mscoree.dll

btw, as Mike has noted before, Symantec didn't write, eg, Speed Disk. Peter
Norton was the originator and eventually got brought out. Until recently I
had one of his versions (and a very early Symantec-labelled one!). Hard to
believe I finally junked it all!

I think I still have MS-DOS 6.22 on floppies (and DR-DOS 7.03 iirc), though
I'm not sure why. Not only did I decide to get rid of LFN-unaware stuff for
once and for all, I threw away Windows 95OS2!

....I feel like an OCD patient in remission...

Shane


"Shane" wrote in message
...
Heh...just when I think I do know what you mean, Harry, it's gone again!
vbg


Shane


"webster72n" wrote in message
...

That's the ultimate in this NG, Shane, at least, I think so.
Just like inspecting an object under the microscope.
And the approach has to be universal, know what I mean?
You sort of *made my day* and my name even is *Harry*.
Thanks.

*Same as above*.


"Shane" wrote in message
...
Yeah, no problem, Harry. You know, I do get a kind of perverse kick out
of
arguing *for* Symantec - if that's what it is. Though I don't suppose
that's
what it really is - or not any longer - as current offerings are so
bloated
(and the last versions 9x could use, so resource hungry) they're
indefensible. I do differ with Mike, Noel and Figgeroo in this respect
though, in that the circa 2000 versions were/are not *entirely* useless.

Some of the DOS tools of NU2000 etc are pretty useful. Disk Edit for
one,
though it's not for novices and anyway DOS is almost obsolete now. But
if
you continue to run 98 or ME, the DOS version of Norton Disk Doctor is,
on
the whole, better than ScanDisk. The Windows version is, imo,
unnecessary
nonetheless, but the DOS one can often repair errors that the ScanDisk
equivalent insists you boot to Windows to do, which is a pita if the
error
is actually preventing Windows from booting. These tools are very small
and
don't need installing to use (or buying a cd as I'd quite happily send
you
them if required, though I doubt you will require them).

WinDoctor is simply unnecessary and the only good reason to run NU/NSW,
imo,
is for SpeedDisk - which is (was) available as a standalone anyway, and
although seemingly more expensive that way at least does not come with a
whole host of other programs to tempt the user to screw up their system.

Maybe Mike, Noel and Figgington-Smythe's approach is actually the
correct
one, but since *I* still use the suite, I'm unable to condemn all
components
outright.

Anyway, you should take a look at Custom installation options. For
instance,
you could install *only* SpeedDisk (more-or-less). Same goes for most
installations - choose Custom. If the options get confusing you can
always
go back and change to Standard.

Shane

webster72n wrote:
Mighty interesting, Shane and showing, you know your *stuff*.
You read what Mike said and I don't want to get on his bad side.
Just kidding, since I am not much more than a novice, I better follow
his advice to aim for the local dumpster.
Thanks Shane and Mike.

Harry.


"webster72n" wrote in message
...

Aren't you a little hard on this "innocent" CD, Mike,
to destine it for the "local dumpster"?
What if I found a buyer, if the price was right?
I hate to loose "the thing", it "seemed" to do a good job.

Harry.


"Mike M" wrote in message
...
Using this program the way I do hopefully doesn't make me your
enemy.

Just as long as you realise the program concerned is useless and
does nothing to help keep your system running but rather the
reverse as demonstrated by this thread. Personally I don't know
why you bother and would suggest the best place for the CD
concerned is the local dumpster. :-)
--
Mike Maltby



webster72n wrote:

Yes Mike, I am sure to have been able to do without it (along the
way my pc told me it had to do with NetFramework), but I didn't
want to have this showing up every time I do a scan (at least once
a month or so). Therefore I took care of it.
Using this program the way I do hopefully doesn't make me your
enemy. Extending my hand with peace greetings g.

Hi Shane,

I was also a Peter Norton and PCTools fan back in the 80s and early 90s.

Talking of vintage I find I still have copies of DOS 4.01, 5 and 6 as well
as 6.22 and am sure if I looked hard would also find 3.2. WFW3.1 and
WFW3.11 as well as Win2, Win3, 3.1 and 3.11 but no Windows 1. Also a copy
of MS Office 4.3. I really really really need to clear up some of my
archives. :-)
--
Mike Maltby



Shane wrote:

btw, as Mike has noted before, Symantec didn't write, eg, Speed Disk.
Peter Norton was the originator and eventually got brought out. Until
recently I had one of his versions (and a very early
Symantec-labelled one!). Hard to believe I finally junked it all!

I think I still have MS-DOS 6.22 on floppies (and DR-DOS 7.03 iirc),
though I'm not sure why. Not only did I decide to get rid of
LFN-unaware stuff for once and for all, I threw away Windows 95OS2!

