Post by thread:[OT:] MSPaint broken. How can I fix it? LINUX!

Jose Da Silva wrote: > which points to here: > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=218632 > as a possible registry problem. > > You may want to note which program you installed recently before this started > happening, otherwise, probably a virus program on your machine and a > reformat of the drive and then reinstall should cure it. Especially if the reinstall is of a LINUX O/S <G>. R

On Tuesday 01 March 2005 02:25 pm, Robert Rolf wrote: > Jose Da Silva wrote: > > which points to here: > > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=218632 > > as a possible registry problem. > > > > You may want to note which program you installed recently before this > > started happening, otherwise, probably a virus program on your machine > > and a reformat of the drive and then reinstall should cure it. > > Especially if the reinstall is of a LINUX O/S <G>. I don't know about that. It is a win98 machine indicated here which probably means its running at 200mhz or less with possibly a lot less ram and harddrive space. I'd recommend doing his internet activity on linux and leave this operating system off of the net. If linux sounds foreign, just go burn a knoppix CD, boot from CDrom and connect to the net that-way until familiar. Then go buy mandrake linux and do a proper install (dual boot of course). I wouldn't recommend this alternate route unless you've got 128m of ram or more, otherwise you'll be using the swap partition far too often.

On Mar 1, 2005, at 4:14 PM, Jose Da Silva wrote: > It is a win98 machine indicated here which probably > means its running at 200mhz or less Huh? i don't think that follows. W98se was still selling up till about a year ago, and many people were picking it over ME or XP and its microsoft-spyware. The 400MHz eMachines I bought quite a few years ago shipped with W98. Don't forget that W98se was just an updated version of W98, except for the new CD and all the people microsoft managed to trick into buying the "W98se upgrade cd" even though they already owned W98 (it was actually for W95 customers.) BillW

On Tuesday 01 March 2005 09:09 pm, William Chops Westfield wrote: > On Mar 1, 2005, at 4:14 PM, Jose Da Silva wrote: > > It is a win98 machine indicated here which probably > > means its running at 200mhz or less > > Huh? i don't think that follows. W98se was still selling up till > about a year ago, and many people were picking it over ME or XP and > its microsoft-spyware. Win98se sold? maybe, but unlikely anywhere but tiny stores. Usually, an OS is sold, then the customer is given a few years of patches and upgrades afterwards. It could be 3 or 5 years worth of patches after the product is sold. Therefore, I'd hate to have bought a package in 2003 and realized I was getting 1 to zero days worth of updates or patches. :-( http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;%5Bln%5D;LifeWin Basically, the lifecycle for Win98se ended in 2003, but the problem is that too many people were still using Windows9x in 2003. Normally, microsoft would probably stop updates, therefore forcing people to live with unpatched 98 machines or preferably migrate to a higher OS. Unfortunately due to linux, either Microsoft extend support, or face the possibility that people now had a choice and may migrate to another competitor. Thank linux for the fact you still have Win98 support until 2007. > The 400MHz eMachines I bought quite a few > years ago shipped with W98. Don't forget that W98se was just an > updated version of W98, except for the new CD and all the people > microsoft managed to trick into buying the "W98se upgrade cd" even > though they already owned W98 (it was actually for W95 customers.) Well, I did indicate "probably" ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) Cheers!

On Mar 2, 2005, at 1:05 AM, Jose Da Silva wrote: > On Tuesday 01 March 2005 09:09 pm, William Chops Westfield wrote: >> On Mar 1, 2005, at 4:14 PM, Jose Da Silva wrote: >>> It is a win98 machine indicated here which probably >>> means its running at 200mhz or less >> >> Huh? i don't think that follows. W98se was still selling up till >> about a year ago, and many people were picking it over ME or XP and >> its microsoft-spyware. > Basically, the lifecycle for Win98se ended in 2003, but the problem > is that too many people were still using Windows9x in 2003. >> The 400MHz eMachines I bought quite a few >> years ago shipped with W98. >> Well, I did indicate "probably" ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) >> I think mostly you are having trouble remembering how fast computers were well before the end of the W98 lifetime. Looking up some dates, I see that the 400MHz emachines were purchased in 1999, and my Athlon-XP 1700+ (1.3GHz?) purchased in 2002 had a choice between (IIRC) W98se, NT4, or W2K, or WMe, with only 98 and Me offered at "home computer" pricing levels. I also think you underestimate the difficulty in upgrading a machine purchased in the W98fe timeframe to a modern microsoft operating system. Lots of that old hardware just doesn't get much support any more. For instance, I think i tried upgrading the eMachines to 98se from the microsoft se cd. Didn't work... (yes, I'll bet it would run linux just fine.) BillW

