- Defrag ME Version vs Defrag
- Posted by sg on July 6th, 2003
I downloaded an ME version of the defragmenter (the posting said it
ran much faster than the stock version) and sure enough it does. I'm
curious what the difference between the two versions is and if there
is any reason that I might want to use the stock instead of the ME.
Thanks for any info.
- Posted by George \(Bindar Dundat\) on July 6th, 2003
You are better off using the ME version. It was written for the FAT 32 file
system and will greatly out-perform the one included as part of Win 98.
--
George (Bindar Dundat)
This information is provided "AS IS"
It may even be wrong!
http://www.microsoft.com/security/articles/spam.asp
"sg" <sasguy393@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9b8922de.0307051602.441e65a2@posting.google.c om...
| I downloaded an ME version of the defragmenter (the posting said it
| ran much faster than the stock version) and sure enough it does. I'm
| curious what the difference between the two versions is and if there
| is any reason that I might want to use the stock instead of the ME.
|
| Thanks for any info.
- Posted by PCR on July 6th, 2003
They all say it's great. However, I am quite pleased with the native Win98
version. It will run in, say,-- damn it,-- OK, 25 minutes max. I guess I just
feel it's doing more work, if it takes longer.
1. Turn off screen saver (R-Clk Desktop, Properties, Screen Saver-- None)
2. Turn off power management (Control Panel, Power Management-- Always
On,Never,Never,Never)
3. Disable any permanent internet cable connection, perhaps.
4. Suspend Task Scheduler
5. Turn off interfering programs. Use "StartupCop" or "EndItAll2" from PCMag
(below). Or "START, Run, MSConfig, Startup tab". Note what is unchecked.
Then, go to the General tab & disable the entire Startup Group, by clicking
"Selective.." & unchecking "Load Startup...". Reboot. Don't forget to re-enable
before the next boot. Also, Ctrl-Alt-Del & end task all but Explorer & Systray.
6. "START, Programs, Accessories, System Tools, Disk Cleanup", or use "HDValet"
from PCMag. (But I don't like the noises of Disk Cleanup.)
7. Run Scandisk (Thorough, usually w/o write testing. Check all three items
under "Scandisk, Advanced button, 'Check files for' box". If you want to be
informed as it does a fix, UNcheck "Automatically fix errors" on the front
screen, or look inside "C:\Scandisk.log" afterwards.)
8. "START, Run, Defrag /p /details". Apparently, "/p" Defrags the unmovables.
The purpose of steps 1-5 is only to prevent constant restarts of Scandisk &
Defrag, if you get them; but DEFINITELY turn off the Virus Scanner. Scandisk
should be done perhaps once a month, and certainly after every serious crash.
Do a Defrag after a sluggish boot or when this says so:
http://www.pcmag.com/ 's CrackUp, by Gregory A. Wolking & Bob Flanders. Also,
take DiskAction, to determine what is constantly writing to the HDD, which
causes the restarts. Take BHOCop & StartupCop too.
"DiskAction" reports the last 12 processes that access any partition. It
discovered the MS Critical Update Notifier Tool was accessing my HDD every five
minutes. It can be uninstalled in "Control Panel, Add/Remove Programs". Then,
occasionally, "START, Windows Update" on your own.
"BHOCop" found a Browser Helper Object called Wavehelper Class, created by
"Wavetop", that was building a monstrosity of an error log called "Logit.txt" in
here.
Now, my hard drive is quieter than my mouse.
--
Thanks & Good Luck,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"sg" <sasguy393@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9b8922de.0307051602.441e65a2@posting.google.c om...
| I downloaded an ME version of the defragmenter (the posting said it
| ran much faster than the stock version) and sure enough it does. I'm
| curious what the difference between the two versions is and if there
| is any reason that I might want to use the stock instead of the ME.
|
| Thanks for any info.
- Posted by Bill in Co on July 6th, 2003
It's doing more work alright - always checking (presumably) for FAT16, and
wasting *a lot of* time doing so. BIG difference in speed. 25 minutes????
You've GOTTA be kidding! Forget it!
PCR wrote:
- Posted by PCR on July 6th, 2003
Well... I don't know... someday I may switch, then. You do know it is quite
illegal to use the WinME Defragger in Win98, though? Harper said so, & Terhune!
