WinZip 8.0 running v. slowly

WAY off topic for this forum
But thank you for the help MEB!
The Old Compaq will have win89 + Ubuntu Linux
I need your help at time
So Thanks one more time MEB!

P.S.
I believe he have a File System FAT32-ZIP by WinZip 8.0!

he may need to move to a Bigger Hard Drive!





"MEB" wrote in message
...
On 02/22/2010 05:44 AM, Hot-text wrote:
I put a Ubuntu Linux (Debian GNU/Linux ) on a Old x86 Compaq Presario
5070, That Compaq have a SiS Corporation, SiS530 Video Drivers and there
no Ubuntu (Debian GNU/Linux ) SiS530 Video Drivers made for it.

So Angus Rodgers
Look for all the Dives for Ubuntu first before installing Ubuntu on a
PC!
And Ubuntu is a (Debian GNU/Linux )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_(operating_system)



MEB Hmm LOOL
now I have to format that Hard Drive and I believe I'll go with The
FreeBSD Project , That I can run some Microsoft Software on it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD


Angus Rodgers a good Linux is Xandros
you can put Microsoft Software on it! Like IE6, IE7, IE8 or Microsoft
Office, Win95, 98, xp Software on it,!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xandros
But it is License GNU GPL with some proprietary software
http://www.xandros.com/products/desktop/license.html

But like Ubuntu, Xandros is Debian-based Too! So you need to look for
all the Drive first before installing it!

Angus Rodgers More Linux to look at::::
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUSE
http://www.redhat.com/
http://www.slackware.com/
http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/ Yellow Dog Linux was first
released in the spring of 1999 for the Apple Macintosh PowerPC computers.
http://www.opensuse.org/en/
http://www.redhat.com/rhel/compatibility/software/
http://www.knoppix.com/
http://www.gentoo.org/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentoo_Linux
Drawbacks and criticisms
http://www.fedora.redhat.com/ and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedora_(operating_system)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_Linux for 360

Just one comment per the being able to run Windows applications in
Linux [be it via Wine, VM, or otherwise] or other non-MS OSs:
Remember that installing these Windows apps into a Linux or otherwise
brings with them the vulnerabilities and exploits those carry. Though
native Linux compilation vulnerabilities revolve more around local user
issues [same for MAC], you bring the remote/Internet vulnerabilities
INTO Linux compilations if you use the Windows apps for such access or,
at times, when a malicious system probe discovers them via some
browser/site connection, or when used within a mixed network.
Be cautious and sensible when adding MS applications into these non-MS
systems. Make sure you *lock* MS applications down.

And why the heck would you install an MS IE/browser into a non-MS OS?
That's not very smart.

And the *first* "*nux/*nix" for the PC was one you compiled yourself,
not one of the pre-made compilations. Something you can STILL do if you
want; "roll your own".

___

** ANGUS:
Find out what is presently running within the system using one of the
autorun tools, MSConfig, and other methods and tools which you have seen
the group mention here before. Do we need to run through some of that
again?

We should ask if you have done any tweaks or system/browser updating
since EOL, and whether you have a standard system?

And what IE version is installed?

---

As for Ubuntu SiS drivers:
http://www.winischhofer.eu/linuxsispart1.shtml

OR, you need to remember "drivers" aren't really the issue in a Linux
compilation as you are dealing with generic kernel support and Xwindows
INTO which you install OR manually enter the requirements/support.
Depending upon what you chose as the GUI it may have just needed a tweak
from you.

So you could have tried manually adding the entries into xorg.conf.

Section "Device"
Identifier "Generic Video Card"
Driver "sis"
BusID "PCI:1:0:0"
VideoRam 128000
Option "UseFBDev" "true"
EndSection

and in lower sections:

Section "Screen"
Identifier "Default Screen"
Device "Generic Video Card"
Monitor "Generic Monitor"
DefaultDepth 24
SubSection "Display"
Depth 1
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x800" "1024x768"
"800x600" "680x420"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 4
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x800" "1024x768"
"800x600" "680x420"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 8
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x800" "1024x768"
"800x600" "680x420"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 15
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x800" "1024x768"
"800x600" "680x420"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 16
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x800" "1024x768"
"800x600" "680x420"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 24
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x800" "1024x768"
"800x600" "680x420"
EndSubSection
EndSection

_____

Of course if you expect full 3D or OpenGL or other support, then the
adapter AND monitor codes/"drivers" [which basically just define chip
specific coding support] should be installed.

But this is WAY off topic for this forum...


"Angus Rodgers" wrote in message
...
I last installed Win98SE a little over three years ago, and a
number of niggles have developed. I'm still putting off that
evil day when I have to completely reinstall Win98SE and start
to dual-boot with Ubuntu Linux, which will probably be my next
main OS.

