Major issues with sharing violation error messages all the time!

  • Thread starter Thread starter StargateFan
  • Start date Start date
S

StargateFan

I very often can't edit or move files/folders without getting a
sharing violation message!

I have a collection of MP3s, for example. I have a program that
allows me to change the ID3 tags very easily via a context menu tab
addition. This system worked with not one hitch in Win98SE for 6
years! I attempt to change tags now and this rarely works. I've
since installed another tag editor thinking it might be the app itself
giving me problems but no such thing! This tag editor has a message
column and 9 out of 10 times it shows an error message in that box
saying it couldn't change tag as file was in use!!! It was not in use
by _me_, but by Windows for Pete's sake!

I just bought an mp3 player so I'm moving MP3 files off of my back-up
CDs all the time after which, as always, I remove the read-only
attribute. So due to the slightly higher volume of files I'm working
with, the error messages are happening with much greater frequency
than before and it's becoming a very serious problem. When I first
copy the MP3, it might allow me to change filename and tag. As the
original info is often too long and my mp3 portable player is a
1"-square block and so the display is very small, I am constantly
trying to shorten names and tags! But Win2K is forever giving me
problems and doesn't allow me to do either.

I've looked and looked through the internet archives of this ng but
there isn't much info re this problem and none of the solutions
offered have helped! I changed windows to classic view, for example,
nothing. Dl Process Explorer and that was no help at all. Etc., etc.
If there was an app that showed file extensions and the accompanying
process keeping a hold of it along with the option to kill that
process, _that_ would be the only thing that would help. Or stopping
this Win2K behaviour to begin with! I'm the administrator of my home
computer, for crying out loud! I should be the one to decide, as I
did for 6 years, what I want to do with my files!! <g>

Can someone pls help? I'm new to maintaining my own Win2K at home so
I'm not very knowledgeable yet but just know I can't keep having these
problems! I was forced to upgrade to Win2K, however, because a couple
of new programs I need have a minimum requirement of Win2K. But I'm
getting so darned frustrated with all the glitches in this OS that I'm
ready to return to Win98SE for daily use and installing Win2K in a
small partition for just those other apps I need. But what a complete
drag if I have to go that route! But I have too many annoyances like
this creeping up with Win2K (despite sp 4!).

Hope someone knows a definitive and workable daily solution to this
sharing violation thing that keeps coming up and I thank anyone in
advance for it! :oD
 
A couple of things. Was this an upgrade? Also you mention the pc ran win9x
for years. This suggests the hardware is rather old and as such may be under
powered.

--

Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

:
|I very often can't edit or move files/folders without getting a
| sharing violation message!
|
| I have a collection of MP3s, for example. I have a program that
| allows me to change the ID3 tags very easily via a context menu tab
| addition. This system worked with not one hitch in Win98SE for 6
| years! I attempt to change tags now and this rarely works. I've
| since installed another tag editor thinking it might be the app itself
| giving me problems but no such thing! This tag editor has a message
| column and 9 out of 10 times it shows an error message in that box
| saying it couldn't change tag as file was in use!!! It was not in use
| by _me_, but by Windows for Pete's sake!
|
| I just bought an mp3 player so I'm moving MP3 files off of my back-up
| CDs all the time after which, as always, I remove the read-only
| attribute. So due to the slightly higher volume of files I'm working
| with, the error messages are happening with much greater frequency
| than before and it's becoming a very serious problem. When I first
| copy the MP3, it might allow me to change filename and tag. As the
| original info is often too long and my mp3 portable player is a
| 1"-square block and so the display is very small, I am constantly
| trying to shorten names and tags! But Win2K is forever giving me
| problems and doesn't allow me to do either.
|
| I've looked and looked through the internet archives of this ng but
| there isn't much info re this problem and none of the solutions
| offered have helped! I changed windows to classic view, for example,
| nothing. Dl Process Explorer and that was no help at all. Etc., etc.
| If there was an app that showed file extensions and the accompanying
| process keeping a hold of it along with the option to kill that
| process, _that_ would be the only thing that would help. Or stopping
| this Win2K behaviour to begin with! I'm the administrator of my home
| computer, for crying out loud! I should be the one to decide, as I
| did for 6 years, what I want to do with my files!! <g>
|
| Can someone pls help? I'm new to maintaining my own Win2K at home so
| I'm not very knowledgeable yet but just know I can't keep having these
| problems! I was forced to upgrade to Win2K, however, because a couple
| of new programs I need have a minimum requirement of Win2K. But I'm
| getting so darned frustrated with all the glitches in this OS that I'm
| ready to return to Win98SE for daily use and installing Win2K in a
| small partition for just those other apps I need. But what a complete
| drag if I have to go that route! But I have too many annoyances like
| this creeping up with Win2K (despite sp 4!).
|
| Hope someone knows a definitive and workable daily solution to this
| sharing violation thing that keeps coming up and I thank anyone in
| advance for it! :oD
|
 