--
Thanks & Good Luck,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"Bill in Co" <none@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uUkJ%23R4QDHA.2128@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| It's doing more work alright - always checking (presumably) for FAT16, and
| wasting *a lot of* time doing so. BIG difference in speed. 25 minutes????
| You've GOTTA be kidding! Forget it!
|
| PCR wrote:
| > They all say it's great. However, I am quite pleased with the native Win98
| > version. It will run in, say,-- damn it,-- OK, 25 minutes max. I guess I
just
| > feel it's doing more work, if it takes longer.
| >
| > 1. Turn off screen saver (R-Clk Desktop, Properties, Screen Saver-- None)
| > 2. Turn off power management (Control Panel, Power Management-- Always
| > On,Never,Never,Never)
| > 3. Disable any permanent internet cable connection, perhaps.
| > 4. Suspend Task Scheduler
| > 5. Turn off interfering programs. Use "StartupCop" or "EndItAll2" from PCMag
| > (below). Or "START, Run, MSConfig, Startup tab". Note what is unchecked.
| > Then, go to the General tab & disable the entire Startup Group, by clicking
| > "Selective.." & unchecking "Load Startup...". Reboot. Don't forget to
| re-enable
| > before the next boot. Also, Ctrl-Alt-Del & end task all but Explorer &
| Systray.
| > 6. "START, Programs, Accessories, System Tools, Disk Cleanup", or use
| "HDValet"
| > from PCMag. (But I don't like the noises of Disk Cleanup.)
| > 7. Run Scandisk (Thorough, usually w/o write testing. Check all three items
| > under "Scandisk, Advanced button, 'Check files for' box". If you want to be
| > informed as it does a fix, UNcheck "Automatically fix errors" on the front
| > screen, or look inside "C:\Scandisk.log" afterwards.)
| > 8. "START, Run, Defrag /p /details". Apparently, "/p" Defrags the
unmovables.
| >
| > The purpose of steps 1-5 is only to prevent constant restarts of Scandisk &
| > Defrag, if you get them; but DEFINITELY turn off the Virus Scanner. Scandisk
| > should be done perhaps once a month, and certainly after every serious
crash.
| > Do a Defrag after a sluggish boot or when this says so:
| > http://www.pcmag.com/ 's CrackUp, by Gregory A. Wolking & Bob Flanders.
Also,
| > take DiskAction, to determine what is constantly writing to the HDD, which
| > causes the restarts. Take BHOCop & StartupCop too.
| >
| > "DiskAction" reports the last 12 processes that access any partition. It
| > discovered the MS Critical Update Notifier Tool was accessing my HDD every
| five
| > minutes. It can be uninstalled in "Control Panel, Add/Remove Programs".
Then,
| > occasionally, "START, Windows Update" on your own.
| >
| > "BHOCop" found a Browser Helper Object called Wavehelper Class, created by
| > "Wavetop", that was building a monstrosity of an error log called
"Logit.txt"
| in
| > here.
| >
| > Now, my hard drive is quieter than my mouse.
| >
| > --
| > Thanks & Good Luck,
| > Naturally, you will not sue,
| > should things get worse after this,
| > PCR
| > pcrrcp@netzero.net
| > "sg" <sasguy393@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:9b8922de.0307051602.441e65a2@posting.google.c om...
| >> I downloaded an ME version of the defragmenter (the posting said it
| >> ran much faster than the stock version) and sure enough it does. I'm
| >> curious what the difference between the two versions is and if there
| >> is any reason that I might want to use the stock instead of the ME.
| >>
| >> Thanks for any info.
|
|
- Posted by Gary S. Terhune on July 6th, 2003
It's illegal to use any licensed software outside of the parameters of its
license. In the U.S.A., anyway.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP for Windows 9x
http://www.dts-l.org
http://www.mvps.org
http://www.aumha.org
"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:ePQEMp4QDHA.2332@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
- Posted by PCR on July 6th, 2003
Arrest that man! And don't worry, Colorado. There computers in prison.
