I'll be switching from dial-up to DSL tomorrow thru my phone company. They are partnered with Earthlink. I get free use of their Total Access, anti-virus and such, if I want it. Is anyone familiar with it so as to let me know if I will be able to still use my K-Meleon with Earthlink and, hopefully with the Total Access?

Dale, I am not familiar with Earthlink (except the name), but I haven't heard of problems originating with a particular company and affecting the use of a specific browser. I don't know how or why that might happen.

Generally, ADSL is simply a totally different world after dial-up. The only thing wrong with ADSL is that it is extremely hard to ever give it up to return to dial-up if you have to (when you are travelling, for example).

As far as anti-virus programs go, the various companies tend to subcontract well-known names and market them as their own. Everyone has his choice, but I tend to prefer choosing my own rather than using the one my ADSL company provides. My preference is AntiVir Personal (freeware), but five other guys would have five other preferences.

I do recommend ZoneAlarm (the free version) as a firewall, in part because it has a very useful toggle to completely kill all internet access. It can be set manually and automatically. Because ADSL keeps your computer connected as long as the power is on, ZoneAlarm's switch is very convenient. In the past ZA has had some compatibility issues (especially with Millennium), but it has always worked very smoothly with my XP Pro and ADSL.

Enjoy your new world of computing! :-)

I'm on Earthlink (cable), but I didn't use any of the Total Access software. A lot of it seemed very IE-centric, and IE is the LAST browseri'd ever use (if it weren't for Windows updates and my job-related software I wouldn't use it at all). As Carson pointed out, a lot of that software is just rebranded versions of other companies' products (for example, Earthlink's antivirus software is actually Norton's). Not to say any of it is bad, but you may be able to find other 3rd-party versions of their software which may be more to your liking. I'd check those options, first; you can always go back to Total Access if you feel the need.

P.S. I happen to like Sygate Pro firewall myself. It's so easy to configure that a trained monkey could do it, yet it is extremely effective.

zone alarm free version and free virus scanner sufficiant (here) - i am also at dsl.

I have been using Earthlink cable service (which actually comes through Time Warner Cable) and I have been very happy with it. Their customer service is excellent. However, Earthlink Total Access is geared to function only with Internet Explorer, so I dont use it and it is totally unnecessary. K-meleon will function just fine with Earthlink broadband, dont worry about that.

I signed up with earthlink dialup about 4months ago after getting royally screwed by sbc yahoo (formerly prodigy). I had no interest in their total access crap aside from seeing if the "high speed" stuff worked. The high speed thing is just a proxy, and will work with any browser (although you have to setup non-IE browsers manually). I assume that the rest of the software is much the same.

Thanks! You were all very helpful. I have messing around with my K-Meleon since I first posted this. In case anyone else comes across this desire (integrate Earthlink Total Access with KM), this is what I did. I redirect my email setup from Outlook Express to the Total Access mailbox. It works perfect. I have full use of their spam-blocker, suspected-mail, and my regular Earthlink email. I checked and their built-in virus software is active and working. Since these were what I was primarily interested in, I did not attempt to apply the Total Access tool bar to my KM. I found it to be worthless. You can do the same things from your Start Menu and Desktop that you can from the Tool Bar. I had downloaded a firewall (WyvernWorks Firewall) and can't get the hang of it (no support docs). I'll try the one's you mentioned. Anybody want to post more here explaining how to use a firewall?

Well, if you are using XP, you probably already have a built-in firewall. I think (but I don't know) that it might be Avast! firewall, or a modification of it. Microsoft has no wish for you to have a bad experience using MS equipment, so for quite a long time now there has been this default protection.

Some firewalls are sophisticated things that require quite a bit of savvy on their users' part. And they can do a whole lot of security-related blocking, or else they can be JUST a firewall. ZoneAlarm's free version is just a basicx firewall; very little more than that.

I like it for that reason. I did actually buy a Pro ZoneAlarm awhile back. I tried it, decided its peripheral goodies just got in the way (I had taken care of those things elsewhere) and I trashed it. I returned to the no-frills freeware version.

ZA provides a tutorial. You can elect to ignore the whole tutorial, and just let ZA do things its own way. Actually it will do a very good job. I like it. It seems pretty much aware of your most likely preferences.

At first, though, a firewall must get to know what you are up to--who your friends are. Therefore it will tell you that this K-Meleon Browser is trying to access the Internet, and how does that sit with you? You can have the firewall bash anything you wish over the head, and then you can sit there with no connection at all, while you admire the brutality of your firewall.