Looking at your 3 recent posts, I wonder if your troubles are caused by
your having used the upgrade-in-place rather than the fresh-install path
to get from W98SE to W2k. If that's not the case, stop reading here. :-)

What seems to be a great labor saver actually, in a great many cases,
turns out to be a horrible mistake. The more or less uniform sentiment
in these newsgroups in re moving from older to newer OSes is bite the
bullet, do a fresh install, and reinstall all your apps. You'll have a
stable glitch-free system if you do, and an endless series of headaches
if you don't. The "automatic translation" processes needed to get
correct registry entries, drivers, dlls etc etc by using driver lists,
substitution tables, and the like is still an inexact art. Incomplete is
the word. Dangerous, too. mumblemumbleharumph

PS: It is also the case that the NT family, including W2k, is much more
robust, stable, and intolerant of 'slightly unreliable' hardware than
the older DOS-based W9x systems. An older machine, particularly one
designed for and delivered with some version of w9x, may very well not
meet the stringent demands of W2k. In that case W2k, if it runs at all,
may from time to time unexpectedly sense that there's been a hardware
failure and declare itself maimed or even dead.
I very often can't edit or move files/folders without getting a
sharing violation message!

I have a collection of MP3s, for example. I have a program that
allows me to change the ID3 tags very easily via a context menu tab
addition. This system worked with not one hitch in Win98SE for 6
years! I attempt to change tags now and this rarely works. I've
since installed another tag editor thinking it might be the app itself
giving me problems but no such thing! This tag editor has a message
column and 9 out of 10 times it shows an error message in that box
saying it couldn't change tag as file was in use!!! It was not in use
by _me_, but by Windows for Pete's sake!

I just bought an mp3 player so I'm moving MP3 files off of my back-up
CDs all the time after which, as always, I remove the read-only
attribute. So due to the slightly higher volume of files I'm working
with, the error messages are happening with much greater frequency
than before and it's becoming a very serious problem. When I first
copy the MP3, it might allow me to change filename and tag. As the
original info is often too long and my mp3 portable player is a
1"-square block and so the display is very small, I am constantly
trying to shorten names and tags! But Win2K is forever giving me
problems and doesn't allow me to do either.

I've looked and looked through the internet archives of this ng but
there isn't much info re this problem and none of the solutions
offered have helped! I changed windows to classic view, for example,
nothing. Dl Process Explorer and that was no help at all. Etc., etc.
If there was an app that showed file extensions and the accompanying
process keeping a hold of it along with the option to kill that
process, _that_ would be the only thing that would help. Or stopping
this Win2K behaviour to begin with! I'm the administrator of my home
computer, for crying out loud! I should be the one to decide, as I
did for 6 years, what I want to do with my files!! <g>

Can someone pls help? I'm new to maintaining my own Win2K at home so
I'm not very knowledgeable yet but just know I can't keep having these
problems! I was forced to upgrade to Win2K, however, because a couple
of new programs I need have a minimum requirement of Win2K. But I'm
getting so darned frustrated with all the glitches in this OS that I'm
ready to return to Win98SE for daily use and installing Win2K in a
small partition for just those other apps I need. But what a complete
drag if I have to go that route! But I have too many annoyances like
this creeping up with Win2K (despite sp 4!).