Meanwhile, it would help quite a lot if there were a quick fix
for one particular niggle. When I'm using WinZip 8.0 to add a
lot of files to a *.zip archive, this routine operation, which
used to be over in a few minutes or even seconds, now runs at a
snail's pace, sometimes only adding one or two files a second,
and taking hours to complete (unless I reboot and start again,
which helps a little, but not much). This is making it terribly
annoying to make backups of all my files, which I need to do
before [re]installing everything.

Any ideas? (My only thought is that avast! might have something
to do with it. One of the many niggles is that I stopped being
able to do antivirus updates many months ago because I suffered
from that out-of-memory problem mentioned by someone in another
thread recently.)
--
Angus Rodgers
(formerly, ;
alas, Bigfoot has gone tits-up)



--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

WAY off topic for this forum
But thank you for the help MEB!
The Old Compaq will have win89 + Ubuntu Linux
I need your help at time
So Thanks one more time MEB!

P.S.
I believe he have a File System FAT32-ZIP by WinZip 8.0!

he may need to move to a Bigger Hard Drive!





"MEB" wrote in message
...
On 02/22/2010 05:44 AM, Hot-text wrote:
I put a Ubuntu Linux (Debian GNU/Linux ) on a Old x86 Compaq Presario
5070, That Compaq have a SiS Corporation, SiS530 Video Drivers and there
no Ubuntu (Debian GNU/Linux ) SiS530 Video Drivers made for it.

So Angus Rodgers
Look for all the Dives for Ubuntu first before installing Ubuntu on a
PC!
And Ubuntu is a (Debian GNU/Linux )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_(operating_system)



MEB Hmm LOOL
now I have to format that Hard Drive and I believe I'll go with The
FreeBSD Project , That I can run some Microsoft Software on it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD


Angus Rodgers a good Linux is Xandros
you can put Microsoft Software on it! Like IE6, IE7, IE8 or Microsoft
Office, Win95, 98, xp Software on it,!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xandros
But it is License GNU GPL with some proprietary software
http://www.xandros.com/products/desktop/license.html

But like Ubuntu, Xandros is Debian-based Too! So you need to look for
all the Drive first before installing it!

Angus Rodgers More Linux to look at::::
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUSE
http://www.redhat.com/
http://www.slackware.com/
http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/ Yellow Dog Linux was first
released in the spring of 1999 for the Apple Macintosh PowerPC computers.
http://www.opensuse.org/en/
http://www.redhat.com/rhel/compatibility/software/
http://www.knoppix.com/
http://www.gentoo.org/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentoo_Linux
Drawbacks and criticisms
http://www.fedora.redhat.com/ and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedora_(operating_system)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_Linux for 360

Just one comment per the being able to run Windows applications in
Linux [be it via Wine, VM, or otherwise] or other non-MS OSs:
Remember that installing these Windows apps into a Linux or otherwise
brings with them the vulnerabilities and exploits those carry. Though
native Linux compilation vulnerabilities revolve more around local user
issues [same for MAC], you bring the remote/Internet vulnerabilities
INTO Linux compilations if you use the Windows apps for such access or,
at times, when a malicious system probe discovers them via some
browser/site connection, or when used within a mixed network.
Be cautious and sensible when adding MS applications into these non-MS
systems. Make sure you *lock* MS applications down.

And why the heck would you install an MS IE/browser into a non-MS OS?
That's not very smart.

And the *first* "*nux/*nix" for the PC was one you compiled yourself,
not one of the pre-made compilations. Something you can STILL do if you
want; "roll your own".

___

** ANGUS:
Find out what is presently running within the system using one of the
autorun tools, MSConfig, and other methods and tools which you have seen
the group mention here before. Do we need to run through some of that
again?

We should ask if you have done any tweaks or system/browser updating
since EOL, and whether you have a standard system?

And what IE version is installed?

---

As for Ubuntu SiS drivers:
http://www.winischhofer.eu/linuxsispart1.shtml

OR, you need to remember "drivers" aren't really the issue in a Linux
compilation as you are dealing with generic kernel support and Xwindows
INTO which you install OR manually enter the requirements/support.
Depending upon what you chose as the GUI it may have just needed a tweak
from you.

So you could have tried manually adding the entries into xorg.conf.

Section "Device"
Identifier "Generic Video Card"
Driver "sis"
BusID "PCI:1:0:0"
VideoRam 128000
Option "UseFBDev" "true"
EndSection

and in lower sections:

Section "Screen"
Identifier "Default Screen"
Device "Generic Video Card"
Monitor "Generic Monitor"
DefaultDepth 24
SubSection "Display"
Depth 1
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x800" "1024x768"
"800x600" "680x420"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 4
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x800" "1024x768"
"800x600" "680x420"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 8
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x800" "1024x768"
"800x600" "680x420"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 15
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x800" "1024x768"
"800x600" "680x420"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 16
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x800" "1024x768"
"800x600" "680x420"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 24
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x800" "1024x768"
"800x600" "680x420"
EndSubSection
EndSection

_____

Of course if you expect full 3D or OpenGL or other support, then the
adapter AND monitor codes/"drivers" [which basically just define chip
specific coding support] should be installed.

