New DOS shell for Windows coming

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:45:43 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> put finger
to keyboard and composed:

>Idiot. The HPs ran circles around the TIs without cheat-sheets. Only a
>true idiot would defend the TIs of the '70s. Yes, I understand that you
>fit the mold perfectly.

What do you mean by "cheat-sheets"?


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:
> In any case, I never intended to argue about the relative merits
> of one over the other, except to state the obvious, namely that
> one is intuitive whereas the other is not. I n t u i t i v e.

It depends on how you think -- or don't.
I find RPN intuitive. I find Algebraic literalist.

-- Robert
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:26:44 -0500, willbill <trek@worldwide.net> wrote:

>Jason Gurtz wrote:
>
>> On 6/28/2005 17:59, willbill wrote:
>>
>>
>>>JHFC, the "simple" registry has become
>>>NOT so simple with xp! :(
>>
>>
>> This is an interesting statement. What do you find so much more complex
>> about the WinXP registry when compared to the Win98 registry?
>>
>> I find that they're nearly identical in their organization. In fact,
>> significant swaths are exactly the same!
>
>
>you are right in that the registry itself
>doesn't seem to have changed that much

The way it's stored, the file names and where files are stored has changed
considerably though - in that sense it *is* more complicated.

>my frustration is showing; i got carried away.
>sorry
>
>otoh, my 2nd failed try with XP (error 633 when
>atempting to use my extermanl modem with the
>dialer) was likely due to flakey s/w installation
>screwing up the XP registry. not sure if it was
>trying a newer modem driver (US Robotics v.92)
>or a failed installed of MSI video capture drivers
>(for a VIVO board). when i went to the MS
>knowledgebase, i was amazed at all of the screwy
>stuff that can mess up the registry (with 95 thru
>XP and 2003)
>
>then too, there's XP Pro, XP Home, and oem XP;
>each with their own set of problems!
>
>the other factor is how do you fix XP (NTFS
>file system) if Windows won't start in safe mode?
>i've easily been able to do that with 98SE by
>booting into DOS (98SE DOS), and restoring the
>registry from backups i do in the autoexec.bat
>(today, yesterday, this week, last week; using a DOS
>do once program). then too, 98 keeps reg backups
>for the last 5 days in the sysbckup directory

There are recent versions of the principal system files stored in the
%SystemRoot%\repair folder but their use/recovery is less simple than
Win9x... and the user registries are stored in the "Documents and Settings"
folder structure. Besides the Restore Points, it is also a good idea to
use the built-in Backup utility to do a backup of the "System State"
regularly... preferably to a folder/file in a separate partition (Note:
partitions are still a good idea for other reasons too).

I've never had to do a serious repair on WinXP yet so I have no experience
but if you can't boot from the hard disk to any maintenance mode, the only
option is to boot from the WinXP CD-ROM and choose Repair. There are also
various utilities kicking around as well as loads of Web sites with
"advice" so.... Google. The ability to boot *and* login to a Win2K/XP
system is definitely much more fragile than the old DOS-based systems and
recovery is always a PITA - it's really very scarey.:)

I'll add here that I rarely did backups with Win98SE - once a year or so,
using a version of Seagate Backup which came with a CD-R/RW drive. With
WinXP, it didn't take me long to figure I needed to backup more often. I'd
recommend that you disburse $30. (at NewEgg) for Backup MyPC or get one of
the packages you might want which includes it, like Roxio Easy Media
Creator. I generally get about 1.6:1 compression ratio on my mix of files
which includes many .ZIPs... so about 6GB per DVD+R but "differential
backups" take only a few minutes and very little space.

>KB 307545 (How to recover from a corrupted registry
>that prevents Windows XP from starting) may get
>me some insight into the NTFS problem (i've not
>read thru it yet)
>
>one other note is that my current compressed 98SE
>reg backups (rb00x.cab) are 1.5 MB. in XP Pro a
>backup of the "system files" gives a file (compressed?)
>that is 443 MB in size!
>
>that size difference suggests to me that XP
>has more complexity; meaning it isn't all bloat

That 443MB is a "System State" which includes "boot" files (many program
and .dll files) and the COM+ Class Registry as well as system and all user
registries and a bunch of .log files. I haven't found a way to actually
see the file names from WinXP's Backup utility but Backup MyPC does show
them.

