Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account



Photo

What's the Fastest RAM that I Can Add?

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
105 replies to this topic

#26
puntoMX

puntoMX

    n00b of Masters and Vice Versa

  • Super Moderator
  • 4,773 posts
  • Joined 28-June 04
  • OS:Windows 8.1 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

How about a program like CCleaner? I've been using it regularly on two of my PCs, including this one, and it seems to get rid of a lot of registry garbage (its most useful feature IMHO). But is that, plus regular maintenance (deleting temporary files, etc.), enough to keep the system in tip-top shape?

Just to clean the trash and leftovers on the harddisk, NOT to mess up... err... clean up your registry ;).


How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#27
BlouBul

BlouBul

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 409 posts
  • Joined 13-July 10
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

I'm not organized enough to have all that information at hand. (Probably a reflection of the scattered way in which my mind works...) I do have everything somewhere, but it's that "somewhere" that's the key. And of course, in many cases that "somewhere" is inside the PC as the program was downloaded and there never was a separate box or label with the number printed on it. I'm getting a headache just thinking about collecting all this info!!

It might be a good idea to first evaluate the potential problems by first make a list of the programs you actually use (like Windows and Office and maybe one or two others). See if you still have the install disks and/or serials. Some programs you can get the serial from the program itself (if you are specific, we might be able to help you retrieve some of them). I normally like to keep a soft copy of all my installation files (with their serials) in a folder on my hdd. Then it is very easy to install it again (since I would also not like trying to find all the original cd/serials again :ph34r: ).
Jack of all trades, master of none, though ofttimes better than master of one.

#28
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,807 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

I think what dencorso wanted to do with the image, was to try some drastic measures to see what is wrong on your system. (Like running Norton's best program - their removal tool ;) ) Then if you do not like any of the changes, or it is too drastic and your system crashes, you can just restore your system to the way it was before, and then try some other things

Precisely:
0) Create a known-good image (in the external USB HDD). Burn it onto a DVD set if possible, once we're sure it's good.
1) Remove Norton. If it doesn't solve the issue, then redeploy the image and we're back to square 1, no harm done!
2) Remove and reinstall Office. If it doesn't solve the issue, then redeploy the image and we're back to square 1, no harm done!
3) Remove Norton, then remove and reinstall Office. If it doesn't solve the issue, then redeploy the image and we're back to square 1, no harm done!
4) [...]. If it doesn't solve the issue, then redeploy the image and we're back to square 1, no harm done!
n) Format the partition. Zero it out with sdelete. Reinstall Windows, plain vanilla. Reinstall Office, plain vanilla. If not even this solves the issue, then redeploy the image once more and we're still back to square 1, no harm done! :)
It may be a long and frustrating process, which may or may not solve the issue, but it ensures nothing is lost in the process, except time and oftentimes patience! :D
I'm still too busy to follow such a process step-by-step, as I'd like to. But this interim might be useful for JorgeA and you to get familiar with the imaging tool selected, which was the Acronis version offered by Seagate, IIRR.

#29
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,537 posts
  • Joined 08-April 10
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag

It might be a good idea to first evaluate the potential problems by first make a list of the programs you actually use (like Windows and Office and maybe one or two others). See if you still have the install disks and/or serials. Some programs you can get the serial from the program itself (if you are specific, we might be able to help you retrieve some of them). I normally like to keep a soft copy of all my installation files (with their serials) in a folder on my hdd. Then it is very easy to install it again (since I would also not like trying to find all the original cd/serials again :ph34r: ).

BlouBul,

Interesting strategy! Let me see if I understand correctly what you do.

So, let's say that you have downloaded the program "Infectmypc.zip". :whistle: At some point, either before or after unzipping and installing the program, you copy it to this special folder where you store it for future reference. Then you also create a text file with the serial number for the program, and put it in that special folder.

Did I get it right?

--JorgeA

#30
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,537 posts
  • Joined 08-April 10
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag
Hey there, stranger! :)

Thank you very much for the rundown of the process.

