Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

  • Country

    United States

Everything posted by GaryMX

  1. @blackwingcat, is there an English translation for your link: http://blog.livedoor.jp/blackwingcat/archives/1817451.html ? In the bugzilla report, is COPY_FILE_ALLOW_DECRYPTED_DESTINATION a module called within a DLL? And, can this be patched into a current UURollup installation if it is? Seems like the Mozilla developers just don't want us to keep using the Firefox platform using Win2K.
  2. Hello everyone -- I have read all of your comments and haven't changed the "extensions.alwaysunpack to true" yet, so I can't verify it will work here. However, @tomasz86, I run SeaMonkey (FF 24 platform - latest version) at home and have not run into this issue on my Windows XP machine. It's really puzzling why Win XP would work (with addon updates,) but not my "patched" Win2K installation with UURollup, which has been working wonderfully since April, with absolutely no "blue screens," or crashes of any kind. I am pleased with the UURollup as it has allowed me to keep my browser up to date, and install some software that I couldn't before (like Flash updates.) I wish I could understand what is going on in the (java?) code. If the variable "addon.id" is the problem, where is it set? And why work on XP but not Win2K? I will try changing the "extensions.alwaysunpack" later today while I am in SeaMonkey 2.20 (FF 23) and then run the update to version 2.21 (FF24.) Unfortunately, all of my addons are updated. I will have to wait until a new NoScript comes out to verify that this works.
  3. I posted the following on the NoScript forum after someone asked me about the "missing file:" Well, it's all moot. I uninstalled SM 2.21 (FF 24) and reinstalled SM 2.20. And, guess what? The updates were successful. ALL of them. So, it must be an issue with the newest release of the Mozilla platform. I did see somewhere in one of the Mozilla forums how they were changing the installed addon database from SQLite to .JSON format. I'm not sure that it said that exactly, but something like that. I think the "missing file" was an inaccurate warning. I think that it has to do with XPIProvider.jsm. That file is not on my PC. The following is an extract from the error log (see the attached text file, as I can't seem to "cut and paste" the information here:) I looked at the code for the routine that calls this error -- it is a general "catch" error module. I don't really care; it just would be nice if they would quit tweaking these things in the product, and just improve security, speed, and memory usage. Why mess with something that can affect SOME of the addon updates? And, if XPIProvider.jsm is a "needed" file, why didn't the installation update routine (v2.20 to v2.21) install it where it was supposed to be?? addon_update_error.txt
  4. Well, everyone, the shorter path name and moving the profile didn't work for me. Still having problems updating NoScript, FlashGot, and the SQLite Manager.
  5. Or: View this: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Profile_backup (backing up profile) and then this -- "Moving your profile folder" http://kb.mozillazine.org/Moving_your_profile_folder. You would have to create the new profile folder first, I would assume, then point the "switch profile" to the new folder. I wonder if you could just copy everything there from the current profile folder? If this is the root of the problem, then one of the two approaches should work.
  6. @ppgrainbow -- I found the answer in the NoScript forum (I think.) This verifies what I had seen in MozillaZine about the path of the profile being "too long." But why wouldn't it affect my Win XP computer also? Anyway, I copied his info about using FEBE to backup your profile, and create a new profile in a folder closer to the root of C: (or whatever drive your FF is on:)
  7. @ppgrainbow, I am having the same problem since upgrading to FF24 (SeaMonkey 2.21). I installed my UURollup (v10d) in April, and have been running GREAT since then, until now. I couldn't update NoScript, FlashGot, and the SQLite Manager. However, another addon, Flagfox, updated fine. I saw somewhere (I think in MozillaZine) that it was something about the path being too long. But, nothing's changed in my FF/SeaMonkey installation (except the version!) I even tried going directly to the noscript.net website and installing the addon from there. I got the "needed file" error message like you saw. I was on the NoScript forum and left a message for Sergio Maone, who hopefully might have some insight. It would be disappointing to not be able to update the addons. The plugins (such as Shockwave Flash) update successfully, except with an Adobe warning that the OS is not supported.
