Forum - DLL-files.com

"thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns9BE8E4BCC48BFthanexit@85.214.105.209...
> "Bill Blanton" <bblanton@REMOVEmagicnet.net> wrote in
> news:OOa#yjYuJHA.1504@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:
>
> <SNIP>
>

Why are you replying to me, stripping the attribution of the OP,
at the same time stripping my reply?

In message <OOa#yjYuJHA.1504@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, Bill Blanton
<bblanton@REMOVEmagicnet.net> writes:
[]
>>>>>You don't do anything. It just sets it up like that.
>>>>>Probably the most useful thing MS ever did. Someone must
>>>>>have been home sick that day.
>>>>
>>>> Howzabout getting it to install the XP on a partition other
>>>> than C:?
>>>
>>>You can install it on any partition you want, 98 stays on C:.
>
>> I'm just nervous of missing the point during the install at which it
>>asks you, with it defaulting to C (and thus screwing up the
>> '98 installation) if you miss it. (Especially if it's something that
>>times out if you don't answer.)
>
>Drive letters are OS contructs to help you keep track of the various
>volumes/partitions
>on a disk or an array of disks. The initiail boot process is unaware of drive
>letter assignments.

Yes, I know that.
>
>9x finishes the boot/load process by assigning itself the system volume as C:.
>NT does not have to assign "itself" C: to load.

I didn't think it did, thanks for confirming.
>
>In a dual boot situation you can easily have C: for 98 when that is loaded, and
>C: for XP when that is loaded. That all depends on how you set it up. If NT/XP
>"sees" primary partitions in front of its %system% partition during
>install it will use
>a later letter. To get a C:, you sometimes have to "hide" other partitions.

Interesting, I hadn't thought of both thinking they had a "C:", but it
actually being a different partition for each of them. (I do want each
to be able to see all of the disc, though, so don't want to do any
"hiding".)
[]
My main concern is this: I saw a system that had a working '98 system on
it, fed with an XP install disc. We had been expecting this to at least
give us the option of making a dual-boot system. Well, it's a long
drawn-out process, so it is quite possible we missed it giving us that
option: basically, we ended up with just an XP system.

Assuming it _was_ just a matter of not responding to some question and
it timing out and defaulting to an XP-only system, my next concern is
that, if I should do it myself but manage to spot the boot-menu option
and select it, there must now be another option of where to put itself
(XP that is); I am again concerned that there might be some timeout
option that defaults to C:. (I'm using drive letters for convenience
here.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

a speaking style that suggests a dyslexic cockney Yoda - Craig McLean on Nigel
Kennedy (violinist), in RT 12-18 July 2008

In message <Xns9BE8E4BCC48BFthanexit@85.214.105.209>, thanatoid
<waiting@the.exit.invalid> writes:
[]
>Trust me , I *never* thought I'd go NEAR XP, and it installed
>like a charm. I don't remember it asking, but if it does, just
>tell it where to go (so to speak).
>
>>> with it defaulting to C (and thus
>>> screwing up the '98 installation) if you miss it.
>
>Well, FOA, BACK IT UP! Make an image of C: with Acronis or
>Norton Ghost. Lifesavers. Regardless of WHAT you do or don't do,
>like this thread.

I am aware of your imaging/backup views (-: ...

I just don't see how they'd help here - not if I'm trying to make a
dual-boot system, that is. Sure, backup before starting in case all goes
pear-shaped, but it wouldn't give me the dual-boot system: it would let
me revert to my '98 system, and start all over again - only for the same
thing to happen again.

In short, backup is the answer to the question I wasn't asking, which
was: how do I make sure I get a dual-boot system, with XP on a
completely different partition? "Backup before you start", while good
advice, is not the answer to that question.
>
>It won't, just don't tell it to install t=o the C"windows (ie
>98) directory - but it might refuse in ANY case. It is VERY
>annoying, but it IS "user-friendly" (largely the same thing to
>those with a clue).
>
><SNIP>
>
>
We'll have to try one of these days!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

a speaking style that suggests a dyslexic cockney Yoda - Craig McLean on Nigel
Kennedy (violinist), in RT 12-18 July 2008

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:UxdcuXNsl33JFw3j@soft255.demon.co.uk...
> In message <OOa#yjYuJHA.1504@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, Bill Blanton <bblanton@REMOVEmagicnet.net> writes:

>>9x finishes the boot/load process by assigning itself the system volume as C:.
>>NT does not have to assign "itself" C: to load.
>
> I didn't think it did, thanks for confirming.
>>
>>In a dual boot situation you can easily have C: for 98 when that is loaded, and
>>C: for XP when that is loaded. That all depends on how you set it up. If NT/XP
>>"sees" primary partitions in front of its %system% partition during install it will use
>>a later letter. To get a C:, you sometimes have to "hide" other partitions.

I should clarify that. In order to do that you would have to use a third
party boot manager.


> Interesting, I hadn't thought of both thinking they had a "C:", but it actually being a different partition for each of them. (I
> do want each to be able to see all of the disc, though, so don't want to do any "hiding".)