When you get a chance, I'd like to revisit the part of our discussion where you warned that some kinds of disk images are not so reliable. If we go ahead with this, I want to make sure that we're using the most trustworthy method for restoring the HDD.

--JorgeA

#31
BlouBul

BlouBul

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 409 posts
  • Joined 13-July 10
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Interesting strategy! Let me see if I understand correctly what you do.

So, let's say that you have downloaded the program "Infectmypc.zip". :whistle: At some point, either before or after unzipping and installing the program, you copy it to this special folder where you store it for future reference. Then you also create a text file with the serial number for the program, and put it in that special folder.

Did I get it right?

Yes :yes: I will save it in my software folder on my external hdd, next to a copy of my windows, office and Norton (all with their serials in text files), and based on my past experience, I will choose which to install after a reformat (Please Note: "Infectmypc.zip" will be installed before Norton :lol: )
Jack of all trades, master of none, though ofttimes better than master of one.

#32
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,537 posts
  • Joined 08-April 10
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Yes :yes: I will save it in my software folder on my external hdd, next to a copy of my windows, office and Norton (all with their serials in text files), and based on my past experience, I will choose which to install after a reformat

BlouBul,

I appreciate the explanation, that's a very sensible approach! When I get a chance to, I'll round up all my programs (that aren't on CD/DVDs) and their serial numbers, and do the same thing.

(Please Note: "Infectmypc.zip" will be installed before Norton :lol: )

Thanks for the reminder!! LOL

--JorgeA

#33
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,807 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

What we want is a sector-by-sector image from the *full* disk, omitting nothing. Since this process is dumb-as-a-doorbell, almost any imaging software can do it satisfactorily. But not all software will be able to test it afterwards, so testing ability is needed, and since we cannot afford to go wrong, a well reputed software like Acronis is preferable. If the imaging software can compress the image, too, that also helps, although it makes the already long and tedious process of acquiring the image even longer, but helps with storing the image afterwards, and does not cause a very big penalty on redeploying. So, I'd have to read the manual again, looking for how to do these things with Acronis, which is not the software I'm used to (I use Norton Ghost, but it's not for free, nor do you need it). So, to me, it will be a refresh course in Acronis, which I've not used for some time already. And since I own 4 Seagate disks, I'm entitled to it, too. Now, if we can compress the image, we should make the best of it, by zeroing-out all free space in the disk, because long sequences of zeroes compresses best. And Sysinternals (now MS) offers a free program called sdelete, to do just this, among some other possible uses for it. This is necessary because, since it's a blind sector-by-sector image, we're bound to copy the free sectors, too.

#34
puntoMX

puntoMX

    n00b of Masters and Vice Versa

  • Super Moderator
  • 4,773 posts
  • Joined 28-June 04
  • OS:Windows 8.1 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

... If the imaging software can compress the image, too, that also helps, although it makes the already long and tedious process of acquiring the image even longer, but helps with storing the image afterwards, and does not cause a very big penalty on redeploying.

Naa, you got that wrong there, fast compression can save minutes.

#35
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,807 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Naa, you got that wrong there, fast compression can save minutes.

True. But I was thinking of the most thorough compression available, since minutes are not an issue, for an acquisition that can very well take some hours.

#36
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,537 posts
  • Joined 08-April 10
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Naa, you got that wrong there, fast compression can save minutes.

puntoMX,

I'll be curious to hear both sides on this point.

Of bigger concern to me, though, is that we're talking about my work PC here, so I'm eager to use the safest, least error-prone method possible. Whether the image takes a longer or shorter time to make, or even whether it takes up half of the new external HDD, is not nearly as important to me as whether the procedure yields a bootable image that is both faithful and reliable.

In fact, honestly I'm not sure yet that I won't bail out on the part of the process that involves erasing the existing HDD. I will certainly go as far as creating the image, so that I can learn how to routinely create this kind of backup for use as a last resort in case of a catastrophic disk failure. But to go that next step -- I'm just not sure that the time + risk involved are worth the couple of minutes that I'll be saving when opening large Word files.