But this is WAY off topic for this forum...


"Angus Rodgers" wrote in message
...
I last installed Win98SE a little over three years ago, and a
number of niggles have developed. I'm still putting off that
evil day when I have to completely reinstall Win98SE and start
to dual-boot with Ubuntu Linux, which will probably be my next
main OS.

Meanwhile, it would help quite a lot if there were a quick fix
for one particular niggle. When I'm using WinZip 8.0 to add a
lot of files to a *.zip archive, this routine operation, which
used to be over in a few minutes or even seconds, now runs at a
snail's pace, sometimes only adding one or two files a second,
and taking hours to complete (unless I reboot and start again,
which helps a little, but not much). This is making it terribly
annoying to make backups of all my files, which I need to do
before [re]installing everything.

Any ideas? (My only thought is that avast! might have something
to do with it. One of the many niggles is that I stopped being
able to do antivirus updates many months ago because I suffered
from that out-of-memory problem mentioned by someone in another
thread recently.)
--
Angus Rodgers
(formerly, ;
alas, Bigfoot has gone tits-up)



--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:17:45 +0100, Michael
wrote:

Why do you have an antivirus program running at all -regardless of it´s
settings- when all you do is zipping several files on your pc to a
zipfile? Don´t you trust your own local files?

I have never found any way to switch avast! off completely, other
than by uninstalling it (which I would probably do, if I knew for
sure that it was the cause of the problem).

Or do you have a running internet connection even while running the
antivirusprogram and while zipping a huge number of files?

I'm on broadband all the time, although this alone would not make
me think it necessary to have an antivirus program scanning every
local file on access - it's just that, as I explained before, it
never used to slow things down too badly to have avast! running
all the time, so I never had to worry about it.

In the latter case I could understand that zipping slows down to a crawl
as those programs slow down the PC and occupy part of the available memory.

But it never used to - trust me on this. The problem has only
developed during the last few weeks, and I've had this Win98SE
installation, with WinZip 8.0, for more than 3 years, and I've
had avast! for most or even all of that time. (I used to have
a licence for Kaspersky, which I liked a bit better than avast!,
but that ran out a few years ago - I can't remember how long,
exactly.)

Did you perhaps at some point change the level of compression in the
program? Using PeaZip on my PC the amount of time varies greatly
depending on level of compression chosen for the compressed file.

I never intentionally changed it. When things started going
wrong like this, I checked the configuration dialogue, but I
could find nothing obviously screwy in the settings. Double-
checking it again now, I don't even see a setting for level
of compression! Did that come it with a later version of
WinZip (I have used some, but this version nags less), or
am I missing something?

--
Angus Rodgers

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:17:45 +0100, Michael
wrote:

Why do you have an antivirus program running at all -regardless of it´s
settings- when all you do is zipping several files on your pc to a
zipfile? Don´t you trust your own local files?

I have never found any way to switch avast! off completely, other
than by uninstalling it (which I would probably do, if I knew for
sure that it was the cause of the problem).

Or do you have a running internet connection even while running the
antivirusprogram and while zipping a huge number of files?

I'm on broadband all the time, although this alone would not make
me think it necessary to have an antivirus program scanning every
local file on access - it's just that, as I explained before, it
never used to slow things down too badly to have avast! running
all the time, so I never had to worry about it.

In the latter case I could understand that zipping slows down to a crawl
as those programs slow down the PC and occupy part of the available memory.

But it never used to - trust me on this. The problem has only
developed during the last few weeks, and I've had this Win98SE
installation, with WinZip 8.0, for more than 3 years, and I've
had avast! for most or even all of that time. (I used to have
a licence for Kaspersky, which I liked a bit better than avast!,
but that ran out a few years ago - I can't remember how long,
exactly.)

Did you perhaps at some point change the level of compression in the
program? Using PeaZip on my PC the amount of time varies greatly
depending on level of compression chosen for the compressed file.

I never intentionally changed it. When things started going
wrong like this, I checked the configuration dialogue, but I
could find nothing obviously screwy in the settings. Double-
checking it again now, I don't even see a setting for level
of compression! Did that come it with a later version of
WinZip (I have used some, but this version nags less), or
am I missing something?

--
Angus Rodgers

On 02/22/2010 12:42 PM, Hot-text wrote:
WAY off topic for this forum
But thank you for the help MEB!
The Old Compaq will have win89 + Ubuntu Linux
I need your help at time
So Thanks one more time MEB!

