a 3+ hour test with something called "Modem
diagnostics" or Modem doctor".
>>I installed XP because there is hardware for which no
>>pre-XP drivers exist, as well as because of several useful
>>"XP+ only" programs (like MBAM). But like I said, I would
>>never go on the internet with an unsafe demented OS which
>>does incomprehensible things without the user's knowledge
>>ALL the time.
>>
> Besides hating XP, I think it would run too slow on this P3
> 1ghz machine.
If you have 256 MB RAM or better (but NOT essential), 512 MB,.
it would run just fine. I knew somebody who ran XP on a 266Mhz
P2 with 256 RAM. I found it incredible, but it DID work.
> I have the misfortune of having XP on my
> laptop. I only bought that laptop for WIFI use when I
> travel. I was going to downgrade it to Win2000, but I
> found out the wifi would not work. So I'm stuck with that
> P.O.S XP. I've stripped out much of the gargbage, but it's
> still annoying. Since I only use that computer when I
> travel, I dont have to use XP too often, and MS can spy on
> me all they want, because I have no financial info on there
> at all, and my internet connectrion changes daily. So,
> fuck em' I will never connect that computer to the net at
> home, not even for a test. If I want to add some program
> to it, I download it on the desktop computer and transfer
> the files over to the laptop with a memory stick.
OK. SO you know enough about XP to handle it (with a whip in one
hand and a rifle in the other).
WHY go through this hassle with Win 2000just for the minimal
difference of, I'm guessing, maybe an average of 52.4 vs. an
average 54.8? Internet speeds vary all the time, every minute,
even with BB.
Unless you ran a test at exactly the same time DL'g the exactly
same file, I don't think you can claim Win2000 IS really faster
with your dial-up. It may just SEEM so for some reason. You
could probably tweak your modem under 98 to work just as well.
There are several good programs to do that.
>>Unless you have some program that ONLY runs on Win2000 (and
>>I do not believe such an animal exists), I would junk
>>either 98 or 2000 and put in a non-internet XP partition -
>>if nothing else, for the superior version of VLC (9x is no
>>longer developed although it runs all files I have thrown
>>at it, including mp4) and for MBAM.
>
> I will never get rid of Win98. It's the only OS I truly
> like. 2000 is just there for USB support and a few programs
> that wont run in 98.
I agree and dread the day running 98SEL will be difficult or
impossible on the only existing hardware. But we have some time
yet.
And XP would give you all the advantages of Win2000, granted,
with an infuriating OS, but with MORE compatibility should you
decide to get anew piece of hardware or something.
And USB 2 works just fine on 98 and I (and many others) can help
you make it so on your machine. In fact, USB works better on
98SEL than on XP! (Under XP it assigns my USB drive's partitions
in the most bizarre way, showing one of them TWICE, and in the
wrong order.) But like I said, I only use XP for ONE piece of
hardware and to run MBAM once a month or so.
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EE7CC023...@88.198.244.100:
> I agree and dread the day running 98SEL will be difficult or
> impossible on the only existing hardware. But we have some time
> yet.
>
Keep watching out for virtual i386 architecture. I posted recently about the
idea that such a thing could give us a 10 GHz W98 system if we wanted, on
multiple cores. W98 would just think it was a single fast one.
The industry standard i386 architecture has been so extremely successful, it
is maybe the single largest basis for common computing in all its history.
Even if hardware DOES outstrip any current OS, I think that there will be
ways round that. This wouldn't a slow complex thing verging on a hack as some
emulators are, tottering unsteadily on an already complex software base,
mostly only used by enthusiasts who are gluttons for punishment. I can
imagine huge demand for it, it's the kind of thing the industry is likely to
sell in user-pluggable BIOS to enable a machine to not just emulate a given
architecture, but pretty much to BE it, as it will operate at the same low
level as BIOS itself.
Until now there was no great need for this, but if 64 bit multicores become
the norm, there will be a huge demand to easily convert them to run stuff
that wants i386. This isn't just W98, it's WXP too, and BSD, Linux... BSD in
particular was adapted to many architectures, but if some foundation
converter can be built it might be easier to use an OS on different hardware
than it has ever been. Much more future proof too.
thanatoid
news:Xns9EE81F031BC...@216.196.109.145:
<snip>
> Keep watching out for virtual i386 architecture. I posted
> recently about the idea that such a thing could give us a
> 10 GHz W98 system if we wanted, on multiple cores. W98
> would just think it was a single fast one.
You present a lot of interesting ideas.
I still don't understand what you're up to, but it sure is
interesting to follow...
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EE819DBE...@88.198.244.100:
I try. :) I'm actually just hoping it will happen, but part of that is to get
the ideas out there, any way possible. A few people who might really get it
is worth more than a mass media campaign (which would be moronic). And if the
idea ever takes hold that will happen anyway, and I wouldn't have to do it.
About i386 architecture, I mean the basic PC. I picked up the elaborate term
while looking at OpenBSD, where they have other alternatives like Sun and
SPARC, and other likely expensive exotica. So imagine the power of a system
that could put an image of those, or anything else, onto whatever gets made
next. Multiple CPU's are a pain, it's only happening because it's hard to
make one of them go much faster now. If people can CHEAT that with software,
they will.
thanatoid
news:Xns9EE87155DEF...@216.196.109.145:
<snip>
> About i386 architecture, I mean the basic PC.
That much I /did/ understand ;-)
It has been fairly obvious to me for some time that since 'they'
apparently can not make processors go any faster, they are now
doubling and quadrupling their numbers. (I was STUNNED when I
saw a cheap new machine in a store and it was just a 1.6 GHz
Pentium.)
It really doesn't make sense - I know it's a different thing,
but would you have 4 engines, one for each wheel, or would
having 4 engines all powering a single drive train be even more
insane?
I remember reading something about protein-molecule-based (or
something) processing, but that is probably a bit off still.
Still, anything to make lots of money. Pretty soon there will be
16 (etc) core machines. Maybe gamers will appreciate it, but
psychotics appreciate a lot of things we lowly neurotics miss.
Aside from converting music and watching/editing video, I can
STILL do everything I need to on a P1 166MHz w/96 RAM.
Bill in Co
Or *editing* music, too.
Or editing photos, for that matter.
Or running any version of MS Office. :-) (I don't always want to have to
use Notepad or Wordpad. Or EDLIN, for that matter).
I'd find a 166 MHz a bit too sluggish for my needs, even with Win95. But
for DOS, no problemo. If I click on windows explorer, and it takes 5 or 10
seconds to display the C: folders list, you can have it.
thanatoid
news:mIKdnUtG_-kCpk7Q...@earthlink.com:
<snip>
>> Aside from converting music and watching/editing video, I
>> can STILL do everything I need to on a P1 166MHz w/96 RAM.
>
> Or *editing* music, too.
No, I can edit music just fine in Goldwave (even CoolEditPro2,
some basic things) once it has been converted. That's what takes
forever - but it works. Editing IS slow, but it also works.
> Or editing photos, for that matter.
That is not at ALL a problem. I never ran across an image I
couldn't work with - and this includes my own scans 12MB in
size. And it's not even that slow.
> Or running any version of MS Office. :-)
That's irrelevant since you would have to kill me first. But
AAMOF, I /have/ run Office 97 on that 166MHZ machine, I needed
to design and work with database in Access. No problem. After
the project was done, I deleted the evil from my computer and
since then I have run NO MS program except the OSs.
> (I don't always want to have to use Notepad or Wordpad. Or
EDLIN, for that matter).
You use Metapad Lite or Edxor. I'm sure I've mentioned them
before.
When I need to make something that I want to print and look
nice, I use PageMaker 6.52. Works just fine, prints just fine on
that 166, as well. And it has a better editor etc then Word, not
to mention it is about a hundred times smaller and does not
totally fuck up the system, and bring it to a crawl.
> I'd find a 166 MHz a bit too sluggish for my needs, even
> with Win95. But for DOS, no problemo. If I click on
> windows explorer, and it takes 5 or 10 seconds to display
> the C: folders list, you can have it.
Well, as I have repeatedly said:
Windows Explorer is NOT a file manager. It is a torture device
whose primary function is to prevent a new computer user from
understanding the basic principles of file and directory
organization, to keep him/her as ignorant as possible, and to
allow only the most basic of functions, the execution of which
is designed to be as troublesome as possible.
I use Total Commander, and it is lightning fast on ANYTHING.
Sure, comparing two 200 MB files byte by byte (one of its many
capabilities) /will/ take a while on a 166, but it CAN be done.
Bill in Co
I've got both Editpad Lite and Metapad, and often use Metapad in place of
Notepad. So far I've preferred it to Editpad Lite, but I haven't revisited
that.
But if you want (or need) a more powerful word processor, those all fall
short of anything close to what Word or even MS Works can do. Actually, I
generally prefer to use the old version of MS Works (4.5 or earlier, before
MS screwed it up), but there are times even it falls short, and Word is
needed.
> When I need to make something that I want to print and look
> nice, I use PageMaker 6.52. Works just fine, prints just fine on
> that 166, as well. And it has a better editor etc then Word, not
> to mention it is about a hundred times smaller and does not
> totally fuck up the system, and bring it to a crawl.
>
>> I'd find a 166 MHz a bit too sluggish for my needs, even
>> with Win95. But for DOS, no problemo. If I click on
>> windows explorer, and it takes 5 or 10 seconds to display
>> the C: folders list, you can have it.
>
> Well, as I have repeatedly said:
>
> Windows Explorer is NOT a file manager.
Sure it is. Although it was interesting (and sometimes a bit annoying) that
they dropped some features that were present in the earlier version called
"File Manager" (in Windows 3.1)
> It is a torture device
> whose primary function is to prevent a new computer user from
> understanding the basic principles of file and directory
> organization, to keep him/her as ignorant as possible, and to
> allow only the most basic of functions, the execution of which
> is designed to be as troublesome as possible.
Well, not for me. But then again, I also have xplorer2, XYplorer,
PowerFile, and EF Commander Free at my disposal, but really don't need them
all that often.
> I use Total Commander, and it is lightning fast on ANYTHING.
> Sure, comparing two 200 MB files byte by byte (one of its many
> capabilities) /will/ take a while on a 166, but it CAN be done.
I haven't had to do a file comparison recently, but when I do I can use one
of those other apps.
Bill in Co
> j...@myplace.com wrote in
> news:jsh1t69p4v1tlbi87...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 16 May 2011 02:15:32 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
>> <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>>
<snip>
>
>>> I installed XP because there is hardware for which no
>>> pre-XP drivers exist, as well as because of several useful
>>> "XP+ only" programs (like MBAM). But like I said, I would
>>> never go on the internet with an unsafe demented OS which
>>> does incomprehensible things without the user's knowledge
>>> ALL the time.
>>>
>> Besides hating XP, I think it would run too slow on this P3
>> 1ghz machine.
>
> If you have 256 MB RAM or better (but NOT essential), 512 MB,.
> it would run just fine.
Agreed. I think 512 MB is a good reasonable minimum, though.
1 GHz CPU should be ok, but it's nothing to write home about, that's for
sure.
> I knew somebody who ran XP on a 266Mhz
> P2 with 256 RAM. I found it incredible, but it DID work.
Now THAT would be beyond my limit! He must have had the patience of Job!!
:-)
> decide to get a new piece of hardware or something.
I wouldn't classify it as "infuriating". True, it's no nimble Win98,
though, and if you're a dedicated control freak, you're gonna have to give
up something. But that's the price. At least it ain't Vista!
> And USB 2 works just fine on 98 and I (and many others) can help
> you make it so on your machine. In fact, USB works better on
> 98SEL than on XP!
Maybe in your case - not so true over here.
> (Under XP it assigns my USB drive's partitions
> in the most bizarre way, showing one of them TWICE, and in the
> wrong order.) But like I said, I only use XP for ONE piece of
> hardware and to run MBAM once a month or so.
Your situation might be a bit bizarre, as you indicated.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
<surly_cu...@earthlink.net> writes:
[]
>> Windows Explorer is NOT a file manager.
>
>Sure it is. Although it was interesting (and sometimes a bit annoying) that
>they dropped some features that were present in the earlier version called
>"File Manager" (in Windows 3.1)
Which still works under '9x (albeit with 8.3 filenames); I think it
might even still be there.
(What features in particular?)
[]
>I haven't had to do a file comparison recently, but when I do I can use one
>of those other apps.
>
>
For text files, I like the one (JFC) that came with Xtree Gold.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
There is no character, howsoever good and fine, but it can be destroyed by
ridicule, howsoever poor and witless. -Mark Twain, author and humorist
(1835-1910)
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EE8D4772...@88.198.244.100:
> It really doesn't make sense - I know it's a different thing,
> but would you have 4 engines, one for each wheel, or would
> having 4 engines all powering a single drive train be even more
> insane?
>
Got to admit I haven't thought it through much, but the general idea would be
like interleaving for hard disks, when they didn't spin fast enough to allow
data to be laid contguously. The division of labour (and data might be by
means many and various, but always amount to the same thing: spread the load
across all cores equally so that more can be done by all per unit time.
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EE8D4772...@88.198.244.100:
> I remember reading something about protein-molecule-based (or
> something) processing, but that is probably a bit off still.
>
Watch a small space called 'memristor'. But once those are in large cheap
array there's a good chance computers of a totally different type might
exist, not Turning Machines anymore. Memristors will allow much more brain-
like machines to be made because a memristor is inherently more like a neuron
than a transistor is. I still don't know much about memristors so that's
about all I can ssay about them other than one detail: they act according to
how much current they passed the past time they were used, and are as
fundamental as inductors, resistors and capacitors, so will CHANGE things far
more profoundly than we can imagine now, or dirung the next ten years.
Multicores are just a way to maintain some increase in capability for now.
Lostgallifreyan
>> Aside from converting music and watching/editing video, I can
>> STILL do everything I need to on a P1 166MHz w/96 RAM.
>
> Or *editing* music, too.
> Or editing photos, for that matter.
>
Exactly.. I need to convert DVD to XviD or my system won't even let me watch
the video. What's nice about multicores is that a foundation converter might
be sensitive to loading, and shut down cores during very low loads to save
power.
thanatoid
> thanatoid wrote:
>> You use Metapad Lite or Edxor. I'm sure I've mentioned
>> them before.
>
> I've got both Editpad Lite and Metapad, and often use
> Metapad in place of Notepad. So far I've preferred it to
> Editpad Lite, but I haven't revisited that.
>
> But if you want (or need) a more powerful word processor,
> those all fall short of anything close to what Word or even
> MS Works can do. Actually, I generally prefer to use the
> old version of MS Works (4.5 or earlier, before MS screwed
> it up), but there are times even it falls short, and Word
> is needed.
No MS "software" for me, thanks.
<snip>
>> Well, as I have repeatedly said:
>>
>> Windows Explorer is NOT a file manager.
(just sayin')
thanatoid
news:djm6t614r9u7dlt9d...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 17 May 2011 01:02:41 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
> <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
>>The batch file also serves as a backup program. I have
>>never managed to actually use a real backup program more
>>than once after installing it. %-]
>>
>
> That's a good idea. I backup using just a simple COPY
> command. Copy the entire drive E: (for example) to the
> folder EEE on my backup drive. Drives C: (Win98) and D:
> (Win2000), can not copy the entire partition. I have to
> leave out the Windows folders, and on 2000, the Documents
> and Settings folder (plus swap files). What I do is backup
> all the other folders on those drives. Then I backup the
> Win98 folder while booted to Win2000 (delete the swap file
> first). Because I have no USB support from Win98, I run
> Winzip on the Win2000 and it's Docs and Settings folder
> (while I'm using Win98). Then I boot to Win2000, and copy
> those two zip files to my backup drive.
Sounds like an awful lot of work. It's a good idea to have as
few directories as possible where stuff ends up - or move stuff
there via batch file output.
I have found some most unexpected places all over the C: drive
where stupid programs leave absolutely unnecessary data, which
in my anal-retentiveness, I have to delete (using the batch
file), but all my DL stuff goes to c:\temp and is then moved
when necessary.
<snip>
>>> Not only that, but XP was the first MS OS where MS could
>>> spy on us. That's what that verification crap ia all
>>> about plus stopping piracy. NO THANKS.
>>
>>I agree with every word you said.
>>
>>> have to wait 2 hours for a download to complete and can
>>> not access my email till I reboot.
>>
>>I used a 33.6 modem until about a year and a half ago so I
>>know what you're going through. But I find it VERY hard to
>>believe something about 2000 vs. 98 would make you modem
>>work better. It must be an MTU setting or something...
>>
>>I have tweaked my 33.6 modem exctensively every time I
>>changed ISP's modem and it was running at something like
>>99.8 efficiency according to a 3+ hour test with something
>>called "Modem diagnostics" or Modem doctor".
>>
> It's not that big of a deal. I never exceed 44,000 modem
> speed (56K modem), while booted in Win98. In Win2000, I
> regularly get 45,600 speed. Not a big deal,
Have you calculated the difference? Taking into account standard
variations, it can't be more than 2 or 3%.
> but I download
> these 120meg files once every week, and that takes around 7
> hours. Of course it never fails that during that download,
> I'll lose my internet connection, or we have a one second
> power failure, or something else causes me to start the
> whole download all over again, and that really pisses me
> off.
If you used a simple reconnect dial-up utility and a good
newsreader, they would pick up at the point where there was the
loss of connection. If you DO have power failures, a cheap UPS
may not be a bad thing to get, since you a computer that is
powered off can obviously not reconnect to the net.
> If it wasn't for the fact that I have not been able to
> figure out how to get the correct version of Adobe Flash
> installed on my XP laptop, because it keeps telling me I
> need a newer version, and I have the newest one.
Adobe, in an unususal move, made the then-latest 9.? version of
Flash available for DL a while ago to overcome that problem on
less-than-one-week-old systems. You can also do a minor hack
which makes sites thik the 9.? is in fact 10.? That was asked
about and replied to by me (and possibly some other people) a
few mnonths ago. The way to do it is in this group, about a year
ago, maybe little less. I can't remember it. Once I make a major
change, I do a new Acxronis image and forget about the gory
details of how I did it.
Anyway, since doing those 2 things, the amount of flv crap that
does not play (and get auto-saved in the Opera cache) is less
than 3% or so. I do very little flv anyway, mostly some old
music nostalgia - I consider flash (and the whole www FTM) a
curse.
<snip>
Well, you don't want to answer the phone when you are asleep.
Effectively not having a phone was one of the advantages of
using dial-up. If someone wants to talk to me, they can write me
a letter (few people have my email address).
<snip>
>>If you have 256 MB RAM or better (but NOT essential), 512
>>MB,. it would run just fine. I knew somebody who ran XP on
>>a 266Mhz P2 with 256 RAM. I found it incredible, but it DID
>>work.
>>
> That's pretty amazing. I have 512 megs of ram on this
> computer. I do have an old P2 computer with 256m Ram and a
> 500, or 533, 5xx (something) procesor. I should install XP
> on that thing, but then I'd have to do the verification BS,
> and I only have the legal copy on my laptop, so forget that
> BS.
Assorted pre-hacked copies of various versions of all MS OS's
are freely available all over the place.
<snip>
>>And XP would give you all the advantages of Win2000,
>>granted, with an infuriating OS, but with MORE
>>compatibility should you decide to get anew piece of
>>hardware or something.
>
> Yea, but first I'd have to buy XP (cant use the same one as
> my laptop), then verify is with MS, and then MS can spy on
> me. No thanks!
See above. Also, I believe you can buy cheap legal XP's on eBay,
just make sure you don't get a pirate copy or a copy which has
already been installed twenty times on various machines.
Also, while personally, I am simply too lazy to go through the
process since I am perfectly happy with net access with 98SEL,
there /are/ ways of disabling all that MS spyware shit, you just
have to find some good tweak sites.
thanatoid
> thanatoid wrote:
<snip>
>> If you have 256 MB RAM or better (but NOT essential), 512
>> MB,. it would run just fine.
>
> Agreed. I think 512 MB is a good reasonable minimum,
> though. 1 GHz CPU should be ok, but it's nothing to write
> home about, that's for sure.
My 7 yr old EVOD510 came with 256 MB's of RAM. When I installed
1GB, I expected a major improvement. *All* that happened is that
now, instead of having about a 50-100 MB of RAM free all the
time, I have about 600-750 MB free all the time. Absolutely no
performance improvement.
>> I knew somebody who ran XP on a 266Mhz
>> P2 with 256 RAM. I found it incredible, but it DID work.
>
> Now THAT would be beyond my limit! He must have had the
> patience of Job!!
>:-)
No, it really worked. It wasn't FAST, but it was acceptable.
<snip>
> I wouldn't classify [XP] as "infuriating". True, it's no
> nimble Win98, though, and if you're a dedicated control
> freak, you're gonna have to give up something. But that's
> the price. At least it ain't Vista!
It's close.
>> And USB 2 works just fine on 98 and I (and many others)
>> can help you make it so on your machine. In fact, USB
>> works better on 98SEL than on XP!
>
> Maybe in your case - not so true over here.
It was not a 2-minute procedure, but I am certain it can be done
on any machine with hardware compatibility.
>> (Under XP it assigns my USB drive's partitions
>> in the most bizarre way, showing one of them TWICE, and in
>> the wrong order.) But like I said, I only use XP for ONE
>> piece of hardware and to run MBAM once a month or so.
>
> Your situation might be a bit bizarre, as you indicated.
I believe XP is to blame. WHY does 98 do it logically (no pun
intended)?
Bill in Co
> In message <dsidnTNpqezf9k7Q...@earthlink.com>, Bill in Co
> <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> writes:
> []
>>> Windows Explorer is NOT a file manager.
>>
>> Sure it is. Although it was interesting (and sometimes a bit annoying)
>> that
>> they dropped some features that were present in the earlier version
>> called
>> "File Manager" (in Windows 3.1)
>
> Which still works under '9x (albeit with 8.3 filenames); I think it
> might even still be there.
>
> (What features in particular?)
Dual panel, for one. It's been too long to remember any others (and maybe
I'm misremembering that there were)
Bill in Co
> "Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:jPWdnSS_JOjb9k7Q...@earthlink.com:
>
>> thanatoid wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> If you have 256 MB RAM or better (but NOT essential), 512
>>> MB,. it would run just fine.
>>
>> Agreed. I think 512 MB is a good reasonable minimum,
>> though. 1 GHz CPU should be ok, but it's nothing to write
>> home about, that's for sure.
>
> My 7 yr old EVOD510 came with 256 MB's of RAM. When I installed
> 1GB, I expected a major improvement. *All* that happened is that
> now, instead of having about a 50-100 MB of RAM free all the
> time, I have about 600-750 MB free all the time. Absolutely no
> performance improvement.
Evidently you aren't doing any AV (audio or video) processing.
I was talking about XP, not W98. I think (for XP) going from 256 MB to 512
MB of RAM will give a significant improvement for many tasks. If all you're
doing is running Metapad, then no, I wouldn't expect much difference.
Come to think of it, I noticed a nice improvement on my old W98 computer
when I upgraded the RAM from 256 MB to 512 MB (granted, it was not as
noticeable as going from 128 MB to 256 MB). But again, it probably depends
on the tasks you're doing.
>>> I knew somebody who ran XP on a 266Mhz
>>> P2 with 256 RAM. I found it incredible, but it DID work.
>>
>> Now THAT would be beyond my limit! He must have had the
>> patience of Job!!
>> :-)
>
> No, it really worked. It wasn't FAST, but it was acceptable.
I wasn't doubting it worked, but I would hate the wait! When I click on
something, I like a (completed) response sooner, than later.
> <snip>
>
>> I wouldn't classify [XP] as "infuriating". True, it's no
>> nimble Win98, though, and if you're a dedicated control
>> freak, you're gonna have to give up something. But that's
>> the price. At least it ain't Vista!
>
> It's close.
>
>>> And USB 2 works just fine on 98 and I (and many others)
>>> can help you make it so on your machine. In fact, USB
>>> works better on 98SEL than on XP!
>>
>> Maybe in your case - not so true over here.
>
> It was not a 2-minute procedure, but I am certain it can be done
> on any machine with hardware compatibility.
>
>>> (Under XP it assigns my USB drive's partitions
>>> in the most bizarre way, showing one of them TWICE, and in
>>> the wrong order.) But like I said, I only use XP for ONE
>>> piece of hardware and to run MBAM once a month or so.
>>
>> Your situation might be a bit bizarre, as you indicated.
>
> I believe XP is to blame. WHY does 98 do it logically (no pun
> intended)?
Because it's simpler and has less to deal with.
I do, however. appreciate the simplicity (and elegance therein) of a more
fundamental operating system like W98, something I had to let go of when
going to XP. But with XP, I'm not limited in what programs I can install
and run, as I was in W98 - particularly in the audio and video arena (and
that includes some processing or editing, not just playing them).
thanatoid
> thanatoid wrote:
<snip>
>> My 7 yr old EVOD510 came with 256 MB's of RAM. When I
>> installed 1GB, I expected a major improvement. *All* that
>> happened is that now, instead of having about a 50-100 MB
>> of RAM free all the time, I have about 600-750 MB free all
>> the time. Absolutely no performance improvement.
>
> Evidently you aren't doing any AV (audio or video)
> processing. I was talking about XP, not W98. I think (for
> XP) going from 256 MB to 512 MB of RAM will give a
> significant improvement for many tasks. If all you're
> doing is running Metapad, then no, I wouldn't expect much
> difference.
No difference in either OS. I should have stated that.
<snip>
> I wasn't doubting it worked, but I would hate the wait!
> When I click on something, I like a (completed) response
> sooner, than later.
The later was quite acceptable.
<snip>
>> I believe XP is to blame. WHY does 98 do it logically (no
>> pun intended)?
>
> Because it's simpler and has less to deal with.
I can't accept that. There is NO excuse for showing a partition
TWICE with different letters assigned. XP is supposed to BETTER,
remember? It is supposed to GET RID of all the 9x problems!
> I do, however. appreciate the simplicity (and elegance
> therein) of a more fundamental operating system like W98,
> something I had to let go of when going to XP. But with
> XP, I'm not limited in what programs I can install and run,
> as I was in W98 - particularly in the audio and video arena
> (and that includes some processing or editing, not just
> playing them).
As I have said MANY times before, if, excluding some new
technology (like my STUPID analog video capture card with NO
pre-XP drivers), you can't find a 9x app that will do the same
better and faster than an XP app, then you just don't know how
to search for stuff on the net.
Bill in Co
> "Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:qNqdnbTScJSmkUnQ...@earthlink.com:
>
>> thanatoid wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> My 7 yr old EVOD510 came with 256 MB's of RAM. When I
>>> installed 1GB, I expected a major improvement. *All* that
>>> happened is that now, instead of having about a 50-100 MB
>>> of RAM free all the time, I have about 600-750 MB free all
>>> the time. Absolutely no performance improvement.
>>
>> Evidently you aren't doing any AV (audio or video)
>> processing. I was talking about XP, not W98. I think (for
>> XP) going from 256 MB to 512 MB of RAM will give a
>> significant improvement for many tasks. If all you're
>> doing is running Metapad, then no, I wouldn't expect much
>> difference.
>
> No difference in either OS. I should have stated that.
There was for me. I mean, you can run W98SE on 128 MB, but it sucks. 256
MB is a nice practical minimum. Not so for XP, which pretty much requires
at least 512 MB for any reasonable performance.
> <snip>
>
>> I wasn't doubting it worked, but I would hate the wait!
>> When I click on something, I like a (completed) response
>> sooner, than later.
>
> The later was quite acceptable.
I guess it depends on how long you have to wait, and what is tolerable.
Well, I used to be on dial-up not too long ago, so I guess I should talk,
lol.
> <snip>
>
>>> I believe XP is to blame. WHY does 98 do it logically (no
>>> pun intended)?
>>
>> Because it's simpler and has less to deal with.
>
> I can't accept that. There is NO excuse for showing a partition
> TWICE with different letters assigned.
Doesn't on mine, nor many others, I suspect.
> XP is supposed to BETTER,
> remember?
In many ways it is.
> It is supposed to GET RID of all the 9x problems!
It does to a large extent:
1. No more running out of heap resources.
2. I haven't seen a blue screen in ages.
3. USB2 support is great, and is never an issue.
4. Internal SATA drives (connected directly to the MB) work great.
5. I can run just about any software app of my choosing.
What is not so great is the loss in the micromanagement that I once had
available to me in W98. And that some things are not quite as simple and
straightforward as with W98 (like where some files or folders are placed,
etc). And, of course, if you have a minimal spec system, XP is a bit too
heavy for that.
>> I do, however. appreciate the simplicity (and elegance
>> therein) of a more fundamental operating system like W98,
>> something I had to let go of when going to XP. But with
>> XP, I'm not limited in what programs I can install and run,
>> as I was in W98 - particularly in the audio and video arena
>> (and that includes some processing or editing, not just
>> playing them).
>
> As I have said MANY times before, if, excluding some new
> technology (like my STUPID analog video capture card with NO
> pre-XP drivers), you can't find a 9x app that will do the same
> better and faster than an XP app, then you just don't know how
> to search for stuff on the net.
Nope. There is nothing to compare Adobe Audition 1.5, Sound Forge 7, and
various video editing software. I'm sorry, but Audacity, and even
Goldwave, don't quite cut it. Your choices are just too limited.
And yes, I've looked at, and have tried out, LOTS of such apps over the
years, and I mean LOTs! In fact, I bet you can't name one real audio
editor that I haven't tried and messed around with. ("Audio editor" means
just that. I'm not talking about Winamp. :-)
But - if all you're doing is opening document files or playing music, that's
another story. But with Win98, you ARE limited in your choices of apps.
thanatoid
> thanatoid wrote:
<snip>
>>>> My 7 yr old EVOD510 came with 256 MB's of RAM. When I
>>>> installed 1GB, I expected a major improvement. *All*
>>>> that happened is that now, instead of having about a
>>>> 50-100 MB of RAM free all the time, I have about 600-750
>>>> MB free all the time. Absolutely no performance
>>>> improvement.
>>>
>>> Evidently you aren't doing any AV (audio or video)
>>> processing. I was talking about XP, not W98. I think
>>> (for XP) going from 256 MB to 512 MB of RAM will give a
>>> significant improvement for many tasks. If all you're
>>> doing is running Metapad, then no, I wouldn't expect much
>>> difference.
>>
>> No difference in either OS. I should have stated that.
>
> There was for me. I mean, you can run W98SE on 128 MB,
> but it sucks. 256 MB is a nice practical minimum. Not
> so for XP, which pretty much requires at least 512 MB for
> any reasonable performance.
OK, I'll put the two paragraphs together for easier
comprehension:
My 7 yr old EVOD510 came with 256 MB's of RAM. When I
installed 1GB, I expected a major improvement. *All* that
happened is that now, instead of having about a 50-100 MB
of RAM free all the time, I have about 600-750 MB free all
the time. Absolutely no performance improvement. No difference
in either OS.
Added for /extra/ comprehension:
The free RAM figures above apply to both 98SELite and XPProSP3.
Conclusion:
Yes, I was quite surprised. But there you are. NO DIFFERENCE.
(I forgot to mention NO swap file use on either OS. OK, if I
wanted to edit an hour long video, I would probably put in the
second 1GB stick of RAM which is not used since 98SEL won't boot
if it's in the machine. But since I have yet to do more than
casually test the analog video capture test, I am not holding my
breath. I may very well /never/ get around to archiving my old
stuff, I really don't care anymore.)
<snip>
>>>> I believe XP is to blame. WHY does 98 do it logically
>>>> (no pun intended)?
>>>
>>> Because it's simpler and has less to deal with.
>>
>> I can't accept that. There is NO excuse for showing a
>> partition TWICE with different letters assigned.
>
> Doesn't on mine, nor many others, I suspect.
That is not an answer. That's something MS would say.
>> XP is supposed to BETTER,
>> remember?
>
> In many ways it is.
>
>> It is supposed to GET RID of all the 9x problems!
>
> It does to a large extent:
>
> 1. No more running out of heap resources.
Unless you run 20 instances of a browser on sites with heavy
graphics let alone video, it is almost never a real problem.
Ever since I first used Windows 3.1, I learned that sometimes it
is necessary to reboot Windows at least 2 or 3 times a session,
for a variety of reasons. Sometimes I can work for 15 hrs
without rebooting. It is a limitation of its "640KB of memory
should be enough for anyone" design and it's not a big deal
considering what came after.
> 2. I haven't seen a blue screen in ages.
That's like saying living in Panama is great because there is no
malaria.
I have never had a BSOD in XP but I still HATE using it.
> 3. USB2 support is great, and is never an issue.
As mentioned previously, nor is it on my EVO using 98SELite.
> 4. Internal SATA drives (connected directly to the MB)
> work great.
When I get one, I may appreciate that aspect of it.
5. I can run just about any software app of my choosing.
Already addressed.
> What is not so great is the loss in the micromanagement
> that I once had available to me in W98. And that some
> things are not quite as simple and straightforward as with
> W98 (like where some files or folders are placed, etc).
Like I may have said earlier, I'd rather have to reboot from a
BSOD every hour than to deal with the totally insane directory
design/multi users approach of XP.
> And, of course, if you have a minimal spec system, XP is a
> bit too heavy for that.
As above.
>>> I do, however. appreciate the simplicity (and elegance
>>> therein) of a more fundamental operating system like W98,
>>> something I had to let go of when going to XP. But with
>>> XP, I'm not limited in what programs I can install and
>>> run, as I was in W98 - particularly in the audio and
>>> video arena (and that includes some processing or
>>> editing, not just playing them).
>>
>> As I have said MANY times before, if, excluding some new
>> technology (like my STUPID analog video capture card with
>> NO pre-XP drivers), you can't find a 9x app that will do
>> the same better and faster than an XP app, then you just
>> don't know how to search for stuff on the net.
>
> Nope. There is nothing to compare Adobe Audition 1.5,
> Sound Forge 7, and various video editing software. I'm
> sorry, but Audacity, and even Goldwave, don't quite cut it.
> Your choices are just too limited.
I have never tried Sound Forge or Audacity, but I know Audacity
used to be CoolEditPro2. I use Goldwave regularly (ver. 4.26
from 2002, I /have/ tried a later version and all it had was
unnecessary bloat) and CEP2 when I need to do more complicated
things. I would HATE to see what Adobe did to CEP. From what I
read around the time it came out, nothing beat CEP, and it
certainly has never let ME down. Sound Forge was the standard in
the mid 90's - I wasn't into computer music editing then, I was
still using real instruments.
As I have said many times before, except for brand new
technology, I can't really think of any apps written after 2005
that are /anything/ but rewrites of stuff from the 80's and 90's
for computers which allow you to do things which could NOT be
done in the 80's. But AFAIAC, there's been nothing really new or
useful in software for well over 6 (if not 10) years except
added bloat and basically useless features to trick people into
buying new versions.
Think of the records you have heard made before CoolEditPro was
even available. Think of the records you heard which were done
on a 4-track cassette machine (OK, maybe you're not into the
kind of music where that is not an uncommon occurrence). Think
of Beatles recording on 2-track machines in the early 60's.
Think of all the music made with MIDI in the 80's on computers
with totally laughable specs.
WHAT could possibly Audacity 1.5 (or Audacity 20) have that
anyone REALLY needs?
> And yes, I've looked at, and have tried out, LOTS of such
> apps over the years, and I mean LOTs! In fact, I bet you
> can't name one real audio editor that I haven't tried and
> messed around with. ("Audio editor" means just that. I'm
> not talking about Winamp. :-)
I won't claim to have tried every audio editor, but I have tried
hundreds if not thousands of various programs over 20 years.
Most XP and after stuff is bloated rewrites with pretty
interfaces (see about 20 lines above, that applies to almost
everything).
AFA Winamp, please wash your fingers with soap now.
> But - if all you're doing is opening document files or
> playing music, that's another story. But with Win98, you
> ARE limited in your choices of apps.
OK, let's agree to disagree.
BTW, you make a pretty damn good case for using XP ;-]
Bill in Co
OK, for you. Wasn't the case for me.
> (I forgot to mention NO swap file use on either OS.
Now THAT I wouldn't want.
> OK, if I wanted to edit an hour long video, I would probably put in the
> second 1GB stick of RAM which is not used since 98SEL won't boot
> if it's in the machine. But since I have yet to do more than
> casually test the analog video capture test, I am not holding my
> breath. I may very well /never/ get around to archiving my old
> stuff, I really don't care anymore.)
Well see, your usage is much more limited than mine in this A/V arena, so
that's probably another reason why you're fully content with Win98, since
you're able to find all the software you need that meets *your* needs..
> <snip>
>
>>>>> I believe XP is to blame. WHY does 98 do it logically
>>>>> (no pun intended)?
>>>>
>>>> Because it's simpler and has less to deal with.
>>>
>>> I can't accept that. There is NO excuse for showing a
>>> partition TWICE with different letters assigned.
>>
>> Doesn't on mine, nor many others, I suspect.
>
> That is not an answer. That's something MS would say.
>
>>> XP is supposed to BETTER, remember?
>>
>> In many ways it is.
>>
>>> It is supposed to GET RID of all the 9x problems!
>>
>> It does to a large extent:
>>
>> 1. No more running out of heap resources.
>
> Unless you run 20 instances of a browser on sites with heavy
> graphics let alone video, it is almost never a real problem.
My resource problem had nothing to do with running a browser. In fact, if
I was working on some A/V editing or restoration, the last thing I'd want to
do is be online during that time. But some apps had some issues.
Granted, this was more the exception than the rule, but with XP it's
non-existent.
> Ever since I first used Windows 3.1, I learned that sometimes it
> is necessary to reboot Windows at least 2 or 3 times a session,
> for a variety of reasons.
I don't have to do that using XP, but like you, often did when running 98.
So add that bullet to my previous list, please (I think that makes item #6).
> Sometimes I can work for 15 hrs
> without rebooting. It is a limitation of its "640KB of memory
> should be enough for anyone" design and it's not a big deal
> considering what came after.
>
>> 2. I haven't seen a blue screen in ages.
>
> That's like saying living in Panama is great because there is no
> malaria.
> I have never had a BSOD in XP but I still HATE using it.
Like you, I resisted for a long time, but finally bit the bullet, and
haven't been looking back very often.
>> 3. USB2 support is great, and is never an issue.
>
> As mentioned previously, nor is it on my EVO using 98SELite.
BTW, I said NO issues, whatsoever. But you may not have added as many USB
devices of different types as I have, either. (even USB printers, and
nowadays you can't even get W98 drivers for most of them. But you're
probably still using a LPT1 parallel printer port, so that's a non issue,
if/until you have to get a new printer someday, which are mostly USB
connected).
>> 4. Internal SATA drives (connected directly to the MB)
>> work great.
>
> When I get one, I may appreciate that aspect of it.
SATA (esp. SATA2) is much faster than IDE. It's nice, especially when
you're imaging your entire C: partition, as it's so much faster. I can
make a complete backup image of C: (about 20 GB of data) in less than 10
minutes.
I don't bother with incremental or differential image backups (thanks, but
no thanks).
This is done on a 2.4 GHz computer (I just upgraded the CPU, and it's dual
core), something you'd be hard pressed to find for W98, LOL). But this kind
of CPU speed is pretty much essential for any kind of video processing
(which is so CPU intensive), unless you want to do it overnite. :-)
> 5. I can run just about any software app of my choosing.
>
> Already addressed.
For you, but nowhere near addressed for me. And that includes some video
editing and processing/restoring capability too, including the use of
MP4/H.264 files. (lots of luck doing all this in W98)
>> What is not so great is the loss in the micromanagement
>> that I once had available to me in W98. And that some
>> things are not quite as simple and straightforward as with
>> W98 (like where some files or folders are placed, etc).
>
> Like I may have said earlier, I'd rather have to reboot from a
> BSOD every hour than to deal with the totally insane directory
> design/multi users approach of XP.
Oh come on, it's not that bad. There's "only" a handful of locations it
gets stored in, LOL.. (But if you want to be able to completely control
it and be completely anal about it, forget it - you just need to "let go"
of that, and set yourself free :-).
The Dark Ages have passed us, already.
>> And, of course, if you have a minimal spec system, XP is a
>> bit too heavy for that.
>
> As above.
>
>>>> I do, however. appreciate the simplicity (and elegance
>>>> therein) of a more fundamental operating system like W98,
>>>> something I had to let go of when going to XP. But with
>>>> XP, I'm not limited in what programs I can install and
>>>> run, as I was in W98 - particularly in the audio and
>>>> video arena (and that includes some processing or
>>>> editing, not just playing them).
>>>
>>> As I have said MANY times before, if, excluding some new
>>> technology (like my STUPID analog video capture card with
>>> NO pre-XP drivers), you can't find a 9x app that will do
>>> the same better and faster than an XP app, then you just
>>> don't know how to search for stuff on the net.
>>
>> Nope. There is nothing to compare Adobe Audition 1.5,
>> Sound Forge 7, and various video editing software. I'm
>> sorry, but Audacity, and even Goldwave, don't quite cut it.
>> Your choices are just too limited.
>
> I have never tried Sound Forge or Audacity, but I know Audacity
> used to be CoolEditPro2.
No way! These were two *totally different* products.
CoolEditPro (a commercial product) was head and shoulders above Audacity
(freeware). The difference here is (and was) night and day.
Sound Forge is in a league of its own (above both of them, I mean).
> I use Goldwave regularly (ver. 4.26
That's the last GW version that was guaranteed to be compatible with W98.
But as I recall, I *was* able to install some earlier version 5.x, and it
still worked fine on my W98 machine.