...I feel like an OCD patient in remission...

I *know* you have Win2.x - for very good reason!


I also have a copy of Win3.1(something or other) here - not to mention DOS
6.something... and even a copy (if I can find it) of Qbasic from who knows
when? which still runs happily on XP, running a little program I created
for fun on a Dragon 64.....
I could probably lay my hands on the single floppy that the CP/M for that PC
came on, if I *really* searched!

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
"Mike M" wrote in message
...
Hi Shane,

I was also a Peter Norton and PCTools fan back in the 80s and early 90s.

Talking of vintage I find I still have copies of DOS 4.01, 5 and 6 as well
as 6.22 and am sure if I looked hard would also find 3.2. WFW3.1 and
WFW3.11 as well as Win2, Win3, 3.1 and 3.11 but no Windows 1. Also a copy
of MS Office 4.3. I really really really need to clear up some of my
archives. :-)
--
Mike Maltby



Shane wrote:

btw, as Mike has noted before, Symantec didn't write, eg, Speed Disk.
Peter Norton was the originator and eventually got brought out. Until
recently I had one of his versions (and a very early
Symantec-labelled one!). Hard to believe I finally junked it all!

I think I still have MS-DOS 6.22 on floppies (and DR-DOS 7.03 iirc),
though I'm not sure why. Not only did I decide to get rid of
LFN-unaware stuff for once and for all, I threw away Windows 95OS2!

...I feel like an OCD patient in remission...

And here I thought to be the only one having a problem with that, Shane
lol

Harry.


"Shane" wrote in message
...
Heh...just when I think I do know what you mean, Harry, it's gone again!
vbg


Shane


"webster72n" wrote in message
...

That's the ultimate in this NG, Shane, at least, I think so.
Just like inspecting an object under the microscope.
And the approach has to be universal, know what I mean?
You sort of *made my day* and my name even is *Harry*.
Thanks.

*Same as above*.


"Shane" wrote in message
...
Yeah, no problem, Harry. You know, I do get a kind of perverse kick
out
of
arguing *for* Symantec - if that's what it is. Though I don't suppose
that's
what it really is - or not any longer - as current offerings are so
bloated
(and the last versions 9x could use, so resource hungry) they're
indefensible. I do differ with Mike, Noel and Figgeroo in this respect
though, in that the circa 2000 versions were/are not *entirely*
useless.

Some of the DOS tools of NU2000 etc are pretty useful. Disk Edit for
one,
though it's not for novices and anyway DOS is almost obsolete now. But
if
you continue to run 98 or ME, the DOS version of Norton Disk Doctor is,
on
the whole, better than ScanDisk. The Windows version is, imo,
unnecessary
nonetheless, but the DOS one can often repair errors that the ScanDisk
equivalent insists you boot to Windows to do, which is a pita if the
error
is actually preventing Windows from booting. These tools are very small
and
don't need installing to use (or buying a cd as I'd quite happily send
you
them if required, though I doubt you will require them).

WinDoctor is simply unnecessary and the only good reason to run NU/NSW,
imo,
is for SpeedDisk - which is (was) available as a standalone anyway, and
although seemingly more expensive that way at least does not come with
a
whole host of other programs to tempt the user to screw up their
system.

Maybe Mike, Noel and Figgington-Smythe's approach is actually the
correct
one, but since *I* still use the suite, I'm unable to condemn all
components
outright.

Anyway, you should take a look at Custom installation options. For
instance,
you could install *only* SpeedDisk (more-or-less). Same goes for most
installations - choose Custom. If the options get confusing you can
always
go back and change to Standard.

Shane

webster72n wrote:
Mighty interesting, Shane and showing, you know your *stuff*.
You read what Mike said and I don't want to get on his bad side.
Just kidding, since I am not much more than a novice, I better follow
his advice to aim for the local dumpster.
Thanks Shane and Mike.

Harry.


"webster72n" wrote in message
...

Aren't you a little hard on this "innocent" CD, Mike,
to destine it for the "local dumpster"?
What if I found a buyer, if the price was right?
I hate to loose "the thing", it "seemed" to do a good job.

Harry.


"Mike M" wrote in message
...
Using this program the way I do hopefully doesn't make me your
enemy.

Just as long as you realise the program concerned is useless and
does nothing to help keep your system running but rather the
reverse as demonstrated by this thread. Personally I don't know
why you bother and would suggest the best place for the CD
concerned is the local dumpster. :-)
--
Mike Maltby



webster72n wrote:

Yes Mike, I am sure to have been able to do without it (along the
way my pc told me it had to do with NetFramework), but I didn't
want to have this showing up every time I do a scan (at least once
a month or so). Therefore I took care of it.
Using this program the way I do hopefully doesn't make me your
enemy. Extending my hand with peace greetings g.