Well don't put it in this forum, and you MAY run into one of my other
nyms in various forums [since these Microsoft forums are one of the only
places where I post in my real name {save for bug reports,
misc.legal.moderated when I can get by the moderator], even for various
Linux [unless the real name is used to note a specific discussion of
value]...


P.S.
I believe he have a File System FAT32-ZIP by WinZip 8.0!

he may need to move to a Bigger Hard Drive!


Well that's true, Angus may be running out of swap space or have issues
with temp or like, but I would think we should start with some basic
issues like other running apps and settings, browser DLLs, and some
other issues which might be affecting the zip issue, though the AVAST!
issue should also be attended to. I think though, I vaguely remember (a)
bug(s) in the WinZip 8.0 which caused me to need the 8.1 version.


"MEB" wrote in message
...
On 02/22/2010 05:44 AM, Hot-text wrote:
I put a Ubuntu Linux (Debian GNU/Linux ) on a Old x86 Compaq Presario
5070, That Compaq have a SiS Corporation, SiS530 Video Drivers and there
no Ubuntu (Debian GNU/Linux ) SiS530 Video Drivers made for it.

So Angus Rodgers
Look for all the Dives for Ubuntu first before installing Ubuntu on
a PC!
And Ubuntu is a (Debian GNU/Linux )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_(operating_system)



MEB Hmm LOOL
now I have to format that Hard Drive and I believe I'll go with The
FreeBSD Project , That I can run some Microsoft Software on it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD


Angus Rodgers a good Linux is Xandros
you can put Microsoft Software on it! Like IE6, IE7, IE8 or Microsoft
Office, Win95, 98, xp Software on it,!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xandros
But it is License GNU GPL with some proprietary software
http://www.xandros.com/products/desktop/license.html

But like Ubuntu, Xandros is Debian-based Too! So you need to look for
all the Drive first before installing it!

Angus Rodgers More Linux to look at::::
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUSE
http://www.redhat.com/
http://www.slackware.com/
http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/ Yellow Dog Linux was first
released in the spring of 1999 for the Apple Macintosh PowerPC
computers.
http://www.opensuse.org/en/
http://www.redhat.com/rhel/compatibility/software/
http://www.knoppix.com/
http://www.gentoo.org/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentoo_Linux
Drawbacks and criticisms
http://www.fedora.redhat.com/ and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedora_(operating_system)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_Linux for 360

Just one comment per the being able to run Windows applications in
Linux [be it via Wine, VM, or otherwise] or other non-MS OSs:
Remember that installing these Windows apps into a Linux or otherwise
brings with them the vulnerabilities and exploits those carry. Though
native Linux compilation vulnerabilities revolve more around local user
issues [same for MAC], you bring the remote/Internet vulnerabilities
INTO Linux compilations if you use the Windows apps for such access or,
at times, when a malicious system probe discovers them via some
browser/site connection, or when used within a mixed network.
Be cautious and sensible when adding MS applications into these non-MS
systems. Make sure you *lock* MS applications down.

And why the heck would you install an MS IE/browser into a non-MS OS?
That's not very smart.

And the *first* "*nux/*nix" for the PC was one you compiled yourself,
not one of the pre-made compilations. Something you can STILL do if you
want; "roll your own".

___

** ANGUS:
Find out what is presently running within the system using one of the
autorun tools, MSConfig, and other methods and tools which you have seen
the group mention here before. Do we need to run through some of that
again?

We should ask if you have done any tweaks or system/browser updating
since EOL, and whether you have a standard system?

And what IE version is installed?

---

As for Ubuntu SiS drivers:
http://www.winischhofer.eu/linuxsispart1.shtml

OR, you need to remember "drivers" aren't really the issue in a Linux
compilation as you are dealing with generic kernel support and Xwindows
INTO which you install OR manually enter the requirements/support.
Depending upon what you chose as the GUI it may have just needed a tweak
from you.

So you could have tried manually adding the entries into xorg.conf.

Section "Device"
Identifier "Generic Video Card"
Driver "sis"
BusID "PCI:1:0:0"
VideoRam 128000
Option "UseFBDev" "true"
EndSection

and in lower sections:

Section "Screen"
Identifier "Default Screen"
Device "Generic Video Card"
Monitor "Generic Monitor"
DefaultDepth 24
SubSection "Display"
Depth 1
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x800" "1024x768"
"800x600" "680x420"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 4
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x800" "1024x768"
"800x600" "680x420"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 8
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x800" "1024x768"
"800x600" "680x420"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 15
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x800" "1024x768"
"800x600" "680x420"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 16
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x800" "1024x768"
"800x600" "680x420"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 24
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x800" "1024x768"
"800x600" "680x420"
EndSubSection
EndSection

_____

Of course if you expect full 3D or OpenGL or other support, then the
adapter AND monitor codes/"drivers" [which basically just define chip
specific coding support] should be installed.