  8. It's amazing reading these "non-responses" to the original question of the post. Except for @dencorso, when reading these comments, I feel like I'm back in high school. Challenging the poster, insinuating that they don't know what they are talking about; it's all unnecessary and a waste of time. The way I look at it is, if you can't contribute a useful answer to the original question, why post? I'll try Microsoft's MSDN, Technet and other tech blogs for my answers regarding Microsoft in the future. This will be my last post here at MSFN (unless I have questions about Tomasz's UURollup.)
  9. I did a query on CNET like you and got a slightly different (but similar in order) list of "backup solutions." I noticed Acronis and Macrium Reflect didn't make it on mine, probably because I entered "Windows 2000" in the search box. Either of those would work great for me, if only they would install and run on W2K. EaseUS Todo Backup Free would be a good choice, except that I think it is developed by a Chinese software company (Chengdu Yiwo Tech Development.) Of course, some claim to be a "full backup solution" when they are really just copying files from point A to point B (can do that without software,) some only image copy, etc. The best ones would be those that do it all: image copy (clone drives), full / differential / incremental backups, command-line driven scheduled backups, etc.
  10. @dencorso -- your post was intelligent and very informative, explaining the different kinds of disk images. Thank you for your deeply detailed information! I have read some of your related posts on that issue. The imaging software that I use does have "raw" as an option, also compression. The recovery process is, however, as you had said in your posts -- that the drive image must be restored to a drive that is bigger or equal in capacity. The software works great as far as restoring; I can also "browse the image" and restore individual files. I have no complaint with it at all. I will have to keep in mind what you said about forum members having problems with Windows 7. I know that W7 has security features that make it a different animal to backup. It's too bad that I'll never have an answer for the "permissions" issue -- maybe there is a M$ MVP genius that could explain it; but I haven't gotten good or clear answers from M$ in the past. @submix8c -- Yes, I did clone to a different drive. It booted with no problem. There were minor issues which is why I started this thread, one being M$ Backup. I don't care about it now, I'll use something else. It was a simple curiosity as to why it wouldn't work on the new drive after the clone. That was the only answer I wanted; not testing my knowledge or questioning it; just an answer about permissions. I already know about Grub4DOS -- I used it to create a bootable flash drive with XP that I use at home. Works great. I wouldn't want a "generic" W2K bootable anyway, because, for one, (as I have discovered with my reinstall to the new drive) there are many drivers that this computer needs to function properly. I have equipment attached to this PC for my business and can't afford to have the whole process die because of an install problem. Hence, I decided to clone the install to the new drive (since the computer is 10 years old.) I have also handled punch cards. I programmed with them at U of M (and fed them through a card reader, with many a fail.) I punched them at work for a while on an old 1620. You want to know what an "archive bit" is? Here is the description: "The archive bit is a file attribute used by Microsoft operating systems, by OS/2 and by the Amiga OS. Typically its state indicates whether or not the file has been backed up." Source here. Free "driver finder softwares? Why would I use that when I can get it direct from the manufacturer (Dell, Intel, MOSChip, HP, etc.)? Many of the web sites that offer them to you for download will only do so if you pay a subscription fee. @jaclaz -- No, I did not run it from the boot CD -- I had obtained it from Runtime Software. Have you read my previous comments? I installed it on my computer and ran it from the hard drive. Even in a virtual environment, if you have a "standalone" software product that runs from any device (such as USB drive or another hard drive,) the software will run! Big deal -- you keep mentioning the boot CD. I have also created a USB flash drive install of XP (done legally, I might add.) I can't use it on my W2K PC because the BIOS won't boot from a USB flash drive inserted in the port. NO, the BIOS won't let it. I've tried. By the way, I don't click on your links. Adios.