>fwiw, in XP i now keep a written log of my installs,
>registry backups, and backups of my boot drive
>(to other hard drives (using 2003 DOS Ghost) that
>i only plug in when i do boot drive backups)
>
>i mean i hate it when a drive dies, or the system
>goes belly up

Yep and with the price of HDDs so low and RAID being on nearly every mbrd
now, I'm seriously considering a mirror setup for home. I have a Promise
hot-swap mirror setup on our Win2K office server and it's worked great - no
HDD failures yet but when I manage to F/U the system during err, "upgrades"
I can always go back.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 6/30/2005 09:53, willbill wrote:

> are the Acronis utils part of Acronis True Image 8.0?
> or are they a separate package by some other name?

I think they are all separate products tho now they may have some sort of
bundle. Besides the things from sysinternals I really don't need much in
the way of utils. who's locking maybe.

~Jason

--
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 6/30/2005 21:47, George Macdonald wrote:

> There are recent versions of the principal system files stored in the
> %SystemRoot%\repair folder but their use/recovery is less simple than
> Win9x...

All good points...

> I've never had to do a serious repair on WinXP yet so I have no experience
> but if you can't boot from the hard disk to any maintenance mode, the only
> option is to boot from the WinXP CD-ROM and choose Repair.

Bart PE is your friend. Also, the Recovery Console that can be optionally
(G.O.K. why it's optional!) installed can be a huge help if it's just some
missing or corrupted system files, or bad drivers. chkdsk and friends all
run in there and U can copy files around and configure services.

It's also a good idea to learn how to make an NT Boot disk. This is
useful for when the ntldr or boot block is slightly hosed but the rest of
the system is A-OK. After booting, then you can then use fixboot or
fixmbr (last ditch, may be dangerous) utilities

> The ability to boot *and* login to a Win2K/XP
> system is definitely much more fragile than the old DOS-based systems and
> recovery is always a PITA - it's really very scarey.:)

Yea, this is true. Then again, the more times you have to recover the
less of a PITA it is because you can remember what you learned before.
Any broken system is scary, esp. when there's no backup!

~Jason

--
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 17:36:46 -0400, Jason Gurtz <ask@NOmeSPAM.where> wrote:

>On 6/30/2005 21:47, George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> There are recent versions of the principal system files stored in the
>> %SystemRoot%\repair folder but their use/recovery is less simple than
>> Win9x...
>
>All good points...
>
>> I've never had to do a serious repair on WinXP yet so I have no experience
>> but if you can't boot from the hard disk to any maintenance mode, the only
>> option is to boot from the WinXP CD-ROM and choose Repair.
>
>Bart PE is your friend. Also, the Recovery Console that can be optionally
>(G.O.K. why it's optional!) installed can be a huge help if it's just some
>missing or corrupted system files, or bad drivers. chkdsk and friends all
>run in there and U can copy files around and configure services.

I guess they figure running it from the CD is err, "suitable" - they tend
to treat the average user -- i.e. anybody who hasn't taken the M$ CSE
course -- as a moron. There are also a bunch of utilities which you only
find out are downloadable *after* you need them. Now it appears they're
going to do a proper CLI but it would not surprise me if they limit its use
to people who are "qualified".

I'll take a look at Bart PE - thanks.

>It's also a good idea to learn how to make an NT Boot disk. This is
>useful for when the ntldr or boot block is slightly hosed but the rest of
>the system is A-OK. After booting, then you can then use fixboot or
>fixmbr (last ditch, may be dangerous) utilities
>
>> The ability to boot *and* login to a Win2K/XP
>> system is definitely much more fragile than the old DOS-based systems and
>> recovery is always a PITA - it's really very scarey.:)
>
>Yea, this is true. Then again, the more times you have to recover the
>less of a PITA it is because you can remember what you learned before.
>Any broken system is scary, esp. when there's no backup!