Hope someone knows a definitive and workable daily solution to this
sharing violation thing that keeps coming up and I thank anyone in
advance for it! :oD



---
avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0611-2, 03/17/2006
Tested on: 3/18/2006 9:35:13 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2004 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Click to expand...



---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0611-2, 03/17/2006
Tested on: 3/18/2006 9:56:50 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2004 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
 
Looking at your 3 recent posts, I wonder if your troubles are caused by
your having used the upgrade-in-place rather than the fresh-install path
to get from W98SE to W2k. If that's not the case, stop reading here. :-)
Click to expand...

Well, the first time it was an upgrade as I didn't know which was
better. I tried to do an overlay install the second time believing
posts that said the drive would automatically be re-formatted somehow.
It was not! I ended up with a new administrator reference with a
bunch of letters and numbers! <g> I've since read a possible solution
- we can use our Win98SE boot disk to reformat the drive and then to
put our Win2K boot disks and _then_ install the OS. I believe I'll go
that route next time, if indeed it is possible to do this. I'm sure
that there are vestiges of old stuff, too, at work here because the
drive hasn't been formatted properly unlike all my other fresh Win98SE
OS installs where I did that each time. That's probably making my
life even more difficult in this regard than it should be said:
What seems to be a great labor saver actually, in a great many cases,
turns out to be a horrible mistake. The more or less uniform sentiment
in these newsgroups in re moving from older to newer OSes is bite the
bullet, do a fresh install, and reinstall all your apps. You'll have a
Click to expand...

Yes. I agree. This was done out of ignorance at how much trickier
Win2K can be in a home installation. I'm getting used to having to
fiddle more (since Win98SE is so much more straightforward), but
that's par for the course. As Scotty has said "the more complicated
the plumbing said:
stable glitch-free system if you do, and an endless series of headaches
if you don't. The "automatic translation" processes needed to get
correct registry entries, drivers, dlls etc etc by using driver lists,
substitution tables, and the like is still an inexact art. Incomplete is
the word. Dangerous, too. mumblemumbleharumph

PS: It is also the case that the NT family, including W2k, is much more
robust, stable, and intolerant of 'slightly unreliable' hardware than
the older DOS-based W9x systems. An older machine, particularly one
designed for and delivered with some version of w9x, may very well not
meet the stringent demands of W2k. In that case W2k, if it runs at all,
may from time to time unexpectedly sense that there's been a hardware
failure and declare itself maimed or even dead.
Click to expand...

Hmph! No comment.

(I'm not prejudiced when it comes to older OSs. Mine does everything
I need it to do and judging from my conversations with others during
last 6 years, it's much, much more than the average home user does!
<g> The only thing I'd do if it were feasible is to get more memory
and a bigger hdd. But since the earlier is no longer really possible
without a lot of fuss, bother and money, I've not done the latter.)

**************************
So, all the possible whys and wherefores of this sharing violation is
all well and good and very nice to talk about, but I still have a
problem <g>.

I've gotten around one aspect of this whole sharing violation problem
in that although I can't move files often, I can copy them. So I do
and then delete original file. One problem solved.

However, I'm still left with the problem of the ID3 tags. Even moving
a file doesn't always free it up to do this. Perhaps things will be
better once I do a completely fresh install after formatting my C
drive, but right now I use my MP3 player daily and am processing my
audio files and I really must be able to edit the tags.

Any thoughts on how to fix this sharing violation for editing these
files? Surely there must be a solution. I no longer care that I have
to fiddle for this, I use my player daily and need to find a reliable
working solution.

TIA. :oD
 
To do a clean install, either boot the Windows 2000 install CD-Rom or setup
disks. The set of four install disks can be created from your Windows 2000
CD-Rom; change to the \bootdisk directory on the CD-Rom and execute
makeboot.exe (from dos) or makebt32.exe (from 32 bit) and follow the
prompts.

Setup inspects your computer's hardware configuration and then begins to
install the Setup and driver files. When the Windows 2000 Professional
screen appears, press ENTER to set up Windows 2000 Professional.

Read the license agreement, and then press the F8 key to accept the terms of
the license agreement and continue the installation.