  11. OK -- here we go again ... jaclaz -- I used the version of DriveImage XML that I downloaded and installed from the runtime.org web site. Not "warez." It does work with Win 2K, but it won't back anything up that is "locked" by the system. Hence, running XP virtual; there is nothing locked by the system. @submix8c -- I know the difference between a "differential" and "incremental" backup. Differential backs up all files with the archive bit set (that have changed since the last full backup, which turns the archive bit off). Incremental is trickier and mostly used in server situations; to restore a "trashed" server drive you would restore the full backup, then restore the incremental backups, from the oldest to the newest. If you have been reading this thread, you would know that I decided to reinstall the W2K system, from scratch, on my second drive. It was an interesting exercise, as the 10-year-old PC didn't have all the driver files available. I grabbed what I could from Dell, but the hardest was the NetMOS 9835 multi-I/O controller. I finally found the setup files for it from Syba USA, not a useless link to the MOSChip web site. I would install Macrium Reflect, which really is the top backup solution currently, but it doesn't run on Win 2K. I don't know what topic you are talking about (creating a "good" clone,) but it doesn't matter. A clone is a clone -- it copies everything from one drive to another. I have never heard of cloning a system and changing the Registry, which has many "hard coded" references to files on C: drive. Unfortunately, all references to files in the registry weren't %WINDIR% or %HOMEDRIVE% or other symbolics. So, how would this "clone" modify the registry to change these hard coded references in the Registry? For installed software with references to C: it would have to change them to D:. That's it for this topic -- can we just quit this ping pong of comments? I came to this forum for useful help, not disparaging comments. Thanks.
  12. jaclaz -- too bad you don't do your research. I am sure that I am not a "newbie." I have been using computers since 1983. Were you even born then? And, XXClone "clones" drives -- I don't want to clone a drive, I wanted to back it up! There is a substantial difference; when you "clone" a drive, everything on the target source is erased. I have a 600 GB Seagate drive with all kinds of goodies on it and I certainly don't want to erase all of that data! I think that you are (to use one of your emoticons) "whistling out of the top of your head." By the way -- XXClone works only on XP and up -- that wouldn't do me much good anyway, would it? XXClone isn't even in the top 10 of CNET's downloads for backup solutions. The latest CNET review of XXClone: "It destroyed my C: drive. None of the installed programs are working anymore. All executables (.exe files) have been removed by the cloning procedure. It looks like I have to re-install all the programs I have accumulated over the years. Thank goodness the data files are still there. What good is a cloning/backup software if it trashes the original drive? Use at your own peril." The "incremental" feature that you mentioned? Only available in the paid version for $40. So, that's all, folks! No more comments here! See you in another forum.
  13. I guess you must really think that I'm a "newbie." I realize that it only backs up a partition on that hard disk drive. My business PC has two hard disk drives (C & D,) and on each of them there is a primary partition used for my data and a smaller one (a few MB) that must be used either for a "Dell system recovery disk" or other reasons. I certainly wouldn't want to back up that. In DriveImage, it shows you what drive/partition you have selected for backup or recovery, with its size. My home PC has one main drive (C:) and a Dell recovery partition. "multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINDOWS" is what is in my BOOT.INI, so it is running on partition 2 of my drive. My old Win Me PC has three drives with several partitions in each. OK -- I am not commenting any more on this topic; as far as I'm concerned, MSBackup is not worth using!
  14. Tomasz -- I will try using Innotek VirtualBox 1.5.6 when I get a chance. Regarding your HFSLIP package, I am assuming this is for "slipstreaming?" I've never done this (never had to) so, what do I need to do to use it? I've got my original licensed W2K install CD and the M$ updates, and of course, your UURollups. I won't talk about this, but the latest version uses all "shareware" or "freeware" (except of course, for the OS.) And most of these are unused. Honestly, I only need DriveImage XML, and I already use it on my home XP computer (using another version that I downloaded from Runtime software. One more thing -- "my settings" doesn't have an option to change that title. I may be blind, but I can't see it there.