--
Thanks & Good Luck,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:eGtdt04QDHA.1560@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| It's illegal to use any licensed software outside of the parameters of its
| license. In the U.S.A., anyway.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS MVP for Windows 9x
| http://www.dts-l.org
| http://www.mvps.org
| http://www.aumha.org
|
| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:ePQEMp4QDHA.2332@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > Well... I don't know... someday I may switch, then. You do know it is quite
| > illegal to use the WinME Defragger in Win98, though? Harper said so, &
| Terhune!
| >
| > --
| > Thanks & Good Luck,
| > Naturally, you will not sue,
| > should things get worse after this,
| > PCR
| > pcrrcp@netzero.net
| > "Bill in Co" <none@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| > news:uUkJ%23R4QDHA.2128@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| > | It's doing more work alright - always checking (presumably) for FAT16, and
| > | wasting *a lot of* time doing so. BIG difference in speed. 25
| minutes????
| > | You've GOTTA be kidding! Forget it!
....snip
- Posted by PCR on July 6th, 2003
Siberia it is. But don't worry. There are ovens & computers in prison.
--
Thanks & Good Luck,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"Bill in Co" <none@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%23ABdlJ5QDHA.2204@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| I know I have gotten a ticket before, so I guess I must have done something
| illegal in my life. Please, banish me to Siberia, post haste. The rest of
| you can stay here.
|
| PCR wrote:
| > Well... I don't know... someday I may switch, then. You do know it is quite
| > illegal to use the WinME Defragger in Win98, though? Harper said so, &
| Terhune!
| >
| > --
| > Thanks & Good Luck,
| > Naturally, you will not sue,
| > should things get worse after this,
| > PCR
| > pcrrcp@netzero.net
| > "Bill in Co" <none@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| > news:uUkJ%23R4QDHA.2128@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| >> It's doing more work alright - always checking (presumably) for FAT16, and
| >> wasting *a lot of* time doing so. BIG difference in speed. 25
| minutes????
| >> You've GOTTA be kidding! Forget it!
....snip
- Posted by sg on July 6th, 2003
It appears that one must register with PC Mag, and pay fees, to
download the Crackup software. Am I correct in this? If so, is there
any freeware that does the same function?
- Posted by Rick Chauvin on July 6th, 2003
"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:u#rywH4QDHA.2460@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl
That's may apply somehow in sex, but not with defrag and is a fallacy; I
like things natively stock too, but ME's defrag gui looks identical but
it's almost twice as efficient and fast - it's code was optimized is all.
....Once you try it you will never return, trust me on this one -
Rick
- Posted by George \(Bindar Dundat\) on July 6th, 2003
And I have yet to hear of anyone being prosecuted for using it. When it first
started being posted as a fix, several sites were *asked* by Microsoft to remove
it from the available downloads. Even that did not last long and I think that
Microsoft sees the wisdom in using it with Win 98 (FAT32 only) so is just
ignoring it now.
--
George (Bindar Dundat)
This information is provided "AS IS"
It may even be wrong!
http://www.microsoft.com/security/articles/spam.asp
"Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
news:OjQRp88QDHA.1024@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:u#rywH4QDHA.2460@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl
|
| > guess I just feel it's doing more work, if it takes longer.
|
|
| That's may apply somehow in sex, but not with defrag and is a fallacy; I
| like things natively stock too, but ME's defrag gui looks identical but
| it's almost twice as efficient and fast - it's code was optimized is all.
| ...Once you try it you will never return, trust me on this one -
|
| Rick
|
|
- Posted by PCR on July 6th, 2003
Practice your Russian, BoB. Practice your Russian, & buy a fur coat!
--
Thanks & Good Luck,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"BoB" <rhoward30@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:u1bggvskn7cjk50vv6ccjg1dpvu7561svu@4ax.com...
| MS software that actually works is automatically a collectors item. :-)
|
| BoB
|
|
| On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 01:44:10 -0600, "Bill in Co" <none@earthlink.net>
| wrote:
|
| >I know I have gotten a ticket before, so I guess I must have done something
| >illegal in my life. Please, banish me to Siberia, post haste. The rest of
| >you can stay here.
| >
| >PCR wrote:
| >> Well... I don't know... someday I may switch, then. You do know it is quite
| >> illegal to use the WinME Defragger in Win98, though? Harper said so, &
| >Terhune!
|
- Posted by PCR on July 6th, 2003
SCANDSKW.EXE
ScanDisk for Windows
Loc: C:\WINDOWS
Mod: Friday, April 23, 1999 10:22:00 PM
Size: 4,896 bytes
Ver: 4.70.1998
That is Win98SE native. As you can see, it is a higher version than you report.