Jose Da Silva writes: > Basically, the lifecycle for Win98se ended in 2003, but the problem is that > too many people were still using Windows9x in 2003. Three good reasons for this: 1. Most machines that shipped with Windows 98 aren't capable of running W2K, let alone XP. 2. Re-installing the OS is beyond most users. 3. Most people are too cheap to purchase a new OS. And besides, as long as Win98 is running, why bother to change? There is a very odd reality here. It is *almost* cheaper to purchase a new machine running XP/SP2 pre-installed than it is to pay someone to re-install Windows 98, properly configure all the device drivers, and install all the security patches. Personally, I've never been able to keep a Windows98 machine running for more than a few months. Not as a result of Spyware or virii, but simply as a result of all the cruft that builds up making the machine unstable. Most of the non-technical (pre NT) Windows users I know think that rebooting several times a day is a normal fact of computer usage. > Normally, microsoft > would probably stop updates, therefore forcing people to live with unpatched > 98 machines or preferably migrate to a higher OS. Unfortunately due to > linux, either Microsoft extend support, or face the possibility that people > now had a choice and may migrate to another competitor. > Thank linux for the fact you still have Win98 support until 2007. Well, that might be a slight exaggeration. ;-) Unfortunately, Linux apps are suffering from bloat as much (if not more) than Windows apps these days. Sure, the Linux kernel will run just fine on a 200 Mhz Pentium, and you can even get X/Windows running comfortably -- so long as you just want to run xterms. Firefox crawls along even on a 400 Mhz machine that isn't swapping. And you can just forget about Gnome or KDE on Windows98 class hardware. And while the Linux kernel might be stable, many of the apps are not. For example, I have an old Pentium-233 laptop running as an audio client in my bedroom. I couldn't find a single streaming audio app that wouldn't crash on a regular basis. This is not to mention the fact that I was never able to get the machine to sleep properly. With great pain and suffering, I put Windows 98 on the box and installed WinAmp. Much to my great surprise, the machine hasn't crashed but once or twice in the past year. Of course, the machine does nothing at all besides run WinAmp. > > The 400MHz eMachines I bought quite a few > > years ago shipped with W98. Don't forget that W98se was just an > > updated version of W98, except for the new CD and all the people > > microsoft managed to trick into buying the "W98se upgrade cd" even > > though they already owned W98 (it was actually for W95 customers.) If I understand correctly, the "SE" bits get installed automatically when you do a "Windows Update" on any Win98 box. Of course, in the days before everyone had broadband, having SE on a cdrom was a huge timesaver, and worth paying a few bucks for... -p.

>> On Mar 1, 2005, at 4:14 PM, Jose Da Silva wrote: >> > It is a win98 machine indicated here which probably >> > means its running at 200mhz or less The 1.6 GHz machine I'm using right now came with 98se in Feb 2002. The thing I find amazing is that it still runs well and has barely reached "Cruft Force 2 - Comfortable". http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~sue/475/cruft.html if you're curious about the metrics :) Cheers, Bob