--JorgeA

Edited by JorgeA, 24 November 2010 - 09:50 PM.


#37
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,537 posts
  • Joined 08-April 10
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag

0) Create a known-good image (in the external USB HDD). Burn it onto a DVD set if possible, once we're sure it's good.
1) Remove Norton. If it doesn't solve the issue, then redeploy the image and we're back to square 1, no harm done!
2) Remove and reinstall Office. If it doesn't solve the issue, then redeploy the image and we're back to square 1, no harm done!
3) Remove Norton, then remove and reinstall Office. If it doesn't solve the issue, then redeploy the image and we're back to square 1, no harm done!
4) [...]. If it doesn't solve the issue, then redeploy the image and we're back to square 1, no harm done!
n) Format the partition. Zero it out with sdelete. Reinstall Windows, plain vanilla. Reinstall Office, plain vanilla. If not even this solves the issue, then redeploy the image once more and we're still back to square 1, no harm done! :)
It may be a long and frustrating process, which may or may not solve the issue, but it ensures nothing is lost in the process, except time and oftentimes patience! :D
I'm still too busy to follow such a process step-by-step, as I'd like to. But this interim might be useful for JorgeA and you to get familiar with the imaging tool selected, which was the Acronis version offered by Seagate, IIRR.

dencorso,

The more I ponder this series of procedures, the less I think that we should go ahead with the full program, at least in my case.

The thing is, Norton 360 provides too many benefits for me to realistically consider getting rid of it. And if there's no chance that I'll stop using it, then there's no point (beyond curiosity) in going through all of these steps.

N360 alerts me when I'm opening an unsafe website. If I'm on Google, it automatically rates sites for safety right on the search results page. It also filters my e-mail for spam, and it scans e-mails for viruses. It offers many, many more features that I could get from other places (among them firewall, online backup, disk cleanup, login manager, anti-phishing), but for these the point is that N360 offers a single, integrated place at which to access these various functions. Aside from the fact that I would not even be aware of some of these functions were it not for N360, it cuts down on the need to keep track of which individual application is for what purpose.

I know that Symantec products have many detractors for various reasons -- and it's by no means a perfect package -- but I find Norton 360 to be useful and very convenient. I no longer surf the Web on my PCs that don't have the Norton "Site Safety" feature (on those computers, I only visit sites that I know, or sites that I have first checked out on my N360-equipped PC).

So, I wish to cancel the scheduled major surgery. I do want to learn how to create the most reliable kind of HDD image, but I'm going no further than that.

I'm enormously grateful for your offer to spend a considerable amount of time on the proposed diagnostics, but I think it'll be time better spent on other issues. At my end, there is no shortage of questions to ask. :)

--JorgeA

#38
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,807 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Sure, JorgeA. However, since there's no urgency, I think we should postpone my refresher course on Acronis to next month, when things will be less hectic for me. I cannot possibly help you explore the capabilities of it unless I either install it on one of my machines, or, preferebly, create a bootable CD of it and test it, Were it urgent, I'd do it sooner, but that's clearly not the case. That said, I'm OK with your decision. In any case, maybe you should get an inexpensive pendrive (say, a 1 to 4 GiB Kingston or SanDisk, not a no-brand one) so that we may populate it with files, then image it, then format it, then deploy the image freely and without fear of destroying anything of value. Think of it as a test device, just for training purposes. What do you say?

#39
puntoMX

puntoMX

    n00b of Masters and Vice Versa

  • Super Moderator
  • 4,773 posts
  • Joined 28-June 04
  • OS:Windows 8.1 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

I'll be curious to hear both sides on this point.

Of bigger concern to me, though, is that we're talking about my work PC here, so I'm eager to use the safest, least error-prone method possible. Whether the image takes a longer or shorter time to make, or even whether it takes up half of the new external HDD, is not nearly as important to me as whether the procedure yields a bootable image that is both faithful and reliable.