More conventional wisdom suggests you okay programs, manually at first, and then your firewall will know these are the good guys. Along the way you will be introduced to various Windows operational catch-alls like Generic Host Process for Win32 Services, which will mess your mind somewhat. You just might wonder if all this is doing much good, or whether enormous holes are being left in your security.

Knowing that George Bush and Bill Gates read my G-Mail together every morning for breakfast, I thought I'd ask them, but they haven't replied yet. Sneaky devils.

And that is a firewall. Um--regardless of this post's gibberish, you do need one with your ADSL, and you should get it set up, uh, yesterday, if possible. :-)

xp service pack 2 brings firewall, but that is not a good one.
zone alarm is easy to configure, good & has free version for private use.
c. Carson´s post.

I have always been on DSL - ever since i am in internet. which is only a few years.
My first provider intoduce a package like describes as "total access" - when i was in net for a year or so - i never needed the package.

IMHO firewall is more essential than virus program (IMHO firewall should run all the time in i-net with dsl - Ant-Virus can - because many things can be set so that Ant-Virus must only run occasionally - e. g. like before uploading files)

You could create nice install disk with nlite - that gets rid of many xp´s vulnerabilities like Outlook and MSIE integration (nlite = for free or donation ware). One good thing about nlite, they give some info about what is used for what.

Before i started to use customized installs cd - i used some tools e. g. from GRE like Decombobulator and Shoot the messenger to get away (rid of) certain programs and problem (neuralgic?) spots with xp after it was installed.
I do similar things with ME which i also use (for this i use win98lite).

As Carson mentioned before there are some essential services.
- one of which (svchost) must be alloved (AFAIK e.g. for dns lookup).

Services and Programs i use: here it is under xp: svchost; k-m (several), mozillas, mail (t-bird) and filezilla are permanentely allowed to pass zone alarm, the rest is mostly set on "pass on request". i want to know which program is steeling my online time ; - )

with programs new to me - i always set pass on request and i always try "do not pass" (deny accerss to internet) first. Most progis that want to update and contact their home/creator do not really need this contact or need it only occasionally (to update or to get new info).
greetings and best weekend

Earthlink is part of the larger Time-Warner cable association. As has been pointed out a Firewall is a necessity on ADSL and cable modems. The reason is that these are the most likely to be pinged by infected systems trying to see if a process can be run off of your computer in case a Port is open that you are unaware of. I would suggest that you install something like a Linksys router between your computer and your modem. They are very inexpensive, but they act as a firewall in the sense that if your computer has not inititated a return packet with the proper id, the router will drop any incoming packet without that id.
When I first got on Time-Warner I had only a software firewall and was constantly interrupted with pings requesting a process. Once I installed the router, I have yet to be pinged. In case you decide to add computers to run on your ADSL modem, you already would then have the hardware to do so. Then, you can install a software firewall.
The only other software you might consider is something that controls cookies - like Cookie Cruncher. Most cookies are benign. But, whenever you have one installed, it does your bandwidth to tally your hits that advertisers use to track you.

I have been using Earthlink for the last 5 years. No problems to speak of. I have been on dial-up, no muss no fuss. I have used everything from Internet Explorer to K-Meleon. Presently I favor Firefox, but who knows what I will be using next month?
Anyhow Earthlink is a cool ISP.

Good luck!
Eric

Well, I was wrong with my last post above. My efforts to use Total Access with KM was a disaster. Also, on just my 3rd day of finally being on DSL I picked up a really nasty thing, a trojan or worm or whatever. It installed an extra toolbar on IE but not KM. It did, however, totally mess up my browsing capabilities with KM. I used 5 different cleaners and none of them could touch it (or even find it). I had to do a total format and re-install. I am very good at backing up so I lost very little. I am not using Total Access anymore. I've installed AVG Free anti-virus software and a program called SecretMaker. So far, all is great. Thanks to you all for the great responses. By the way, I use Windows 98. Someday I'll be able to afford XP.

Thank you so much, Carson. Your post above about Zone Alarm impressed me so much that I downloaded it and tried it. I love it. I have tried 4 others (larger and very indepth applications) that said they were easy to learn and use. I started out lost and stayed lost while trying to learn them. Zone Alarm is not only simple to use but I understand what it says and what it does. I now am protecting my system and internet connection with Zone Alarm and AVG Free Anti-Virus. They are working flawlessly side-by-side with my email.

