Multibooter

Member
  • Content count

    891
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Multibooter

Profile Information

  • OS
    98SE
  1. The retail Kaspersky Anti-Virus 6.0 is currently still available new at amazon for USD 4.99 plus S+H, but again, it can be activated/updated probably only until mid-March 2013. The activation code on the CD sleeve in the box can be used to activate the downloaded last v6.0.2.621. The CD in the box usually contains an older build.
  2. It's now January 2013 and Kaspersky v6.0.2.621 still updates Ok. There may be some problems with the updater, maybe because I update irregularly, about once every other week. During updating I get quite often error messages like "error updating component KAS300" or "file black.lst is missing or corrupted. Please run Updater to fix this problem". After re-running the Updater, sometimes up to 3 or 4 times, everything is Ok and the message "Update completed successfully" is displayed. The message "Not all components were updated" signals that the Updater has to be run again. But here is the downside: In November 2012 I used 2 activation codes of Kaspersky Anti-Virus 6.0 retail packages, but the Kaspersky License Key Server only generated license keys up to about 21-March-2013, instead of keys for another year, and the License Key Server did not generate any trial keys for v6.0.2.621. This means that Kaspersky v6.0.2.621 cannot be updated with new signatures after 21-March-2013, although it will continue to run after that date with the last signature update obtained. I keep backups of the Update Folder so that I can re-install v6.0.2.621 and update from the Update Folder, in case I should need an activated but expired version in the future. It makes little sense to buy a retail v6.0 now, since it's going to be dead in March 2013. "Kaspersky Anti-Virus 6.0 for Windows Workstations" is the corporate version, it is v6.0.3.837 and still runs fine and updates fine under Win98 and WinXP. I doubt that the Moscow head office will sell activation codes for v6.0.3 to individuals. The Kaspersky License Key server still provides a trial key for v6.0.3.837, valid for 10 computers for 30 days. The activation code and the generated license key for the retail v6.0.2 do not work for the corporate v6.0.3. After having used a trial key for 30 days the virus scanner does not scan for viruses anymore and cannot be updated anymore. It is not possible to start a new trial using the Kaspersky removal tool KAVremover v1.0.53 (of 28Nov2007, last version to work with Win98) http://support.kaspersky.com/downloads/kis7/kavremover.zip There are 3 keys hidden in the registry which prevent a restarting of the trial. One simple self-constructed .inf file can delete these 3 keys under Win98 and WinXP and does not require an uninstall/removal. Kaspersky v6.0.3.837 then turns into un-activated and can then get activated as a trial for another 30 days. Re-activation (reset + activate) is a matter of less than a minute, the hard part was to find the 3 lines for the section [DeleteFromRegistry] in the .inf file, and the testing. In the future, when the Kaspersky License Key Server will not provide trial licenses for the corporate version 6.0.3 anymore, an un-activated Kaspersky v6.0.3 will still run fine with the last obtained virus signatures, except that there is a nag screen at start up "Setup Wizard: Kaspersky Anti-Virus. Welcome! Kaspersky Anti-Virus Setup Wizard will help you to configure protection for your computer", which requires to click on Cancel or Activate Later. The .inf file with 3 instructions has been tested extensively and works fine. I am attaching a screen shot of Kaspersky v6.0.3.837 updated yesterday under Win98. This Plan B works until there are no more trial licenses for v6.0.3. After that there is a Plan C. I am quite confident that Kaspersky v6 wil be updateable under Win98 and WinXP for the foreseeable future, perhaps for several more years.
  3. Hi CharlotteTheHarlot, Strange result: the file modification date of Process Explorer.exe , when downloaded with FlashGet, is 22-Sep-2012 10:14:50 PM. The current date on my computer is 24-Sep-2012 7:11:50AM, so the file modification date cannot have been related somehow to my download date. The file modification date may have been set to the date of the last download by somebody who does not use FlashGet. No idea why this is done. MiTec EXE Explorer displays a timestamp of 8-Feb-2006 6:46:31 PM for the file and may be a more useful way of describing this particular version. When Process Explorer.exe is extracted with Universal Extractor v1.6.1.61 (gora), the date modified of some of the extracted files is also 8-Feb-2006, but 10:46:28AM (different hours, probably due to the time difference here in California), so the version date seems to be of 8-Feb-2006.