  15. @tomasz86 -- I restored the image of Drive C back; there was never a problem with the installation of W2K on this system. The problem was on Drive D, when I copied over an old backup of Drive C there. So, drive C is not unstable; there is no referencing in the Registry to anything on Drive D. This is where I installed the daily. I was thinking last night, that perhaps the daily doesn't have all of the file updates like a weekly? If it was assumed that the installer was using v11 daily to update an existing v11 system, when v11 was never installed, perhaps that would generate the stop x050 error? This error is an "addressing exception," which means that there was a module trying to access an area of memory that wasn't allocated. You (and others) keep mentioning about using a VM (virtual machine) on your computer. I've only got 2 GB of memory on this old W2K box, and 750 MB is in use. I've only used a VM when I've run Hiren's boot CD, which runs Windows XP SP2 on this PC (with no problem) and creates an "X" drive for its use. I use this product to run DriveImage XML, which won't run on W2K without issues due to no VSS service, and even with drive locking, causes problems. So better to run in virtual XP. My next project with this PC (when I have time) will be to reformat D: drive and install W2K clean, add all updates (M$ only,) then reinstall the software I need to run here. This will extricate the D: drive (and Registry) from any references to C: drive. It will probably be faster also, as I'm not going to reinstall much of the software that has been added to C: drive over the years ... Once I'm done with that, I'll image the drive, and try v10d install, then the weekly v11 and see how it goes.
  16. @jaclaz -- I'm giving up on MSBackup. I'll find another product to do differential backups. Besides, I've got DriveImage XML to just image the whole drive and save it. I'm not going to switch an NTFS drive to FAT32. PS: Creating the new file folder / file and backing it up with MSB generated the same "you don't have permission" error. Strange, since I created it!
  17. @tomasz -- Unfortunately, I installed the v11 daily (Windows2000-UURollup-v11-d20130226-x86-ENU) before I read your note about the weekly*. Installing this daily over v10d caused a STOP error x00000050: (PAGE_FAULT_IN_NONPAGED_AREA) on bootup. I got the blue screen and the computer stopped. Luckily, I had a DriveImage backup of drive C:. I then overwrote my C: drive with my 3/25 image backup and I'm back to v10d. I've done some updating to this drive, so I'll have to re-image it again; then I'll try your v11 weekly. It only takes 18 minutes to restore. I don't have "virtual machine" software of any kind. * @tomasz said: "The new UURollup-v11 weekly can be also safely installed over UURollup-v10d. It's actually very likely that it will be possible to finally release a stable version of UURollup-v11 soon." Why did the daily trash my W2K install, and, if you say that the v11 weekly can be safely installed over v10d, does that ensure that I won't get the STOP x00000050 error again? Gary PS: How do I get rid of the "newbie" label under my avatar? I am not even close to being a newbie; I've been working with computers for 30 years and was a professional programmer for 15. I've noticed that "@HumansCantBeTrusted" has two posts, joined yesterday, but does not have this label.
  18. I have moved my comments on UURollup to this forum topic: Unofficial SP 5.2 for Microsoft Windows 2000-- everyone else should do the same, as @tomasz86 is only replying to questions there ...
  19. @jaclaz -- This is the error, as I said at the beginning of this post: I get the following error in the MS Backup log file: "You do not have permission to access portions of [folder name.] Please see the owner or administrator to get permission." This error is generated for every folder that I specify to be backed up. And I am signed on as Administrator, with full file permissions!
  20. @Browncoat, thanks for the info about the /hyper switch. I may try that if I can't get Macrium Reflect to work as I want ... @jaclaz -- I am back to running W2K on drive C:. So this should not cause a problem. (Everything works OK except MS Backup.) When I run Disk Management (diskmgmt.msc,) I have "Disk 0 -- Healthy (System)" and "Disk 1" -- Healthy (Page File)", identified as "Drive C" (NTFS) and "Drive D" (NTFS). C and D are independent of each other; I never did a "System Restore" to Drive C:. I only applied the UURollup. I wouldn't want to have two "Drive Cs" anyway, even if I could. The BOOT.INI allows me to change which drive boots first; that is all I need. Drive D was just an experiment; I will probably reformat it and just use it as a backup drive and to store the image backup of Drive C, plus the page file for the OS. Running in "mixed mode," as you say, on Drive D perhaps would cause the issues that you noted; however, that would only affect the Registry that is in the system folder of Drive D, not the one on Drive C. That would certainly not be behavior that I would expect.
