One for the computer geeks

[outback]

Ok nerds :D

I'm trying to install and run Norton Ghost.
It installs Ok

When I try to run the programme I get ht emessage I need Microsoft Net framework 1.1, Do I wanna install now?

I say yes.

I t doesn't do it, returning an error message about missing .dll files.

I download another copy of framework, same result


Where to from here?

[RufflyRustic]

Hi Outback,

Check out your Environment Variable Path, maybe adding the path for MS Framework (if there is one) to the end of the EV path will help. (I'm not familiar with .Net but the problem sounds similar to one I deal with a lot.)

In Windows xp & Windows 2000, go to your Desktop, right click on My Computer, Properties, Advanced Tab, Environment Variables button, find the Path entry in the System Variables box and add >> ;[your frameworkpath] << without the [ ]

cheers
One Computer Nerd:D

[Wongo]

I hate computers :mad:

[silentC]

Me too. And I hate Microsoft. Oh and I hate Anthony Robbins and all his ilk.

[RufflyRustic]

I like them, only because they and their products keep me in a job :)

[silentC]

Well, me too. But I still hate them....

[outback]

MMMM, when I try to do what you say Ruffly, I get an error meassage about run32.dll after I right click My Computer.

Please don't tell me to reinstall windoze. please don't. Please.

[Ashore]

Outback if its all legal programs , and i'm sure they are ,go to www.symantec.com (http://www.symantec.com) follow the prompts and tell them your problem, you pay for the back up when you pay for the product.




The trouble with life is there's no background music.


Ashore

[RufflyRustic]

That error trying to look at the Properties of My Computer??? Ouch!! Does it happen immediately after a reboot? Do you have any virus software enabled while trying to do this?

That about exhausts my knowledge. Ashore's suggestion is sound.

cheers
RufflyRustic

[outback]

I hate computers.

I mean I really really hate computers.

This thing is fast becoming a boat anchor, without a rope.

What other backup/imaging software would you recomend for backing up a drive?
I need to try and do something in the way of imaging the entire drive, then reformat the hard drive and start from scratch.

[Auld Bassoon]

Ho Outback,

For disk imaging I use Acronis' "True Image" - mainly because two of the three computers I personally have use RAID configurations - and Ghost can't deal with that.

It's also very helpful if you PC can boot from a CD (or better yet a DVD) because you can build a whole slipstreamed image of, say XP with SP2 etc, together with your registry, apps and data - and reload the whole catastrophe in case of, well, catastrophe!

Your run32.dll error sounds a bit on the nasty side as that's a key part of the kernel - have you checked MS' Knowledgebase (see http://support.microsoft.com/search/?adv=1) ?

Cheers! - but not much help though, I'm afraid

[Gumby]

My local computer store will ghost a whole drive onto DVD for about $30. I just had a hard drive fail at home (3 years old) and if it happens at work, the $30 will be well spent.

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

I'd advise against Norton's Ghost anyway. It's another piece of SW that tries to integrate itself into your OS an run as TSR. Just what every 'puta needs. Not.

If you really need to replicate partitions/drives and want to do it simply I'd be more inclined to find the last version of Ghost before it was acquired by Symantec. It'll fit on a bootable floppy and handles most filesystems (eg. NTFS, EXT2, FAT/32) although it won't handle RAID arrays... but that's not a requirement for most systems.

I think it's now listed as freeware... I'll have to have a look-see to be sure though.

[outback]

I had a rummage round today and found an old copy ogf ghost. It was part of the old norton suite. It is the same as you talk about, that is, make a bootable floppy, with the programme on it.
With this I have started to coax the contents of my hard drive onto Cd's. When completed I'll reformat the hard drive, and the fun will really begin.

I'm getting a new computer for my birthday............next year..................................just over 12 months away. :rolleyes:

[RufflyRustic]

Outback, I so empathise with you. Reformatting the home pc is one job I absolutely detest.

cheers
RufflyRustic

[Wood Butcher]

A friend of mine who is heavily into computing (eg. gaming) would format his HDD and do a fresh install at least once a month. "helps to keep the computer running at it's best" is his reasoning.