But this is WAY off topic for this forum...


"Angus Rodgers" wrote in message
...
I last installed Win98SE a little over three years ago, and a
number of niggles have developed. I'm still putting off that
evil day when I have to completely reinstall Win98SE and start
to dual-boot with Ubuntu Linux, which will probably be my next
main OS.

Meanwhile, it would help quite a lot if there were a quick fix
for one particular niggle. When I'm using WinZip 8.0 to add a
lot of files to a *.zip archive, this routine operation, which
used to be over in a few minutes or even seconds, now runs at a
snail's pace, sometimes only adding one or two files a second,
and taking hours to complete (unless I reboot and start again,
which helps a little, but not much). This is making it terribly
annoying to make backups of all my files, which I need to do
before [re]installing everything.

Any ideas? (My only thought is that avast! might have something
to do with it. One of the many niggles is that I stopped being
able to do antivirus updates many months ago because I suffered
from that out-of-memory problem mentioned by someone in another
thread recently.)
--
Angus Rodgers
(formerly, ;
alas, Bigfoot has gone tits-up)



--
MEB

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

On 02/22/2010 12:42 PM, Hot-text wrote:
WAY off topic for this forum
But thank you for the help MEB!
The Old Compaq will have win89 + Ubuntu Linux
I need your help at time
So Thanks one more time MEB!

Well don't put it in this forum, and you MAY run into one of my other
nyms in various forums [since these Microsoft forums are one of the only
places where I post in my real name {save for bug reports,
misc.legal.moderated when I can get by the moderator], even for various
Linux [unless the real name is used to note a specific discussion of
value]...


P.S.
I believe he have a File System FAT32-ZIP by WinZip 8.0!

he may need to move to a Bigger Hard Drive!


Well that's true, Angus may be running out of swap space or have issues
with temp or like, but I would think we should start with some basic
issues like other running apps and settings, browser DLLs, and some
other issues which might be affecting the zip issue, though the AVAST!
issue should also be attended to. I think though, I vaguely remember (a)
bug(s) in the WinZip 8.0 which caused me to need the 8.1 version.


"MEB" wrote in message
...
On 02/22/2010 05:44 AM, Hot-text wrote:
I put a Ubuntu Linux (Debian GNU/Linux ) on a Old x86 Compaq Presario
5070, That Compaq have a SiS Corporation, SiS530 Video Drivers and there
no Ubuntu (Debian GNU/Linux ) SiS530 Video Drivers made for it.

So Angus Rodgers
Look for all the Dives for Ubuntu first before installing Ubuntu on
a PC!
And Ubuntu is a (Debian GNU/Linux )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_(operating_system)



MEB Hmm LOOL
now I have to format that Hard Drive and I believe I'll go with The
FreeBSD Project , That I can run some Microsoft Software on it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD


Angus Rodgers a good Linux is Xandros
you can put Microsoft Software on it! Like IE6, IE7, IE8 or Microsoft
Office, Win95, 98, xp Software on it,!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xandros
But it is License GNU GPL with some proprietary software
http://www.xandros.com/products/desktop/license.html

But like Ubuntu, Xandros is Debian-based Too! So you need to look for
all the Drive first before installing it!

Angus Rodgers More Linux to look at::::
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUSE
http://www.redhat.com/
http://www.slackware.com/
http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/ Yellow Dog Linux was first
released in the spring of 1999 for the Apple Macintosh PowerPC
computers.
http://www.opensuse.org/en/
http://www.redhat.com/rhel/compatibility/software/
http://www.knoppix.com/
http://www.gentoo.org/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentoo_Linux
Drawbacks and criticisms
http://www.fedora.redhat.com/ and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedora_(operating_system)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_Linux for 360

Just one comment per the being able to run Windows applications in
Linux [be it via Wine, VM, or otherwise] or other non-MS OSs:
Remember that installing these Windows apps into a Linux or otherwise
brings with them the vulnerabilities and exploits those carry. Though
native Linux compilation vulnerabilities revolve more around local user
issues [same for MAC], you bring the remote/Internet vulnerabilities
INTO Linux compilations if you use the Windows apps for such access or,
at times, when a malicious system probe discovers them via some
browser/site connection, or when used within a mixed network.
Be cautious and sensible when adding MS applications into these non-MS
systems. Make sure you *lock* MS applications down.

And why the heck would you install an MS IE/browser into a non-MS OS?
That's not very smart.

And the *first* "*nux/*nix" for the PC was one you compiled yourself,
not one of the pre-made compilations. Something you can STILL do if you
want; "roll your own".