IIRC, somewhere around version 5.25 was the cutoff point, in practice, but
I'm not sure now. Goldwave was the recommended replacement for CoolEdit by
many users when CoolEdit was discontinued. And as a general purpose audio
editor, it's pretty good. I feel (and felt) CoolEditPro was still a bit
better, however.
> from 2002, I /have/ tried a later version and all it had was
> unnecessary bloat) and CEP2 when I need to do more complicated
> things.
CEP2 is the best of those you've mentioned.
> I would HATE to see what Adobe did to CEP.
You missed the boat on that one. I know exactly what happened:
Syntrillium's CEP2 got sold to Adobe, and Adobe *slightly improved it* in
version 1.0., but *even moreso* in version 1.5, the LAST good version.
This ver 1.5 was the last good, straightforward, lean version of that
classic interface audio editor (dating back to its roots in CEP2), and was
THE version that added some FSE (frequency space editing) for audio
restoration work, which made it worth its weight in gold to me.
Version 2, and later, use that dumbed-down paneled Adobe interface, and the
product became bloated.
So, the difference between Adobe Audition version 1.5 (an enhanced
CoolEditPro), and version Audition 2 and later (Adobe bloated) is *night and
day*. (Version 2 and later are not allowed on this machine. :-)
> From what I read around the time it came out, nothing beat CEP, and it
> certainly has never let ME down.
Nothing EXCEPT Audition 1.5 which, again, amongst other things, added that
FSE (frequency space editing, not just in the time domain) capability to
clean up or restore bad patches in audio, something that only a few audio
editors offer.
> Sound Forge was the standard in the mid 90's -
And still IS.
> I wasn't into computer music editing then, I was
> still using real instruments.
Vice versa over here. I work on (and restore) WAV audio files, from
recordings of all eras (not synthetic MIDI files). (I do nothing with
synthetic MIDI).
> As I have said many times before, except for brand new
> technology, I can't really think of any apps written after 2005
> that are /anything/ but rewrites of stuff from the 80's and 90's
> for computers which allow you to do things which could NOT be
> done in the 80's. But AFAIAC, there's been nothing really new or
> useful in software for well over 6 (if not 10) years except
> added bloat and basically useless features to trick people into
> buying new versions.
I just gave you one. Frequency Space Editing for audio restoration (it's
an invaluable tool).
> Think of the records you have heard made before CoolEditPro was
> even available. Think of the records you heard which were done
> on a 4-track cassette machine (OK, maybe you're not into the
> kind of music where that is not an uncommon occurrence). Think
> of Beatles recording on 2-track machines in the early 60's.
> Think of all the music made with MIDI in the 80's on computers
> with totally laughable specs.
That's completely missing my point about audio restoration capabilities of
an audio editor, or the lack thereof. I'm into music from all eras. Even
some dating back to the days of the Edison cylinders. :-) What I'm
talking about is being able to restore this precious music (denoise,
declick, remove aberrations like coughs, etc).
I need all the good tools I can get. And with 98, I'm too limited (ditto
for ANY video restoration, too)
> WHAT could possibly Audacity 1.5 (or Audacity 20) have that
> anyone REALLY needs?
Audacity is good for beginners. And it's free. But for a freebie editor,
it's pretty good.
>> And yes, I've looked at, and have tried out, LOTS of such
>> apps over the years, and I mean LOTs! In fact, I bet you
>> can't name one real audio editor that I haven't tried and
>> messed around with. ("Audio editor" means just that. I'm
>> not talking about Winamp. :-)
>
> I won't claim to have tried every audio editor, but I have tried
> hundreds if not thousands of various programs over 20 years.
> Most XP and after stuff is bloated rewrites with pretty
> interfaces (see about 20 lines above, that applies to almost
> everything).
>
> AFA Winamp, please wash your fingers with soap now.
LOL. I occasionally use Winamp 2.91 (the last good, old, version) to play
mp3 files, but I also use "1by1", VUplayer, Billy player, and other
lightweight player apps like that. I do NOT use or care for playlists
whatsoever, but I *do* care for players where I can select the directory of
the files I wish to play. (Playlists are too constraining).
>> But - if all you're doing is opening document files or
>> playing music, that's another story. But with Win98, you
>> ARE limited in your choices of apps.
>
> OK, let's agree to disagree.
>
> BTW, you make a pretty damn good case for using XP ;-]
Thank you.
But as I've said, I still have a nice reserved place in my heart, for
Win98SE and DOS, which I still occasionally use.
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EE9D0C19...@88.198.244.100:
> I have never tried Sound Forge
v4.5g or v6. Try it, especially the keyboard shortcuts. The difference
between Sound Forge and anything else goes way beyond documentation. In most
tools the empasis was on what people might like, in Sound Forge the empasis
was on what they would use. Sound Forge's degree of planning for long term
serious use is something normally resverved for the best military engineering
and electronics. I've heard great things about CoolEdit from people who swear
by it, but I found it poky in comparison, it felt cramped by its own style,
and most other editors were seriously cramped by the lack of any serious grip
on the data, in Sound Forge you can manipulate it in ways that depend on easy
training of motor memory, but almost all other tools left me scrathing my
head wondering how I was supposed to make moves that SF lets me do as easily
as reaching out my hand.
Its stereo limitation isn't bad either. Most tools that do handle
multichannel waves don't have SF's power, but nearly all of them can easily
launch a mono or stereo part of any wave in SondForge, where detailed edits
can be saved back to the multichannel set. I could use Sonic Foundry's own
Vegas for that, but I prefer to set things up in CakeWalk or Sonar 1. I was
experimentiong with ILDA patterns (laser scanner tests) that James Lehman
made for me. Even in unorthodox uses like these,. or in analysing extremely
large high bit-rate datalogs for fine detail, Sound Forge is second to none.
I imagine well-paid scientists might have elaborate software for these tasks
and still find that confoerting data to WAV or raw PCM format and opening in
Sound Forge will do it better. It might not have specific units of what ever
is measured, but it can be set to scale in percent so cinversion is easy if
you know the original scale (and what scientist wouldn't...)
I'm saying all this because I've done it, and I know that I don't need to
change either the support OS or the tools I use to do this. A DC-block bypass
mod with a differential op-amp and a voltage reference are all it takes to
convert each audio channel of a high-end studio interface to a high-res high
speed DC coupled datalogger that still behaves as the excellent audio system
it was made to be. I don't need WXP or a faster machine to do this. The
reverse is true, it would work on a slower one than I have, and as it is,
this system replaces dedicated systems that would cost ten grand, maybe fifty
grand, if they'd been needed by a govt funded lab used by people who didn't
have to find smart ways to coerce existing mass-market tools to perform to
the specs required.
Mathematicians and modellers of all kinds waited since the times of ancient
Greece and Rome and Arabia to come up with stuff that could emulate their
ideas at all, never mind in real-time. The year that such an ideal tool
dominated the mass market and was available to most people who wanted it
enough, was 1998. Give or take 5 years, perhaps. This is why most serious
stuff got done by then or soon after, and not much obvious advance has come
since.
After that the software got slower due to added value, usually to try to
please lots of people demanding aribtrary add-ons, or to improve the
interface (in ways that may or may not be successful, but I suspect not
because they mostly waste screen space trying to catch the eye instead of
relying adequately on motor memory which is uaually faster and more
reliable). Add this to Moore's Law, and it's like driving down a tunnel that
is ever more constricting instead of liberating.
Until the problem I described just now is truly solved, (likely by some good
mathemticians and modellers who understand the need to return to the long
view that got them these magical marvels in the first ppace, I'm staying with
W98 because I think it was the last system to follow the best path. When
someone figures that out, and can sell the results of their efforts to a mass
market, that's when I'll move on. Untill then I'll stay with W98, and maybe
some kind of small portable tablet machine.
Watch Psion. They never really lost the plot, except once, dividing their
identity and trying to please a corporate market rather than sticking to
their vision. They even gave up their own software vision and used WinCE
for a while! They recently pulled out of that dive, and have built up a large
user base ready to code for whatever they plan next. I don't know what it is,
but if they get it right, it could change the world as much as the Organiser
did (they invented the PDA with that one), but on a bigger scale this time.
Whatever happens, the machines to come won't be all about Windows, any more
than Space will be all about NASA. So there is no definitive onwards-and-
upwards. W98 works for me so well that any amount of useful alternatives will
exist by the time W98 really is too expensive to support with available
hardware (but a foundation converter to get it running on multicored
mainboards might even allow that if other OS's make enough incentive for
people to make them. It's surely easier than the struggle to maintain cross-
platform compatibility as it's done now, so I don't see why not...)
I like coffee. Can you tell? >:)
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EE9D0C19...@88.198.244.100:
> My 7 yr old EVOD510 came with 256 MB's of RAM. When I
> installed 1GB, I expected a major improvement. *All* that
> happened is that now, instead of having about a 50-100 MB
> of RAM free all the time, I have about 600-750 MB free all
> the time.
Mine's like that too. I ended up with the max capacity, 1GB, single RAM
module on an ITX board. I ended up putting the swap file on a 256 MB RAM
disk. That's not as daft as it sounds, because W98 is optimised to handle
things with its default settings well enough that it's easier to let it see
things as it expects. What happens is the RAM disk rarely uses swap because
the rest of the RAM is so large, and when it does happen, it never runs out
of space in the RAM disk anyway. Performance is the best I ever saw out of
W98, under any circumstances.
Apart from the shell call crashes (usually limited to the program making the
call) which grew more frequent as more code used W98-specific calls in a
system with a W95 shell (until I managed last month to exactly reinvent Shane
Brook's 'Sleek v2' shell swap before discovering that he'd already done
this), everything else has improved, and I think it's mostly down to steadily
collecting software that doesn't leak or break. I'm very careful about that.
I remember once, in a battle-of-the-uptimes, I ran W98 to see how long it
might go in anything like ordinary service. It was running an FTP server, a
test DC hub for an admin script I'd coded and was running (and updating)
remotely on a live hub, a DC client or two for hours most days, plus various
audio and still image editors, audio encoders, audio and XviD playback, and
Lua script testing, a MahJong game (fairly intensive on graphics), and
browsing (though limited to sites I trusted enough not to bork the session
because browsers are the biggest stability risk). It lasted one calender
month, at which point I took it down because I'd satisfied myself that it was
more than good enough, and because there were a few quirks appearing in the
shell, minor graphics things that needed fixing... One month was real, this
doesn't fit with the usual legends of bluescreens a few times a day. Other
people knew I wasn't lying because the servers stayed up with persistent
connections. (Ok, that can be faked, but I wasn't faking, I only had one
machine at the time.) I think using W98 can be like running around gantries
and catwalks with no handrails, but if we keep them securely in place and
manage not to fall off it can feel comfortable during any time we aren't
pushing it to its limit.
Lostgallifreyan
> My resource problem had nothing to do with running a browser. In fact,
> if I was working on some A/V editing or restoration, the last thing I'd
> want to do is be online during that time. But some apps had some
> issues. Granted, this was more the exception than the rule, but with XP
> it's non-existent.
>
I read about that. I think WXP reserves memory more effectively for processes
so if one leaks, or gets usurped by an invader inveigling its way into an
overflowable buffer, or crashes, it's contained better than in W9X. Even so,
I decided that a crash is a crash, and such a program is useless to me. Now,
if we build up a decent collection of tools that are good with RAM, don't
leak or offer overflowing buffers to all and sundry, the benefits of
sandboxing diminish. I'm not saying they have a negative impact (no reason
for that to be so if the memory manager is efficient). But with a good
software collection the extra security of WXP is no great advantage.
By analogy, suppose all roads had really great crash barriers on every lane.
Would we really be safer because other cars could be 'trusted' to run amok
occasionally as if their drivers had died at the wheel? Even if we thought it
was extremely unlikely to happen in our lane, right behind us, it would be an
uneasy ride. If the emphasis is on better driving and better vehicle
mechanics and easier access in case of emergency, we'd have far less reason
to fear the road. I guess if I shifted the analogy to that of firedoors in a
building, the WXP method seems better, but W98 isn't so bad as it appears.
USually a crash (unhandled exception) is caught by the OS. Even W98 isn't
totally lacking in firedoors.
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EEA80066C6...@216.196.109.145:
> motor memory which is uaually faster and more
> reliable
Got to say that my typos might make mockery of this claim... On the other
hand if I had to rely entirely on weakening eyesight my posts would likely be
illegible.
thanatoid
<snip>
>> I have never tried Sound Forge or Audacity, but I know
>> Audacity used to be CoolEditPro2.
I meant to say Audition, and did in other places. Those names
are all so similar.
<snip>
> Nothing EXCEPT Audition 1.5 which, again, amongst other
> things, added that FSE (frequency space editing, not just
> in the time domain)
Well, since I don't even know what that means, obviously it is
not a concern for me.
> capability to clean up or restore bad
> patches in audio, something that only a few audio editors
> offer.
The few times I did audio restoration, I found that by the time
I was done, I never wanted to hear the piece of music again.
Besides, clicks and a little hiss are kind of nostalgic.
Also, my hearing, which once went from 20-20K, now cuts off
around 6-7 K.
<snip>
>> over 6 (if not 10) years except added bloat and basically
>> useless features to trick people into buying new versions.
>
> I just gave you one. Frequency Space Editing for audio
> restoration (it's an invaluable tool).
And I told you I have NO idea what it is (and I don't want to
know).
<snip>
> days of the Edison cylinders. :-) What I'm talking
> about is being able to restore this precious music
> (denoise, declick, remove aberrations like coughs, etc).
> I need all the good tools I can get. And with 98, I'm too
> limited (ditto for ANY video restoration, too)
You never mentioned audio restoration was your main interest. I
thought you talked about /music/, not getting rid of noise.
>> WHAT could possibly Audacity 1.5 (or Audacity 20) have
>> that anyone REALLY needs?
>
> Audacity is good for beginners. And it's free. But for
> a freebie editor, it's pretty good.
Again, that was supposed to be Audition. I actually know nothing
about Audacity except the name.