When the Windows 2000 Professional Setup screen appears, all the existing
partitions and the unpartitioned spaces are listed for each physical hard
disk. Use the ARROW keys to select the partitions Press D to delete an
existing partition, If you press D to delete an existing partition, you must
then press L (or press ENTER, and then press L if it is the System
partition) to confirm that you want to delete the partition. Repeat this
step for each of the existing partitions When all the partitions are deleted
press F3 to exit setup, (to avoid unexpected drive letter assignments with
your new install) then restart the pc then when you get to this point in
setup again select the unpartitioned space, and then press C to create a new
partition and specify the size (if required). Windows will by default use
all available space.

During Windows 2000 setup, at some point, will want to confirm the previous
operating system for the upgrade; at that point you'll simply insert the
qualified product install CD for it to verify. Then the install will
proceed.

Check the pc, mb or hardware manufacturer's web site for the latest bios and
or Windows 2000 drivers for your devices.

Be sure to apply these to your new install before connecting to any network
(including internet).

http://download.microsoft.com/download/E/6/A/E6A04295-D2A8-40D0-A0C5-241BFECD095E/W2KSP4_EN.EXE
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS03-043.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS03-049.mspx

Then

Rollup 1 for Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...CF-8850-4531-B52B-BF28B324C662&displaylang=en