Glad to hear that all works now.

do not afford xp. 98 is good enough.
at least as long as You do not have to use many differnt programs (at the same time) which works better with xp´s more advanced memory mangagement - You are faster and better with win98.

the improvements od xp are too little and xp makes machine much slower.
(though You can dig into the bowls of xp o make it faster again).

You will get a new OS with Your next hardware as a "bargain".
(here they force You to buy an MS OS with almost all new complete systems but reduce OS price a littel - and i assume they do too where You are :-)) ).


For unwanted autostarts of any program You can use free version of jv16 tools (shareware version is for xp and other OS much later than 98!). // the only thing that remains/is needed on autostart on my p500 ME 98 lite machine = zone alarm!
I use js16 tools that it stays like that).

Adaware free edition = for programs and people that bestow unwanted blessings with other programs. Runs needed only occassiuonally.

Xp will not help You with any of these harrasments - far off -
You will have to run xp antispy on the first session to cure the
OS of its more obscure habbits. And Your 98 does not have that problem yet!
& greetings from Hannover

Well Guenter, Carson will strongly disagree with the two of us and try to talk Dale into getting XP. But that's okie because this will give Dale a great over-view of the two OS'es, ouais? And then he can decide which he would like to have. hehe.

@Dale: When I bought this server from Gateway a little over 2 years ago now I had them make sure that it had 98se on it and not XP. Had it come with XP I would have taken it to my friend around the corner, whose store is advertised on my website, and had him reformat it with 98se.

Why? Because with 98se I have fuller control over the computer. I tell IT what to do---it doesn't tell ME what to do. And I can change it and do whatever I want to it to make it MY computer. XP, though you can change a lot of its looks, is still Bill's computer I feel.

But you can get all sorts of nice little tweaking programmes to make changes, to do this and that, and by the time you're done, you've made what "PC" really stands for: "Personal Computer", see? With a shell, almost complete icon change-over, new default file manager, language change-over---I now have a computer that's more a French Apple than an English Windows computer. So much so that it confuses a lot of people when they see it. hehe.

98se allows you to be as much of a regular computer user, or as much of a geek, as you want to be. And it doesn't hold my hand and make me feel stupid like XP does. Oups! Did I say that? -rolls eyes-

Now let's see what, or if, Carson may have to say about XP. Or did he already? Shows you how well I read. -sigh-

Amicalement mon ami,

Eyes-Only
"L'Peau-Rouge"

Well, luckily for me, I just happen to know that Guenter uses both 98 and XP. If I didn't know that, I'd likely get myself into quite a trap here!

XP is built for computer systems that have lots of memory. Even Millennium demands a bunch of memory--enough that the user is just not at all concerned about that. If the system has the memory, XP is in an entirely different class from 98. It is easy to see that XP did not come out of the 9x lineage at all. There is such a marked difference that Linux users who cite "Windows" failings that date back to 98 are off target: they are seven years behind times. Linux has to be compared to XP for the comparison to make sense.

But Guenter knows that. What he said was that 98 is a lighter, faster program that is all Dale needs--and I agree with Guenter. In fact, the only detail I mildly differed on is his recommendation for Ad Aware. Personally now I would choose Spybot, but that is just a quibble. Ad Aware will do the job just fine.

Back to the Windows OSs, I started with DOS--I paid a fortune for, what was it--?--DOS 3.2, I think, in 1987. I loved DOS. For me, the arguments that today are used in support of 98 sound just like my arguments for supporting DOS over any Windows system. DOS was easy, too. It was Apple that came up with the propaganda that DOS was hard to learn. That was effective marketing--it worked, even though Apple was targeted toward educators who supposedly enjoy learning! But you could learn enough DOS to make it work for you--you know, a good basic level DOS--I'd say, more easily than you can learn K-Meleon. Really.

So there. IMHO! Ha ha! Yes, I think 98 is a great program! No, I would not compare it with XP. XP is not a "newer version" at all. But, yes, I agree with Guenter.

(Yes, Guenter, you can pay me in Euros, as agreed. ;-) )

(Oops, I made a mistake. Technically XP is faster than 98. But XP handles so much more stuff, that when memory is limited it may well work more slowly. Similarly, ME can be faster than XP too. You have to have lots and lots of memory before XP shows its true colors. Then it is fast.)