<snip>
>> AFA Winamp, please wash your fingers with soap now.
>
> LOL. I occasionally use Winamp 2.91 (the last good, old,
> version) to play mp3 files, but I also use "1by1",
> VUplayer, Billy player, and other lightweight player apps
> like that. I do NOT use or care for playlists whatsoever,
> but I *do* care for players where I can select the
> directory of the files I wish to play. (Playlists are too
> constraining).
Dare I suggest you try STP from www.tinyapps.org
thanatoid
> thanatoid <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote in
> news:Xns9EE9D0C19...@88.198.244.100:
>
>> I have never tried Sound Forge
<snip>
Thanks for all the info, but I am too old to buy and learn a
completely new product when the couple I have do more than I
have ever needed.
thanatoid
news:Xns9EEA8CB9CB6...@216.196.109.145:
You might find this brilliant program of some use. It even runs
on XP, despite the author's claim to the contrary. It does NOT
run in EVERY SINGLE window I have tried it in - for instance, it
will not run in Edxor, but I do all my writing in Metapad Lite
because it ignores the insert/overwrite key - the bane of people
who type as fast as a secretary but with only 6 fingers and make
typos in every 4th word.
http://www.quinion.com/mqa/spell.htm
I have tried several other system-wide spellcheckers and not
only are they 3-6MB, they are shit.
I do use the spellchecker in PageMaker sometimes when I am /in/
PM, but I prefer Quinion's.
Bill in Co
> thanatoid <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote in
> news:Xns9EE9D0C19...@88.198.244.100:
>
>> I have never tried Sound Forge
>
> v4.5g or v6. Try it, especially the keyboard shortcuts. The difference
> between Sound Forge and anything else goes way beyond documentation. In
> most
> tools the empasis was on what people might like, in Sound Forge the
> was on what they would use. Sound Forge's degree of planning for long term
> serious use is something normally resverved for the best military
> engineering
> and electronics. I've heard great things about CoolEdit from people who
> swear
> by it, but I found it poky in comparison, it felt cramped by its own
> style,
> and most other editors were seriously cramped by the lack of any serious
> grip
> on the data, in Sound Forge you can manipulate it in ways that depend on
> easy
> training of motor memory, but almost all other tools left me scrathing my
> head wondering how I was supposed to make moves that SF lets me do as
> easily as reaching out my hand.
Seconded. There really isn't anything like it, especially if you have some
good DX plug-ins to use within it.
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EEA97BEE...@88.198.244.100:
I might look into it. I never did before because my spelling is unusually
good by any standards, though that's not easy to know after ten years of
declining sight combined with a wish to maintain my earlier keyboard speed.
OperaUSB has a spellchecker in it that seems pretty good, it does help with
catching the typos. But they ARE typos not spelling errors so I'm not sure
that spellcheck os the best answer. I tried to get a high-visibility keyboard
recently, but the seller wasn't selling what was in the pictures! And so it
goes... But I'm working on it.
Bill in Co
> "Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:4rudnfqPscCkFknQ...@earthlink.com:
>
>> My resource problem had nothing to do with running a browser. In fact,
>> if I was working on some A/V editing or restoration, the last thing I'd
>> want to do is be online during that time. But some apps had some
>> issues. Granted, this was more the exception than the rule, but with XP
>> it's non-existent.
>>
>
> I read about that. I think WXP reserves memory more effectively for
> processes
> so if one leaks, or gets usurped by an invader inveigling its way into an
> overflowable buffer, or crashes, it's contained better than in W9X.
Yup, absolutely.
<snip>
> Even so,
> I decided that a crash is a crash, and such a program is useless to me.
> Now,
> if we build up a decent collection of tools that are good with RAM, don't
> leak or offer overflowing buffers to all and sundry, the benefits of
> sandboxing diminish. I'm not saying they have a negative impact (no reason
> for that to be so if the memory manager is efficient). But with a good
> software collection the extra security of WXP is no great advantage.
But if you mean by "security" more immunity from crashing, it's a nice plus.
:-)
That said, I still have a special place in my heart for Win98SE. :-).
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EEA97BEE...@88.198.244.100:
> http://www.quinion.com/mqa/spell.htm
I grabbed it, it looks interesting, small, and integrated with all (most)
edit controls.
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EEA96E37...@88.198.244.100:
Fair enough. It did take me a while to get used to it. But when I did it
showed me things beyond anything I expected, so if anyone's new to audio,
even an OLD Sound Forge is worth using. When I first tried it I didn't really
want to, but it's extremely persuasive in its own right. :)
Bill in Co
> "Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:4rudnfqPscCkFknQ...@earthlink.com:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> I have never tried Sound Forge or Audacity, but I know
>>> Audacity used to be CoolEditPro2.
>
> I meant to say Audition, and did in other places. Those names
> are all so similar.
>
> <snip>
>
>> Nothing EXCEPT Audition 1.5 which, again, amongst other
>> things, added that FSE (frequency space editing, not just
>> in the time domain)
>
> Well, since I don't even know what that means, obviously it is
> not a concern for me.
>
>> capability to clean up or restore bad
>> patches in audio, something that only a few audio editors offer.
>
> The few times I did audio restoration, I found that by the time
> I was done, I never wanted to hear the piece of music again.
> Besides, clicks and a little hiss are kind of nostalgic.
Up to a point, agreed. To do audio restoration right, you must NOT overdo
it. But unfortunately, it seems many don't know this simple truth.
Less is More.
> Also, my hearing, which once went from 20-20K, now cuts off
> around 6-7 K.
WOW!
> <snip>
>
>>> over 6 (if not 10) years except added bloat and basically
>>> useless features to trick people into buying new versions.
>>
>> I just gave you one. Frequency Space Editing for audio
>> restoration (it's an invaluable tool).
>
> And I told you I have NO idea what it is (and I don't want to
> know).
>
> <snip>
>
>> days of the Edison cylinders. :-) What I'm talking
>> about is being able to restore this precious music
>> (denoise, declick, remove aberrations like coughs, etc).
>> I need all the good tools I can get. And with 98, I'm too
>> limited (ditto for ANY video restoration, too)
>
> You never mentioned audio restoration was your main interest. I
> thought you talked about /music/, not getting rid of noise.
I am talking about music - meaning it's preservation and restoration.
>>> WHAT could possibly Audacity 1.5 (or Audacity 20) have
>>> that anyone REALLY needs?
>>
>> Audacity is good for beginners. And it's free. But for
>> a freebie editor, it's pretty good.
>
> Again, that was supposed to be Audition. I actually know nothing
> about Audacity except the name.
It's just a pretty good freebie audio editor. And for a freebie, it may
arguably be the best.
> <snip>
>
>>> AFA Winamp, please wash your fingers with soap now.
>>
>> LOL. I occasionally use Winamp 2.91 (the last good, old,
>> version) to play mp3 files, but I also use "1by1",
>> VUplayer, Billy player, and other lightweight player apps
>> like that. I do NOT use or care for playlists whatsoever,
>> but I *do* care for players where I can select the
>> directory of the files I wish to play. (Playlists are too
>> constraining).
>
> Dare I suggest you try STP from www.tinyapps.org
I took a brief look at a screenshot, but I think "1by1" is better for me.
:-)
Lostgallifreyan
>> I read about that. I think WXP reserves memory more effectively for
>> processes
>> so if one leaks, or gets usurped by an invader inveigling its way into an
>> overflowable buffer, or crashes, it's contained better than in W9X.
>
> Yup, absolutely.
>
> <snip>
>
Ok, but look again at what you snipped. :) I'm not so sure I need that extra
security given the way I choose software after long testing having first
rejected any outright failures to observe good coding practise. Actually I
have to wonder how good that extra security IS, given M$'s emphasis on
'Trusted Computing'. Ruthless limitations on what is allowed to run almost
seem to suggest they don't trust their own sandboxing...
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EEA96A2C...@88.198.244.100:
> The few times I did audio restoration, I found that by the time
> I was done, I never wanted to hear the piece of music again.
> Besides, clicks and a little hiss are kind of nostalgic.
>
That is definitely a risk! I only went deep in things I knew I'd really want
to hear again because they already mattered that much. In such cases the kind
of musical exploration normally done by musicologists happens as a byproduct,
so the time isn't wasted in this case. When I want to be sure of hearing
something as if I haven't heard it before I have to leave it a long time even
if I didn't look closely at it.
I don't get hung up on nostalgia though, I used to have to hear stuff on the
direst of systems for a lot of my life so when I got the chance to hear the
best of it as it would be without all the gubbins getting in the way, I took
it. I wouldn't process anything to the point of hiding its origins though.
Bill in Co
I forgot what it was now. But I wasn't referring to "security" per se, I'm
referring to the stability improvements in XP over 98 (for those aberrant
programs accessing areas they shouldn't be, and what happens, as a
consequence :-).
Bill in Co
That's right. Less is More. The problem is some people overdue it. I
think the same could be said about some old videos, too. That said, it is
amazing how well some of the really old movies from the 20's and 30's have
been restored (professionally). What's bad is when someone comes along and
decides to colorize them. Sad, really sad. It destroys it.
Lostgallifreyan
So am I...
My point being that if the software is good, the sandbox has less reason to
make up for its deficiencies. Bad software is bad software, I'm not sure I'd
feel any better about it if the OS fenced it in. Conversely, if it's good, do
I really need the fencing?
Lostgallifreyan
> What's bad is when someone comes along and
> decides to colorize them. Sad, really sad. It destroys it.
>
Haven't seen that. Lucky, I guess. I liked Sin City, but that was
deliberately doing Strange Things. Not old, either.. But the ideas are,
maybe.
thanatoid
> thanatoid wrote:
<snip>
> Up to a point, agreed. To do audio restoration right, you
> must NOT overdo it. But unfortunately, it seems many
> don't know this simple truth. Less is More.
I didn't mean "overdoing" it to destroy parts of the *content*,
I meant just hearing it over and over and over again, or parts
of it. Can make you go sour on a piece of music you love.
>> Also, my hearing, which once went from 20-20K, now cuts
>> off around 6-7 K.
>
> WOW!
It's not as bad as it sounds, but old age is no fun.
>>> VUplayer, Billy player, and other lightweight player apps
>>> like that. I do NOT use or care for playlists
>>> whatsoever, but I *do* care for players where I can
>>> select the directory of the files I wish to play.
>>> (Playlists are too constraining).
I DL'd it, it looks pretty good. I have tried 5 or so others and
/always/ went back to STP, but I don't think I tried this one.
Thanks for the tip. If it has TOTAL kbd shortcut control, I may
switch. I like that about STP the most, and its minimal
interface (1 bar of whatever width by same height as any app
title bar).
thanatoid
<snip>
> videos, too. That said, it is amazing how well some of
> the really old movies from the 20's and 30's have been
> restored (professionally). What's bad is when someone
> comes along and decides to colorize them. Sad, really
> sad. It destroys it.
Whoever came up with the idea of colorizing B&W should be shot,
simple as that.
thanatoid
news:Xns9EEADA83379...@216.196.109.145:
<snip>
>> http://www.quinion.com/mqa/spell.htm
>>
>> I have tried several other system-wide spellcheckers and
>> not only are they 3-6MB, they are shit.
>>
>> I do use the spellchecker in PageMaker sometimes when I am
>> /in/ PM, but I prefer Quinion's.
>
> I might look into it. I never did before because my
> spelling is unusually good by any standards, though that's
> not easy to know after ten years of declining sight
> combined with a wish to maintain my earlier keyboard speed.
My spelling is better than anyone else's I've ever known
personally (I'm not BS'g, it really is extremely good); I use
the spellchecker to catch typos.
Of course, I do have to re-read anyway, or I get stuff like
this:
> spellcheck os the
;-)
Bill in Co
> "Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:BKmdnTQ9PaLv4kjQ...@earthlink.com:
>
>> thanatoid wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Up to a point, agreed. To do audio restoration right, you
>> must NOT overdo it. But unfortunately, it seems many
>> don't know this simple truth. Less is More.
>
> I didn't mean "overdoing" it to destroy parts of the *content*,
> I meant just hearing it over and over and over again, or parts
> of it. Can make you go sour on a piece of music you love.
>
>>> Also, my hearing, which once went from 20-20K, now cuts
>>> off around 6-7 K.
>>
>> WOW!
>
> It's not as bad as it sounds, but old age is no fun.
>
>>>> VUplayer, Billy player, and other lightweight player apps
>>>> like that. I do NOT use or care for playlists
>>>> whatsoever, but I *do* care for players where I can
>>>> select the directory of the files I wish to play.
>>>> (Playlists are too constraining).
>
> I DL'd it, it looks pretty good. I have tried 5 or so others and
Which one is "it"??? (I mentioned a handful).
> /always/ went back to STP, but I don't think I tried this one.
> Thanks for the tip. If it has TOTAL kbd shortcut control, I may
> switch. I like that about STP the most, and its minimal
> interface (1 bar of whatever width by same height as any app
> title bar).
Interesting. That's what I didn't like (the bare minimal interface), but
who knows, maybe someday.
1by1 is probably my preferred mp3 player. Sometimes Winamp (the old
original version). But 1by1 is more convenient with handling directories.
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EEADB972...@88.198.244.100:
> Thanks for the tip. If it has TOTAL kbd shortcut control, I may
> switch. I like that about STP the most, and its minimal
> interface (1 bar of whatever width by same height as any app
> title bar).
>
I liked STP a lot, and spent a lot of time making people aware of it at one
point. I think it influenced Foobar2000 in its keyboard shortcuts. Foobar is
strange, in many ways overkill, but it is useful, I have felt like kicking it
out many times but I always take it back even though I use 1by1 mostly, now.
I don't listen to stuff nearly as much as I did so I don't mind not having
the instant keyboard control. For all I know, 1by1 might have it anyway.
Bill in Co
Yup. Fortunately it still hasn't been done to a lot of old films, but for
the few it was done to, I wish it hadn't been. (I usually catch the old
films on TCM cable, and most aren't colorized, fortunately).