> []
> My main concern is this: I saw a system that had a working '98 system on it, fed with an XP install disc. We had been expecting
> this to at least give us the option of making a dual-boot system. Well, it's a long drawn-out process, so it is quite possible we
> missed it giving us that option: basically, we ended up with just an XP system.

Was that an "upgrade" disk or "full" version?

There's no real hint of a dual boot option during setup. You just have
to make sure you set up XP on a separate partition. (That partition
could also be on another physical disk.) The dual boot configuration
will be set up automatically.


> Assuming it _was_ just a matter of not responding to some question and it timing out and defaulting to an XP-only system,

AFAIK it will wait forever for you to choose the partition(or space) to
start the install. (not sure about "upgrade" disks)


> my next concern is that, if I should do it myself but manage to spot the boot-menu option and select it, there must now be another
> option of where to put itself (XP that is); I am again concerned that there might be some timeout option that defaults to C:. (I'm
> using drive letters for convenience here.)

The only thing that would be put on C: are the initial loader code.

Although generally a safe procedure, it's never a bad idea to
image or clone the disk beforehand when doing something like
this.

In message <e6ogFeruJHA.4452@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, Bill Blanton
<bblanton@REMOVEmagicnet.net> writes:
[]
>> My main concern is this: I saw a system that had a working '98 system
>>on it, fed with an XP install disc. We had been expecting
>> this to at least give us the option of making a dual-boot system.
>>Well, it's a long drawn-out process, so it is quite possible we
>> missed it giving us that option: basically, we ended up with just an
>>XP system.
>
>Was that an "upgrade" disk or "full" version?

Full.
>
>There's no real hint of a dual boot option during setup. You just have

Ah, that explains a lot. Thanks.

>to make sure you set up XP on a separate partition. (That partition
>could also be on another physical disk.) The dual boot configuration
>will be set up automatically.
>
I see.
>
>> Assuming it _was_ just a matter of not responding to some question
>>and it timing out and defaulting to an XP-only system,
>
>AFAIK it will wait forever for you to choose the partition(or space) to
>start the install. (not sure about "upgrade" disks)
>
Thanks.
>
>> my next concern is that, if I should do it myself but manage to spot
>>the boot-menu option and select it, there must now be another
>> option of where to put itself (XP that is); I am again concerned that
>>there might be some timeout option that defaults to C:. (I'm
>> using drive letters for convenience here.)
>
>The only thing that would be put on C: are the initial loader code.

Thanks. (It'll be all FAT, as I want all partitions to be visible to
both OSs.)
>
>Although generally a safe procedure, it's never a bad idea to
>image or clone the disk beforehand when doing something like
>this.
>
Indeed.
>
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the God who endowed me with sense,
reason, and intellect intends me to forego their use". - Gallileo Gallilei

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:IsSLZ0Iph75JFwFI@soft255.demon.co.uk...
> In message <e6ogFeruJHA.4452@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, Bill Blanton <bblanton@REMOVEmagicnet.net> writes:

>>> my next concern is that, if I should do it myself but manage to spot the boot-menu option and select it, there must now be
>>> another
>>> option of where to put itself (XP that is); I am again concerned that there might be some timeout option that defaults to C:.
>>> (I'm
>>> using drive letters for convenience here.)
>>
>>The only thing that would be put on C: are the initial loader code.
>
> Thanks. (It'll be all FAT, as I want all partitions to be visible to both OSs.)

You shouldn't have any issues. The only you have to be aware of is the
fact that if you use the MS dual boot configuration, you are pretty
much tied to it. Not a real problem, it's just that it's much more rigid
than third party boot managers.

"Bill Blanton" <bblanton@REMOVEmagicnet.net> wrote in message news:uyBiwZwvJHA.5392@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:IsSLZ0Iph75JFwFI@soft255.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <e6ogFeruJHA.4452@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, Bill Blanton <bblanton@REMOVEmagicnet.net> writes:
>
>>>> my next concern is that, if I should do it myself but manage to spot the boot-menu option and select it, there must now be
>>>> another
>>>> option of where to put itself (XP that is); I am again concerned that there might be some timeout option that defaults to C:.
>>>> (I'm
>>>> using drive letters for convenience here.)
>>>
>>>The only thing that would be put on C: are the initial loader code.
>>
>> Thanks. (It'll be all FAT, as I want all partitions to be visible to both OSs.)
>
> You shouldn't have any issues.

> The only you have to be aware of is the

or "The only thing..."
Damn syntax checker

In message <uyBiwZwvJHA.5392@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, Bill Blanton
<bblanton@REMOVEmagicnet.net> writes:
>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:IsSLZ0Iph75JFwFI@soft255.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <e6ogFeruJHA.4452@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, Bill Blanton
>><bblanton@REMOVEmagicnet.net> writes:
>
>>>> my next concern is that, if I should do it myself but manage to
>>>>spot the boot-menu option and select it, there must now be
>>>> another
>>>> option of where to put itself (XP that is); I am again concerned
>>>>that there might be some timeout option that defaults to C:.
>>>> (I'm
>>>> using drive letters for convenience here.)
>>>
>>>The only thing that would be put on C: are the initial loader code.
>>
>> Thanks. (It'll be all FAT, as I want all partitions to be visible to
>>both OSs.)
>
>You shouldn't have any issues. The only you have to be aware of is the
>fact that if you use the MS dual boot configuration, you are pretty
>much tied to it. Not a real problem, it's just that it's much more rigid
>than third party boot managers.
>
>
>
Thanks.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the God who endowed me with sense,
reason, and intellect intends me to forego their use". - Gallileo Gallilei

FINAL RESOLUTION

Thanks all you folks for all the finger tapping.
I eventually copied msimg32.dll into the root folder of the programs
that wouldn't run.
Voila!, back to normal.