In fact, honestly I'm not sure yet that I won't bail out on the part of the process that involves erasing the existing HDD. I will certainly go as far as creating the image, so that I can learn how to routinely create this kind of backup for use as a last resort in case of a catastrophic disk failure. But to go that next step -- I'm just not sure that the time + risk involved are worth the couple of minutes that I'll be saving when opening large Word files.

Personally I use always fast compression when I use the same drive (Acronis with its "Secure Zone"), if you have a second drive just do an one on one (clone). There isn't much risk Jorge, just set that brain on zero and go for it! :lol:
You know that people that replied to your problem, well, the Word problem, agree all with each other to kick that Norton with a Norton Cleaner, reinstall office if needed and see what happens there. Swapping hardware won't get you much further. I don't recall the brand of your harddisk, I asked you once and you gave me an answer but it got lost here; the reason why I asked is that Acronis can be free with some harddisk brands. I use it on my, the best harddisk out there, Seagate 7200.11 :w00t: (there, I said it and I have to watch my back now when I walk in the streets :sneaky: ).

The thing is, Norton 360 provides too many benefits for me to realistically consider getting rid of it. And if there's no chance that I'll stop using it, then there's no point (beyond curiosity) in going through all of these steps.

Jorge, where do I begin... Listen, we are here to help you out okay...

So, benefits... So, you would like to have that safe feeling, I can give you some tips on that, here it comes and you know what is the best part? It doesn't mess up your PC, let you use your PC without paying some randsome, yes, darn program kidnapped your PC and it looks like it even kidnapped it's user, yes you, and I'm not kidding here.


For safe browsing, and even faster browsing (read better DNS response) use openDNS; You can set what pages you ONLY want to visit, block webpages you hate and filter for the "unsafe" pages. Free and powerful...

For fast virus detection with the best virus database, and believe me a lot of AV uses it even Norton, you use Microsoft Security Essentials; simple and good if not the "best". Free and powerful...

For firewall you use just the integrated firewall in your OS, and if you really want to protect yourself use a router and enable the firewall in it to...

For anti spam and such, use GMAIL, yes it scans your emails and could add some textlines to it, but hey, it's the "best" out there, again...

We are talking about solutions BEFORE crap comes to your PC so your PC doesn't have to do all that filtering and scanning. What I saod above is just me, I'm sure that others can provide you with even better options as Norton is just an alternative for the not knowing users.


What more... help me out here, but I'm sure we can help you with the best user experience! Yes I know, I'm just a lousy salesman; if I was a good salesman I would have stuffed you with a new version of Norton 360; better, faster, more bling AND the best part, NOT for free so money in my pocket, hell, better buy a new PC with it with enough cores and speed to get it all smooth working. :yes:

You are learning, and so are we from you, so don't get this as an insult or so ;).

#40
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,807 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Well...
@PuntoMX:
I guess you know I use AVG, the paid for version, btw. I fully know most everybody on this forum must think I ought to have my head examined, just for that.
Up until AVG 9.0 I'd say they gave you superb support, which was more than worth the fee. Now with AVG 2011 and their outsourced support, I'm begining to think y'all are right and I really ought to have my head examined...
@JorgeA:
Be as it may, AVG gives one all that you've mentioned, while being much lighter on the system. And they are among those who invented that Safe Surfing site rating scheme, if not the actual inventors of it. This is to say you do have options. This is *N*O*T* to proselytize in favor of AVG.

#41
BlouBul

BlouBul

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 409 posts
  • Joined 13-July 10
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

I don't recall the brand of your harddisk, I asked you once and you gave me an answer but it got lost here; the reason why I asked is that Acronis can be free with some harddisk brands. I use it on my, the best harddisk out there, Seagate 7200.11 :w00t: (there, I said it and I have to watch my back now when I walk in the streets :sneaky: ).