It's one thing to watch an old 40's movie (drama) in B&W. It's quite
another to see it when or if it's been colorized. THAT destroys its
essence, and also seems to make it easier to spot how dated it is (and with
its flaws). (I think many of the older films seem a bit "overacted" due to
the times, but I can and do easily overlook that :-).
You know, I think there are some kids today that can't stand watching any
B&W movies ("that's old school, blah blah blah") If indeed so, I truly
feel sorry for their loss.
Lostgallifreyan
> 1by1 is probably my preferred mp3 player. Sometimes Winamp (the old
> original version). But 1by1 is more convenient with handling
> directories.
>
I like it a lot too, it's my main player for audio now. I liek that it uses
WinAmp plugins too. Foobar2000 can play a lot of formats but it depended
highly on its plugins fitting wioth the current version, so if you have to
use an old version as on W98, that's BAD, no new Foobar plugins for us! But
with 1by1 we don't have to put up with that because WinAmp plugins respect
the basic principle of staying with a good standard connector that stays
compatible, year in, year out. I never liked the WinAmp front end, but it was
a great relief to find a decent player that uses its plugins. Even the
extreme audiophile diehards were accepting that WinAmp plugins were
consistently made using most of the best decoders around. RareWares links to
several examples, and most of them keep those plugins up to date, they'll
maybe continue after DirectShow gets ragged at the edges because they don't
have the same heavy OS dependencies as far as I can see.
Bill in Co
> Lostgallifreyan <no-...@nowhere.net> wrote in
> news:Xns9EEADA83379...@216.196.109.145:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> http://www.quinion.com/mqa/spell.htm
>>>
>>> I have tried several other system-wide spellcheckers and
>>> not only are they 3-6MB, they are shit.
>>>
>>> I do use the spellchecker in PageMaker sometimes when I am
>>> /in/ PM, but I prefer Quinion's.
>>
>> I might look into it. I never did before because my
>> spelling is unusually good by any standards, though that's
>> not easy to know after ten years of declining sight
>> combined with a wish to maintain my earlier keyboard speed.
>
> My spelling is better than anyone else's I've ever known
> personally (I'm not BS'g, it really is extremely good);
Same here, at least for most. I wouldn't go so far as to say for all,
though.
> I use the spellchecker to catch typos.
I only use it when there is a word or two I can't recall how to spell. Most
of the time I never use it. I like the impetus that puts on me to try to
remember how to spell words, and not always have to rely on a crutch. :-)
I keep having difficulty with spelling allegedly. I think of the word
"ledge" to help, since it sounds so similar, and that really screws it up.
Hey, I think I finally got it right this time.
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EEADBCFC...@88.198.244.100:
Except for the people who mades Sin City.. They can remain with the Great
Unshot. Which reminds me of Monk... one episode, they went the other way,
filmed in colour, rendered later in monochrome, and it worked, at least parts
of it did.
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EEADCD40...@88.198.244.100:
> My spelling is better than anyone else's I've ever known
When I was about 8 or 9 I got badly humiliated by a head master for cheating.
The book was still open under my arm. He asusmed I'd cheated because I did
well. That hurts to this day becaue he refused to believe the truth, that
after the few moments earlier where were were supposed to review the 20 words
before the test, I'd seen no difficulty with any of them, and had turned to
talk to someone. I had no idea that book was open, or even there.
A more comforting memory is of a psychology test I took for reciting numbers
backwards (as strings of digits) to test whatever it was testing for. The
psychologist started getting visibly animated when I got to doing it for 12
digit numbers fired at me one after another after he'd extended them a bit at
a time over several minutes. I think the methods are the same as for
spelling, to have ways to break them down instinctively and instantly to
smaller groups without fumbling them. He said that most people can't do it.
The average is apparently 5 to 7 digits. I don't know what the context is for
that though, no idea who, or how many people, were tested. I think the
methods are similar though, with long words I looked for patterns of
syllables, and that extended to picking up the Latin and Greek bits even
though I never learned either (or any) language other than English. When I'm
confronted with some long medical word I can usually decue a precise meaning.
I wonder if Germans are all good at this, because their language seems
entirely built along these lines..
Lostgallifreyan
> Hey, I think I finally got it right this time.
Yep. :)
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EEB2C06492...@216.196.109.145:
> decue
*sigh*.. deduce. Ok, I'll shut up now.
thanatoid
> thanatoid wrote:
<snip>
>> I DL'd it, it looks pretty good. I have tried 5 or so
>> others and
>
> Which one is "it"??? (I mentioned a handful).
1x1. It won't run on 98SELite. I also didn't like what I read (I
read all the info). Too many plugins and bizarre procedures. Ya
just get used to something and it's hard to switch. I was
impresses by its small size, but with all the plugins it
probably approaches 1MB or who know Also, just to play mp3 you
need to DL a file! Thanks, but...
>> /always/ went back to STP, but I don't think I tried this
>> one. Thanks for the tip. If it has TOTAL kbd shortcut
>> control, I may switch. I like that about STP the most, and
>> its minimal interface (1 bar of whatever width by same
>> height as any app title bar).
>
> Interesting. That's what I didn't like (the bare minimal
> interface), but who knows, maybe someday.
The less crap on my desktop, the better. Even that one bar can
be taken off the screen and whatever you need to do - IF you
need to do it, you do with keyboard shortcuts which you define
YOURSELF.
1x1 offers you, among others, Ctl/Win/Alt/F10 ????
Please....
> 1by1 is probably my preferred mp3 player. Sometimes
> Winamp (the old original version). But 1by1 is more
> convenient with handling directories.
If you have partitions and directories that make sense (I have
one partition JUST for music, which eventually ends up on CDRs)
it's not really a concern.
thanatoid
news:Xns9EEB29412D...@216.196.109.145:
> "Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:o8WdnQ9DU8eVS0jQ...@earthlink.com:
>
>> 1by1 is probably my preferred mp3 player. Sometimes
>> Winamp (the old original version). But 1by1 is more
>> convenient with handling directories.
>>
>
> I like it a lot too, it's my main player for audio now. I
> liek that it uses WinAmp plugins too. Foobar2000 can play a
<snip>
> DirectShow gets ragged at the edges because they don't have
> the same heavy OS dependencies as far as I can see.
Without reading all that, no offense, I'll just say the word
plugin is one of my BAD words. I would prefer no such animals.
thanatoid
news:Xns9EEB27EC5E2...@216.196.109.145:
I tried Foobar once, and IMO it was sort of like its name -
spelled correctly...
I think I lasted about 3 minutes with it...
thanatoid
> thanatoid wrote:
>> "Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>> news:GoCdnUxxY4RjFUjQ...@earthlink.com:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> videos, too. That said, it is amazing how well some of
>>> the really old movies from the 20's and 30's have been
>>> restored (professionally). What's bad is when someone
>>> comes along and decides to colorize them. Sad, really
>>> sad. It destroys it.
>>
>> Whoever came up with the idea of colorizing B&W should be
>> shot, simple as that.
>
> Yup. Fortunately it still hasn't been done to a lot of
> old films, but for the few it was done to, I wish it hadn't
> been. (I usually catch the old films on TCM cable, and
> most aren't colorized, fortunately).
Most TV's, even the new garbage (The Trinitron was a *TV*),
allow you to turn off color completely. Of course, MOST people
just press "factory preset" for everything and enjoy
indescribably awful oversaturated colors and no contrast.
> It's one thing to watch an old 40's movie (drama) in B&W.
> It's quite another to see it when or if it's been
> colorized. THAT destroys its essence, and also seems to
> make it easier to spot how dated it is (and with its
> flaws). (I think many of the older films seem a bit
> "overacted" due to the times, but I can and do easily
> overlook that :-).
>
> You know, I think there are some kids today that can't
> stand watching any B&W movies ("that's old school, blah
> blah blah") If indeed so, I truly feel sorry for their
> loss.
Don't have ANYTHING to do with anyone under 20. They are living
on another planet.
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EEB78E8C...@88.198.244.100:
I can't stand it either. I prefer the word 'module'. Things should be
modular. It's the only way to avoid redundancy, duplication, bloat,
incompatibility, and worse. Imagine a world where you can't even change a
lightswitch because it's integral to the plaster on the wall, AND the bricks
beneath, and you get the idea...
thanatoid
news:Xns9EEB29B4DE9...@216.196.109.145:
> thanatoid <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote in
> news:Xns9EEADBCFC...@88.198.244.100:
<snip>
>> Whoever came up with the idea of colorizing B&W should be
>> shot, simple as that.
>>
>
> Except for the people who mades Sin City.. They can remain
> with the Great Unshot. Which reminds me of Monk... one
> episode, they went the other way, filmed in colour,
> rendered later in monochrome, and it worked, at least parts
> of it did.
I haven't seen anything Hollywood barfed up in well over 20
years and I am VERY happy that way - IOW, I have NO clue what
you are talking about. (And please don't explain!)
Maybe 2% of all the really good films were made in North
America, and I am probably being VERY generous.
thanatoid
> thanatoid wrote:
<snip>
>>> I might look into it. I never did before because my
>>> spelling is unusually good by any standards, though
>>> that's not easy to know after ten years of declining
>>> sight combined with a wish to maintain my earlier
>>> keyboard speed.
>>
>> My spelling is better than anyone else's I've ever known
>> personally (I'm not BS'g, it really is extremely good);
>
> Same here, at least for most. I wouldn't go so far as to
> say for all, though.
>
>> I use the spellchecker to catch typos.
>
> I only use it when there is a word or two I can't recall
> how to spell. Most of the time I never use it. I like
> the impetus that puts on me to try to remember how to spell
> words, and not always have to rely on a crutch. :-)
Well, I /know/ I am nearly a perfect speller, it's the typos -
as I said, secretaries say "wow, you type fast", but I only use
5-6 fingers and I look at the keyboard anfd the screen all
thetime. That's whu I like Metapad Lite - ni insert/overwrite -
for people like me, that's a REAL drag.
The above and ths sentence are examples pof what I do without it
being corected by the spelkchecker.
Now, the correct version:
Well, I /know/ I am nearly a perfect speller, it's the typos -
as I said, secretaries say "wow, you type fast", but I only use
5-6 fingers and I look at the keyboard and the screen all the
time. That's why I like Metapad Lite - no insert/overwrite - for
people like me, that's a REAL drag.
The above and this sentence are examples of what I do without it
being corrected by the spellchecker.
> I keep having difficulty with spelling allegedly. I think
> of the word "ledge" to help, since it sounds so similar,
> and that really screws it up. Hey, I think I finally got it
> right this time.
Yes you did, and I did NOT have to check.
thanatoid
news:Xns9EEB2C06492...@216.196.109.145:
> thanatoid <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote in
> news:Xns9EEADCD40...@88.198.244.100:
>
>> My spelling is better than anyone else's I've ever known
>
> When I was about 8 or 9 I got badly humiliated by a head
> master for cheating. The book was still open under my arm.
> He asusmed
See, this is why you need a spellchecker. We BOTH know that's
not how it's spelled.
> I'd cheated because I did well. That hurts to
> this day becaue he refused to believe the truth, that after
> the few moments earlier where were were supposed to review
> the 20 words before the test, I'd seen no difficulty with
> any of them, and had turned to talk to someone. I had no
> idea that book was open, or even there.
Some of my MOST infuriating bad memories are when I was telling
the truth and whoever the idiots were, would NOT believe me
because they were just too stupid to allow for ANYTHING to be a
little out of the usual box. I am not your average Joe.
> A more comforting memory is of a psychology test I took for
> reciting numbers backwards (as strings of digits) to test
> whatever it was testing for. The psychologist started
> getting visibly animated when I got to doing it for 12
> digit numbers fired at me one after another after he'd
> extended them a bit at a time over several minutes. I think
> the methods are the same as for spelling, to have ways to
> break them down instinctively and instantly to smaller
> groups without fumbling them. He said that most people
> can't do it. The average is apparently 5 to 7 digits.
My attention span or memory in general has decreased to the
point I can barely remember 3 or 4. But it varies with the
context and situation.
> don't know what the context is for that though, no idea
> who, or how many people, were tested. I think the methods
> are similar though, with long words I looked for patterns
> of syllables, and that extended to picking up the Latin and
> Greek bits even though I never learned either (or any)
> language other than English. When I'm confronted with some
> long medical word I can usually decue a precise meaning.
I was once given a full battery of psycho tests (yes, I have
problems), but because it was HERE, I had to explain to the
moron giving me the tests HOW to do it (I had taken most of them
before, my father's hobby was giving me intelligence and
personality tests - aside from that, he didn't really talk to
me.)
> I wonder if Germans are all good at this, because their
> language seems entirely built along these lines..
Yes, that language is something else... But apparently Hungarian
and Finnish are even harder.
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EEB7914B...@88.198.244.100:
It is a pain, but it's worth spending time with, or at least was, certainly
for a year or three. The worst of it (apart from its break with proper
universal modularity) is the filthy habit of changing settings with no safe
exit if you don't want to commit, and saving them as BINARY data too, which I
can't forgive. That means that the only way to use it safely is to back up
the entire thing, not just a config. While they claimed to use plugins, they
might as well not have done, and compiled it as a single monolithic system
like mplayer (and mencoder). The main development is closed source, and while
the plugin developing SDK is open (BSD license) it's no fun having to stay
with an old system that can't use a newer bugfixed plugin! THIS is why
modularity is so important, to avoid crappage of that low order. If the
clodes so8urce maker isn't going to develope any more, there is at least a
fighting chance of someone else taking up the slack, IF a decent modular
subsystem is enabled for their use. This is why WinAmp survived so well. It
was one of NullSoft's OWN people who went on to create Foobar2000, but he
decided to break with that stabdle tradition of long-term modularity and
compatibility in favour of exerting more control, for whatever reason. Big
mistake, I think. It guaranteed him a constant following (witness
HydrogenAudio forum activity, as occured with LAME testing), but I don't
think it's very healthy in the long run. It all ends up like a union running
a Closed Shop. In the end it turns them into capitalists, in effect. >:)
Personally I prefer an honest demand for MONEY from people who want to claim
they know better than me, at least that way there is some semblance of a
contract that lets me have a choice in how the stuff I pay for works even if
I'm denied any sight of how it does so. Ok, so it's not a guarantee, but
individuals who chanrge money tend to be rigorous because it's a big ask,
convincing anyone to actually PAY if you don't have the weight of Adobe or
Norton behind you.