___

** ANGUS:
Find out what is presently running within the system using one of the
autorun tools, MSConfig, and other methods and tools which you have seen
the group mention here before. Do we need to run through some of that
again?

We should ask if you have done any tweaks or system/browser updating
since EOL, and whether you have a standard system?

And what IE version is installed?

---

As for Ubuntu SiS drivers:
http://www.winischhofer.eu/linuxsispart1.shtml

OR, you need to remember "drivers" aren't really the issue in a Linux
compilation as you are dealing with generic kernel support and Xwindows
INTO which you install OR manually enter the requirements/support.
Depending upon what you chose as the GUI it may have just needed a tweak
from you.

So you could have tried manually adding the entries into xorg.conf.

Section "Device"
Identifier "Generic Video Card"
Driver "sis"
BusID "PCI:1:0:0"
VideoRam 128000
Option "UseFBDev" "true"
EndSection

and in lower sections:

Section "Screen"
Identifier "Default Screen"
Device "Generic Video Card"
Monitor "Generic Monitor"
DefaultDepth 24
SubSection "Display"
Depth 1
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x800" "1024x768"
"800x600" "680x420"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 4
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x800" "1024x768"
"800x600" "680x420"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 8
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x800" "1024x768"
"800x600" "680x420"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 15
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x800" "1024x768"
"800x600" "680x420"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 16
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x800" "1024x768"
"800x600" "680x420"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 24
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x800" "1024x768"
"800x600" "680x420"
EndSubSection
EndSection

_____

Of course if you expect full 3D or OpenGL or other support, then the
adapter AND monitor codes/"drivers" [which basically just define chip
specific coding support] should be installed.

But this is WAY off topic for this forum...


"Angus Rodgers" wrote in message
...
I last installed Win98SE a little over three years ago, and a
number of niggles have developed. I'm still putting off that
evil day when I have to completely reinstall Win98SE and start
to dual-boot with Ubuntu Linux, which will probably be my next
main OS.

Meanwhile, it would help quite a lot if there were a quick fix
for one particular niggle. When I'm using WinZip 8.0 to add a
lot of files to a *.zip archive, this routine operation, which
used to be over in a few minutes or even seconds, now runs at a
snail's pace, sometimes only adding one or two files a second,
and taking hours to complete (unless I reboot and start again,
which helps a little, but not much). This is making it terribly
annoying to make backups of all my files, which I need to do
before [re]installing everything.

Any ideas? (My only thought is that avast! might have something
to do with it. One of the many niggles is that I stopped being
able to do antivirus updates many months ago because I suffered
from that out-of-memory problem mentioned by someone in another
thread recently.)
--
Angus Rodgers
(formerly, ;
alas, Bigfoot has gone tits-up)



--
MEB

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

On 02/22/2010 01:04 PM, Angus Rodgers wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:17:45 +0100, Michael
wrote:

Why do you have an antivirus program running at all -regardless of it´s
settings- when all you do is zipping several files on your pc to a
zipfile? Don´t you trust your own local files?

I have never found any way to switch avast! off completely, other
than by uninstalling it (which I would probably do, if I knew for
sure that it was the cause of the problem).

Or do you have a running internet connection even while running the
antivirusprogram and while zipping a huge number of files?

I'm on broadband all the time, although this alone would not make
me think it necessary to have an antivirus program scanning every
local file on access - it's just that, as I explained before, it
never used to slow things down too badly to have avast! running
all the time, so I never had to worry about it.

In the latter case I could understand that zipping slows down to a crawl
as those programs slow down the PC and occupy part of the available memory.

But it never used to - trust me on this. The problem has only
developed during the last few weeks, and I've had this Win98SE
installation, with WinZip 8.0, for more than 3 years, and I've
had avast! for most or even all of that time. (I used to have
a licence for Kaspersky, which I liked a bit better than avast!,
but that ran out a few years ago - I can't remember how long,
exactly.)

Did you perhaps at some point change the level of compression in the
program? Using PeaZip on my PC the amount of time varies greatly
depending on level of compression chosen for the compressed file.

I never intentionally changed it. When things started going
wrong like this, I checked the configuration dialogue, but I
could find nothing obviously screwy in the settings. Double-
checking it again now, I don't even see a setting for level
of compression! Did that come it with a later version of
WinZip (I have used some, but this version nags less), or
am I missing something?


Angus, I supplied a few questions/suggestions in another post, though
you may have missed it due to the off topic Linux stuff..

" Find out what is presently running within the system using one of the
autorun tools, MSConfig, and other methods and tools which you have seen
the group mention here before. Do we need to run through some of that again?

We should ask if you have done any tweaks or system/browser updating
since EOL, and whether you have a standard system?

And what IE version is installed?"