--

Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

:
|
| >Looking at your 3 recent posts, I wonder if your troubles are caused by
| >your having used the upgrade-in-place rather than the fresh-install path
| >to get from W98SE to W2k. If that's not the case, stop reading here. :-)
|
| Well, the first time it was an upgrade as I didn't know which was
| better. I tried to do an overlay install the second time believing
| posts that said the drive would automatically be re-formatted somehow.
| It was not! I ended up with a new administrator reference with a
| bunch of letters and numbers! <g> I've since read a possible solution
| - we can use our Win98SE boot disk to reformat the drive and then to
| put our Win2K boot disks and _then_ install the OS. I believe I'll go
| that route next time, if indeed it is possible to do this. I'm sure
| that there are vestiges of old stuff, too, at work here because the
| drive hasn't been formatted properly unlike all my other fresh Win98SE
| OS installs where I did that each time. That's probably making my
| life even more difficult in this regard than it should be <g>.
|
| >What seems to be a great labor saver actually, in a great many cases,
| >turns out to be a horrible mistake. The more or less uniform sentiment
| >in these newsgroups in re moving from older to newer OSes is bite the
| >bullet, do a fresh install, and reinstall all your apps. You'll have a
|
| Yes. I agree. This was done out of ignorance at how much trickier
| Win2K can be in a home installation. I'm getting used to having to
| fiddle more (since Win98SE is so much more straightforward), but
| that's par for the course. As Scotty has said "the more complicated
| the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain!" <vbg>
|
| >stable glitch-free system if you do, and an endless series of headaches
| >if you don't. The "automatic translation" processes needed to get
| >correct registry entries, drivers, dlls etc etc by using driver lists,
| >substitution tables, and the like is still an inexact art. Incomplete is
| >the word. Dangerous, too. mumblemumbleharumph
| >
| >PS: It is also the case that the NT family, including W2k, is much more
| >robust, stable, and intolerant of 'slightly unreliable' hardware than
| >the older DOS-based W9x systems. An older machine, particularly one
| >designed for and delivered with some version of w9x, may very well not
| >meet the stringent demands of W2k. In that case W2k, if it runs at all,
| >may from time to time unexpectedly sense that there's been a hardware
| >failure and declare itself maimed or even dead.
|
| Hmph! No comment.
|
| (I'm not prejudiced when it comes to older OSs. Mine does everything
| I need it to do and judging from my conversations with others during
| last 6 years, it's much, much more than the average home user does!
| <g> The only thing I'd do if it were feasible is to get more memory
| and a bigger hdd. But since the earlier is no longer really possible
| without a lot of fuss, bother and money, I've not done the latter.)
|
| **************************
| So, all the possible whys and wherefores of this sharing violation is
| all well and good and very nice to talk about, but I still have a
| problem <g>.
|
| I've gotten around one aspect of this whole sharing violation problem
| in that although I can't move files often, I can copy them. So I do
| and then delete original file. One problem solved.
|
| However, I'm still left with the problem of the ID3 tags. Even moving
| a file doesn't always free it up to do this. Perhaps things will be
| better once I do a completely fresh install after formatting my C
| drive, but right now I use my MP3 player daily and am processing my
| audio files and I really must be able to edit the tags.
|
| Any thoughts on how to fix this sharing violation for editing these
| files? Surely there must be a solution. I no longer care that I have
| to fiddle for this, I use my player daily and need to find a reliable
| working solution.
|
| TIA. :oD
|
| >StargateFan wrote:
| >> I very often can't edit or move files/folders without getting a
| >> sharing violation message!
| >>
| >> I have a collection of MP3s, for example. I have a program that
| >> allows me to change the ID3 tags very easily via a context menu tab
| >> addition. This system worked with not one hitch in Win98SE for 6
| >> years! I attempt to change tags now and this rarely works. I've
| >> since installed another tag editor thinking it might be the app itself
| >> giving me problems but no such thing! This tag editor has a message
| >> column and 9 out of 10 times it shows an error message in that box
| >> saying it couldn't change tag as file was in use!!! It was not in use
| >> by _me_, but by Windows for Pete's sake!
| >>
| >> I just bought an mp3 player so I'm moving MP3 files off of my back-up
| >> CDs all the time after which, as always, I remove the read-only
| >> attribute. So due to the slightly higher volume of files I'm working
| >> with, the error messages are happening with much greater frequency
| >> than before and it's becoming a very serious problem. When I first
| >> copy the MP3, it might allow me to change filename and tag. As the
| >> original info is often too long and my mp3 portable player is a
| >> 1"-square block and so the display is very small, I am constantly
| >> trying to shorten names and tags! But Win2K is forever giving me
| >> problems and doesn't allow me to do either.
| >>
| >> I've looked and looked through the internet archives of this ng but
| >> there isn't much info re this problem and none of the solutions
| >> offered have helped! I changed windows to classic view, for example,
| >> nothing. Dl Process Explorer and that was no help at all. Etc., etc.
| >> If there was an app that showed file extensions and the accompanying
| >> process keeping a hold of it along with the option to kill that
| >> process, _that_ would be the only thing that would help. Or stopping
| >> this Win2K behaviour to begin with! I'm the administrator of my home
| >> computer, for crying out loud! I should be the one to decide, as I
| >> did for 6 years, what I want to do with my files!! <g>
| >>
| >> Can someone pls help? I'm new to maintaining my own Win2K at home so
| >> I'm not very knowledgeable yet but just know I can't keep having these
| >> problems! I was forced to upgrade to Win2K, however, because a couple
| >> of new programs I need have a minimum requirement of Win2K. But I'm
| >> getting so darned frustrated with all the glitches in this OS that I'm
| >> ready to return to Win98SE for daily use and installing Win2K in a
| >> small partition for just those other apps I need. But what a complete
| >> drag if I have to go that route! But I have too many annoyances like
| >> this creeping up with Win2K (despite sp 4!).
| >>
| >> Hope someone knows a definitive and workable daily solution to this
| >> sharing violation thing that keeps coming up and I thank anyone in
| >> advance for it! :oD
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >> ---
| >> avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.
| >> Virus Database (VPS): 0611-2, 03/17/2006
| >> Tested on: 3/18/2006 9:35:13 AM
| >> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2004 ALWIL Software.
| >> http://www.avast.com
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >
| >
| >
| >---
| >avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
| >Virus Database (VPS): 0611-2, 03/17/2006
| >Tested on: 3/18/2006 9:56:50 AM
| >avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2004 ALWIL Software.
| >http://www.avast.com
| >
| >
|
 
Thanks, Dave. Did all that the 3 times I've installed Win2K (it
wasn't just twice, I remembered after posting). Unless I'm missing
something below or when I did each of the 3 installs carefully,
nowhere was it explicitly stated how to reformat the drive. As
mentioned, I am now working out of a very long folder named
Administrator._ _ _ (bunch of letters and numbers). <g>

What I'm curious about is the message I found that I mentioned where
someone else was complaining of same difficulty re formatting as this
command not available in Win2K boot disks, or somesuch (something I
also found) and whether or not it is feasible to at the beginning just
put my Win98SE boot disk in and reformat via that? I hesitate to try
it until I'm ready to do a fresh install of Win2K, but just curious if
forum msg was correct. Don't remember all these years past but
believe I would just reboot to DOS and then reformat and then put the
Win98SE boot disk in.