  21. @jaclaz and @Browncoat, thank you for your replies. Regarding "changing disk signature," I guess I wasn't clear enough. If I had a "disk signature" problem, I would have "disk collision" issues (see the article here.) The drives are distinct and clearly recognizable when I run my disk management utility. The original computer was built to be bootable with both C and D drives, but was never implemented that way (in the BOOT.INI.) I changed the BOOT.INI in the root of C: drive to recognize both drives as bootable. However, D drive had an old copy of what was on "C" (from 2005, when the person who built the computer cloned C: drive to D:. When I first used the computer in 2007, I noticed some discrepancies between the two drives and deleted files from D. I had never intended to use it except to back up files from C: (using Microsoft Backup.) When I started having problems last year with the lack of support for Win2K (Firefox, flash, etc.) I found the original posting on ryanvm.net about UURollup. I decided to try it, but on another drive that didn't have my current install of W2K. I used DriveImage XML to backup C. I needed to get the computer into Windows XP to back up the files (there is no Volume Shadow Copy service in W2K.) I found the boot CD (which is not warez, by the way) and it created a "mini-XP environment" where I could back up my files to my USB disk drive. I have used DriveImage XML successfully to backup and restore PCs with absolutely no issue. So I felt confident to use it here. I backed up my original W2K installation on Drive C, then restored it to Drive D. I changed the BOOT.INI, as I said, restarted the computer and ran tomasz86's updates to W2K. They ran successfully, and I noticed no problems. I expected some weird things, since the %WINDIR% environment variable was now pointing to D, but perhaps some Registry entries needed drive C. It didn't matter. All of my software ran OK and I was able to update my browser to the latest version (which was important to me.) The only issue I had, as I had said in my first post, was that MSBackup (and another scheduled task, a Registry backup program,) didn't run at their scheduled times. So I manually ran one of them (the Registry backup) with no problem. MSBackup, however, had a problem with my "file permissions." That is the crux of my problem. I am now running W2K on drive C again (with the updates from UURollup,) so there shouldn't be any issues at all with the disk's MBR. @Browncoat, thanks for the info on XXCLONE. What I really want to do, however, is not clone my disk (I can do that now,) but have MSBackup run daily, like it used to do, and backup any changes to my computer (a differential backup.)
  22. I have been having problems with Microsoft Backup on Windows 2000 since running the UURollup update installation: Here is the sequence of events (I have two distinct hard drives on my W2K computer; drive C main boot, drive D alternate boot:) First, I image copied Drive C to my USB hard drive (original W2K install SP4 with all M$ updates) using Drive Image (had to boot into XP using a Boot CD to do it) then, I "restored" the C drive image on top of D drive, which did not have a fully functional W2K install. I made drive D bootable, switched the boot selection to use D as default. I installed UURollupv10d on drive D. I then tested the install extensively for a month (Feb 7 - March 7.) All of my regular functions necessary for my business worked, all CAD/CAM software, and especially, my Internet browser was now up to date!! By March 7th, I felt confident to go back to Drive C and install UURollup there (I had the original image saved, so I wasn't worried.) I changed the boot order back to C drive, by default, then installed all of the updates in the order that they were to be installed, with UURollupv10d being the last one. Everything worked smoothly. But, just as it was on D drive -- I could no longer run Microsoft Backup automatically (Task Scheduler.) If I ran it manually, I got the following error in the log: "You do not have permission to access portions of [folder name.] Please see the owner or administrator to get permission." This error was generated for every folder that I specified to be backed up. The .BKF file that it created was unusable (couldn't restore from it.) It's puzzling how, as Administrator, I cannot backup my system properly using MS Backup. I have tried various changes, trying to run as a "backup user," granting permissions to "all" from the root of C: drive, checked file inheritance permissions, etc. My only (weak) theory for the source of the problem would be that I "restored" C drive onto D drive while running in "XP mode" using the Boot CD (Drive Image won't run under Windows 2000.) Could the file permissions have been changed for the files on the hard drive then? Any ideas, anyone?