And some new:

" P.S.
I believe he have a File System FAT32-ZIP by WinZip 8.0!

he may need to move to a Bigger Hard Drive!


Well that's true, Angus may be running out of swap space or have issues
with temp or like, but I would think we should start with some basic
issues like other running apps and settings, browser DLLs, and some
other issues which might be affecting the zip issue, though the AVAST!
issue should also be attended to. I think though, I vaguely remember (a)
bug(s) in the WinZip 8.0 which caused me to need the 8.1 version."

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

On 02/22/2010 01:04 PM, Angus Rodgers wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:17:45 +0100, Michael
wrote:

Why do you have an antivirus program running at all -regardless of it´s
settings- when all you do is zipping several files on your pc to a
zipfile? Don´t you trust your own local files?

I have never found any way to switch avast! off completely, other
than by uninstalling it (which I would probably do, if I knew for
sure that it was the cause of the problem).

Or do you have a running internet connection even while running the
antivirusprogram and while zipping a huge number of files?

I'm on broadband all the time, although this alone would not make
me think it necessary to have an antivirus program scanning every
local file on access - it's just that, as I explained before, it
never used to slow things down too badly to have avast! running
all the time, so I never had to worry about it.

In the latter case I could understand that zipping slows down to a crawl
as those programs slow down the PC and occupy part of the available memory.

But it never used to - trust me on this. The problem has only
developed during the last few weeks, and I've had this Win98SE
installation, with WinZip 8.0, for more than 3 years, and I've
had avast! for most or even all of that time. (I used to have
a licence for Kaspersky, which I liked a bit better than avast!,
but that ran out a few years ago - I can't remember how long,
exactly.)

Did you perhaps at some point change the level of compression in the
program? Using PeaZip on my PC the amount of time varies greatly
depending on level of compression chosen for the compressed file.

I never intentionally changed it. When things started going
wrong like this, I checked the configuration dialogue, but I
could find nothing obviously screwy in the settings. Double-
checking it again now, I don't even see a setting for level
of compression! Did that come it with a later version of
WinZip (I have used some, but this version nags less), or
am I missing something?


Angus, I supplied a few questions/suggestions in another post, though
you may have missed it due to the off topic Linux stuff..

" Find out what is presently running within the system using one of the
autorun tools, MSConfig, and other methods and tools which you have seen
the group mention here before. Do we need to run through some of that again?

We should ask if you have done any tweaks or system/browser updating
since EOL, and whether you have a standard system?

And what IE version is installed?"

And some new:

" P.S.
I believe he have a File System FAT32-ZIP by WinZip 8.0!

he may need to move to a Bigger Hard Drive!


Well that's true, Angus may be running out of swap space or have issues
with temp or like, but I would think we should start with some basic
issues like other running apps and settings, browser DLLs, and some
other issues which might be affecting the zip issue, though the AVAST!
issue should also be attended to. I think though, I vaguely remember (a)
bug(s) in the WinZip 8.0 which caused me to need the 8.1 version."

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:03:47 -0500, MEB
wrote:

** ANGUS:
Find out what is presently running within the system using one of the
autorun tools, MSConfig, and other methods and tools which you have seen
the group mention here before. Do we need to run through some of that again?

If there's a URL or old thread (locatable via Google Groups) you
can point me to, then fine, but I don't want anyone to go to too
much trouble over this, as I have so many niggles with my present
installation, and this is just one which I hoped there might be
a quick fix for, which would make it easier for me to get around
to reinstalling the whole thing from scratch, which needs doing,
and which I mean to ask about separately - when I can face it!

We should ask if you have done any tweaks or system/browser updating
since EOL, and whether you have a standard system?

As far as I know, it's pretty standard. I really don't enjoy
messing with Windows, and just tend to use the standard user
customisation features. I can't think of anything I have done
which could have led to this problem, which just seemed to come
out of the blue a few weeks ago. (Apart from the failed update
to avast!, which I've already mentioned.)

This particular installation of Win98SE (I've done 6 altogether
on this machine, this one dating from January 2007) has always
had a lot of odd flaky little things wrong with it, it has never
felt as solid as any I've worked with before, but there has never
been anything major enough to make me think seriously of reinstall-
ing it. But for months now, it has been suffering the death of
a thousand cuts: lots of little things, none individually worth
worrying a lot over, but all adding up to a system which is a
constant displeasure to work with. (I'm including things like
software updates no longer being available. I must reluctantly
abandon Win98SE as my main OS. But I want to keep it for some
uses.)

I haven't defragged for a long time. Does there come a point
when things suddenly get a LOT slower because of fragmentation?
I never expected that; I imagined there would only be a slow
decline in performance; a sudden change of this magnitude would
seem counter-intuitive; but is it a possibility?