I suppose WinME has no Scandisk.exe, which is DOS only.
Chauvin, I know nothing of sex. Don't get me thrown into prison, now, too.
--
Thanks & Good Luck,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"George (Bindar Dundat)" <JustMe@nothome.net> wrote in message
news:OA1%23139QDHA.1024@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| I used to recommend replacing Scandskw as well Rick and for some reason I quit
| doing that. I don't think I saw a noticeable difference between the two and
now
| I even have to look to see if there was a difference in the version numbers or
| not. As soon as I typed that I did a fast check. My system *should* have the
| ME version on it and the version number that shows is 4.10.1998. Now when I
get
| a chance I will check an ME disk and make sure that it is the same as the one
in
| the CAB files.
|
| --
| George (Bindar Dundat)
| This information is provided "AS IS"
| It may even be wrong!
| http://www.microsoft.com/security/articles/spam.asp
| "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
| news:OYxYkm9QDHA.712@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| | "George (Bindar Dundat)" <JustMe@nothome.net> wrote in message
| | news:uG5B7R9QDHA.712@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
| | > And I have yet to hear of anyone being prosecuted for using it. When it
| | > first started being posted as a fix, several sites were *asked* by
| | > Microsoft to remove it from the available downloads. Even that did not
| | > last long and I think that Microsoft sees the wisdom in using it with
| | > Win 98 (FAT32 only) so is just ignoring it now.
| | >
| |
| | Yes right, I thinks it's fine if not scrutinizing the letter of the law...
| | no biggy in the scheme of things.
| |
| | You know ME Scandisk is different too. It's been 2 years since I placed
| | them both on this box, Defrag is easy to notice but there was a benefit
| | with Scandisk too although not as noticeable, but I just can't remember the
| | details and can't find my notes - and my brain is on hold today I
| | uess -
| |
| | Rick
| |
| |
| |
| | > --
| | > George (Bindar Dundat)
| | > This information is provided "AS IS"
| | > It may even be wrong!
| | > http://www.microsoft.com/security/articles/spam.asp
| | > "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
| | > news:OjQRp88QDHA.1024@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| | >| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| | >| news:u#rywH4QDHA.2460@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl
| | >|
| | >| > guess I just feel it's doing more work, if it takes longer.
| | >|
| | >|
| | >| That's may apply somehow in sex, but not with defrag and is a fallacy; I
| | >| like things natively stock too, but ME's defrag gui looks identical but
| | >| it's almost twice as efficient and fast - it's code was optimized is
| | >| all. ...Once you try it you will never return, trust me on this one -
| | >|
| | >| Rick
| |
| |
|
- Posted by Rick Chauvin on July 6th, 2003
"George (Bindar Dundat)" <JustMe@nothome.net> wrote in message
news:OA1#139QDHA.1024@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
I've got the ME files here George including cabview, target, msconfig...
but that's all another subject but nevertheless more positive results were
always indicated, but back to the subject - copy/paste from print folder:
W98ME files:
defrag.exe 209 KB - 6/8/2000 5:00 PM v4.90.3000
scandisk.exe 240 KB - 6/8/2000 5:00 PM
scandisk.ini 8 KB - 6/8/2000 5:00 PM
scandskw.exe 5 KB - 6/8/2000 5:00 PM v4.90.3000
W98SE files
defrag.exe 249 KB - 4/23/1999 10:22 PM v4.70.1998
scandisk.exe 141 KB - 4/23/1999 10:22 PM
scandisk.ini 8 KB - 4/23/1999 10:22 PM
scandskw.exe 5 KB - 4/23/1999 10:22 PM v4.70.1998
W98FE files
defrag.exe 249 KB - 5/11/1998 7:01: PM 4.70.1998
scandisk.exe 141 KB - 5/11/1998 7:01: PM
scandisk.ini 8 KB - 5/11/1998 7:01: PM
scandskw.exe 5 KB - 5/11/1998 7:01: PM 4.70.1998
Rick
- Posted by George \(Bindar Dundat\) on July 6th, 2003
Thanks Rick That means that someplace along the way I screwed up an
installation file (another story) and will straighten it out later today.