Oh I've had quite a few tangles with Win2K Server and there always seems to
be some twist I haven't seen before or I've forgotten from the last time.
This was a system which was upgraded from WinNT Server and the contortions
I've gone through with it over its evolution from legacy workgroup server
to Active Directory Domain Controller have about driven me nuts. IOW I'm
quite familiar with the cold sweat that breaks out when you've been up all
night and you still have a broken server at 7a.m.:)

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:26:44 -0500, willbill <trek@worldwide.net> wrote:


> There are recent versions of the principal system files stored in the
> %SystemRoot%\repair folder but their use/recovery is less simple than
> Win9x...


agreed on it being less simple


> and the user registries are stored in the "Documents and Settings"
> folder structure. Besides the Restore Points, it is also a good idea to
> use the built-in Backup utility to do a backup of the "System State"
> regularly... preferably to a folder/file in a separate partition (Note:
> partitions are still a good idea for other reasons too).
>
> I've never had to do a serious repair on WinXP yet so I have no experience
> but if you can't boot from the hard disk to any maintenance mode, the only
> option is to boot from the WinXP CD-ROM and choose Repair. There are also
> various utilities kicking around as well as loads of Web sites with
> "advice" so.... Google. The ability to boot *and* login to a Win2K/XP
> system is definitely much more fragile than the old DOS-based systems and
> recovery is always a PITA - it's really very scarey.:)
>
> I'll add here that I rarely did backups with Win98SE - once a year or so,
> using a version of Seagate Backup which came with a CD-R/RW drive.


i've used a DOS zip from the Unix community (Info Zip
over PKZip coz PKZip ran out of memory when it got
to 700 or 800 files) to compress my c: partition
(along with a DOS long file name saver); that and my
registry backups have literally saved my butt on
3 occassions that i can recall


> With
> WinXP, it didn't take me long to figure I needed to backup more often. I'd
> recommend that you disburse $30. (at NewEgg) for Backup MyPC or get one of
> the packages you might want which includes it, like Roxio Easy Media
> Creator. I generally get about 1.6:1 compression ratio on my mix of files
> which includes many .ZIPs... so about 6GB per DVD+R but "differential
> backups" take only a few minutes and very little space.


any reason you use +R discs? i mean, is +R
more reliable for data?


> That 443MB is a "System State" which includes "boot" files (many program
> and .dll files) and the COM+ Class Registry as well as system and all user
> registries and a bunch of .log files. I haven't found a way to actually
> see the file names from WinXP's Backup utility but Backup MyPC does show
> them.



at this point i simply do it and
hope the registry is in there and hope
(and pray) that if there's a problem
i'll be able to get to it and actually
do something useful with it. :)


> Yep and with the price of HDDs so low


the low price made me rethink zipping my c:
partition to simply buying two backup boot HDD

with about 15 GB of data on the 4 partitions of HDD#1
my last disk-to-disk DOS Ghost backup of my boot
drive took 7 minutes. :)

i've used both W.D. JB (160GB PATA) and
Hitachi DeskStar (250GB PATA, 3 platter and
also the new 2 platter). The Hitachi's
are noticably faster for the backup. i mean
roughly 60 percent faster (i swapped out the
WD's for my sister's machine so the comparison
is very recent)

i have a three connecter 18" round cable with
only the boot drive on it. i have the cable
positioned so that i only have to move it
a tiny bit to get the middle connecter
just over the bottom lip of the case
where i can plug in the backup HD and
do the backup. when i get the 250GB disk
more full, i may have to put a fan on the
backup disk to keep its temp down, but so
far it's no worries

Win98SE-DOS boots just fine when the extra
disk is plugged in (even though it has
an active boot partition on it!)