STUFF THAT!

I only format when I have to.

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

The main advantage of formatting on a periodic basis is it removes the excess baggage that invariably accumulates. I guess it's also one way of defragging the HDD.

I prefer to have seperate HDDs/partitions for the OS, programs, swap & volatile files. (docs, etc) I simply image the OS partition after setting things up on the first install (also with later OS updates) and make registry backups as new sw is installed.

Should the OS turn its' toes up I simply restore the image & latest reg backup. Should it be only one piece of sw playing up, well... that's a no-brainer. It's almost like WinXP's restore points except it does what XP should be doing and doesn't. :D

It requires some knowledge of the registry structure to set up (or a good tweaking util ;) ) and only works on the system it was created for but IMHO is well worth he effort.

[outback]

I have a similar setup.
C:\ Windoze
D:\ Apps
E:\ Documents etc.

I used to reformat every twelve months or so, to clear the deck, I used to install a heap of trial stuff, then delete, always messy, and probably full of spywarre.

About three years ago I setup the harddrive with what I outlined above, all has gone well, but lately things have gone awry. My reimaging hasn't been as dilligent as it should. It started when I first got the latest version of Ghost and it wouldn't work. Things have gone downhill slowly ever since.

Won't be long and I'll be sitting in front of a blank screen feeding CD's. Oh joy.

[anthonyd]

Rowan,

I used to reformat every three months or so and yes it made a good enough difference to be worth it.

Since going to XP I do it about every 9 months now.

To be honest I think the reason is not because of XP, but because of the more modern size of hard drives. It is my opinion that most hard drives work their best untill they get to be about 30% full after which they appear to slow down. This might be due to fragmentation (every file system has it) ot just the fact that the extra files are no residing on the innermost cylinders and hence have slower transfer rates.

With the bigger hard drives I think it is just taking much loinger to get that full and hence it doesn;t slow down as quick.

I have been speculating for a while now about buying a 200gig hard drive and only partitioning it to 80gb and using that in the hope that it only uses the outermost cylinders - haven't tried it yet so I cant say if it works.

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

To be honest I think the reason is not because of XP, but because of the more modern size of hard drives. It is my opinion that most hard drives work their best untill they get to be about 30% full after which they appear to slow down. This might be due to fragmentation (every file system has it) ot just the fact that the extra files are no residing on the innermost cylinders and hence have slower transfer rates.

In actuality, with modern drives xfer rates are fairly consistent across the platter. A mere human wouldn't notice the difference. ;) Unless you've set it up with inappropriate interleave, but as most people only use WinXX to format I doubt that's likely. Not many people know what a real low-level format is nowadays. But it's possibly the filesystem you're using... FAT-XX is pretty inefficient with large no's of files. NTFS is better in this regard, as it has a better lowlevel "lookup" system, amongst other things. I really dunno why people set up FAT HDDs on W2K or XP... unless they're dual-booting of course.

It's also possible, if you're only familiar with Win systems, that what you're noticing is registry fragmentation. The swap file can be put on it's own partition to help prevent it frag'ing but the registry files can't, dammit. :mad: As the reg is written to so damned often it frags quickly and 'cos Win is constantly reading the reg, well... apparent slowdowns.

I wish they'd load it into protected mem at the start of a session and leave well enough alone. [sigh]


I have been speculating for a while now about buying a 200gig hard drive and only partitioning it to 80gb and using that in the hope that it only uses the outermost cylinders - haven't tried it yet so I cant say if it works.

All you need for the OS is a 1 to 5GB partition and, generally speaking, a 20-30GB partition for extra exes, then you can store data on the rest. This leaves all the binaries on the "faster" 15% of the HDD... but I've found this still won't prevent eventual slowdowns with Win.

You can always experiment by breaking the HDD down into several similar sized partitions and doing some IO speed tests on 'em. There's plenty of utils out there...

Linux and a couple of other OS's, now they're different stories. :D