I got it from:
KernelEx v0.3.6 formerly Kernel Update Project, Copyright (C)
2006-2008, Xeno86
Original WIN98UPDT0001 by (x) 2005/2006

a prog to allow win XP progs to run in win 98

Thanks again
koonaone wrote:
> Greetings
>
> Pre-script: This is a reject from another forum, I'm hoping you can
> help me.
>
> yours
>
> douglas
>
>
> >> I am running win98se with 64 Mb RAM (I will append more info, below).
>
> I use many drafting/survey/graphics applications.
>
> The other day I downloaded and attempted to install (halfway) a prog
> for XP that didn't support win98. (many work fine)
>
> I aborted, seemingly with no residue.
>
> Later, on trying to open TablePro.exe I recieved the message:
>
> " Error starting program msimg32.dll file is linked to missing
> export GDI32.dll*GdiGradientFill "
>
> This happens also with another program: SumatraPDF.exe . Everything
> else seems to work fine. (knock on wood)
>
> Using explorers "find:files" it shows 3 instances:
> C:\windows\system 152Kb 98-05-11 8:01pm
> C:\windows\spool same same same
> C:\windows\system\1 128Kb 98-04-05 12:47pm
>
> That \1 subdir wasn't my doing. wth ???
>
> SO, I'm nervous about messing with stuff thats not broken, 99% of my
> system runs as usual. I tried re-installing Tables Pro to no effect. I
> considered getting into regedit and searching for GDI32.dll but I
> honestly only know a small part of what's needed to mess about in
> there.
>
> Do you think you can help me here, or should I "direct connect"
> transfer all needful files to another machine and re-install?
>
> yours
>
> douglas
> ==========================================================
> --------[ EVEREST Home Edition (c) 2003-2005 Lavalys,
> Inc. ]------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Version EVEREST
> v2.20.405
> Homepage http://www.lavalys.com/
> Report Type Quick Report
> Computer EMACHINE
> ********************
> Generator *****
> Operating System Microsoft
> Windows 98 4.10.1998 (Win98 Retail)
> Date 2009-04-03
> Time 20:58
>
>
> --------
> [ Summary ]-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Computer:
> Operating System Microsoft
> Windows 98
> OS Service Pack -
> DirectX 4.09.00.0904
> (DirectX 9.0c)
> Computer Name EMACHINE
> (***** NetPASS = **)
> User Name ****
>
> Motherboard:
> CPU Type Intel Celeron-
> A, 400 MHz (6 x 67)
> Motherboard Name TriGem Florida
> Motherboard Chipset Intel 82440LX/
> EX
> System Memory 64 MB (SDRAM)
> BIOS Type AMI (07/15/95)
> Communication Port Communications
> Port (COM1)
> Communication Port Printer Port
> (LPT1)
>
> Display:
> Video Adapter RAGE IIC AGP
> (English)
> 3D Accelerator ATI 3D-Rage
> IIC
> Monitor AOC Spectrum
> 9Glr(A)/9Glrs(A) [19" CRT] (94027072)
>
> Multimedia:
> Audio Adapter Cirrus Logic
> CS4614/22/24 CrystalClear SoundFusion Audio Accelerator
>
> Storage:
> IDE Controller Intel 82371AB/
> EB PCI Bus Master IDE Controller
> IDE Controller Primary IDE
> controller (dual fifo)
> IDE Controller Secondary IDE
> controller (dual fifo)
> Floppy Drive GENERIC NEC
> FLOPPY DISK
> Disk Drive GENERIC IDE
> DISK TYPE47
> Disk Drive GENERIC IDE
> DISK TYPE80
> Optical Drive ATAPI CDROM
> SMART Hard Disks Status Unknown
>
> Partitions:
> C: (FAT32) 29307 MB
> (10620 MB free)
>
> Input:
> Keyboard Standard
> 101/102-Key or Microsoft Natural Keyboard
> Mouse PS/2
> Compatible Mouse Port
>
> Network:
> Network Adapter PPP Adapter.
> (207.194.36.102)
> Network Adapter Realtek
> RTL8139/810x Family Fast Ethernet NIC (169.254.74.237)
> Modem Generic
> SoftK56 Data,Fax,Voice
> Modem Parallel cable
> on LPT1
> Modem Serial cable
> on COM1
> Modem Serial cable
> on COM3
>
> Peripherals:
> USB1 Controller Intel 82371AB/
> EB PIIX4 - USB Host Controller
> ===============================================
> There is further de-bug info available
> ===============================================
> But this is outside of my expertise.
> Expert: Karl Zick