He also uses the best hard drive, same as me and you (at least it ensures some exitement every once in a while and gives you a good story to tell ;) )

Anyway Jorge, I have to agree with Punto, You are trying to solve a software issue by trying to add more hardware (won;t work :() . You know how I feel about Norton. I used to be one of their biggest fans (even used Norton Commander for DOS as my default file manageri once upon a time, long, long ago in the pre-windows days) and used all their products till about 2004, when I started to feel that it is consuming a lot more resources than its competitors. Then I changed to Kaspersky, and more recently to NOD32 and never had a problem with either (Punto says he is not a salesman, but he nearly convinced me now to try MSE :) ). If you really do not like it, you can always change back. Also with BOTH PuntoMX and dencorso (who would rather err on the side of safety), I can really not see anything going wrong. Another option (if you still do not want to try it on your PC), is to first try it on your laptop, and if you like it and got the confidence in the process, then try it on your work computer. But that's just my 0.02 ZAR. :D

Edited by BlouBul, 25 November 2010 - 09:36 PM.

Jack of all trades, master of none, though ofttimes better than master of one.

#42
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,537 posts
  • Joined 08-April 10
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag
BlouBul,

Here's why I'm thinking that better hardware will help. Correct me if I'm wrong (there's a good chance of that, of course ;) ).

Back in the other thread, when I opened the original offending file in Windows Safe Mode, the average time to finish opening the file went down to 2:59, compared to -- what was it, about 3:40 or so on average when opening it in normal Windows. The dreaded Norton is nowhere to be seen in Safe Mode.

I tried opening that file three times in Safe Mode again yesterday. The times were 2:58, 2:39, 2:47. So, whatever behind-the-scenes processing is going on in normal Windows (and it may not all be Norton's fault) is adding no more than a minute to the total time, or less than one-third.

I have to think that if I upgrade my CPU, all the avoidable and unavoidable processing is going to go faster. CoffeeFiend believed that a Pentium E5500 would run 60% faster than my current E2200; it sounds plausible to say that for $30 more, an E6800 would do even better. And compared to the time (and risk) involved in repeated de- and re-installations of Office and Norton and the HDD image, it's bound to be both safer and less time-consuming.

Don't know how much of the file loading time is accounted for by processing in the CPU, but if I can shave 60% off that time, we're looking at maybe upwards of two minutes saved on the loading times, vs. less than one minute saved by obliterating Norton.

Agreed on the "resource hog" aspect of Norton products starting around 2004. Back then (and not knowing any better) I had it on my Windows 98 tower, and I can't tell you how many times my computer ground to a halt (requiring a restart) under the weight of all that stuff. But my understanding is that current versions of Norton are much lighter in their touch, and the Resource Monitor appears to confirm that on my Vista tower.

BTW, I love the Eset online scanner. I use it as a backup for Norton and Spybot, and it allows me to scan even the PCs on the network that are too old to run the scanner directly (like that Win98 tower).

--JorgeA

#43
BlouBul

BlouBul

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 409 posts
  • Joined 13-July 10
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag
Hi Jorge,

Here's why I'm thinking that better hardware will NOT help. Correct me if I'm wrong ;) .
Back in the other thread, when you opened the original offending file in Windows 98 on your ancient dinosaurish Pentium I, it still opened faster than your current P4 with a lot more RAM.
When CoffeeFiend said that a Pentium E5500 would run 60% faster than your current E2200, I think he meant that the hardware related portion of the 3:40 minutes will be 60% faster. Since the Pentium I opened it in under 3 minutes, I do not think the hardware related portion is that much :whistle:

I understand that you are not too keen to mess with your current *working* system. That is why I suggested to try it on your less used laptop first (since it won't be a train smash if you cannot get it immediately to work again, but only in a couple of days (although I do not foresee any problems)).

I also heard some rumours that the current Norton is a bit faster than its predecessors, but still think it is worth a quick test. It might not even be Norton, but just something in your registry that got scrambled with all the registry cleaners you ran (that is why I suggested a clean install). The beauty of a the verified working image dencorso was referring to, is that you can try all these things, with no risk :yes: If you do not like the changes, you just undo them by putting your old image back :D

Although it open slightly faster in safe mode, it might still be influenced by a totally mucked up registry or lots of Norton code in the registry (even though Norton is not running). It won't cost you anything (except some time) to test it that way, and if you still want to upgrade your system after that (which is always nice), you might actually see a real difference :D

Edited by BlouBul, 27 November 2010 - 02:14 PM.

