editing - repairing W98 using W2K secondary boot OS

I've run into problems with W98 registry, at times, with scanreg
/restore not working or freezing and continually enforced on boot,
even in safe mode. Some backup .cab files are uncharacteristically
large (~ same size as uncompressed contents), when inspected from the
vantage point of a secondary boot W2K OS.

To correct this, I have found that expanding a normally-sized cab file
and manually inserting the cab contents to the correct W98 location,
from the W2K explorer window, is sufficient to regain bootability.

Just how safe is this practise?

Are there other things that are normally reserved to DOS-only
instruction, that an operator can safely perform from the second OS,
for example - following instructions intended for maintenance of
networked drives?

RL

"legg" wrote in message
...
I've run into problems with W98 registry, at times, with scanreg
/restore not working or freezing and continually enforced on boot,
even in safe mode. Some backup .cab files are uncharacteristically
large (~ same size as uncompressed contents), when inspected from the
vantage point of a secondary boot W2K OS.

To correct this, I have found that expanding a normally-sized cab file
and manually inserting the cab contents to the correct W98 location,
from the W2K explorer window, is sufficient to regain bootability.

Just how safe is this practise?

Are there other things that are normally reserved to DOS-only
instruction, that an operator can safely perform from the second OS,
for example - following instructions intended for maintenance of
networked drives?

RL



Though there is no harm in repairing your win98 installation from your Win2k
the question is: Why does your win98 install get corrupted.

If you are also having problems with win2k then there may be a H/W issue
such as RAM or perhaps your HD.

legg wrote:
I've run into problems with W98 registry, at times, with scanreg
/restore not working or freezing and continually enforced on boot,
even in safe mode. Some backup .cab files are uncharacteristically
large (~ same size as uncompressed contents), when inspected from the
vantage point of a secondary boot W2K OS.

To correct this, I have found that expanding a normally-sized cab file
and manually inserting the cab contents to the correct W98 location,
from the W2K explorer window, is sufficient to regain bootability.

Just how safe is this practise?

I recall that - that occasionally one of the files was left uncompressed,
but it was not a problem in using it for restoration. So my point is that
just because some of them were not compressed does not necessarily mean they
are bad or corrupt, or need (as you put it) to be "corrected".

(As an FYI, I wish I could remember what it was that would leave some of
them as uncompressed, but I can't recall now. But it was never a problem,
anyways (if I wanted to use them to restore with scanreg /restore, I mean).

On 11/16/2010 19:25, Bill in Co wrote:
legg wrote:
I've run into problems with W98 registry, at times, with scanreg
/restore not working or freezing and continually enforced on boot,
even in safe mode. Some backup .cab files are uncharacteristically
large (~ same size as uncompressed contents), when inspected from the
vantage point of a secondary boot W2K OS.

To correct this, I have found that expanding a normally-sized cab file
and manually inserting the cab contents to the correct W98 location,
from the W2K explorer window, is sufficient to regain bootability.

Just how safe is this practise?

I recall that - that occasionally one of the files was left uncompressed,
but it was not a problem in using it for restoration. So my point is that
just because some of them were not compressed does not necessarily mean they
are bad or corrupt, or need (as you put it) to be "corrected".

(As an FYI, I wish I could remember what it was that would leave some of
them as uncompressed, but I can't recall now. But it was never a problem,
anyways (if I wanted to use them to restore with scanreg /restore, I mean).

IIRC it was when the rbnnn.cab was created in DOS. Either by a scanreg
/backup or by doing a /fix.

On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 18:03:52 -0600, "philo"
wrote:


"legg" wrote in message
.. .
I've run into problems with W98 registry, at times, with scanreg
/restore not working or freezing and continually enforced on boot,
even in safe mode. Some backup .cab files are uncharacteristically
large (~ same size as uncompressed contents), when inspected from the
vantage point of a secondary boot W2K OS.