  4. A direct download link is http://xoomer.virgilio.it/gloriosus/software/programs/regcompact1.0.zip'>http://web.archive.org/web/20060207052459/http://xoomer.virgilio.it/gloriosus/software/programs/regcompact1.0.zip The link http://xoomer.virgilio.it/gloriosus/software/programs/regcompact1.0.zip , which I couldn't download directly via Firefox, downloads Ok with FlashGet v1.72.128. Somehow I seem to have a talent for picking out the alternatives which don't work. The benefit of downloading from http://xoomer.virgilio.it/gloriosus/software/programs/regcompact1.0.zip with Flashget is that the original server upload date is maintained, which is 23-Jun-2007 8:04:40 AM. When downloading from web archive, somehow the file modification date is the current date.
  5. Something wrong with your link, it doesn't work.
  6. I cannot confirm this with the registry files on my 11-year-old Inspiron laptop. scanreg /opt in MSDOS mode did reduce the size of a never compressed system.dat (8905KB) and user.dat (1193KB).scanreg /opt seems to be better at reducing the size of system.dat, while RegCompact v1.0 seems to be much better at reducing the size of user.dat. Here some results of a combined consecutive use of scanreg /opt and RegCompact v1.0: 1) never compressed files before starting the compression experiment: system.dat 8905KB user.dat 1193KB combined size: 10098KB 2) after running scanreg /opt with the files in step 1: system.dat 8825KB (-80KB) user.dat 1189KB (-4KB) combined size: 10014KB (84KB less than uncompressed)) 3) after running RegCompact with the files produced in step 2: system.dat 8873KB (+48KB, i.e. an INCREASE in size) user.dat 981KB (-208KB) combined size: 9854KB (160KB less than after step 2) 4) after running scanreg /opt a 2nd time with the files produced in step 3: system.dat: 8841KB (-32KB) user.dat: 969KB (-12KB) combined size: 9810KB (44KB less than after step 3) So the combined use of scanreg /opt and RegCompact can reduce the size of the registry even more, similar to an improved file compression when a file is first compressed to a .zip file, then the .zip file is compressed to a .rar file. I have no idea whether running scanreg /opt leaves the content of the registry files unchanged, an undocumented feature may not have been tested sufficiently for release.
  7. I checked with Hex Workshop 4 the original uncompressed user.dat (created in step 4 above), the exported .reg file and the user.dat compressed/created by RegCompact, for a difference indicated by Beyond Compare.For this specific string which was different: - the uncompressed user.dat contained 0D 0A 0D 0A [=CR LF CR LF] - the .reg export file converted these 4 bytes to 5C 72 5C 6E 5C 72 5C 6E [=\r\n\r\n] - the compressed user.dat (created by RegComp) contained 0D 0A 0D 0A [=CR LF CR LF], i.e. no error was introduced during the compression by RegCompact. In Regedit under Win98 the value data 0D 0A 0D 0A [=CR LF CR LF] is displayed as 4 thick vertical lines.