On Wednesday 02 March 2005 03:30 am, William Chops Westfield wrote: {Quote hidden}> On Mar 2, 2005, at 1:05 AM, Jose Da Silva wrote: > > On Tuesday 01 March 2005 09:09 pm, William Chops Westfield wrote: > >> On Mar 1, 2005, at 4:14 PM, Jose Da Silva wrote: > >>> It is a win98 machine indicated here which probably > >>> means its running at 200mhz or less > >> > >> Huh? i don't think that follows. W98se was still selling up till > >> about a year ago, and many people were picking it over ME or XP and > >> its microsoft-spyware. > > > > Basically, the lifecycle for Win98se ended in 2003, but the problem > > is that too many people were still using Windows9x in 2003. > > > >> The 400MHz eMachines I bought quite a few > >> years ago shipped with W98. > >> > >> Well, I did indicate "probably" ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) > > I think mostly you are having trouble remembering how fast computers > were well before the end of the W98 lifetime. Looking up some dates, > I see that the 400MHz emachines were purchased in 1999, and my > Athlon-XP 1700+ (1.3GHz?) purchased in 2002 had a choice between > (IIRC) W98se, NT4, or W2K, or WMe, with only 98 and Me offered at > "home computer" pricing levels. 2002 is not "about a year ago.".... at least, not by my calendar. ;-) > I also think you underestimate the difficulty in upgrading a machine > purchased in the W98fe timeframe to a modern microsoft operating > system. Lots of that old hardware just doesn't get much support > any more. I think that based on lack of information, you are starting to assume things here. ;-) I am aware that hardware changes. My 200mhz machine has got ISA slots on it, a "serial" mouse, an AT connected keyboard and the Win98se CD I purchased separately installs fine on it. To go further, when I initially purchased the machine, I could have gotten top-of-the-line 166mhz but opted to go for a cheaper 90mhz machine, so this baby has been turbo charged to the incredible whopping speeds of 200mhz due to incremental upgrades and cpu swaps. <grin> > For instance, I think i tried upgrading the eMachines > to 98se from the microsoft se cd. Didn't work... (yes, I'll bet > it would run linux just fine.) The problem I ran into, was also on install. The Compaqs, and Dells, and HPs, and other big-box retailers will certainly have patches and go-arounds to manage to fit Win98se on a 400Mhz machine, or for that matter, a 1.7GHz machine as indicated by yourself and one other, however, for someone like myself who has retail Win98se + install disk, I find that I must keep my 200mhz machine (versus giving it a proper retirement) because attempting to install Win98se on a 2.4ghz machine is not possible. It would have been nice to hold onto my Win98se (and OS/2warp3) for a while longer on different partitions (triple boot), but speed is definitely a factor where 2.4ghz is apparently far to fast for either Win98se or OS/2warp3. It's amazing to see the replies I got for "probably 200mhz or less" :-/ So, unless you have suggestions on how to get Win98se to install on a 2.4ghz machine (it's 1st freeze is attempting to either run or load a snd.drv and I did not bother trying further than that since there may be further issues to deal with), I think that's about it in terms of this topic. Cheers!

> I find that I must keep my >200mhz machine (versus giving it a proper retirement) because attempting to >install Win98se on a 2.4ghz machine is not possible. Funny, it works here. >It's amazing to see the replies I got for "probably 200mhz or less" :-/ >So, unless you have suggestions on how to get Win98se to install on a 2.4ghz >machine (it's 1st freeze is attempting to either run or load a snd.drv and I >did not bother trying further than that since there may be further issues to >deal with), I think that's about it in terms of this topic. Could be a motherboard issue, but I've had 98 "second try" on all my machines at one point or another.

On Wednesday 02 March 2005 02:51 pm, Dave VanHorn wrote: > > I find that I must keep my > >200mhz machine (versus giving it a proper retirement) because attempting > > to install Win98se on a 2.4ghz machine is not possible. > > Funny, it works here. > > Could be a motherboard issue, but I've had 98 "second try" on all my > machines at one point or another. Since I don't know of any other computers around here at 2.4ghz and Win98se, I'll take your word for it that it works. Since you have put it on various computers, I'm guessing a retail type of CD versus a Compaq/HP/Dell/IBM re-install-type disk. In that case, it's a motherboard issue.