  23. @tomasz86 -- OK, I'll go get the UURollup-v11 daily and install it. If that can help me to get Macrium Reflect Free running, then great! I won't have to worry about Microsoft Backup. I'll bet, however, that the Free edition doesn't allow for daily (or differential) backups. I have found that they want you to purchase the software to do that. Unfortunately, on my limited budget, that won't happen ... Thanks for the help. I will probably try the MSFN forum first (regarding the MS Backup file permissions issue) and see if anyone responds with help. GaryMX
  24. @tomasz86 -- I accessed your link for Dropbox; that was easy! The file "Windows2000-UpdateRollup2-x86-ENU.exe" (46.56 MB) is exactly the same as the file that I have archived to my USB hard drive. I downloaded it on 12/19/2012. Did you make changes to this file since then? Everything is working well on my W2K computer, except for the Microsoft Backup. What changes are in v11 of UURollup? Is the function GetFirmWareEnvironmentVariableA included in v11's KERNEL32.DLL? That function is in Wild Bill's BWC kernel, from what I have read. Can I install v11 of UURollup right over v10d, without uninstalling it? I read on one of the forums that you can run Adobe Reader v10 or v11 directly by copying the files from a computer that has it to the W2K computer. I am a bit skeptical of that, as I just installed v11 on my XP computer and it makes several changes to the Registry. I am going to try using your AcrobatReader_Windows2000.7z file from Dropbox. Regarding Microsoft Backup: here is the sequence of events (I have two distinct hard drives on my W2K computer; drive C main boot, drive D alternate boot) I image copied Drive C to my USB hard drive using Drive Image (had to boot into XP using Hiren's Boot CD to do it) then, I "restored" the C drive image on top of D drive, which did not have a fully functional W2K install. I made drive D bootable, switched the boot selection to use D as default. I installed all of your updates including UURollup on drive D. I then tested the install extensively for a month (Feb 7 - March 7.) All of my regular functions necessary for my business worked, all CAD/CAM software, and especially, my Internet browser was now up to date!! By March 7th, I felt confident to go back to Drive C and install UURollup there (I had the original image saved, so I wasn't worried.) The reason for this was my Add/Remove programs list would not show, running on Drive D. Maybe a bug because they were installed on drive C, and my running operating system was on drive D! I changed the boot order back to C drive, by default, then installed all of the updates in the order that they were to be installed, with UURollup v10d being the last one. I noticed the Add/Remove programs list was back; I had minor issues with some of the icons (fixed it); updated the browser. Everything else worked smoothly. But one issue carried over from D drive -- I could no longer run Microsoft Backup automatically (Task Scheduler.) If I ran it manually, I got the error in the log as I said in the previous post. Both D and C drives gave me this error, regardless of where I booted. It's puzzling how, as Administrator, I cannot have permission to "access portions of [folder name.] As I said before, I went through Microsoft forums, including MSDN, with no answers. I'll probably post this on a Microsoft forum if no one here has any suggestions as to how to fix this. I have one more (wild) theory -- is it perhaps because I "restored" the drive image to Drive D while running Windows XP (instead of W2K,) is it possible that the NTFS file permissions changed because I was running XP? Just a wild theory .. Thanks for your prompt replies! GaryMX
  25. I finally found your link to your SkyDrive account in the RyanVM.net Discussion Board: (Your SkyDrive account) When I click on the Windows blue box (296 files!) I see a bunch of numbered boxes (assuming files.) I still can't locate the UURollup v11 latest versions. Another question about UURollup: I noticed that I can't update Adobe Reader 9.5 to v 10 (or later) as it "knows" that I am not running XP. Some other programs warn me that "this update may not work, but do you want to continue anyway?" and I click yes. No problems there. Is there no way to fool the Adobe Reader update program to allow me to update the Reader to a newer version? Thanks. GaryMX

  • Create New...