Mike,

I took a look through the one box of (20) floppies I still retain, last
night. Apparently I kept DOS 5.00 as well. I kept ERDs for Win95 original
and OS2. Suggestions as to 'Why?' on a postcard please!

I still have a copy of WFW 3.11 on the hd here. Everything was on hd,
duplicated on cd. It's the stacks of redundant cds that were the problem. I
had a kind of fun getting everything to install from cd, or be copied to
flat folders on the hd and install from there, just seeing how much quicker
I could make it all go. I made a cd that would install DR-DOS 7.03, then
MS-DOS 6.22, then WFW 3.11 - just had to start it from a DR-DOS boot disk
and it autoran from there, then installed the best of the utilities. I guess
it was the fun of automating, and as such a bit like building a train set
then switching it on and just sitting there!

I think it's my Scottish blood makes me rue having got rid of it all - and
the English that makes me feel that no matter how much work I put in, it was
*still* a good idea to ditch it!

That cd was the genesis of my ultimate multi-boot volume - you could get
Windows 2.x on too and put the whole lot beneath Win 95 and on top of
*that*, NT 4.0! Finally I squeezed 98se in, out of curiosity at what point
it just wouldn't work anymore (which point I didn't reach). And all 7 OSes
went into one 2G volume. I think I had to write a boot up script to select
between 95 or 98, but otherwise it was straight forward enough apart from
the Boot sequences!

But my video wouldn't work, ie I couldn't get more than 16 colours in WFW,
and I couldn't go online with any of my last four modems, even in NT 4.0
and, as educational as it was that's all it was. The ironic thing is, before
long hardware won't be 9x compatable either!

Shane



"Mike M" wrote in message
...
Hi Shane,

I was also a Peter Norton and PCTools fan back in the 80s and early 90s.

Talking of vintage I find I still have copies of DOS 4.01, 5 and 6 as well
as 6.22 and am sure if I looked hard would also find 3.2. WFW3.1 and
WFW3.11 as well as Win2, Win3, 3.1 and 3.11 but no Windows 1. Also a copy
of MS Office 4.3. I really really really need to clear up some of my
archives. :-)
--
Mike Maltby



Shane wrote:

btw, as Mike has noted before, Symantec didn't write, eg, Speed Disk.
Peter Norton was the originator and eventually got brought out. Until
recently I had one of his versions (and a very early
Symantec-labelled one!). Hard to believe I finally junked it all!

I think I still have MS-DOS 6.22 on floppies (and DR-DOS 7.03 iirc),
though I'm not sure why. Not only did I decide to get rid of
LFN-unaware stuff for once and for all, I threw away Windows 95OS2!

...I feel like an OCD patient in remission...

Ah yes! The Reversi championships! vbg

Shane


"Noel Paton" wrote in message
...
I *know* you have Win2.x - for very good reason!


I also have a copy of Win3.1(something or other) here - not to mention DOS
6.something... and even a copy (if I can find it) of Qbasic from who
knows when? which still runs happily on XP, running a little program I
created for fun on a Dragon 64.....
I could probably lay my hands on the single floppy that the CP/M for that
PC came on, if I *really* searched!

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
"Mike M" wrote in message
...
Hi Shane,

I was also a Peter Norton and PCTools fan back in the 80s and early 90s.

Talking of vintage I find I still have copies of DOS 4.01, 5 and 6 as
well as 6.22 and am sure if I looked hard would also find 3.2. WFW3.1
and WFW3.11 as well as Win2, Win3, 3.1 and 3.11 but no Windows 1. Also a
copy of MS Office 4.3. I really really really need to clear up some of
my archives. :-)
--
Mike Maltby



Shane wrote:

btw, as Mike has noted before, Symantec didn't write, eg, Speed Disk.
Peter Norton was the originator and eventually got brought out. Until
recently I had one of his versions (and a very early
Symantec-labelled one!). Hard to believe I finally junked it all!

I think I still have MS-DOS 6.22 on floppies (and DR-DOS 7.03 iirc),
though I'm not sure why. Not only did I decide to get rid of
LFN-unaware stuff for once and for all, I threw away Windows 95OS2!

...I feel like an OCD patient in remission...

The ironic
thing is, before long hardware won't be 9x compatable either!