I value openness, modularity, long term compatibility, and configs I can read
and edit and back up in a sensible manner. Foorbar's development turned an
apparently 'open' system into private politics when so many are trying to go
the other way. It could have been great, but in the end it wasn't, though it
still continues to please many. Good think the maker of 1by1 gets it, no?
That isn't open source, but it's more honest, it makes no great claims but
delivers so much without frivolities like 32 bit floating point at 192 KHz
for golden-eared cool cats who really believe they need that for stereo
listening. 1by1 might never have thrived if Foobar had got it right, so we
must be thankful for small mercies, perhaps... Best of all, 1by1 uses WinAmp
plugins, so both sides of that subsystem gain from this, as well as all of us
who like those modules but want to choose the front end.
STP looked like going to public development too, but I don't think much
happened, beyond raiding it for its better ideas. (Foobar's people never
admitted that either to the best of my knowledge, despite obvious
similarities down to default keyboard shortcuts.) That whole Foobar thing
(and to some extent LAME testing) is why I like self-contained, truly open
developments. I saw enough coder cliques with fawning followings in 5 years
to last a lifetime. It's why I like W98 and not Linux. With W98 it's like an
old boat or motorbike, we fix it up, customise it, and ride off on it. If
that bike had certain brandnames on it that I can think of, more preening and
pruning that actual riding would occur. Actually if it were pruning rather
than tacking yet more stuff on in an effort to please all the following, it
could be better. Proper modules let us make our own choices easily.
/rant..
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EEB79754...@88.198.244.100:
> The Trinitron was a *TV*
Thought those were supposed to be good... Early aperture grilles, little bar-
like phosphors instead of dots. Basically, more light per screen aream and
thick lead glass, so more contrast. Nothing wrong with that, surely?
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EEB79D5D...@88.198.244.100:
>>> Whoever came up with the idea of colorizing B&W should be
>>> shot, simple as that.
>>>
>>
>> Except for the people who mades Sin City.. They can remain
>> with the Great Unshot. Which reminds me of Monk... one
>> episode, they went the other way, filmed in colour,
>> rendered later in monochrome, and it worked, at least parts
>> of it did.
>
> I haven't seen anything Hollywood barfed up in well over 20
> years and I am VERY happy that way - IOW, I have NO clue what
> you are talking about. (And please don't explain!)
>
No problem. I don't like a lot of it, but some is great. I don't eben know if
Sin City was hollywood. NOT their normal offering, that's for sure.
thanatoid
news:Xns9EEBBD0F24A...@216.196.109.145:
<snip>
> STP looked like going to public development too, but I
> don't think much happened, beyond raiding it for its better
> ideas. (Foobar's people never admitted that either to the
> best of my knowledge, despite obvious similarities down to
> default keyboard shortcuts.)
AFAIK, it was written by some Russian kid who got drafted and
that was the last that was ever heard of him.
thanatoid
news:Xns9EEBBD5F6A0...@216.196.109.145:
I had a 15" Trini between 1982 and 1998, and EVERYONE who ever
came into my apt/house, including people who worked with video
for a living , said it was the BEST video image they have ever
seen. Nothing EVER went bad with it either, needless to say. I
sold it in 100% perfect condition since I was moving.
LCD is a colossal rip off, LED perhaps less so, and that newest
transparent screen may be nice once it costs less than $5,000.
But I can NOT work with the current LCD "computer monitors".
It's not an image. It's garbage.
I still use a CRT - an LG 17" - it was the last new CRT I could
find - I dread the day it dies for good.
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EEB7BBED...@88.198.244.100:
> See, this is why you need a spellchecker. We BOTH know that's
> not how it's spelled.
>
Typo. Self evidently. All the letters are there. Even when they're not, typos
will be the reason. Spelling is easy for me, if I write by hand it rarely
ever fails in any way, I'm forced to take the time to form each letter, never
mind each group, in correct order. It's different on a fast keyboard, and my
hands don't work reliably together. Same reason I can Mozart's piano sonata
third movement 'Alla Turka' or Bach's Badinerie flute part at full speed with
my right hand, but neither at all with both. Seriously, it's not about the
spelling here.
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EEB80C75...@88.198.244.100:
Youri Stouss. I remembered the instant you said that. I wrote to him once. I
can't remember if there was a reply though. At the time there was no hint of
him stopping, or of whatever might happen next. I do remember something I'd
hoped for changing in the interface, but that might have been his intent
anyway. Something to do with the way that thin control window stretches
across the top of the screen.. Earlier it had behaved oddly, but soon after a
version appeared that didn't.
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EEB81753...@88.198.244.100:
> LCD is a colossal rip off,
I almost entirely agree, I even rejected them on principle for many years
because of the dead-pixel anecdotes, but if you can, get a look at the TFT
displays, such as used in the ELO touchscreens with the surface wave sensors.
I have two 17-inchers off eBay, and I upchucked a 19" flatscreen Iiyama CRT
for these, they really are THAT good. The only display I can imagine that is
sharper and more brilliant (short of perhaps some laser based thinger yet to
be marketed) is a plasma screen that costs way too much and lasts for six
months if I use it this much. These TFT LCD's can last for many years. The
CCF backlight tubes will likely be on the surplus and new-old stock markets
for longer even than the screens will remain useful.
The main weakness is the vertical viewing angle's change of intensity, but
it's only a serious problem if I slump in my seat enough to be almost
horizontal. Like those Mackie HR824 speakers I chose, I chose them because
they are unusually effective at NOT looking/sounding ridiculous the moment I
move about a little bit. I've seen the LCD's on the Dell X50v PDA, now that
is a nasty screen. People raved about it, but in comparison to a decent TFT
it looks like smeared pastels in winter sunlight.
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EEB81753...@88.198.244.100:
> LED perhaps less so...
Ought to be awesome, especially if the LED chips can be made small enough to
work directly as actively switched pixels like on the TFT LCD types. The
colour gamut and brilliance could go up, and the dark would BE dark. Such a
screen might be the best possible, it could be hard to imagine a closer
approach to a theoretical ideal than those might reach. With microlouvres
they could even achieve 3D for an upright observer, with no fancy eyewear.
Bill in Co
> "Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:o8WdnQ9DU8eVS0jQ...@earthlink.com:
>
>> thanatoid wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> I DL'd it, it looks pretty good. I have tried 5 or so
>>> others and
>>
>> Which one is "it"??? (I mentioned a handful).
>
> 1x1. It won't run on 98SELite.
Where is that guy touting KernelEX as being "THE" solution so such problems?
:-)
> I also didn't like what I read (I
> read all the info). Too many plugins and bizarre procedures.
What "too many plugins and bizarre procedures"? I don't recall any.
Forget what you "read", and try it (assuming you can get it installed, with
or without that "supposed" KernelEX fix for such programs.
> Ya just get used to something and it's hard to switch. I was
> impresses by its small size, but with all the plugins it
> probably approaches 1MB or who know
It's 172 KB over here, as a matter of fact. NOT 1 MB.
> Also, just to play mp3 you need to DL a file! Thanks, but...
I don't recall if that was required, but even if it was, Big Deal.
>>> /always/ went back to STP, but I don't think I tried this
>>> one. Thanks for the tip. If it has TOTAL kbd shortcut
>>> control, I may switch. I like that about STP the most, and
>>> its minimal interface (1 bar of whatever width by same
>>> height as any app title bar).
>>
>> Interesting. That's what I didn't like (the bare minimal
>> interface), but who knows, maybe someday.
>
> The less crap on my desktop, the better. Even that one bar can
> be taken off the screen and whatever you need to do - IF you
> need to do it, you do with keyboard shortcuts which you define
> YOURSELF.
>
> 1x1 offers you, among others, Ctl/Win/Alt/F10 ????
>
> Please....
I haven't used that so I wouldn't know. I don't generally use a lot of
keyboard shortcuts anyway.
thanatoid
news:Xns9EEBBEC5799...@216.196.109.145:
> thanatoid <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote in
> news:Xns9EEB7BBED...@88.198.244.100:
>
>> See, this is why you need a spellchecker. We BOTH know
>> that's not how it's spelled.
>>
> Typo. Self evidently.
I was not implying you thought that's how it's spelled. We
already established that superior beings like us ;-) only need
spell checkers for typos - and that was a typo, you did not need
to tell me that.
> All the letters are there. Even when
> they're not, typos will be the reason.
Like I was sayin'...
> Spelling is easy for
> me, if I write by hand it rarely ever fails in any way, I'm
> forced to take the time to form each letter, never mind
> each group, in correct order. It's different on a fast
> keyboard, and my hands don't work reliably together. Same
> reason I can
What? Don't tell me you can play the piano and the flute as
well! No fair! [sic]
> Mozart's piano sonata third movement 'Alla
> Turka' or Bach's Badinerie flute part at full speed with
> my right hand, but neither at all with both. Seriously,
> it's not about the spelling here.
As above.
thanatoid
> thanatoid wrote:
<snip>
>>> Which one is "it"??? (I mentioned a handful).
>>
>> 1x1. It won't run on 98SELite.
>
> Where is that guy touting KernelEX as being "THE" solution
> so such problems?
>:-)
Not me. I tried KernelEx about two years ago when it was just
getting known. After reading the author's statement, I had
serious doubts about its usability by non-gamers. Since it is
now on sourceforge or something, not on his personal page, he
has toned it down somewhat, but he still makes it clear that it
will never run everything you want. Not to mention something
like KEx HAS TO seriously mess with the system and /may/ cause
various problems - although I have not heard of any that I can
recall.
Even if not, if you really HAVE to run something written for
XP+, just install XP and be done with it. KernelEx is for people
who have too much time to fuck around with their systems. They
should just move to Linux. That'll keep them busy.
>> I also didn't like what I read (I
>> read all the info). Too many plugins and bizarre
>> procedures.
>
> What "too many plugins and bizarre procedures"? I don't
> recall any. Forget what you "read", and try it (assuming
> you can get it installed, with or without that "supposed"
> KernelEX fix for such programs.
Well, read the readme file, which positively gave me the WILLYS.
And I ain't installing no KE. STP is perfect for my needs.
>> Ya just get used to something and it's hard to switch. I
>> was impresses by its small size, but with all the plugins
>> it probably approaches 1MB or who know
>
> It's 172 KB over here, as a matter of fact. NOT 1 MB.
I said "with all the plugins".
>> Also, just to play mp3 you need to DL a file! Thanks,
>> but...
>
> I don't recall if that was required, but even if it was,
> Big Deal.
Yes, BIG DEAL. Exactly.
>>>> /always/ went back to STP, but I don't think I tried
>>>> this one. Thanks for the tip. If it has TOTAL kbd
>>>> shortcut control, I may switch. I like that about STP
>>>> the most, and its minimal interface (1 bar of whatever
>>>> width by same height as any app title bar).
>>>
>>> Interesting. That's what I didn't like (the bare minimal
>>> interface), but who knows, maybe someday.
Less is more. Small is beautiful. Too many people... Etc.
>> The less crap on my desktop, the better. Even that one bar
>> can be taken off the screen and whatever you need to do -
>> IF you need to do it, you do with keyboard shortcuts which
>> you define YOURSELF.
>>
>> 1x1 offers you, among others, Ctl/Win/Alt/F10 ????
>>
>> Please....
>
> I haven't used that so I wouldn't know. I don't generally
> use a lot of keyboard shortcuts anyway.
I wouldn't EVER touch the mouse if it was possible. It is
without a doubt the WORST contribution Xerox PARC made to this
civilization.
<snip>
thanatoid
news:Xns9EEBC1D7298...@216.196.109.145:
> thanatoid <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote in
> news:Xns9EEB81753...@88.198.244.100:
>
>> LCD is a colossal rip off,
>
> I almost entirely agree, I even rejected them on principle
> for many years because of the dead-pixel anecdotes,
While the amount of software to restore dead pixels by putting
the whole screen through hell IS amusing, I have had some
experience with dead pixels on a 42" Sony LCD I bought for an
octogenarian family member. It has about 5 or 8 dead pixels, but
they are totally invisible at normal viewing distance. The image
is HORRIBLE - it was from day one, but a CRT that size would not
fit in that person's room.
> but if
> you can, get a look at the TFT displays, such as used in
> the ELO touchscreens with the surface wave sensors. I have
> two 17-inchers off eBay, and I upchucked a 19" flatscreen
> Iiyama CRT for these,
Shame! I would not admit to having done that.
> they really are THAT good. The only
> display I can imagine that is sharper and more brilliant
> (short of perhaps some laser based thinger yet to be
> marketed) is a plasma screen that costs way too much and
> lasts for six months if I use it this much. These TFT LCD's
> can last for many years. The CCF backlight tubes will
> likely be on the surplus and new-old stock markets for
> longer even than the screens will remain useful.
A better monitor will cost you less than replacing the
backlights. Manufacturers have a very curious habit of NOT
reducing prices even though they are left with 5,000 items of
something NO ONE will ever buy at list, because a new product is
cheaper.
> The main weakness is the vertical viewing angle's change of
> intensity, but it's only a serious problem if I slump in my
> seat enough to be almost horizontal. Like those Mackie
> HR824 speakers I chose, I chose them because they are
> unusually effective at NOT looking/sounding ridiculous the
> moment I move about a little bit. I've seen the LCD's on
> the Dell X50v PDA, now that is a nasty screen. People raved
> about it, but in comparison to a decent TFT it looks like
> smeared pastels in winter sunlight.
I am not familiar with them individually, I just hate what I
have seen. When the power supply on my LG crapped out
(fortunately they have a 3 year warranty) I borrowed a 3 years
old 18" Dell LCD from a neighbor. Its recommended resolution was
1440x900. On an EIGHTEEN inch diagonal 16:9 !!!