On Wednesday 02 March 2005 06:32 am, Peter Johansson wrote: > Unfortunately, Linux apps are suffering from bloat as much (if not > more) than Windows apps these days. Sure, the Linux kernel will run > just fine on a 200 Mhz Pentium, and you can even get X/Windows running > comfortably -- so long as you just want to run xterms. Firefox crawls > along even on a 400 Mhz machine that isn't swapping. And you can just > forget about Gnome or KDE on Windows98 class hardware. Bloat or no bloat, the original problem is one of MSPaint and a DLL. According to the microsoft website, the possibility pointed towards a corrupted registry. Usually, a corrupted registry points towards some program that attempted to install, or got installed, possibly removed, possibly removed incorrectly. If someone (microsoft website in this case) says to you corrupted registry, what is the first thing that comes to your mind? ...for me, due to all the free re-installs I've had to do for friends&family, the 1st thing that comes up is viruses, trojans, spyware, keyloggers, adware, etc. In fact, if you look at the reply I posted it has the search term virus in it: >--------------- >use a search engine and the question gets answered really quick :-) >www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=mspaint+MFC42.DLL+virus&btnG=Google+Search&meta= >--------------- >From experience, I've noted it seems like I get better replies for several problems by simply tacking on the word "virus" or "trojan" to a search. Do a 3 finger salute <alt><ctl><del> to show what processes are running on your computer right now, you'll have the normal processes such as explorer etc, but what about rundll32 or other odd aplications you may have but shouldn't have running? Well, rundll32 appears a nice spot for virus trash to hook into, etc.... and so the story goes. So, if you or anyone is going to hook onto the net, I recommend going though linux. I've connected to the net since 2000 using linux, and not once have I had problems due to viruses, etc. regardless of computer speed, 90mhz, 200mhz, 2.4ghz, not one problem yet! Meanwhile, I've repeatedly have to fix and reload many windows machines (including antivirus programs which aren't keeping up to the problem, therefore after the fact). It was a worthwhile suggestion, or atleast I think it was, but your reply seems to say otherwise. > And while the Linux kernel might be stable, many of the apps are not. First, you did post a paragraph about how you also have to deal with cruft. Second, you also pointed-out how non-technical users are already accustomed to rebooting several times a day. Third, you don't have to use applications that are problematic if there are alternatives. If there are no alternatives, you could always go back to windows98(se). Fourth, Linux seems to be an excellent platform to get past the headaches of connecting to the internet. If I've managed to run since 2000 without problems of viruses etc, does it not appear a good suggestion if you are running into registry problems which without further information from the person originally asking is likely caused by outside problems such as virus programs etc.? > For example, I have an old Pentium-233 laptop running as an audio > client in my bedroom. I couldn't find a single streaming audio app > that wouldn't crash on a regular basis. Although this has nothing to do with MSPaint and the DLL or the registry, it could be like comparing apples to oranges sometimes. -The linux version is probably written in C to be cross compatible across different operating systems as well as CPUs. -The WinAmp pointed to below was written specificly for Windows and possibly has a couple of hand-tuned assembler language routines to get a little more out of the CPU. For a 233mhz machine, you may be pushing the limits of an mp3 decoder when comparing possibly assembler-hand-coding vs C code. -The linux version(s) was likely written by a hobbyist, or several hobbyists and hope you like what you got. -The WinAmp pointed below was according to a business plan, likely profesionally planned, possibly has some agreement in terms of codecs and whatever secret NDAs and eventually hoping that you "purchase" WinAmp Pro. This means that those who got technical NDA type information will normally have an advantage over a hobbyist who has no source of such data. So did you purchase WinAmp Pro? > This is not to mention the > fact that I was never able to get the machine to sleep properly. That will be a recurring problem where the people who design something don't give out the necessary details needed, but it is slowly turning to also recognize linux as well. It's currently a big problem with 802laptop links and other stuff. If I gave you a pic chip and all the details on how to use porta but no details on how to use portb, then you would only be able to use porta. Portb would be useless unless you experimented around or eventually got details some other manner. > With > great pain and suffering, I put Windows 98 on the box and installed > WinAmp. Much to my great surprise, the machine hasn't crashed but > once or twice in the past year. Of course, the machine does nothing > at all besides run WinAmp. Sounds like an engineers answer to a basic radio-alarm-clock, which we are all guilty of some time or another, but I guess if you are happy with it, no need to fix what works. Cheers!

On Mar 2, 2005, at 4:19 PM, Jose Da Silva wrote: > In that case, it's a motherboard issue. > The main problem on the eMachines 400MHz machine I was talking about was that it used an odd sound-driver chip that the default W98se CDs did not recognize. Other than sound, it ran fine. Note that it is to both microsoft and "mass market computer vendor" advantage if the latest versions of OS do NOT support the older hardware. Grr. Linux is really great for such things, as long as you can avoid the bloatware. I pulled some laptops out of the dumpster recently, and debian installs nicely in character mode, but it looks like the mouse ports are broken and even basic X windows won't start. Sigh. Command line unix, or freedos. What a choice. BillW