Re: AFTER INSTALLING/UNINSTALLING 98LITE Re: problems apparently with rundll32 when loading drivers
Re: AFTER INSTALLING/UNINSTALLING 98LITE Re: problems apparently with rundll32 when loading drivers
In message <ODofbeKAJHA.4148@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, Gary S. Terhune
<none@?.?.invalid> writes
[]
>If you'll notice, nobody is responding to it, anyway, except me. Your
>statement "I have tried to revert...." is exactly what takes this out of the
>realm of stock Windows 98. You can't fix a problem until you know what it
This reversion is one of the functions offered by 98lite - a shell swap,
between the 95 shell and the 98 shell. (It does more than just change
explorer.exe and shell32.dll - it also amends several files, such as
notepad.exe, such that they work properly with whichever shell.)
>is, and in this case the problem is almost certainly caused by a serious
>screwing up of your system caused by your experiment. And, possibly, due to
I am pretty sure you are right there.
>your total lack of preparation for said experiment by making sure you have
>the drivers to install your system stored carefully away, preferably in a
I have the drivers for the sound circuitry. The problem does not seem to
be the drivers themselves, but the process (?) which handles the
installation of (any) driver: when I add new hardware (or delete the
sound circuitry and then reboot), I get the usual "found new hardware",
and either it finds the drivers or I tell it where they are, and it
starts to load them - and then I get the rundll32 error box.
[]
>> Interesting - does 98lite have something to do with Linux then? (I ask
>> with no baggage: I'm just genuinely interested.)
>
>As far as code goes, nothing (I presume.) I was referring to the fact that
>98Lite and it's brethren tear the 98 OS into pieces, rip out whole chunks,
>and then (and here's where the Linux reference comes in), replace it (or
>rather, some of it) with homegrown, "Open Source"--style code. Then claim
>that because it still has the 98 kernel, it's Windows 98, just tweaked.
>That's a load of bullcrap. At that point, it is no longer Windows 98 in the
>slightest. Note your phrase, above: "I have tried reverting to the '98
>shell..." Far more than the kernel, it is the shell that defines an OS from
>the point of view of the user, and just because some nerds want to turn that
>logic on its head doesn't mean squat.
I'm confused by the difference between "shell" and "kernel" in what you
say above; it seems to me that you mean different things by the two
terms. (Please don't gloat in your answer! If I don't ask, I won't
learn, will I!)
>
>You've got two problems.
>1. You don't have a functional '98 machine anymore because you ripped out
>huge chunks and replaced them, and then the aptly named "soporific"
>obviously either didn't do a good enough job with the installer (referring
>to it's uninstall functions) or didn't expect anyone to bother trying to go
>back to the original shell. And you, due to total lack of foresight and
>professionalism, haven't the slightest idea just how different from your
>original system your current one is, just how much DLL Hell exists, etc., ad
>infinitum.
Well, my "shredded" system had been working fairly reliably for several
years before I tried the soporific stuff.
>
>2.You don't have the original drivers for your Win98 system. That's just a
>failure on your part, period. I don't think it would mater if you did --
I almost certainly _do_ still have the original motherboard CD somewhere
- I certainly wouldn't throw something like that out; however, I've
moved house since I built the PC. I went to the motherboard
manufacturer's website and fetched a - Windows 98 - driver for the only
part that isn't working, the sound circuitry.
>what you describe doesn't sound like it's at all that simple, sounds more
>like rampant DLL Hell in the Hardware/PnP/Drivers installation layer. I
>won't go through all the steps in my logic, but if it were my machine, and I
>just wanted to get my real Windows 98 back, it would have been flattened and
>rebuilt by now.
If I were going to do that, I think I'd go for XP.
>
>Except that you still apparently want to play with the big boys and make it
>your holy grail to find out what went wrong and fix it. Problems is, you
I'm very puzzled why you consider this to be such a satanic wish: what,
exactly, is wrong with wanting to know what has gone wrong?
>didn't set out with a pro's mentality, you just slapped the thing in and
>went for broke. I do that on one or more of my test machine regularly, but
No, I did an ERD, which though not a complete backup by any means, has
nearly always allowed me to restore a working system in the past. In the
very few cases where it hasn't, it has got me back to a situation where
I just had to reinstall one piece of software (usually Easy CD Creator)
manually.
>not even on a separate partition of my main work machine. Only on totally
>throw-away boxes. Believe it or not, software CAN wreck hardware, and more
I remember there was (allegedly - I never investigated!) a command you
could type on the Commodore PET that would cause it to do harm to
itself! But yes, even on PCs, there certainly are things. (I suppose
some of the utilities that thoroughly exercise bits of the system - such
as hard drives, or in extremis processors, are the most likely these
days, but I'm sure there are some unexpected ones too.)