Thanks. :oD

*********************************
To do a clean install, either boot the Windows 2000 install CD-Rom or setup
disks. The set of four install disks can be created from your Windows 2000
CD-Rom; change to the \bootdisk directory on the CD-Rom and execute
makeboot.exe (from dos) or makebt32.exe (from 32 bit) and follow the
prompts.

Setup inspects your computer's hardware configuration and then begins to
install the Setup and driver files. When the Windows 2000 Professional
screen appears, press ENTER to set up Windows 2000 Professional.

Read the license agreement, and then press the F8 key to accept the terms of
the license agreement and continue the installation.

When the Windows 2000 Professional Setup screen appears, all the existing
partitions and the unpartitioned spaces are listed for each physical hard
disk. Use the ARROW keys to select the partitions Press D to delete an
existing partition, If you press D to delete an existing partition, you must
then press L (or press ENTER, and then press L if it is the System
partition) to confirm that you want to delete the partition. Repeat this
step for each of the existing partitions When all the partitions are deleted
press F3 to exit setup, (to avoid unexpected drive letter assignments with
your new install) then restart the pc then when you get to this point in
setup again select the unpartitioned space, and then press C to create a new
partition and specify the size (if required). Windows will by default use
all available space.

During Windows 2000 setup, at some point, will want to confirm the previous
operating system for the upgrade; at that point you'll simply insert the
qualified product install CD for it to verify. Then the install will
proceed.

Check the pc, mb or hardware manufacturer's web site for the latest bios and
or Windows 2000 drivers for your devices.

Be sure to apply these to your new install before connecting to any network
(including internet).

http://download.microsoft.com/download/E/6/A/E6A04295-D2A8-40D0-A0C5-241BFECD095E/W2KSP4_EN.EXE
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS03-043.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS03-049.mspx

Then

Rollup 1 for Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...CF-8850-4531-B52B-BF28B324C662&displaylang=en

--

Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

:
|
| >Looking at your 3 recent posts, I wonder if your troubles are caused by
| >your having used the upgrade-in-place rather than the fresh-install path
| >to get from W98SE to W2k. If that's not the case, stop reading here. :-)
|
| Well, the first time it was an upgrade as I didn't know which was
| better. I tried to do an overlay install the second time believing
| posts that said the drive would automatically be re-formatted somehow.
| It was not! I ended up with a new administrator reference with a
| bunch of letters and numbers! <g> I've since read a possible solution
| - we can use our Win98SE boot disk to reformat the drive and then to
| put our Win2K boot disks and _then_ install the OS. I believe I'll go
| that route next time, if indeed it is possible to do this. I'm sure
| that there are vestiges of old stuff, too, at work here because the
| drive hasn't been formatted properly unlike all my other fresh Win98SE
| OS installs where I did that each time. That's probably making my
| life even more difficult in this regard than it should be <g>.
|
| >What seems to be a great labor saver actually, in a great many cases,
| >turns out to be a horrible mistake. The more or less uniform sentiment
| >in these newsgroups in re moving from older to newer OSes is bite the
| >bullet, do a fresh install, and reinstall all your apps. You'll have a
|
| Yes. I agree. This was done out of ignorance at how much trickier
| Win2K can be in a home installation. I'm getting used to having to
| fiddle more (since Win98SE is so much more straightforward), but
| that's par for the course. As Scotty has said "the more complicated
| the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain!" <vbg>
|
| >stable glitch-free system if you do, and an endless series of headaches
| >if you don't. The "automatic translation" processes needed to get
| >correct registry entries, drivers, dlls etc etc by using driver lists,
| >substitution tables, and the like is still an inexact art. Incomplete is
| >the word. Dangerous, too. mumblemumbleharumph
| >
| >PS: It is also the case that the NT family, including W2k, is much more
| >robust, stable, and intolerant of 'slightly unreliable' hardware than
| >the older DOS-based W9x systems. An older machine, particularly one
| >designed for and delivered with some version of w9x, may very well not
| >meet the stringent demands of W2k. In that case W2k, if it runs at all,
| >may from time to time unexpectedly sense that there's been a hardware
| >failure and declare itself maimed or even dead.
|
| Hmph! No comment.
|
| (I'm not prejudiced when it comes to older OSs. Mine does everything
| I need it to do and judging from my conversations with others during
| last 6 years, it's much, much more than the average home user does!
| <g> The only thing I'd do if it were feasible is to get more memory
| and a bigger hdd. But since the earlier is no longer really possible
| without a lot of fuss, bother and money, I've not done the latter.)
|
| **************************
| So, all the possible whys and wherefores of this sharing violation is
| all well and good and very nice to talk about, but I still have a
| problem <g>.
|
| I've gotten around one aspect of this whole sharing violation problem
| in that although I can't move files often, I can copy them. So I do
| and then delete original file. One problem solved.
|
| However, I'm still left with the problem of the ID3 tags. Even moving
| a file doesn't always free it up to do this. Perhaps things will be
| better once I do a completely fresh install after formatting my C
| drive, but right now I use my MP3 player daily and am processing my
| audio files and I really must be able to edit the tags.
|
| Any thoughts on how to fix this sharing violation for editing these
| files? Surely there must be a solution. I no longer care that I have
| to fiddle for this, I use my player daily and need to find a reliable
| working solution.
|
| TIA. :oD
|
| >StargateFan wrote:
| >> I very often can't edit or move files/folders without getting a
| >> sharing violation message!
| >>
| >> I have a collection of MP3s, for example. I have a program that
| >> allows me to change the ID3 tags very easily via a context menu tab
| >> addition. This system worked with not one hitch in Win98SE for 6
| >> years! I attempt to change tags now and this rarely works. I've
| >> since installed another tag editor thinking it might be the app itself
| >> giving me problems but no such thing! This tag editor has a message
| >> column and 9 out of 10 times it shows an error message in that box
| >> saying it couldn't change tag as file was in use!!! It was not in use
| >> by _me_, but by Windows for Pete's sake!
| >>
| >> I just bought an mp3 player so I'm moving MP3 files off of my back-up
| >> CDs all the time after which, as always, I remove the read-only
| >> attribute. So due to the slightly higher volume of files I'm working
| >> with, the error messages are happening with much greater frequency
| >> than before and it's becoming a very serious problem. When I first
| >> copy the MP3, it might allow me to change filename and tag. As the
| >> original info is often too long and my mp3 portable player is a
| >> 1"-square block and so the display is very small, I am constantly
| >> trying to shorten names and tags! But Win2K is forever giving me
| >> problems and doesn't allow me to do either.
| >>
| >> I've looked and looked through the internet archives of this ng but
| >> there isn't much info re this problem and none of the solutions
| >> offered have helped! I changed windows to classic view, for example,
| >> nothing. Dl Process Explorer and that was no help at all. Etc., etc.
| >> If there was an app that showed file extensions and the accompanying
| >> process keeping a hold of it along with the option to kill that
| >> process, _that_ would be the only thing that would help. Or stopping
| >> this Win2K behaviour to begin with! I'm the administrator of my home
| >> computer, for crying out loud! I should be the one to decide, as I
| >> did for 6 years, what I want to do with my files!! <g>
| >>
| >> Can someone pls help? I'm new to maintaining my own Win2K at home so
| >> I'm not very knowledgeable yet but just know I can't keep having these
| >> problems! I was forced to upgrade to Win2K, however, because a couple
| >> of new programs I need have a minimum requirement of Win2K. But I'm
| >> getting so darned frustrated with all the glitches in this OS that I'm
| >> ready to return to Win98SE for daily use and installing Win2K in a
| >> small partition for just those other apps I need. But what a complete
| >> drag if I have to go that route! But I have too many annoyances like
| >> this creeping up with Win2K (despite sp 4!).
| >>
| >> Hope someone knows a definitive and workable daily solution to this
| >> sharing violation thing that keeps coming up and I thank anyone in
| >> advance for it! :oD
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >> ---
| >> avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.
| >> Virus Database (VPS): 0611-2, 03/17/2006
| >> Tested on: 3/18/2006 9:35:13 AM
| >> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2004 ALWIL Software.
| >> http://www.avast.com
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >
| >
| >
| >---
| >avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
| >Virus Database (VPS): 0611-2, 03/17/2006
| >Tested on: 3/18/2006 9:56:50 AM
| >avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2004 ALWIL Software.
| >http://www.avast.com
| >
| >
|
Click to expand...
 
You couldn't have. Here it is again;

When the Windows 2000 Professional Setup screen appears, all the existing
partitions and the unpartitioned spaces are listed for each physical hard
disk. Use the ARROW keys to select the partitions Press D to delete an
existing partition, If you press D to delete an existing partition, you must
then press L (or press ENTER, and then press L if it is the System
partition) to confirm that you want to delete the partition. Repeat this
step for each of the existing partitions When all the partitions are deleted
press F3 to exit setup, (to avoid unexpected drive letter assignments with
your new install) then restart the pc then when you get to this point in
setup again select the unpartitioned space, and then press C to create a new
partition and specify the size (if required). Windows will by default use
all available space.


--

Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

:
<snip>
| Thanks, Dave. Did all that the 3 times.............
<snip>
 
Geez, is it the wording that has been throwing me off?? "Delete the
partition" means it _erases_ the _contents_ of the partition but
doesn't actually delete it?? If so, that's wording that is grossly
misleading.

Pls confirm and many thanks in advance. :oD

***************************************
 
Nothing misleading about it. Deleting a partition removes it. Any file
system and or formatting goes along with it. When you create a new partition
you must format it before use.

FYI; NTFS is the native file system of Windows 2000 and is always
recommended.

--

Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

:
| Geez, is it the wording that has been throwing me off?? "Delete the
| partition" means it _erases_ the _contents_ of the partition but
| doesn't actually delete it?? If so, that's wording that is grossly
| misleading.
|
| Pls confirm and many thanks in advance. :oD
 
Nothing misleading about it. Deleting a partition removes it. Any file
system and or formatting goes along with it. When you create a new partition
you must format it before use.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point! Why would I want to delete the partition
then have it re-created???
FYI; NTFS is the native file system of Windows 2000 and is always
recommended.
Click to expand...

Yes, but upon reading re NTFS vs FAT32, it seems best for me to leave
things as they are. At any rate, have had too many bugs and
annoyances with Windows 2000, despite SP4, that I might just go back
to Win98SE. I just might have to create a new partition after all and
have Win2000 for those 2 programs that run in that OS. Win2000 and
WinXP are just such pains in the butt for home use.

Besides which, maintaining system so much easier when one has access
to DOS. Despite what seem to be okay to good hdd file cleaners,
nothing beats good old DOS to get rid of those temporary index
folders, etc., that Windows insists on keeping <g>.

Thanks for the info.
--

Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

:
| Geez, is it the wording that has been throwing me off?? "Delete the
| partition" means it _erases_ the _contents_ of the partition but
| doesn't actually delete it?? If so, that's wording that is grossly
| misleading.
|
| Pls confirm and many thanks in advance. :oD
Click to expand...
 
It just the way things in the NT'ish world are done.

--

Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

:
| That's exactly my point! Why would I want to delete the partition
| then have it re-created???
<snip>
 
It just the way things in the NT'ish world are done.

--

Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

:
| That's exactly my point! Why would I want to delete the partition
| then have it re-created???
<snip>
Click to expand...

Well, it's a moot point now. It's a long weekend and I'm wiping Win2K
and installing Win98SE. Win2K is not worth the bother.

Thanks for everyone's help. Too fiddly by far so I'll actually be
glad to getting back to something the works properly.

Cheers. :oD
 
Back
Top