> and RAID being on nearly every mbrd
> now, I'm seriously considering a mirror setup for home.


i've got a Silicon Image 3114 raid chip, and my HDD#2
is a raid1 (mirror). like you, i'm so far impressed


> I have a Promise
> hot-swap mirror setup on our Win2K office server and it's worked great - no
> HDD failures yet but when I manage to F/U the system during err, "upgrades"
> I can always go back.


afaik, a good case with well placed
large ball bearning fans (80mm and up)
are the ticket to keeping HDD failures
to a minimum

bill
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 02:50:15 -0500, willbill <trek@worldwide.net> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:

>> With
>> WinXP, it didn't take me long to figure I needed to backup more often. I'd
>> recommend that you disburse $30. (at NewEgg) for Backup MyPC or get one of
>> the packages you might want which includes it, like Roxio Easy Media
>> Creator. I generally get about 1.6:1 compression ratio on my mix of files
>> which includes many .ZIPs... so about 6GB per DVD+R but "differential
>> backups" take only a few minutes and very little space.
>
>
>any reason you use +R discs? i mean, is +R
>more reliable for data?

Well I'm not sure I trust RW anything and +R is supposed to be a better
recording technology than -R.

>> That 443MB is a "System State" which includes "boot" files (many program
>> and .dll files) and the COM+ Class Registry as well as system and all user
>> registries and a bunch of .log files. I haven't found a way to actually
>> see the file names from WinXP's Backup utility but Backup MyPC does show
>> them.
>
>
>
>at this point i simply do it and
>hope the registry is in there and hope
>(and pray) that if there's a problem
>i'll be able to get to it and actually
>do something useful with it. :)

I just realized that there's an option on the NTBackup, from the Advanced
button, on the dialog you get when you click Start Backup, where you can
select to not include "System Protected Files", which reduces the size of
the backup by ~200MB... they say.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 02:50:15 -0500, willbill <trek@worldwide.net> wrote:
> >any reason you use +R discs? i mean, is +R more reliable for data?
>
> Well I'm not sure I trust RW anything and +R is supposed to be a better
> recording technology than -R.

Actually, -RW/+RW is phase change material, and in theory will last longer
on the shelf once written than write-once disks.

I've had better luck with reading +RW in conventional DVD-ROM drives than
-RW, but -R and +R have both had basically no difference in compatibility
from what I can see - never had any trouble with reading either in data
DVD-ROM drives, and relatively little problem with either on video DVDs.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/

"This is not a humorous signature."
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 7/1/2005 18:55, George Macdonald wrote:

> I guess they figure running it from the CD is err, "suitable" - they tend
> to treat the average user -- i.e. anybody who hasn't taken the M$ CSE
> course -- as a moron. There are also a bunch of utilities which you only
> find out are downloadable *after* you need them. Now it appears they're
> going to do a proper CLI but it would not surprise me if they limit its use
> to people who are "qualified".

Right now, you just have to supply an email and address in order to
download it and use it. OTOH, the bash shell has been available for years
via the cygwin project. Then there's 4NT.

My only complaint with the new shell so far is that the command syntax is
*extreamly* verbose. Thankfully they've remembered to implement aliases! :)

~Jason

--
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 11:37:10 -0700, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:

>George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 02:50:15 -0500, willbill <trek@worldwide.net> wrote:
>> >any reason you use +R discs? i mean, is +R more reliable for data?
>>
>> Well I'm not sure I trust RW anything and +R is supposed to be a better
>> recording technology than -R.
>
>Actually, -RW/+RW is phase change material, and in theory will last longer
>on the shelf once written than write-once disks.

I'm not sure there's anything intrinsically better there - a phase change
material which is changed by application of light energy is just as likely
to drift around with age, whether by temp cycling or incidental light. By
it's nature there is less "contrast" between the two states of the
medium... +RW has always been considered a flakey medium. Some "experts"
will not use it for archival purposes.

>I've had better luck with reading +RW in conventional DVD-ROM drives than
>-RW, but -R and +R have both had basically no difference in compatibility
>from what I can see - never had any trouble with reading either in data
>DVD-ROM drives, and relatively little problem with either on video DVDs.

+R is a better technology. It can also, in most recorders, be set during
record to appear to a reader as a plain read-only DVD if there is any
question of reader compatibility.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY