bphlpt

Hey, wait a minute , you did not mention "compiling" the bat to exe, you used "encrypt or hide". Have you actually analyzed the tool you mentioned? Are you really-really sure that the way it works is suitable to your "encrypt" or "hiding" needs? Hint: look carefully in the Temp directory of the user running the compiled batch.... Just for the record program homepage is here: http://www.f2ko.de/programs.php?lang=en&pid=b2e jaclaz Thanks jaclaz, point taken, and of course you are correct. I had used the same words the other user had used to me, at least partially incorrect as they might have been, because that is his purpose in using the tool. It is of course almost impossible to hide or encrypt computer code of any kind from someone with enough time, resources, and determination. But this does the job against the casual user and he has been happy with the results for several years. He only recently inadvertently created the problem himself when he upgraded his system from XP x86 to Win7 x64, and the app from the 32 bit to the 64 bit version, and did not realize that the exe's that were then produced were no longer "a valid Win32 Application". But in your web wanderings have you run across another application that could perhaps do a better job of encrypting or hiding while maintaining the ease of use that Bat To Exe Converter provides? Cheers and Regards

I'm not an expert, but I really can't see why this would be true, or why you believe it. Unless I'm sincerely wrong, when you "integrate" Flashget with Firefox, or Opera, or even Flashgot, all it should do is put a "hook", or shortcut if you will, that points or redirects to where Flashget is installed. Even if there are registry entries involved the same situation should be true. There should be no designation of the version of the individual Flashget files involved at all. If you do not remove v1.72, but rather upgrade to v1.73, which I believe should just install on top of the existing v1.72 files replacing any with the same name, this should not effect Firefox, Opera, or Flashgot at all since as submix8c says - the v1.72 is the same as v1.73 except without "bugfixes". Even if your installation involves a folder in Program Files with 1.72 in the folder name, when you install v1.73 I think you will be given the choice of where to install it, if it doesn't pick up the existing location automatically, so just choose the existing location and you should be good to go. You could probably even avoid the installer completely and just expand the install file using 7-zip or Universal Extractor or whatever works, and simply copy all the files into the existing location, overwriting the existing files. This just should not be the chore you are fearing. Of course, sacrilegious as it might be, part of what you are running into is simply the possibility of no longer being able to continue to use the apps, and/or OS that you have used for all these years. You can only shoehorn things in for so long as your needs grow and expand and all the software, drivers, etc do not keep up their compatibility, as duffy98 has recently found. Cheers and Regards

Thanks guys. Your suggestions triggered some thinking. It ends up he was using the 64 bit version of the Bat To Exe Converter, which created exe's that were "not a valid Win32 Application", which might should have been expected but was overlooked. Switching back to the 32 bit version of the app seems to have solved the problem. Thanks again for the quick responses. Cheers and Regards

This should not be a problem. There is an option for this, along the top menu bar click "Transfer" "Preserve timestamps of transferred files". Why this is not enabled as default I don't know. Cheers and Regards

As a favor for another user, I'm looking for some suggestions of programs that any of you have used to encrypt or hide the contents of a batch CMD script but still have it operate with a simple click for the convenience of the user. I know of Bat To Exe Converter - http://download.cnet.com/Bat-To-Exe-Converter/3000-2069_4-10555897.html - but I'm looking for possible alternatives. The reason is that I have heard of the following problem that is blamed on it: The batch is run through Bat To Exe Converter on a Win7 machine on a disc using AHCI mode. When the app is distributed, some people running XP have the following error during execution -- "XYZ.exe" is not a valid Win32 Application. -- So far, the only reason that we can come up with is some kind of incompatibility with XP that is created by Bat To Exe Converter since the app works flawlessly on Win7. So any suggestions of alternate applications to try would be appreciated, or suggestions of what in the conversion process that could be causing the incompatibility that creates that error. Thanks in advance for any and all responses. Cheers and Regards

So with this configuration there are no problems at all in DOS? But if you now try to add in Windows for Workgroups 3.11, that will not load, correct? OK, just to try and isolate potential problems, assuming the above is correct, staying just with DOS, can you add back in your other SCSI drives and have them all function correctly in DOS? How about all your other drivers and devices, staying in DOS they all load and function correctly? I'm just trying to figure out if there are any problems at all in DOS regarding any of the drivers or devices. If all that works, then I'd be tempted to try and add WFW at this stage and see what happens. In either of the above scenarios, is it possible that you can try this on actual hardware instead of a VM? Or maybe try a different VM? I'm not sure if there are any others that would be compatible, I'm just trying to eliminate possibilities. I'm afraid I'm not going to be much more specific help, it's been way too long since I've messed with DOS or WFW, I was just trying to help clarify the situation so that someone else might be able to recognize something and offer advice. Good luck! Cheers and Regards

You mean print it like this? I only copied the key parts and it could still be cleaned up a LOT, MS web pages are notoriously inefficient and have been for 15 years, it was probably done with Word, but that should do for now. Cheers and Regards

@ppgrainbow, I know it is frustrating to both you and jaclaz, and I sympathize with your frustration and do not mean any offense, but I want you to understand that you are not helping. You are not cooperating. You are not following instructions. You are not providing complete information. How do you expect us to help you? Or do you just want to use this space as a blog to vent your frustrations? If you are not willing to do what is asked I do not know why anyone should bother to reply to you. Jaclaz asked you: Do NOT try to load Windows for Workgroups 3.11. ONLY try to boot to DOS. Remove all but one singe SCSI drive. Disable each and every *other* driver/device in config.sys. HOW exactly are you loading the drivers? The readme.txt suggests these two lines in config.sys: are you using them? Or *something else*? WHAT the heck do you mean "I don't know where I got the BTDOSM.SYS from?" did it matrialize by sheer magic on your hard disk and config.sys? HOW MANY similar drivers "materialized from thin air" into your config.sys? Please do and answer all the above, report in detail the results of your tests, attach or copy here your stripped down config.sys that you used so that we can get a better idea of what you are doing so that we can better help you. Good luck! Cheers and Regards

Google is your friend - http://www.geforce.com/optimize/guides/AA-AF-guide/#1 Cheers and Regards

The top of a good cap should be flat or ever so slightly concave. If it is bulging even a little bit it is probably starting to fail. You might be able to feel it depending on how convex it has become. A good tool to help identify the components on your board for the purposes of getting the right drivers etc, is CPU-Z - http://www.cpuid.com/softwares/cpu-z.html Cheers and Regards

http://forum.filezilla-project.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7089 (Some of the links added by me) Cheers and Regards

Since this is for an older machine, and older games, I would suggest setting ALL controls to their "lowest" or "poorest" settings, ie the ones that put the least amount of strain on your CPU, and see if you have better luck. If the scrolling performance improves, but the image quality is below what you are willing to tolerate, then slowly, one at a time, bump up the settings until you reach an acceptable compromise. Cheers and Regards

Hey, you brought them up! Cheers and Regards

FileZilla for Win98? Sorry, I think it's currently only available for XP and later. For what it's worth, the files I downloaded seemed to be complete, at least the two particular files you mentioned above seemed correct. If you have a list of the files you are having trouble downloading correctly I might could find you another temporary link for them. My previous question stands. Any idea where I might be able to download the "missing" files that were available with the book? Cheers and Regards

LOL - Cheers and Regards

And LG has a model - WH12LS39 - that supports M-disc, BluRay, Lightscribe, DVD, CD, ie everything I know of - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827136241 - $79.99 as of today. I have this drive. Nice and quiet as well. EDIT: The M-Discs are available in 50 packs from Amazon for $136.00 ($2.72 ea) with no tax and free shipping - http://www.amazon.com/M-DISC-DVD-Cake-Box-Pack/dp/B005Y4NL5I - So the average costs aren't quite as bad as you feared, Multibooter, only $604/1TB. Combined with dvdisaster I would think the reliability of this approach would be fairly high. The time to make the necessary copies would still be a factor, but the peace of mind might be worth it. Cheers and Regards

Actually, I can't either. I was going off the screenshot that was posted, so it must have been true at least at some point. [ As an aside, FlashGet used to be a favorite of mine for quite some time, though I have not used it in a long time. Looking back through my app collection I see that I have Multibooter's v1.72build128 (fgf172.exe - 9/8/2006 - 2,530,788 bytes), and two versions of v1.73, (fgf173.exe - 9/12/2006 - 3,069,001 bytes) and (fgf173.exe - 2/16/2009 [though flashget.exe is dated 9/11/2006] - 3,224,463 bytes). This last one must be the same version you have submix8c, assuming your size of 3,224,263 bytes was a typo. I have not looked closely at the other version of fgf173.exe, it's just part of the collection. LOL ] My current FTP client of choice is FileZilla and I looked at the MS server Win98 site with that, along with just using my browser (current favorite Iron, a version of Chrome). Like CharlotteTheHarlot, I only saw the Reskit folder and not the reskit one. Using Filezilla, I downloaded the Reskit folder and got 2382 files and 91 folders, not counting the Reskit folder itself, with 170,022,244 bytes. This was consistent over two separate downloads. The contents seem to be consistent with Multibooter's analysis of the differences he found between the server contents and the book CD contents he referenced. (Might the files available on the book CD that are not available on the server be made available somewhere, assuming they might be of some value or interest?) Cheers and Regards

AFAIK, this also implies that these files are hosted on a non-Windows server since I don't think that Windows is able to handle two files or folders in the same directory that differ only by capitalization. Amusing. Cheers and Regards

Why not just stop there? You have XP Pro SP3 now installed. I'm just not clear why you are insisting on an upgrade from your old system. I guess you're trying to avoid having to reinstall your other various software? That might be easier rather than continuing with your experiments. If there are particular apps that your fear will be trouble to reinstall, maybe it will be better to ask questions about how to do that? (As was mentioned earlier, you should have also been able to have installed XP Pro SP3 directly on a formatted HDD without having to restore your minimal system first therefore havig a truly fresh start with a clean slate.) Cheers and Regards

Sorry. I just read the title of the links and pages - "How can I decrease the size of Thumbs.db files?" and "Manipulating Thumbs.db tiles and obtaining more memory space" and jumped to a conclusion. I'll be interested if your suggestion works for the OP. Cheers and Regards

He does? Where? Cheers and Regards

I would guess the actual amount of RAM installed rather than the percentage could be a factor. I'm not sure why they specified it in percentages anyway. Cheers and Regards

@submix8c, I don't think the OP is talking about the db size, but rather the size of the thumbnails themselves - trying to increase their size. But I also, like vinifera, don't understand what he means by "per page", since that is dependent upon the screen resolution and the size of the Explorer window. It would be better if he expressed his request in terms of the desired dimensions of the thumbnails in pixels. @colore, I don't know if you can increase the maximum thumbnail size in Windows Explorer beyond the current maximum setting. But you could always try using a free third party program such as IrfanView. It has the ability to view thumbnails of folder contents with a wide variety of size options - from 50x50 to 800x800 along with a variety of aspect ratios, optional thumbnail backgrounds, etc Cheers and Regards

Thanks Tripredacus. The flames were starting to get to bonfire proportions. Cheers and Regards

Thanks dencorso. Cheers and Regards