  8. I have made the following test of RegCompact v1.0 #5 [MD5 5749...]: 1) Under Win98SE, with a never compressed registry: I exported with Regedit the whole registry as a .reg file 2) I ran RegCompact and Win98 shut down 3) instead of re-booting into Win98SE I booted into WinXP 4) under WinXP I saved the 2 Rcxxxx.tmp files and Wininit.ini created by RegCompact under Win98, as well as the Win98 user.dat and system.dat files (as backups) 5) I rebooted into Win98SE Under Win98SE I ran Beyond Compare v3.3.4 and made a Registry Compare of the active registry under Win98SE (i.e. the compressed registry files created by RegCompact v1.0) and the exported .reg file created in step 1 above (i.e. the exported Win98 registry before running RegCompact). The purpose of this comparison was to check whether the content of the compressed registry was identical to the content of the registry before compression. Here the results: 1) It looks like the content of the compressed system.dat/user.dat and of the pre-compression system.dat/user.dat is identical, except for a few differences which still require investigation. If a registry expert repeats a similar experiment, maybe these differences can be explained. The problem is that Beyond Compare can compare a live registry against an exported .reg file, but not against a system.dat or user.dat file. 2) Regedit seems to have an issue when it exports data as a .reg file: The characters "0A" [=LF] and "0D" [=CR] seem to get converted to something else, at least as displayed by Beyond Compare. The original key value is probably not the same anymore when such an exported registry file is imported. The registry keys of some software packages (e.g. by Iomega, Emailchemy) contain program descriptions containing Linefeeds for nicer display, which seem to get converted when exporting as a .reg file.
  9. Hi CharlotteTheHarlot, I have made a preliminary test of RegCompact v1.0 #5 [MD5 5749...] on my 11-year-old laptop under Win98SE. I installed Win98SE on this laptop 9 years ago, no re-installation of Win98, and there are about 100+ apps installed under Win98. I do not use software to clean up the registry, or software to compact the registry, but I keep my system clean by creating clean restore points and then re-install new useful apps on a previous clean restore point, building in this way the next clean restore point. I never had any problem with the registry becoming bloated. Before running RegCompact 1.0 system.dat was 8904kB and user.dat was 1192kB. After running RegCompact they were 8860kB and 976kB respectively, i.e. a decrease of about 2.6% in size. Running RegCompact was easy and did not cause any damage. What are the benefits of running RegCompact? 1) After running RegCompact my 11-year-old laptop appeared to be a little bit faster and crisper, for example when running Norton Disk Doctor, opening Explorer windows or loading MS Word. 2) Are there any other benefits or uses of RegCompact? Here an excerpt from Jerry Honeycutt's book about the Win98 registry: "Registry Checker [scanreg] has an undocumented feature [/opt switch, only under DOS] that allows you to optimize the Registry. Registry Checker compresses the Registry whenever it detects that it has over 500KB of dead space"
  10. I have no idea which program created the .bin file. UltraISO displays nothing in the field "Application" under Properties -> Label tab. Isobuster is quite reliable. Isobuster v2.5.0.0, when extracting the 2 bad .avi files from Track 01 -> ISO9660 [also via Joliet], generates error messages like: "Unreadable sector. Sector 127836 couldn't be read. Error: 05/64/01. Retry, Ignore this sector or Quit" -> Ignore DOS and WinXP. Also a Farsi-patched WinXP, with a lot of non-Western code pages. No idea what the Isobuster error message "Error: 05/64/01" means, maybe a non-Western date. My Linux laptop is currently packed away. The physical media can be excluded, the .bin file has been physically saved on a USB HDD, the original CD is not available. jaclaz, this tip was jackpot When I mounted the .bin/.cue to a virtual drive of Alcohol