Jack of all trades, master of none, though ofttimes better than master of one.

#44
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,537 posts
  • Joined 08-April 10
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag
Hi Bloubul,

OK, I am going to throw yet another ingredient into this gigantic mix.

I remembered that I had a couple of enormous Word files that contain only photographs. (I haven't always been as sophisticated as people think, ahem...) These are literally nothing more than collections of JPG files with no text content whatever. (Yeah, REALLY sophisticated!!) One file is 207 MB in size and the other is 160 MB. That is, much larger than the 5 or 7 MB files that we had been experimenting with. They are also each over 700 pages (one JPG per page), compared to the ~500-page documents we had before.

Out of curiosity, I just tried opening these in Word under all normal settings and conditions (meaning, with Norton running :w00t: ). Each one was opened seven times. The 160MB file took 10, 15, 17, 15, 16, 16, and 16 seconds to open; the 210MB one, 14, 14, 15, 15, 16, 17, and 16. Again, as before, the measurement was taken with a stopwatch from the moment I clicked on the file's name from within Word till the moment that the number for the last page showed up in the page counter at the bottom left of the Word screen.

The difference between these files and ordinary Word documents is the complete lack of text, and of text formatting. Whatever Norton may do, it's not affecting the opening of these even bigger files. Therefore I'm nominating Word as the main candidate for the source of the slow loading as it does whatever it will do with text. And specifically Word 2007, considering that (as you reminded us) the earlier version of Word (2000) opened the offending file much faster with an ancient, plodding CPU.

How does this sound to you?

--JorgeA

#45
BlouBul

BlouBul

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 409 posts
  • Joined 13-July 10
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag
Do you still have your Word 2000 install disk? I'd suggest tests some on your computers and sees what happens. AFAICR your laptop has Works and not Word. Maybe we should test it with the old version of Word.

Edited by BlouBul, 27 November 2010 - 03:34 PM.

Jack of all trades, master of none, though ofttimes better than master of one.

#46
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,537 posts
  • Joined 08-April 10
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Sure, JorgeA. However, since there's no urgency, I think we should postpone my refresher course on Acronis to next month, when things will be less hectic for me. I cannot possibly help you explore the capabilities of it unless I either install it on one of my machines, or, preferebly, create a bootable CD of it and test it, Were it urgent, I'd do it sooner, but that's clearly not the case. That said, I'm OK with your decision. In any case, maybe you should get an inexpensive pendrive (say, a 1 to 4 GiB Kingston or SanDisk, not a no-brand one) so that we may populate it with files, then image it, then format it, then deploy the image freely and without fear of destroying anything of value. Think of it as a test device, just for training purposes. What do you say?

dencorso,

That sounds great! There were some fantastic sales at the stores yesterday (Black Friday in the U.S.), so I picked up a couple of pen drives. :) (Among other things.)

I can wait to do this till you have the time. I'm also willing to learn how to make that full, dumb image that you have talked about.

Thank you for being so patient with my trepidation about experimenting on a full HDD!

--JorgeA

#47
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,537 posts
  • Joined 08-April 10
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag

You are learning, and so are we from you, so don't get this as an insult or so ;).

puntoMX,

Not insulted at all, but enormously appreciative, thanks!

Your setup that you described is interesting. I'd heard of OpenDNS, IIRC on one of the podcasts by Steve Gibson (another one who has some detractors). I will look into it further and see how it works.

--JorgeA

#48
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,537 posts
  • Joined 08-April 10
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag
Hi BlouBul,

In theory, I should be able to find my Office 2000 install disk. :D

Is it possible to install Word 2000 on my main PC without overwriting the existing Word/Office 2007 directories or (maybe more importantly) the Registry settings for Word/Office?