--
George (Bindar Dundat)
This information is provided "AS IS"
It may even be wrong!
http://www.microsoft.com/security/articles/spam.asp
"Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
news:ubyNg5$QDHA.2204@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| "George (Bindar Dundat)" <JustMe@nothome.net> wrote in message
| news:OA1#139QDHA.1024@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
| > I used to recommend replacing Scandskw as well Rick and for some reason
| > I quit doing that. I don't think I saw a noticeable difference between
| > the two and now I even have to look to see if there was a difference in
| > the version numbers or not. As soon as I typed that I did a fast check.
| > My system *should* have the ME version on it and the version number that
| > shows is 4.10.1998. Now when I get a chance I will check an ME disk and
| > make sure that it is the same as the one in the CAB files.
| >
|
| I've got the ME files here George including cabview, target, msconfig...
| but that's all another subject but nevertheless more positive results were
| always indicated, but back to the subject - copy/paste from print folder:
|
| W98ME files:
| defrag.exe 209 KB - 6/8/2000 5:00 PM v4.90.3000
| scandisk.exe 240 KB - 6/8/2000 5:00 PM
| scandisk.ini 8 KB - 6/8/2000 5:00 PM
| scandskw.exe 5 KB - 6/8/2000 5:00 PM v4.90.3000
|
| W98SE files
| defrag.exe 249 KB - 4/23/1999 10:22 PM v4.70.1998
| scandisk.exe 141 KB - 4/23/1999 10:22 PM
| scandisk.ini 8 KB - 4/23/1999 10:22 PM
| scandskw.exe 5 KB - 4/23/1999 10:22 PM v4.70.1998
|
| W98FE files
| defrag.exe 249 KB - 5/11/1998 7:01: PM 4.70.1998
| scandisk.exe 141 KB - 5/11/1998 7:01: PM
| scandisk.ini 8 KB - 5/11/1998 7:01: PM
| scandskw.exe 5 KB - 5/11/1998 7:01: PM 4.70.1998
|
| Rick
|
|
| > --
| > George (Bindar Dundat)
| > This information is provided "AS IS"
| > It may even be wrong!
| > http://www.microsoft.com/security/articles/spam.asp
| > "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
| > news:OYxYkm9QDHA.712@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| >| "George (Bindar Dundat)" <JustMe@nothome.net> wrote in message
| >| news:uG5B7R9QDHA.712@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
| >| > And I have yet to hear of anyone being prosecuted for using it. When
| >| > it first started being posted as a fix, several sites were *asked* by
|
| >| > Microsoft to remove it from the available downloads. Even that did
| >| > not last long and I think that Microsoft sees the wisdom in using it
| >| > with
| >| > Win 98 (FAT32 only) so is just ignoring it now.
| >| >
| >|
| >| Yes right, I thinks it's fine if not scrutinizing the letter of the
| >| law...
| >| no biggy in the scheme of things.
| >|
| >| You know ME Scandisk is different too. It's been 2 years since I placed
| >| them both on this box, Defrag is easy to notice but there was a benefit
| >| with Scandisk too although not as noticeable, but I just can't remember
| >| the details and can't find my notes - and my brain is on hold today I
| >| uess -
| >|
| >| Rick
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >| > --
| >| > George (Bindar Dundat)
| >| > This information is provided "AS IS"
| >| > It may even be wrong!
| >| > http://www.microsoft.com/security/articles/spam.asp
| >| > "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
| >| > news:OjQRp88QDHA.1024@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| >| >| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| >| >| news:u#rywH4QDHA.2460@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl
| >| >|
| >| >| > guess I just feel it's doing more work, if it takes longer.
| >| >|
| >| >|
| >| >| That's may apply somehow in sex, but not with defrag and is a
| >| >| fallacy; I like things natively stock too, but ME's defrag gui looks
| >| >| identical but it's almost twice as efficient and fast - it's code
| >| >| was optimized is
| >| >| all. ...Once you try it you will never return, trust me on this one
| >| >| -
| >| >|
| >| >| Rick
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Posted by George \(Bindar Dundat\) on July 7th, 2003
All straightened out and the versions now match correctly in both Windows and
the backup folder.