v1.9.8.7612, Unstoppable Copier created a bad .avi file #2, which DivXRepair v1.0.1 was able to repair by reducing the size of the bad .avi file from 740 to 644 frames (90 bad frames found, Bad frames intervals from 225 to 240 and from 241 to 316. The not-yet-repaired .avi file #2, created from the Alcohol virtual drive, ran Ok in VideoLAN v1.0.3 under WinXP, but caused VirtualDub to crash. Unstoppable Copier did not find any corrupt bytes when copying the bad .avi file #2 from an UltraISO virtual drive, but the file created in this way could not be repaired with DivxRepair. To repeat: mounting a bad .bin file on different virtual drive software (e.g. Alcohol vs UltraISO) produces different results. The bad .avi file #1, extracted with UltraISO from the .bin file and then repaired with DivxRepair, however, was much better than the file repaired file obtained by using Unstoppable Copier and the Alcohol drive. Only 2/989 frames were lost in the repaired UltraISO file, while in the repaired Unstoppable Copier/Alcohol file 85/989 frames were lost. I am still looking for a way to repair the bad .avi file #2 with fewer lost frames. I rejected Digital Video Repair v2.2.3, it wants to install some adware and my firewall blocked it. The website states: "Digital Video Repair come bundled with RelevantKnowledge research tool to help us keep these software titles free". I had actually tried to repair this bad .avi file#2 about 2 years ago, and I had tried out many tools then, including Digital Video Repair v1.02. Here my notes regarding Digital Video Repair v1.02 and this bad .avi file #2: "v1.02 just truncates it after the 1st major error - but you can at least see 1/3 of [the bad .avi #2]. Careful: later versions contain adware"
  11. Hi jaclaz, The unrepaired .avi #1 plays Ok in VirtualDub v1.9.11, the bad .avi #2 crashes VirtualDub with the message "VirtualDub Program Failure. Oops --- VirtualDub has crashed... An out-of bounds memory access (access violation) occurred in module 'ir32_32'... while decompressing video frame 242..." BTW, DivXRepair v1.0.1, which could repair the bad .avi #1, is based on VirtualDub v1.4.2 and when DivXRepair crashes on the 2nd bad .avi file, a window "VirtualDub Program Failure. Crash Reason: Access violation" comes up. I have to correct my previous posting #42. The CD image file is not a .iso file, but a .bin file. When I extracted the .bin file with UltraISO v9.3.6.2750 there was no error message. When I extracted under Win98SE the same .bin file with Isobuster v2.5.0.0, however, Isobuster displayed CRC errors: - for the bad .avi #1 sectors 127836-127838 could not be read (altogether 3 bad sectors) - for the bad .avi #2: sectors 164657-164662 and 165033-165036 could not be read (altogether 10 bad sectors) So Isobuster seems to be a very good tool for testing the integrity of .bin files, probably also of other CD image file types. The 2 bad .avi files extracted with UltraISO were better than those extracted by Isobuster, however. The bad .avi #1 extracted with UltraISO could be repaired with DivXRepair, but not the bad .avi #1 extracted with Isobuster.
  12. I am currently trying to repair a .iso CD image which contains program files and short .avi files. The underlying CD apparently had bad sectors, so that 2 .avi files are corrupt and hang the VideoLAN player. The .iso file itself seems to be Ok. I have tried to repair the 2 corrupt .avi files, so that I can re-inject the repaired .avi files into the .iso image file. DivXRepair v1.0.1 of 6-Mar-2003 http://divxrepair.sourceforge.net/ was able to repair one of the two files, so that it plays Ok with VideoLAN, with cracking sounds where the bad stuff was, and VideoLAN does not crash anymore. DivXRepair could not repair the 2nd .avi file, and crashed while trying to repair it. DivFix++ v0.34 was also able to repair the 1st file, but not the second file. ASF-AVI-RM-WMV-Repair v1.82 did something useful to the 2nd file: although the repaired file caused VideoLAN to crash, the sound continued playing apparently Ok. Any suggestions for a better repair tool for .avi files?