>importantly, what gets installed on one partition may not behave and STAY on
>that partition and totally leave the others untouched. Windows XP and even
>more, Vista, are excellent examples of this. I do install all of them on
>adjacent partitions on my main machine, but I also know fairly well what
>they will do to each other, and I generally keep them at least mostly hidden
>from each other and ameliorate the rest.
>
>But then, I'm pretty much the same brand of fool that you are. That's how I
>learned Windows 98. Install it, do whatever I can to it, while keeping track
>of what happens when I install this or that, until I get myself into such a
>deep hole, I'd reformat and reinstall. I did that up to a dozen times a day,
>over 300 times in the first year I owned it, until I got it right or gave up
>on whatever application or hardware I was playing with. I've had to curb
Wow! Well, it was the (presumed) expertise that I sensed you had
developed as a result of all that, that I'd hoped I could tap into.
[]
>At all times, even now with my main XP installation (that has four other
>Windows OS partitions that I multi-boot), I am always conscious of the fact
>that I might lose the use of it at any moment and constantly ask myself what
>will I do in that case, with, of course, dozens upon dozens of possible
>strategies available to ponder and perfect (even practice) while I wait for
Well, except for actual hardware failure or perhaps FAT corruption, I am
fairly certain I can extract my _data_ files, if necessary by booting
into DOS. (I frequently dump them to CD as well.)
>the inevitable -- and that is how you have to think about computers: That it
>is inevitable that at any moment it will be destroyed, with absolutely
>nothing to recover, neither hardware or data, a blackened chunk of melted
>metal and silicon, ready for immediate delivery to the recycler.
Indeed.
>
>>>disservice by not dealing with them in a forum dedicated to the topic, you
>>
>> Hmm, I was unaware there were any, but I've done a search after your post,
>> and I see that both of the newsservers I use actually include
>> fido7.su.f98lite, which I have now subscribed to; I suspect the "su" means
>> it'll be in Finnish (which I don't speak), but I'll report back.
>
>Doesn't look to me like there's even a forum for 98Lite, let alone
Well, I've now loaded some posts from that, and they're certainly not in
a language I can understand - it could well be Finnish.
>associated hackers. Which does nothing but lower my already low opinion of
>the product and the crowd that uses it. Unless maybe if you pay for
>98Lite... there's a member's login -- maybe there's a forum hiding in there.
What is your opinion of TweakUI, and the other PowerTools?
>Otherwise, it indicates to me that there is no seriousness on the part of
>these cross-breeders. That they're just a bunch of silly hackers who don't
>give a crap about anyone else, especially not the people who are interested
>in supporting their efforts, if not with money, then with ideas and
>feedback. That's how the people I know who have developed very successful
>applications for computers have always conducted their business. Seeks
>experts to get behind their effort and have a very open and lively forum.
Agreed - or, do it all themself, but still have plenty of dialog (about
both problems and suggestions) with the users. A couple of examples of
that, I would say, are Irfan Skiljan's IrfanView, John Steed's Brother's
Keeper (genealogy software), and GoldWave (sound editing); all of these,
but particularly the first two, deal openly with the users. I have
actually bought all of these (and some others), even though at least one
(IrfanView) is free for home use, as I believe in encouraging them.
[]
>years.) This is at least historically true. I haven't kept up with AOL in
>recent years, but it seems to me that they have at least lessoned their
>efforts to reprogram the OS, and instead learned to work within its bounds.
Just about - I've had to do battle with it for a friend recently, and it
still seems to have very much its own way of doing things, at least the
interface to BB, for no advantage to the user that I can see.
[]
>I honestly beg to differ. Hijack these NGs is exactly what you did, not that
>you had much choice. But your issue is NOT a Windows 98 issue, it's a 98Lite
>issue. And 98Lite users, if they have any respect whatsoever for the stock
>98 users that regularly attend these groups, they'd get their own room.
>Otherwise, they're no less obnoxious than any other trolls.
>
I thought a troll was someone who deliberately posted something
inflammatory, hoping to start a flamewar or similar. I certainly didn't
intend to do that - mine was (and still is) a genuine request of the
"has anyone else come across anything like this, and know what the cause
is" sort.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
**
http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **
it is no use hitting all the targets and missing the point. - chief executive
of
the Disability and Carers Service, quoted in computing, 23 March 2006, page 26.