To correct this, I have found that expanding a normally-sized cab file
and manually inserting the cab contents to the correct W98 location,
from the W2K explorer window, is sufficient to regain bootability.

Just how safe is this practise?

Are there other things that are normally reserved to DOS-only
instruction, that an operator can safely perform from the second OS,
for example - following instructions intended for maintenance of
networked drives?

RL



Though there is no harm in repairing your win98 installation from your Win2k
the question is: Why does your win98 install get corrupted.

If you are also having problems with win2k then there may be a H/W issue
such as RAM or perhaps your HD.

The problem occured during re-install of an old Visio package. A
registry problem was flagged half-way through, but I let it complete.

On reboot an auto registry check 'restored' the registry, then
insisted on doing the same thing during each following attempt to boot
into normal or safe mode.

Safe mode command restoration also failed repeatedly. In the end, it
would pause with an incomplete text line instruction to 'press any..',
or in the restoration progress window itself.

Hence the manual fiddling, after booting to W2K.

The visio install seems functional, though I have a list recording a
number of dlls that failed to load into specific folders of the instal
directory. The 'restored' registry predated the install attempt by a
few hours.

I'd always assumed that having the second operating system would allow
for easier maintenance and repair, and wondered if instructions for
extracting and replacing files in DOS mode could be performed just as
accurately on the W98 installation through the W2K explorer GUI.

RL

On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 17:25:25 -0700, "Bill in Co"
wrote:

legg wrote:
I've run into problems with W98 registry, at times, with scanreg
/restore not working or freezing and continually enforced on boot,
even in safe mode. Some backup .cab files are uncharacteristically
large (~ same size as uncompressed contents), when inspected from the
vantage point of a secondary boot W2K OS.

To correct this, I have found that expanding a normally-sized cab file
and manually inserting the cab contents to the correct W98 location,
from the W2K explorer window, is sufficient to regain bootability.

Just how safe is this practise?

I recall that - that occasionally one of the files was left uncompressed,
but it was not a problem in using it for restoration. So my point is that
just because some of them were not compressed does not necessarily mean they
are bad or corrupt, or need (as you put it) to be "corrected".

(As an FYI, I wish I could remember what it was that would leave some of
them as uncompressed, but I can't recall now. But it was never a problem,
anyways (if I wanted to use them to restore with scanreg /restore, I mean).


I haven't tried opening the bloated cabs. Maybe you're right about
their functionality, but the successful restoration, using the closest
time stamp from a known-good boot, used a cab file of obviously
compressed size. Two later time stamps were of uncompressed size, but
were coincident with the problem at hand.

RL

legg wrote:
I've run into problems with W98 registry, at times, with scanreg
/restore not working or freezing and continually enforced on boot,
even in safe mode. Some backup .cab files are uncharacteristically
large (~ same size as uncompressed contents), when inspected from the
vantage point of a secondary boot W2K OS.

To correct this, I have found that expanding a normally-sized cab file
and manually inserting the cab contents to the correct W98 location,
from the W2K explorer window, is sufficient to regain bootability.

Just how safe is this practise?

That's exactly what ScanReg /Restore does with the files inside the
registry backups. So, yeah, it's safe. But I'd want to know why you have
to do it that way! Is this your 128 GB W98?

Here is everything else I know...

(1) After a "ScanReg /Restore", an RB...cab will show up that appears to
be BLOATED. You can view that as a marker to indicate it is the Registry
that was replaced. The "bloated" one is the
System.dat/User.dat/System.ini/Win.ini that were in effect before you
did the /Restore. It went into the next available Registry number/name &
pushed out the oldest Registry backup. It may be that the files inside
are not compacted, because DOS will not compact them (ask Blanton). They
will drop off as the days pass, & all will be normal sized again. Until
then, they can be restored just the same as the others not pushed off.
You won't see their size in the /Restore requestor, but its name will be
capitalized & it will be designated "not started".