--JorgeA

#49
BlouBul

BlouBul

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 409 posts
  • Joined 13-July 10
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag
I do not think a dual install of Office 2000 and Office2007 will be a problem on Vista, but maybe we should just check that with dencorso/PuntoMX/someone else. I think it will just create its own directory under Program files and both Office versions should work, just want to make sure it doesn't disturb the registry too much (don't think so, though). The best is (if you still have both cds) to first uninstall Word 2007, and then install Word 2000. You do not need to do it for the whole Office suite, since you would then have to re-setup Outlook (which isn't difficult). Word only should be easy. You can look for your cd in the mean time, while we are waiting for confirmation ;)

Edited by BlouBul, 28 November 2010 - 02:19 AM.

Jack of all trades, master of none, though ofttimes better than master of one.

#50
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,537 posts
  • Joined 08-April 10
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag

I do not think a dual install of Office 2000 and Office2007 will be a problem on Vista, but maybe we should just check that with dencorso/PuntoMX/someone else. I think it will just create its own directory under Program files and both Office versions should work, just want to make sure it doesn't disturb the registry too much (don't think so, though). The best is (if you still have both cds) to first uninstall Word 2007, and then install Word 2000. You do not need to do it for the whole Office suite, since you would then have to re-setup Outlook (which isn't difficult). Word only should be easy. You can look for your cd in the mean time, while we are waiting for confirmation ;)

Hi BlouBul,

Well, I finally found the Office 2000 disks and -- since nobody piped in with guidance one way or another -- tried installing Word 2000 on my Vista tower.

What a mistake that was!! I thought that maybe I could avoid registry-type problems by telling the installation program to use a new folder in drive J (a Pocket Media backup drive that I always keep in its externally accessible bay) for the Office files, as well as to "run the program from the CD."

No dice. After launching the newly set up Word 2000 (more about that later), out of curiosity I then tried to launch Word 2007 -- and I got a box saying that the program needed to be configured!?! :huh: Then I tried to open Outlook, and I got a message saying that it could not be found, and did I want to remove the link I had just clicked! :ph34r:

The first thing I tried was a System Restore. It went through the process, the PC started back up, all the usual startup programs came online... and then a box telling me that System Restore had failed and nothing had been changed. Uh-oh. :o

Next I went into the Program Manager and uninstalled Office 2000, then for good measure tried the previous System Restore, and nervously watched the computer run through its steps all over again. This time it didn't give me the dreaded failure message, and to make sure that everything worked I went to open Word 2007.

But at that point, that box about configuring Word came up again. Sh*t. Well, what else was there to do other than go on to re-install the software, I thought. So I was resigned to the whole tedious process, wondering all along what might have become of my Outlook .PST file and would I have to re-do all the mumbo-jumbo I'd had to do with my ISP's webmail server way back when.

As these anxious thoughts raced through my mind, Word finished coming back up. I clicked on the Office button, and to my surprise the list of recently opened documents was showing. Wow, everything appeared normal. So I opened Outlook, hopefully, and it too got "reconfigured;" when it was done, all my e-mail was there in all the right places, and all my settings were as before. What a relief!!!

So everything appears to be OK.

Oh yes, about the Word 2000 test. It was nice to see Clippy again... And now for the most important thing: the original, offending Word file took 26 seconds to open the first time, and 20 seconds the second time. (And that's with Norton 360 still installed and intact.) As always, that's the time from the moment I clicked to open the file from within the program, till the moment that the page counter showed the last page number. (The little book animation was still going on, but AFAIK I had full editing functionality.)

Wow. It looks increasingly like it really is Word's fault. I'm not sure I'm eager to repeat the experiment, though. ;) It was kind of a nail-biting experience.

One last thing. FWIW, I did a single test opening of the same file in the "reconfigured" Word, and the time was 2:49, compared to the 3:20 and 3:40 or more that we've had before.

What do you think?

--JorgeA

Edited by JorgeA, 01 December 2010 - 12:12 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users