--
George (Bindar Dundat)
This information is provided "AS IS"
It may even be wrong!
http://www.microsoft.com/security/articles/spam.asp
"George (Bindar Dundat)" <JustMe@nothome.net> wrote in message
news:%23z2Ns8$QDHA.1988@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| Thanks Rick That means that someplace along the way I screwed up an
| installation file (another story) and will straighten it out later today.
|
| --
| George (Bindar Dundat)
| This information is provided "AS IS"
| It may even be wrong!
| http://www.microsoft.com/security/articles/spam.asp
| "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
| news:ubyNg5$QDHA.2204@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| | "George (Bindar Dundat)" <JustMe@nothome.net> wrote in message
| | news:OA1#139QDHA.1024@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
| | > I used to recommend replacing Scandskw as well Rick and for some reason
| | > I quit doing that. I don't think I saw a noticeable difference between
| | > the two and now I even have to look to see if there was a difference in
| | > the version numbers or not. As soon as I typed that I did a fast check.
| | > My system *should* have the ME version on it and the version number that
| | > shows is 4.10.1998. Now when I get a chance I will check an ME disk and
| | > make sure that it is the same as the one in the CAB files.
| | >
| |
| | I've got the ME files here George including cabview, target, msconfig...
| | but that's all another subject but nevertheless more positive results were
| | always indicated, but back to the subject - copy/paste from print folder:
| |
| | W98ME files:
| | defrag.exe 209 KB - 6/8/2000 5:00 PM v4.90.3000
| | scandisk.exe 240 KB - 6/8/2000 5:00 PM
| | scandisk.ini 8 KB - 6/8/2000 5:00 PM
| | scandskw.exe 5 KB - 6/8/2000 5:00 PM v4.90.3000
| |
| | W98SE files
| | defrag.exe 249 KB - 4/23/1999 10:22 PM v4.70.1998
| | scandisk.exe 141 KB - 4/23/1999 10:22 PM
| | scandisk.ini 8 KB - 4/23/1999 10:22 PM
| | scandskw.exe 5 KB - 4/23/1999 10:22 PM v4.70.1998
| |
| | W98FE files
| | defrag.exe 249 KB - 5/11/1998 7:01: PM 4.70.1998
| | scandisk.exe 141 KB - 5/11/1998 7:01: PM
| | scandisk.ini 8 KB - 5/11/1998 7:01: PM
| | scandskw.exe 5 KB - 5/11/1998 7:01: PM 4.70.1998
| |
| | Rick
| |
| |
| | > --
| | > George (Bindar Dundat)
| | > This information is provided "AS IS"
| | > It may even be wrong!
| | > http://www.microsoft.com/security/articles/spam.asp
| | > "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
| | > news:OYxYkm9QDHA.712@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| | >| "George (Bindar Dundat)" <JustMe@nothome.net> wrote in message
| | >| news:uG5B7R9QDHA.712@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
| | >| > And I have yet to hear of anyone being prosecuted for using it. When
| | >| > it first started being posted as a fix, several sites were *asked* by
| |
| | >| > Microsoft to remove it from the available downloads. Even that did
| | >| > not last long and I think that Microsoft sees the wisdom in using it
| | >| > with
| | >| > Win 98 (FAT32 only) so is just ignoring it now.
| | >| >
| | >|
| | >| Yes right, I thinks it's fine if not scrutinizing the letter of the
| | >| law...
| | >| no biggy in the scheme of things.
| | >|
| | >| You know ME Scandisk is different too. It's been 2 years since I placed
| | >| them both on this box, Defrag is easy to notice but there was a benefit
| | >| with Scandisk too although not as noticeable, but I just can't remember
| | >| the details and can't find my notes - and my brain is on hold today I
| | >| uess -
| | >|
| | >| Rick
| | >|
| | >|
| | >|
| | >| > --
| | >| > George (Bindar Dundat)
| | >| > This information is provided "AS IS"
| | >| > It may even be wrong!
| | >| > http://www.microsoft.com/security/articles/spam.asp
| | >| > "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
| | >| > news:OjQRp88QDHA.1024@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| | >| >| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| | >| >| news:u#rywH4QDHA.2460@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl
| | >| >|
| | >| >| > guess I just feel it's doing more work, if it takes longer.
| | >| >|
| | >| >|
| | >| >| That's may apply somehow in sex, but not with defrag and is a
| | >| >| fallacy; I like things natively stock too, but ME's defrag gui looks
| | >| >| identical but it's almost twice as efficient and fast - it's code
| | >| >| was optimized is
| | >| >| all. ...Once you try it you will never return, trust me on this one
| | >| >| -
| | >| >|
| | >| >| Rick
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
- Posted by PCR on July 7th, 2003
Very well, then. We are square.