You guys are great. It is so nice to be in a forum where ALL the responses are so helpful. I, too, use Spybot. I tried both Spybot and Ad Aware and I much prefer Spybot. I have seen XP in action on my daughter's computer and played around with it and I don't really care for it. I have 1.2gb of memory on my 1.8GHz Duron computer and it is lightning fast. I love my Windows 98 and would really like to upgrade it to SE but can only find places to buy the full install, not a more inexpensive update version. I am only 56 and have been retired and on Social Security for 5 years, so my available funds are extremely limited. If anybody knows where I can upgrade to SE without having to spend a small fortune (or deal with Microsoft directly) I would appreciate it tremendously.

Dale, I'm sure you'll be the proud owner of SE soon enough. I can't help you 'cuz I don't have 98. But you might as well be optimistic, and go here and get this:

]http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/1083536650/1

It is for SE, and it seems to be extremely popular.

I'm three years older than you, with three more years with the same employer. :-)

Carson, you must be psychic. This afternoon, I was talking to an old friend about wanting to upgrade to SE. I had started this friend on having and using a home computer a few years ago. He was really gung-ho about it for awhile but eventually lost interst and packed away everything he had bought into a back room. He went thru all the junk (his words, never mine) and called me back to say that he had 98 SE. He gave it to me. It has never been installed so never registered with Microsoft. I can register it if I want (which I don't). I also downloaded that update that you directed me to. Is there anything that someone who has only used 98 Standard for so many years should know or be advised or warned about before he reformats his hard drive and does a clean install of SE? If your wondering, yes, I have evrything important backed up on my second hard drive. I'll check back this afternoon to see if anyone answers this. THANKS CARSON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@Dale: second hard drive? why not install 98se on the first 540 mb of that?
(DOS start partition needs to include the first part of a hdd // any hdd)

the only disadvantage i can think off:
is that You have two c: drives with OS that can not see or access the other c: and that You need some start manager to start them - if You want both to work.

With two OS You are much more independent of the normal PC hazards like the
OS being damaged from virus ....

(with a nt, os/2 or linux based second OS You would be independent of that
primary start sector and could even repair and scan the OS from a full and hdd based OS install - that is the way i try set up my pcs - but that makes me lazy
and i often do not imidiately repair damaged OS which gets me into trouble
- but at the moment all is operational : - )) )

AFAIK DOS based windows can not really manage big amounts of RAM
- the limit is 512 MB or so.

I am about as old as You - i do not believe in buying new PC or
OS as long as the old is sufficiant for the things i do with my PC.

IMHO both NT based and DOS based wins have their respective advantages.

@Carson,
IMHO which program to use against certain pc hazards is a matter of taste;

i have Winows ME installed with a program called win98lite.
and my XP is from an install cd prepared with nlite.
I like my OSes lean and fast.

old times: For me WfW was the best Win they ever made.
i much prefered Novel DOS and PTS DOS as a basis for DOS based wins.
The later was from Russia and had faster (much assembler) routines.

I much regret that they tied Windows to MSDOS commencing with win95.
I still have all the many diskettes of my first win95 and some from the older wins.
i used older Win3.x parallel with win95 and OS/2. i got my OSes
bundled with hardware and used the hardware untill it was too old to sell -
i still have my first pcs parts in the garage.

@Eyes-Only - we all like our respective Aston-shells ; - )
glad to see that You have time to come here.

greetings to all.

Thanks guenter. Very informative as usual. However and even though I have messed around alot with my computer over the years, I really don't want 2 operating systems on my computer. I know very little if anything about such things as dll's, inf's, code, and other such stuff or how any of it works. I also have no desire to learn any or all of the stuff that makes my computer work. I just want it to work and when I mess it up, reformat and reinstall and start over. I know that is the long and bothersome way to handle it, but this old dog does not want to learn any new tricks. I use my computer mainly for keeping track of personal and family stuff, and use the internet mainly for just surfing around and for paying some of our bills. So, I keep everything very simple and basic on it. However, I don't want to move up to 98SE until I find out if there are any possible problems or hazards that I might run into. I know quite a few people who used 98 Standard Edition for years (as I have) and then moved up to Second Edition. They ALL say that they will never back up to Standard again and can see no reason to go to XP and all it's problems since they love they're SE so much. Many of them have tried XP, as I have, and didn't like it. I don't like it at all and will never go to it.

@Dale - never mind - it was only an idea.
(we are here to share and talk/chat about ideas & infos)
&Your way is definitely sufficiant for most needs.

that other way You would have two OS in case anything went wrong.
With a good startup manager there is not much to learn or know.
You create two c:/ patitions with partition program...
1 on the beginning of each hdd.
It is only in an emergency that You chose the one that is still working ; - )
I had to learn it when win95 was failing all the time in the wrong moments.


