CLONEXX

  • Thread starter Thread starter null
  • Start date Start date
N

null

A complely redesigned vesrion 2.0 of my CLONEXX program is now up at
my web site. The program no longer requires LOCATE.COM. So I included
the complete freeware XXCOPY distribution in the package.

For those unfamiliar with the program, it shells XXCOPY to clone hard
drive C: to hard drive D: and then perform a cloning verification
check. Additionally, the program now copies all file and subdirectory
attributes (which XXCOPY does not update) and includes them in the
verification check.


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg
 
A complely redesigned vesrion 2.0 of my CLONEXX program is now up at
my web site. The program no longer requires LOCATE.COM. So I included
the complete freeware XXCOPY distribution in the package.

For those unfamiliar with the program, it shells XXCOPY to clone hard
drive C: to hard drive D: and then perform a cloning verification
check. Additionally, the program now copies all file and subdirectory
attributes (which XXCOPY does not update) and includes them in the
verification check.


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg
Click to expand...

Any plans to write to an image file like
Ghost?
 
None at all. I'm interested only in backing up to a bootable hard
drive. At least for the time being :)
Click to expand...

Dang. There seems to be a heap of drive to
drive copiers including the PCInspectors one,
however, not many that make images like Ghost
does. The licensing of Ghost gets rediculous
when you have to image a large number of pcs.
The cdr function of the latest ghost is cool
too for a floppy based util.
 
A complely redesigned vesrion 2.0 of my CLONEXX program is now up at
my web site. The program no longer requires LOCATE.COM. So I included
the complete freeware XXCOPY distribution in the package.

For those unfamiliar with the program, it shells XXCOPY to clone hard
drive C: to hard drive D: and then perform a cloning verification
check. Additionally, the program now copies all file and subdirectory
attributes (which XXCOPY does not update) and includes them in the
verification check.


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg
Click to expand...

Art, I d/l the latest f-pup, and thanks for it. F-Prot is my default
antivirus.

The following regards your webpage notes regarding more stability for
W98.
As on your site, I uninstalled OE yesterday, cold boot today and W98SE
looks fine. I never used OE, so a good move.

Regarding uninstalling IE, a few questions:
Existing is the original IE 4X that is part of W98SE. I had installed IE
5.01SP2 and installed several patches in the early days when MS
supported that combination.

I only use IE 5.01 for those sites that don't accept my default
Netscape/Firebird browser. I expect that need will still exist, as some
site programmers only recognize IE.

IIRC, the installed IE provides files to W98SE that are needed for some
W98SE functions to work (chm files, etc.).

However, and more frequently all the time, I am seeing comments that IE
is considered basically unsafe to use as a default browser. It is not my
default, anyway.

Therefore, is it a good idea to uninstall IE to gain W98 stability, as
on your site?

I'm sure you went through the above before you made the note on the web
page.

Comment?

Thanks,

Mike Sa

To others- not wanting to start a IE flame war, just seeking
information.
 
Art, I d/l the latest f-pup, and thanks for it. F-Prot is my default
antivirus.
Click to expand...

That reminds me. I used to supply a .wgetrc file with F-pup for people
behind firewalls who require passive FTP. I need to do that again. The
file is created in a text editor as:

"passive_ftp = on"

Save as .WGETRC and keep in the F-Prot folder along with FP-UP
The following regards your webpage notes regarding more stability for
W98.
As on your site, I uninstalled OE yesterday, cold boot today and W98SE
looks fine. I never used OE, so a good move.
Click to expand...

An excellent move!
Regarding uninstalling IE, a few questions:
Existing is the original IE 4X that is part of W98SE. I had installed IE
5.01SP2 and installed several patches in the early days when MS
supported that combination.

I only use IE 5.01 for those sites that don't accept my default
Netscape/Firebird browser. I expect that need will still exist, as some
site programmers only recognize IE.
Click to expand...

Well, my own attitude about that is to boycott those sites, and also
bocott all software that depends on having IE installed. I don't need
any of that nonsense and I refuse to play the game :)

Many of us don't miss not having IE installed one bit. The Moz based
browsers have come a long way.
IIRC, the installed IE provides files to W98SE that are needed for some
W98SE functions to work (chm files, etc.).
Click to expand...

I eradicated IE (and OE) from my previous Win 98 original many years
ago and never missed them one bit. More recently, I'm using Win ME
with those eradicated and it's the same thing. No blue screens, no
problems. Extremely stable!
However, and more frequently all the time, I am seeing comments that IE
is considered basically unsafe to use as a default browser. It is not my
default, anyway.
Click to expand...

It's basically unsafe period :)
Therefore, is it a good idea to uninstall IE to gain W98 stability, as
on your site?
Click to expand...

Not just stability, but you gain memory which was wasted on IE, and
which you can put to far better use to keep a part of Mozilla in
memory for faster loading.
I'm sure you went through the above before you made the note on the web
page.
Click to expand...

Soytenly! :) Futhermore, you'll find that you have practically no use
any more for Spybot and AdAware and antivirus scanners (assuming
you've done the other things I suggest at my web site as well). No
need for a firewall either. I sometimes wonder why I keep scanners
around and updated since they NEVER find anything at all. Seriously,
all the fuss over malware has become a joke to me any more. It's so
easy to just say NO :)

Of course, I do keep KAVDOS32, Trojan_Finder, and other utils and
scanners on tap for use before I backup to my cloned drive ... just in
case. Some day when Moz really wins the browser wars, security by
obscurity will no longer be a factor and the bad guys will be aiming
at Moz vulnerabilities. But it seems we're a long way yet from any
concerns.


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg
 
Well, my own attitude about that is to boycott those sites, and also
bocott all software that depends on having IE installed. I don't need
any of that nonsense and I refuse to play the game :)
Click to expand...

I noticed that in a recent hotfix's for MS Windows/IE
that an expliot exists in IE that you don't even need
to be browsing the www with IE at the time to get
hacked according to the MS warning message. As we all
know, that it's extremely difficult (although posibble)
to erradicate IE from Windows, so this kinda sucks.

Symantec Anti-virus relies heavily on IE working
correctly, when it doesn't, SAV can't even run. A
great piece of software, that unfortunately has been
tied to IE 'technology', damit.
 
I noticed that in a recent hotfix's for MS Windows/IE
that an expliot exists in IE that you don't even need
to be browsing the www with IE at the time to get
hacked according to the MS warning message. As we all
know, that it's extremely difficult (although posibble)
to erradicate IE from Windows, so this kinda sucks.
Click to expand...

So far I know, if you've used IEradicator you're ok. Certainly not all
portions of IE are (or can be) removed. But I don't think there's any
concern with IE vulnerabilities after using IEradicator. I'm looking
forward to the promised new IEradicator which they claim will be even
more thorough.
Symantec Anti-virus relies heavily on IE working
correctly, when it doesn't, SAV can't even run. A
great piece of software, that unfortunately has been
tied to IE 'technology', damit.
Click to expand...

It's ironic that a ANTI-virus product depends on IE. It's absurd,
actually. Just as crazy are those web based antivirus scanners that
require IE set to low security :(

Of course, you'll get arguments from many people on your "great piece
of software" assertion :) I've never bothered to take a look at it
myself. The only GUI version scanners I'd consider (if I wanted
realtime scanning for some specific purpose) would be KAV and those
products which use the KAV scan engine such as F-Secure.


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg
 
Back
Top