--
Thanks & Good Luck,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
news:e6fZCjARDHA.3796@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:eLRtK3$QDHA.1560@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
|
| > Chauvin, I know nothing of sex. Don't get me thrown into prison,
now,
| > too.
| >
|
| ..it was a Freudian slip sometimes I have weak moments and things come
from
| my mouth, but always in positive fun -
|
| nite,
| Rick
|
|
|
- Posted by Bill in Co on July 7th, 2003
Just to let you know, PCR, if I ever here of you downloading that ME defragger,
I'm gonna tell the RIAA, and then you will be in BIG trouble! Cause they'll
come after ya, and probably confiscate your computer and internet connection!
PCR wrote:
- Posted by George \(Bindar Dundat\) on July 7th, 2003
They might even take his moniker away.
--
George (Bindar Dundat)
This information is provided "AS IS"
It may even be wrong!
http://www.microsoft.com/security/articles/spam.asp
"Bill in Co" <none@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%2341I2GLRDHA.1624@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| Just to let you know, PCR, if I ever here of you downloading that ME
defragger,
| I'm gonna tell the RIAA, and then you will be in BIG trouble! Cause they'll
| come after ya, and probably confiscate your computer and internet connection!
|
| PCR wrote:
| > Very well, then. We are square.
| >
| > --
| > Thanks & Good Luck,
| > Naturally, you will not sue,
| > should things get worse after this,
| > PCR
| > pcrrcp@netzero.net
| > "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
| > news:e6fZCjARDHA.3796@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| >> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| >> news:eLRtK3$QDHA.1560@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
| >>
| >>> Chauvin, I know nothing of sex. Don't get me thrown into prison, now,
| >>> too.
| >>>
| >>
| >> ..it was a Freudian slip sometimes I have weak moments and things come from
| >> my mouth, but always in positive fun -
| >>
| >> nite,
| >> Rick
|
|
- Posted by PCR on July 7th, 2003
I am not the proven brigand in this thread, you two! In fact, I alone am
innocent of any known crime here, unless Chauvin really does know
something. Now, he is known to be, uh, let us rambling in his language.
He might be talking about something altogether different! So, go away,
go away... I'm sure Bear wants this thread to end!
--
Thanks & Good Luck,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"George (Bindar Dundat)" <JustMe@nothome.net> wrote in message
news:%23vj7gTLRDHA.2148@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| They might even take his moniker away.
|
| --
| George (Bindar Dundat)
| This information is provided "AS IS"
| It may even be wrong!
| http://www.microsoft.com/security/articles/spam.asp
| "Bill in Co" <none@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| news:%2341I2GLRDHA.1624@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| | Just to let you know, PCR, if I ever here of you downloading that ME
| defragger,
| | I'm gonna tell the RIAA, and then you will be in BIG trouble! Cause
they'll
| | come after ya, and probably confiscate your computer and internet
connection!
| |
| | PCR wrote:
| | > Very well, then. We are square.
| | >
| | > --
| | > Thanks & Good Luck,
| | > Naturally, you will not sue,
| | > should things get worse after this,
| | > PCR
| | > pcrrcp@netzero.net
| | > "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
| | > news:e6fZCjARDHA.3796@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| | >> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| | >> news:eLRtK3$QDHA.1560@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
| | >>
| | >>> Chauvin, I know nothing of sex. Don't get me thrown into prison,
now,
| | >>> too.
| | >>>
| | >>
| | >> ..it was a Freudian slip sometimes I have weak moments and things
come from
| | >> my mouth, but always in positive fun -
| | >>
| | >> nite,
| | >> Rick
| |
| |
|