AFAIK 98se combines there merrits of WinME (stable & many drivers integrated)
with the smaller resource hunger of Win98.
WinMe is already a little more bloated - but the bloat can be cut down easily.

98se: Just make sure that You have all the driver files ready
(in case that they are needed)
- the data backed up or on another partition. and go to win98se.

For most of us the DOS based wins like win98se seem totally sufficiant.
IMHO that is why most people that also know XP favour win98se or WinME.
(hope our glib talking friend Carson does not read this , - ) he he
- else i am in trouble - since he know pc much longer and better)

XP and WinME - the later starts up faster (so i use it more often).
XP supposedly more secure? good memory management = more stable.
Since i normally use only a few programs at the same time - i do not often need good multi tasking and memory mangagement.

& Eyes-Only says: he achieved the same good memory management
for win98 by using Aston(?) shell.

XP? First i had it pre-installed at the laptop.
(there was no laptop with DOS based win else i had taken that.)
I did not come to like it untill i learned to give it the look and feel that i was
accustomed to from 95 and ME.

If You do not alter it - XP becomes a proctalgic as soon as You know Your way.
I started to like it when i had learned to kill all the wizards
(which i consider nag screens) and the redundant animations.

best weekend to You

Thanks again guenter. I am convinced that I will be happy when I switch to SE. Hope you have a fun but safe holiday weekend.

Yes, that's right Guenter: I got excellent memory management by switching shells to Aston. Plus an extremely stable computer environment which rarely EVER crashes (rare for a 98 computer which crashes about once a week).

However: One caveat is that Aston's management doesn't handle Gecko as well when it comes to memory. For that, I haven't a clue as to why. -scratches bald head-

I can open a non-Gecko programme, use it for a long time, watch the RAM go up a few megs while using (as you would expect) and the CPU stay down around 22%, and we're fine. I close the programme, the RAM is cleared of the megs and goes back to the "base level" from which it started, and the CPU will go back to 21%... this can continue for weeks!

Then load anything with the Gecko Engine (even KM!). Granted, KM is the very easiest on the system because of using the native Windows GUI, okie? So when I close it there is maybe a meg above "base level" left in the RAM.

If TBird or the Suites, it may be 3 to 4megs above "base level". Interestingly enough though, they're NOT harder on the CPU like it would be, I've read, for others. No more than 24 or 25%. So Aston does very good on the CPU usage.

(Also keep in mind that at this time I have around 20 to 28 programmes going for the network maintenance!)

So while it handles Windows programmes in Memory just fine, I think the programmers needed to take under consideration as well the handling of the Gecko Engine, something they didn't do. Shame on them!

Have a good weekend Guenter and all!

mfg Guenter und mazzel!

Amicalement,

Eyes-Only
"L'Peau-Rouge d'Acadie"
http://eyes-only.dyndns.org/jimmymac/

Dale, you are just about to start an operation which should go smoothly, but often does not. A bit of white-knuckle computing.

If you have anything EXTREMELY important--personal files--a backup to a CD or floppies is quite reassuring.

You might wish to take a look at Boot-US, a program that saved my life once or twice when I couldn't get my computer to boot. That's not what it's for, but because it lets you make a floppy that will go around the hard drive and boot up your OS the way it did before you wrecked the joint, it can be extremely helpful. It used to be freeware, and I think you can still get this much for free, although the full program is shareware now. (URL at end of this post.)

Now, I fully understand what you seek to achieve. But Guenter is a force to be reckoned with in the world of computers, and if I were you, I'd take a second look at his advice. He is suggesting that you set up a clean SE install that is independent of everything you already have. If something very bad happens, why, Guenter's way is solid and safe. You could keep every bit of your remaining hair, instead of tearing it out in great tufts of anguish.

Of course, there is such a thing as physically disconnecting one hard drive. That is not hard to do. Gives you a chance to clean an enormous amount of dust out of your computer case, too. You would get everything ready the way you want, and then you'd open your case and simply unplug one end of the cable that connects your hard drive that has your existing 98 OS on it.

Now your computer would not know that hard drive existed. You could do a clean install on the other hard drive, which would call the other hard drive Drive C.

If everything worked out fine, you could later on delete your original 98. If everything did not work out fine, you would still be able to return to Square One, instead of finding yourself on Square Zero.

No one can tell you beforehand whether you will sail through smooth as silk or not. You will be just fine, as long as quite a few little details all work to your favour. If one of them is just not quite exactly right, your install could involve some troubleshooting.