It's only WinZip that there is a problem with (in terms of very
slow file access, I mean). Also, the WinZip window seems to
behave oddly as soon as I start the program, sometimes (perhaps
not always): just dragging the mouse across it seems to cause a
very sluggish response in some of the icons. Yes - the mouse
pointer is moving v-e-r-y slowly and jerkily across the toolbar,
even though I'm not using WinZip to do anything, and the rest of
my system seems to be behaving quite normally. (I did create
some *.zip files last night, and I don't think I have rebooted
since then. I think WinZip tends to be generally less sluggish
after a reboot.)

And what IE version is installed?

I'm afraid I don't even know that!

I just ran IE (for the first time in years) to check, but all the
fields in "About Internet Explorer" came up blank!

OK, I've found a program called 'Microsoft System Information',
which tells me:

Microsoft Windows 98 4.10.2222B

Clean install using Full OEM CD /T:C:\WININST0.400
/SrcDir=D:\WIN98SE\WIN98 /IZ /II /IS /IQ /IT /II /NR /II /C
/U:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

IE 5 6.0.2800.1106

[...]

AuthenticAMD AMD Athlon(TM) XP 1700+
768MB RAM
34% system resources free
Windows-managed swap file on drive C (2197MB free)
Available space on drive C: 2197MB of 3757MB (FAT32)
Available space on drive D: 3977MB of 7421MB (FAT32)
Available space on drive E: 4732MB of 7421MB (FAT32)
Available space on drive F: 4327MB of 59601MB (FAT32)

--
Angus Rodgers

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:03:47 -0500, MEB
wrote:

** ANGUS:
Find out what is presently running within the system using one of the
autorun tools, MSConfig, and other methods and tools which you have seen
the group mention here before. Do we need to run through some of that again?

If there's a URL or old thread (locatable via Google Groups) you
can point me to, then fine, but I don't want anyone to go to too
much trouble over this, as I have so many niggles with my present
installation, and this is just one which I hoped there might be
a quick fix for, which would make it easier for me to get around
to reinstalling the whole thing from scratch, which needs doing,
and which I mean to ask about separately - when I can face it!

We should ask if you have done any tweaks or system/browser updating
since EOL, and whether you have a standard system?

As far as I know, it's pretty standard. I really don't enjoy
messing with Windows, and just tend to use the standard user
customisation features. I can't think of anything I have done
which could have led to this problem, which just seemed to come
out of the blue a few weeks ago. (Apart from the failed update
to avast!, which I've already mentioned.)

This particular installation of Win98SE (I've done 6 altogether
on this machine, this one dating from January 2007) has always
had a lot of odd flaky little things wrong with it, it has never
felt as solid as any I've worked with before, but there has never
been anything major enough to make me think seriously of reinstall-
ing it. But for months now, it has been suffering the death of
a thousand cuts: lots of little things, none individually worth
worrying a lot over, but all adding up to a system which is a
constant displeasure to work with. (I'm including things like
software updates no longer being available. I must reluctantly
abandon Win98SE as my main OS. But I want to keep it for some
uses.)

I haven't defragged for a long time. Does there come a point
when things suddenly get a LOT slower because of fragmentation?
I never expected that; I imagined there would only be a slow
decline in performance; a sudden change of this magnitude would
seem counter-intuitive; but is it a possibility?

It's only WinZip that there is a problem with (in terms of very
slow file access, I mean). Also, the WinZip window seems to
behave oddly as soon as I start the program, sometimes (perhaps
not always): just dragging the mouse across it seems to cause a
very sluggish response in some of the icons. Yes - the mouse
pointer is moving v-e-r-y slowly and jerkily across the toolbar,
even though I'm not using WinZip to do anything, and the rest of
my system seems to be behaving quite normally. (I did create
some *.zip files last night, and I don't think I have rebooted
since then. I think WinZip tends to be generally less sluggish
after a reboot.)

And what IE version is installed?

I'm afraid I don't even know that!

I just ran IE (for the first time in years) to check, but all the
fields in "About Internet Explorer" came up blank!

OK, I've found a program called 'Microsoft System Information',
which tells me:

Microsoft Windows 98 4.10.2222B

Clean install using Full OEM CD /T:C:\WININST0.400
/SrcDir=D:\WIN98SE\WIN98 /IZ /II /IS /IQ /IT /II /NR /II /C
/U:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

IE 5 6.0.2800.1106

[...]

AuthenticAMD AMD Athlon(TM) XP 1700+
768MB RAM
34% system resources free
Windows-managed swap file on drive C (2197MB free)
Available space on drive C: 2197MB of 3757MB (FAT32)
Available space on drive D: 3977MB of 7421MB (FAT32)
Available space on drive E: 4732MB of 7421MB (FAT32)
Available space on drive F: 4327MB of 59601MB (FAT32)

--
Angus Rodgers