It's already there Shane,

I guess I could have an amusing afternoon seeing if I could get Win Me up
and running on my newest box, an AMD64 dual core with 2GB of RAM and
nForce 4 chipset. My OSs are on a RAID0 set and archival storage is on a
RAID5 set (Silicon Image chip), all with SATA drives and I very much doubt
Win Me would touch any of it. However it also has an 80GB PATA drive
(which is currently used for Vista due to Vista barfing at my nForce
RAID0, let alone installing on it) so Win Me may just go. The question
though is, is it worth the time and effort? vbg.

Oh, since the 2GB of RAM is 2x1GB I can't even pull sticks to get below
512MB, all the more so since it is dual channel and needs two sticks to
function.
--
Mike Maltby



Shane wrote:

I took a look through the one box of (20) floppies I still retain,
last night. Apparently I kept DOS 5.00 as well. I kept ERDs for Win95
original and OS2. Suggestions as to 'Why?' on a postcard please!

I still have a copy of WFW 3.11 on the hd here. Everything was on hd,
duplicated on cd. It's the stacks of redundant cds that were the
problem. I had a kind of fun getting everything to install from cd,
or be copied to flat folders on the hd and install from there, just
seeing how much quicker I could make it all go. I made a cd that
would install DR-DOS 7.03, then MS-DOS 6.22, then WFW 3.11 - just had
to start it from a DR-DOS boot disk and it autoran from there, then
installed the best of the utilities. I guess it was the fun of
automating, and as such a bit like building a train set then
switching it on and just sitting there!
I think it's my Scottish blood makes me rue having got rid of it all
- and the English that makes me feel that no matter how much work I
put in, it was *still* a good idea to ditch it!

That cd was the genesis of my ultimate multi-boot volume - you could
get Windows 2.x on too and put the whole lot beneath Win 95 and on
top of *that*, NT 4.0! Finally I squeezed 98se in, out of curiosity
at what point it just wouldn't work anymore (which point I didn't
reach). And all 7 OSes went into one 2G volume. I think I had to
write a boot up script to select between 95 or 98, but otherwise it
was straight forward enough apart from the Boot sequences!

But my video wouldn't work, ie I couldn't get more than 16 colours in
WFW, and I couldn't go online with any of my last four modems, even
in NT 4.0 and, as educational as it was that's all it was. The ironic
thing is, before long hardware won't be 9x compatable either!

This is all fascinating stuff, I noticed this morning when I went to pull
down my ngs they have put a whole load of Vista groups on now.
Joan


Mike M wrote:
The ironic
thing is, before long hardware won't be 9x compatable either!

It's already there Shane,

I guess I could have an amusing afternoon seeing if I could get Win
Me up and running on my newest box, an AMD64 dual core with 2GB of
RAM and nForce 4 chipset. My OSs are on a RAID0 set and archival
storage is on a RAID5 set (Silicon Image chip), all with SATA drives
and I very much doubt Win Me would touch any of it. However it also
has an 80GB PATA drive (which is currently used for Vista due to
Vista barfing at my nForce RAID0, let alone installing on it) so Win
Me may just go. The question though is, is it worth the time and
effort? vbg.
Oh, since the 2GB of RAM is 2x1GB I can't even pull sticks to get
below 512MB, all the more so since it is dual channel and needs two
sticks to function.

I took a look through the one box of (20) floppies I still retain,
last night. Apparently I kept DOS 5.00 as well. I kept ERDs for Win95
original and OS2. Suggestions as to 'Why?' on a postcard please!

I still have a copy of WFW 3.11 on the hd here. Everything was on hd,
duplicated on cd. It's the stacks of redundant cds that were the
problem. I had a kind of fun getting everything to install from cd,
or be copied to flat folders on the hd and install from there, just
seeing how much quicker I could make it all go. I made a cd that
would install DR-DOS 7.03, then MS-DOS 6.22, then WFW 3.11 - just had
to start it from a DR-DOS boot disk and it autoran from there, then
installed the best of the utilities. I guess it was the fun of
automating, and as such a bit like building a train set then
switching it on and just sitting there!
I think it's my Scottish blood makes me rue having got rid of it all
- and the English that makes me feel that no matter how much work I
put in, it was *still* a good idea to ditch it!

That cd was the genesis of my ultimate multi-boot volume - you could
get Windows 2.x on too and put the whole lot beneath Win 95 and on
top of *that*, NT 4.0! Finally I squeezed 98se in, out of curiosity
at what point it just wouldn't work anymore (which point I didn't
reach). And all 7 OSes went into one 2G volume. I think I had to
write a boot up script to select between 95 or 98, but otherwise it
was straight forward enough apart from the Boot sequences!

But my video wouldn't work, ie I couldn't get more than 16 colours in
WFW, and I couldn't go online with any of my last four modems, even
in NT 4.0 and, as educational as it was that's all it was. The ironic
thing is, before long hardware won't be 9x compatable either!