I already use reading glasses for reading. I made it run at
800x600 but the aspect ratio was fucked. And the colors changed
if I moved my head more than 2" vertically. Ridiculous. That was
ten days of a total nightmare.
Bill in Co
> "Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:TcedneJ0UOQyUkvQ...@earthlink.com:
>
>> thanatoid wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> Which one is "it"??? (I mentioned a handful).
>>>
>>> 1x1. It won't run on 98SELite.
>>
>> Where is that guy touting KernelEX as being "THE" solution
>> so such problems?
>> :-)
>
> Not me. I tried KernelEx about two years ago when it was just
> getting known. After reading the author's statement, I had
> serious doubts about its usability by non-gamers. Since it is
> now on sourceforge or something, not on his personal page, he
> has toned it down somewhat, but he still makes it clear that it
> will never run everything you want. Not to mention something
> like KEx HAS TO seriously mess with the system and /may/ cause
> various problems - although I have not heard of any that I can
> recall.
>
> Even if not, if you really HAVE to run something written for
> XP+, just install XP and be done with it. KernelEx is for people
> who have too much time to fuck around with their systems. They
> should just move to Linux. That'll keep them busy.
Maybe it was 98Guy? I can't recall who thought KernelEx was the "Holy
Grail" that allowed one to run a bunch of XP apps on W98. I think it only
works for a handful of them, and as I recall, it's a pretty limited subset.
>>> I also didn't like what I read (I
>>> read all the info). Too many plugins and bizarre
>>> procedures.
>>
>> What "too many plugins and bizarre procedures"? I don't
>> recall any. Forget what you "read", and try it (assuming
>> you can get it installed, with or without that "supposed"
>> KernelEX fix for such programs.
>
> Well, read the readme file, which positively gave me the WILLYS.
> And I ain't installing no KE. STP is perfect for my needs.
>
>>> Ya just get used to something and it's hard to switch. I
>>> was impresses by its small size, but with all the plugins
>>> it probably approaches 1MB or who know
>>
>> It's 172 KB over here, as a matter of fact. NOT 1 MB.
>
> I said "with all the plugins".
WHO wants or needs to install all the plugins???
>>> Also, just to play mp3 you need to DL a file! Thanks,
>>> but...
>>
>> I don't recall if that was required, but even if it was,
>> Big Deal.
>
> Yes, BIG DEAL. Exactly.
It really wasn't.
>>>>> /always/ went back to STP, but I don't think I tried
>>>>> this one. Thanks for the tip. If it has TOTAL kbd
>>>>> shortcut control, I may switch. I like that about STP
>>>>> the most, and its minimal interface (1 bar of whatever
>>>>> width by same height as any app title bar).
>>>>
>>>> Interesting. That's what I didn't like (the bare minimal
>>>> interface), but who knows, maybe someday.
>
> Less is more. Small is beautiful. Too many people... Etc.
I generally agree with Less Is More. In fact, I just quoted that awhile
ago. :-)
>>> The less crap on my desktop, the better. Even that one bar
>>> can be taken off the screen and whatever you need to do -
>>> IF you need to do it, you do with keyboard shortcuts which
>>> you define YOURSELF.
>>>
>>> 1x1 offers you, among others, Ctl/Win/Alt/F10 ????
>>>
>>> Please....
>>
>> I haven't used that so I wouldn't know. I don't generally
>> use a lot of keyboard shortcuts anyway.
>
> I wouldn't EVER touch the mouse if it was possible. It is
> without a doubt the WORST contribution Xerox PARC made to this
> civilization.
I'm mostly a mouse user now, so we'll have to leave that one at that. (The
days of being stuck solely with using the keyboard and DOS ... are long
gone. :-)
Having said that, I still do use some good ole, Wordstar, shortcut key
combinations on various occasions. :-)
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EEC1495F...@88.198.244.100:
>> but if
>> you can, get a look at the TFT displays, such as used in
>> the ELO touchscreens with the surface wave sensors. I have
>> two 17-inchers off eBay, and I upchucked a 19" flatscreen
>> Iiyama CRT for these,
>
> Shame! I would not admit to having done that.
>
You haven't seen a decent TFT LCD image, have you? :)
Not a cue for funny remarks... Trust me, there IS such a thing, I'm looking
at it. Only the best CRT's are equivalent to this in contrast, and for
definition of detail they don't get this good. The TFT LCD's are brighter
too.
Those who know it will queue up to pay £100 for them on the rare occasions
they turn up used on eBay. I bought two while I could get them. New, they
cost £400 or more so anyone getting one for £100 has good reason to feel
lucky.
When I tried (twice) to sell the 19" Iiyama flatscreen (refurbished by
Iiyama, extremely clean, spent the last two years in its original box and
packing except for a test prior to listing on eBay, and with the very nice
pictures on the listing as well) I couldn't convince anyone to offer more
than £20! So I kept it. But it doesn't look any better than these TFT LCD
touchscreens, it eats ten times the power, takes thirty times the space,
creates maybe twenty times the RFI and EMI interference.... I could go on,
but I won't. There really is no contest.
Another thing I'll admit to: I feel smug when I see those foul bleary LCD's
that used to make me think what I see in front of me now was impossible.
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EEC1495F...@88.198.244.100:
> A better monitor will cost you less than replacing the
> backlights.
Nope. Not a chamce... I looked into it. Four tubes at about £5 each vs one
monitor at £100 if I'm lucky enough to find any more at that price. You could
argue that my Iiyama 19" valued by all and sundry at a mere £20 or less
proves a point but you couldn't argue that it's a better monitor. :) Not
after seeing these LCD's anyway. This TFT thinger looks better than the CRT
in all but two details (vertical viewing angle shift in intensity, and
ambient glare reduction), even on the end of a 15m extension cable, and I
could increase the sharpness further by using its DVI input if I had an
output and cable to match it.
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EEC1495F...@88.198.244.100:
> (fortunately they have a 3 year warranty) I borrowed a 3 years
> old 18" Dell LCD from a neighbor. Its recommended resolution was
> 1440x900. On an EIGHTEEN inch diagonal 16:9 !!!
>
Now I get it... those things suck, I've seen them in shops. They're sold on
the basis that people want cheap widescreen video, mostly, aimed at a market
still used to cheap TV's where the rendering isn't a lot better, and isn't
widescreen either.
The comparison with the best TFT LCD is equivalent to that between a
lightweight plastic boombox and a bit of broadcast or studio audio monitoring
equipment. The only thing I can't get on mine is a really wide screen, but as
an XviD will still show on this using more pixels than on any projector
costing less than a grand, I get by.
(Got to wonder what the HD fuss is about, given what I just said.. Some
people go to all the trouble of gearing up for HD to show on an expensive
projector with less resolution than the XviD format they claim to despise.
Even a standard DVD is poorly served there, they certainly don't need to
compound the silliness with HD as well... And if they're doing it for those
dodgy widescreen LCD's then it still makes no sense to me).
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EEC1495F...@88.198.244.100:
> And the colors changed
> if I moved my head more than 2" vertically. Ridiculous.
Agreed. While a TFT varies on a smooth gradient that affects apparent
intensity, the brain adapts really easily because the colour is preserved.
After a while a simple intensity gradient doesn't register on the visual
system unless you move pr try deliberately to find ways to compare. In normal
vision anywhere, we're tuned to see colour shifts as significant, but as
gradient shifts are more often due to distant shadow edges we're tuned to
ignore them easily, so a good TFT works. Even when I do notice it it's nice,
a bit like a slight shift in brightness across the surface of a table lit by
a lamp, but without the glare.
Only a micro-LED array (if and when such gets marketed) will replace these.
LED's can go dim with use too, so those might have problems in practise even
if they start out looking better.
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EEC112E8...@88.198.244.100:
> What? Don't tell me you can play the piano and the flute as
> well! No fair! [sic]
>
Both on keyboard.. :) And only the right-hand part, I wish I could play the
flute.. can whistle, well enough to carry many tunes but it's not as
articulate as a flute would be, not even close. I have plans to make an
electronic pitch and amplitude tracker to convert to a MIDI signal to control
any electronic instrument with it. Mixing the fluent pitching of whistling
with the articulacy of a keyboard into one control signal is a very tempting
prospect, that could match the styles of the best lead guitarists, perhaps,
and do plenty else besides. The MIDI bit works, I adapted a device made by
Doepfer Electronics (a 'ribbon controller') but the analog signal processing
has difficulties that bake even Dieter Doepfer's noodle, let alone mine. I
think this scheme, in all its forms, seems to be on everyone's back burner.
He thinks the thing will be solved digitally, but I think it will be done
with analog alectronics, PLL's, filters, etc.. If I'm right, then so is he,
but until it IS solved, what is a digital system supposed to model? The basic
difficulty is in tracking bass signals as fast as treble ones. I decided it
wasn't theoretically possible if you had to wait for actual sound to appear,
so to me it's not an issue, my difficulty is with figuring out the cheapest
and best analog process to clean the input signal so it's reliable... Even a
digital system has to solve that.
Point taken about the typos. :)
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EEC12D2F...@88.198.244.100:
> Even if not, if you really HAVE to run something written for
> XP+, just install XP and be done with it. KernelEx is for people
> who have too much time to fuck around with their systems. They
> should just move to Linux. That'll keep them busy.
>
:)
*visions of cars always up on blocks instead of being driven around*
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EEC12D2F...@88.198.244.100:
>>> 1x1. It won't run on 98SELite.
>
1x1 as in 1by1, audio player by Martin Pesch, maker of MP3DirectCut?
I'm using v1.74 on W98 SE (98-lite install) and it works extremely well. This
is the latest version too, so it ought to keep on working in later versions,
hopefully..
thanatoid
news:Xns9EEC85174B3...@216.196.109.145:
<snip>
> (Got to wonder what the HD fuss is about, given what I just
> said.. Some people go to all the trouble of gearing up for
> HD to show on an expensive projector with less resolution
> than the XviD format they claim to despise. Even a standard
> DVD is poorly served there, they certainly don't need to
> compound the silliness with HD as well... And if they're
> doing it for those dodgy widescreen LCD's then it still
> makes no sense to me).
The HD fuss is simply the effect of "we want as much money as we
can get, and we have no more watchable content, so we'll make
the equipment different, and force the entire civilized world to
line up with their assholes greased up well and good".
AFA 16:9 (the other day I saw something that looked like 23:1)
so far, the only effect I have seen is the fact that you can NOT
see ANY video image anywhere except in your own house that has
the proper aspect ratio. While 1.85 is the best aspect ratio for
cinema, and 16:9 is close, so far it has been nothing but a
disaster for TV and computers. But it has made "them" a lot of
money.
It's all so fucked.
BTW, my feelings on BluRay and whatever comes out next year are
very similar.
thanatoid
news:Xns9EEC8E2F05B...@216.196.109.145:
Yup. I don't care, I don't really like what I read. Also, I
believe I tried mp3 directcut years ago and it was crap. You can
not cut a super-compressed frame-based format which is basically
an insane idea which just happens to sound ok to people with
blown ears.
Bill in Co
MP3 DirectCut can come in handy for some simple edits which don't require
the finesse of using an audio editor. Like trimming and fading out the end
of a recording having some drawn out applause, for example. It doesn't
change the file in any other way - it uses a simple frame cutting (no
reprocessing).
Bill in Co
Good to hear.
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EEC8BD79...@88.198.244.100:
Actually you can.. Each frame has a clear boundary. MP3 is a streanming
format that can begin and end at any arbitrary frame (It's one reason seeking
to arbitray points in players is so fast and clean).
The the thought further: if you can find a frame boundary that is in a bit of
silence, you can cut there withotu hearing bad effects.
Two other things apply: those pops and squilps in bad MP3's result from
frames internally damaged. MP3DirectCut deliberately never touches any part
of what's inside any frame, with ONE exception.
Each frame has a value in it that amounts to a volume control. By adjusting
that you can change the apparent volume of the output without touching the
signal at all. That's how MP3DirectCut does it fades or 'normalisations' or
any other kind of sound level change. It works because the frames are small,
one after another so fast that you don't hear stepped fading, it's smooth. I
prefer not to use fades though, except in repairs of bad files I can't
replace.
One other thing about MP3DirectCut that is truly special: repairing bad
padding bytes and overloaded ID3v2 tagging gubbins, or files stuffed into the
MP3, like hidden images, or whatever weird nonsense some people stuff in them
at times. Broken frame hearders, the lot, ALL seem fixable by the same
method: Load offending file in MP3DirectCut, select all data, save as new
file. This is the easiest truly effective general repair I ever saw for any
MP3, and I've fixed files that nothing else fixed, including detailed
examination in a hex editor.
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EEC8BD79...@88.198.244.100:
>> 1x1 as in 1by1, audio player by Martin Pesch, maker of
>> MP3DirectCut?
>>
>> I'm using v1.74 on W98 SE (98-lite install) and it works
>> extremely well. This is the latest version too, so it ought
>> to keep on working in later versions, hopefully..
>
> Yup. I don't care, I don't really like what I read.
I didn't at first, but these tools are in constant development by a guy who
seems to specialise in good quality assembler code. (No way can C compile
that much that small, so far as I know). I one rejected 1by1, but I saw
enough to make me look again. For a while it would sometimes crash after
cleanly ending one track in a set, which drove me to use Foobar2000 if I
wanted to have an hour long bath... Even that crash no longer happens in the
last two versions or so, and it was the last distraction I ever saw in 1by1.
As of a few versions ago I think it passes full muster for me, and I've not
yet seen it break something that used to work, so don't give up on it. We're
lucky anyone still develops serious new code that runs on W98.
(I used to hate MP3DirectCut one, well not hate, I admired how much it did
for such a small size, but I didn't trust it to do its job. But the more I
learned about MP3, and the more I saw it fix seriously screwed up downloaded
files, the more I trusted it, and now it's a permanent part of my main
programs partition. Even 1by1 hasn't got there yet, but it will soon enough).