  13. Hi dencorso, Sorry for the mix up. I had copied VRFYPE (27Jul2012) to the folder containing the various files RegCompact_x.exe, and then ran VRFYPE without a file parameter <filespec>, like "*.*": > vryfype or >vrfype /a This resulted in no files being listed, the same for running > vrfype *.* without indicating an option parameter </option> When running VRFYPE with both parameters entered, everything was Ok: vrfype *.* /a Maybe in the next version of of VRFYPE you could use "/a" as default parameter if no </option> parameter was entered, and "*.*" if no <filespec> parameter was entered. BTW the parameter "/s" [for checking all sub-folders] is still on my wish list down the line, even if there is a workaround, as you suggested in , but adding such a /s switch looks like a major undertaking. VRFYPE is an excellent program, with many potential uses. Here the screen output by VRFYPE (27Jul2012), sent to a text file vrfype.txt, when entering in a Win98SE DOS window: >vrfype *.* /a >vrfype.txt VrfyPE v1.0 Freeware by dencorso, 2012 .\RegCompact_2.exe => Cheksums: Header = 00000000 Real = 000132DC Zero in header! .\RegCompact_3.exe => Cheksums: Header = 00000000 Real = 000162F4 Zero in header! .\RegCompact_4.exe => Cheksums: Header = 00000000 Real = 0001BCD9 Zero in header! .\RegCompact_unpacked_6.exe => Cheksums: Header = 00000000 Real = 0001887F Zero in header! .\RegCompact_7.exe => Cheksums: Header = 00000000 Real = 00014227 Zero in header! .\VRFYPE.EXE => Cheksums: Header = 0000431C Real = 0000431C BTW, when ">vrfype *.* /a >vrfype.txt" is run in a WinXP command prompt window, an identical .txt file is generated, except that the last line has the file extension in small letters: .\VRFYPE.exe => Cheksums: Header = 0000431C Real = 0000431C
  14. I have checked files #2,3,4,6 and 7 with dencorso's VRFYPE of 24-Jun-2012 (old version) All files have the same header checksum 00000000, so in the case of RegCompact.exe VRFYPE (old version) cannot be used to identify a PE file as patched @dencorso: Your new version of VRFYPE of 26-Jul-2012 with the switch /0 or /z displays only "No files found!" for files #2,3,4,6 and 7. If you find the time to fiddle around with VRFYPE, could you increment the version number?
  15. Hi CharlotteTheHarlot, 1) I checked the 6th file RegCompact.exe (at the bottom of your list, with MD5 fa3f9649f5f5f74b7036a48bcf205d42) with MiTeC EXE Explorer, it has a time stamp of 1-Dec-2000 9:33:06AM, very similar to the file modification date indicated for the 5th file. The time stamp by MiTeC EXE Explorer is more helpful than the file modification date for categorizing the various versions of RegCompact.exe. MiTeC EXE Explorer displays for file #6 in the Strings tab several error messages which were localized into Italian. I would speculate that file #6 is only a modification with a hex editor of file #5, not a new compilation. 2) The Readme.txt files accompanying the file #3 (modif.date 28-Oct-2000) and file #4 (modif.date 18-Nov-2000) have 2 main differences, possibly helpful for identifying version differences: a ) added to Readme.txt of file #4: "Command Line Arguments ======= ==== ========= If you execute RegCompact with the /NOGUI command line argument it will automatically compact the registry hives and reboot the system with no user interaction." b ) removed from Readme.txt of file #4: "Installation ============ Run the RegCompact1.0.exe installation program inside the zip archive you downloaded. It will install the program to the location you select. Please note no uninstall feature is included, as all you need to do is delete RegCompact's program folder to uninstall it." 3) I have come across a 7th version on the mule, it has MD5 3D5DF950B2DCAE3B886C4FC625A4F512, also 73728 bytes, file modification date October 04, 2001, 3:52:02 AM, and a time stamp with MiTeC of 17-Oct-2000 2:39:29 PM, i.e. the identical time stamp of your file #2. This 7th version is a derivative of the file #2, with some error messages patched with non-Western characters. The accompanying .txt file is also in non-Western characters, perhaps Russian. 4) Which version to use? I have no idea what the impact would be of running under US Windows 9x a program patched for a different Windows localization/codepage, and would stay away from the Italian/Russian? localized versions. This would leave file #4 (modif.date 2000-11-18) as best version, as long as no download location can be found for file #5 (modif.date 2000-12-01). RegCompact v1.0 looks like an interesting program, but I haven't tried it out yet, I am waiting for more reports about the experience other users had with it.