(2) "RBBAD.cab", if you have one, will retain its date until the
following should happen again. It is not offered in the /Restore
requestor, but can be got there by giving it a number for a name.
Also, one of the others would have to be moved out or renamed,
because only five numbered ones are offered by /Restore. RBBAD
is created when...

(a) You do a "Scanreg /Fix", or
(b) Windows decides you have a corrupt Registry, & replaces it on its
own at boot.

(3) Here is more I know...

(a) "START button, Run, Scanreg" will NOT create an RB..cab that looks
BLOATED. It does create an RB..cab of the same date as the latest,
IF it is the same day as the most recent boot.

(b) The RB..cab created at the most recent boot is marked "not started"
by /Restore in DOS.

(c) The RB..cab created by "START, Run, Scanreg" is also "not started".

(d) I was able to choose both "started" & "not started" in /Restore.

(e) A DOS "ScanReg /Restore" DOES create a BLOATED RB(next available
number).cab. This pushes out the oldest RB..cab.

(f) A Windows initiated auto-/Restore does same, but puts the BLOAT
into RBBAD.cab. (Well, I can't swear to that. My RBBAD.cab does not
have the BLOAT look, but it was created by a "ScanReg /Fix".

(g) The files inside a "bloated" .cab (normally System.dat, User.dat,
System.ini, & User.ini) are unpacked. That is why the .cab looks
bloated. You may view that as an indicator that it was replaced by
a /Restore. In the /Restore requestor, it will have a capitalized
name.

(h) The BLOATED ones can be /Restored just as the others.

Are there other things that are normally reserved to DOS-only
instruction, that an operator can safely perform from the second OS,
for example - following instructions intended for maintenance of
networked drives?

I don't know what those instructions are.

RL

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR

Bill Blanton wrote:
On 11/16/2010 19:25, Bill in Co wrote:
legg wrote:
I've run into problems with W98 registry, at times, with scanreg
/restore not working or freezing and continually enforced on boot,
even in safe mode. Some backup .cab files are uncharacteristically
large (~ same size as uncompressed contents), when inspected from
the vantage point of a secondary boot W2K OS.

To correct this, I have found that expanding a normally-sized cab
file and manually inserting the cab contents to the correct W98
location, from the W2K explorer window, is sufficient to regain
bootability.

Just how safe is this practise?

I recall that - that occasionally one of the files was left
uncompressed, but it was not a problem in using it for restoration.
So my point is that just because some of them were not compressed
does not necessarily mean they are bad or corrupt, or need (as you
put it) to be "corrected".

(As an FYI, I wish I could remember what it was that would leave
some of them as uncompressed, but I can't recall now. But it was
never a problem, anyways (if I wanted to use them to restore with
scanreg /restore, I mean).

IIRC it was when the rbnnn.cab was created in DOS. Either by a scanreg
/backup or by doing a /fix.

The odd & devious thing is that ScanReg /Restore does it too! It saves
the current registry into RB(next available number) before doing the
restore, & kills off the oldest registry backup (only 5 are kept). So,
if you start restoring them from the newest & need to restore more than
one, you really only get 3 chances. That's why it's best to copy them
all to another folder before starting.

ScanReg /Fix puts the current registry into RBBAD, but it isn't bloated.
I'm thinking RBBAD will be bloated, if Windows has to replace the
registry itself at boot.

I don't see in my notes that I ever tried ScanReg /Backup in DOS. Sounds
like you're right about it, though.


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR

Re-install of an old Visio package for?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visio need more Info on your Visio

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:42:06 -0600, "Hot-Text"
wrote:

Re-install of an old Visio package for?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visio need more Info on your Visio


Need I say, it doesn't have a 20xx designator in it's product
description? Actually, I lie. It's the first service pack for the
first MS issue got '2000' stamped on it: V6.0.2072.

But my question isn't about visio...., it's about maintenance passive
OS from a second active OS on the same machine.

RL