My description here is simplified. You would want to look around the web a bit more before going ahead. Make yourself several different boot floppies from several different places. Sometimes the one you thought was the best won't boot your system up, while a quick-and-dirty one will.

You should also know how to get in and out of your BIOS at boot-time. Look but DON'T touch. But you should be familiar with the process, because it is there that you would have to--in an emergency--trade your computer's priority back and forth between your two hard drives, which are likely called Zero and One (not One and Two) at the BIOS level.

Most dangerous is your option to just take a deep breath, hold your tongue in the right place, take no precautions, and GO for it. But I have done that many, many times in the past, and often I've been lucky. Either you're lucky or else you learn a lot. (I mean you learn the hard way, but you do learn.)

Whatever you choose, good luck! And DO let us know how it comes out for you!
:-)




http://www.boot-us.com/

@Carson, boot-us is a nice idea!
a good boot manager from floppy could also help to hide a spare system (OS)
from the every day boot screen.

Dale wants to swich to the 98se, it is better than the win98 he has now.
- the normal way, format and set up new OS.

Well guys, I had a very long night and then a very long morning. My reformat and clean install of SE went smooth and flawless. That in itself warned me that something was waiting for me just around the corner. I tested it out for awhile and moved around to see what SE was all about. I discovered right away that everything was much slower than the speed I had with Standard. I mean MUCH slower. First thought, install that "Unofficial" SE update. I did and it got even slower. Therefore, I reformated again and re-installed Standard. My super fast computer was back. I don't know if the problem was my motherboard, it's chipsets, it's bios, or whatever. I am now content to stay where I am now with 98 Standard. I really do appreciate all the advice you guys gave me. I was going to try SE someday anyway so it was nice to have the better insight that you guys gave me.

Hi Dale,

I'm curious. This disk that you got from your friend here: Was it the FULL install disk set (which I think would be like 3 disks?), or was it the the SINGLE upgrade disk?

The reason why I ask is because if you just put on the single upgrade disk then yeah, it would crawl alright---you only have like half an OS there. I mean, it's usable, and the computer can be tricked into thinking it's a full install (especially if you lay the newest version of MSDOS down on the hard drive FIRST, or so my guru once did) and it'll run halfway decent. But without the DOS it'll sputter and cough and give you all sorts of problems.

The one disk is meant to be installed OVER the 98 Standard Edition in order to have the full upgrade to Second Edition. The single disk was like the $90 thingy you bought in the store, in the flashy packaging, with manuals and everything else, as compared to the $400 box that had the 3 to 4 disks (depending on how much software, etc., that you wanted) that you could've bought in the store---but most left to the computer shops to get and the geek who wanted to reformat and all of that stuff.

Some will more than likely disagree with me but I'm going by my guru who at the time pulled off some pretty amazing feats of magic that even the Pros in Redmond couldn't do. (Like help his buddy fix ME so it was stable---a patch papa Bill never put into ME. And my guru was blind by the way.)

Well, I've rattled off enough about subjects I myself know nothing about.

Sorry it didn't work out for you Dale. IMHO, 98 is 98 whether it's Standard or SE. I'd run either one with no problem (or even 95 for that matter!) as long as I can have my Aston Shell overlay. LOL! (I see Guenter & Carson laughing and saying, "Eyes-Only and his Aston!") hehe!

Amicalement!

Eyes-Only
"L'Peau-Rouge d'Acadie"

Ha ha! Eyes-Only and his Aston! :-)

@Dale, congratulations for trying. You have likely learned more than you'll realize, until someone else asks you for help--and you will be able to help him.

@Eyes-Only, yes, indeed; but the incident of your friend and his ME doesn't make technical sense, as there are very solid, well-documented reasons for ME to not operate as a very sturdy OS. In theory, no patch in the world could make a great deal of difference, although I've often said that a big boost in memory could.

So I think Dale's story is fairly parallel to the story about your friend's success. In both cases there must have been significant causes--things very definitely observable, but which escaped observation.

Or, to say it another way, in both cases, our premises are wrong. (More accurately, we are missing certain premises which would vitally affect our conclusions.)

I am intrigued by your hypothesis that Dale may not have had the appropriate disks. I'll make a guess right now, however, that he did.

My mum used to explain these successes and failures very succinctly. "They are not so difficult as all that to understand," she would say. "Nor are they so very mysterious."

"It's all in the way you hold your tongue."
:-)