MDAC upgrade: version 2.1 to 2.5 or higher?

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Has anyone run into any problems after upgrading their MDAC version?

I've got MDAC 2.1, but Sisoft Sandra Lite requires MDAC 2.5 (or higher), and
I just want to be sure that a MDAC upgrade is basically a "no brainer"
(meaning, no problemo). From what I've been able to read about it so far,
it appears to be a pretty safe upgrade.
24 answers Last reply
More about mdac upgrade version higher
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    I haven't had any problems.
    I had 2.1 updated but when they stopped support, I went to 2.5sp3, and that
    had 3 updates. Now at 2.8 and had 1 update with that. Just don't have all
    the things that would need 2.8. You might try 2.5sp3 first to see how you
    do - there was little difference in files as compared to 2.1. Check to see
    if they still support it first - that I don't know.
    --
    mae

    "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:egnt$45KFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    | Has anyone run into any problems after upgrading their MDAC version?
    |
    | I've got MDAC 2.1, but Sisoft Sandra Lite requires MDAC 2.5 (or higher),
    and
    | I just want to be sure that a MDAC upgrade is basically a "no brainer"
    | (meaning, no problemo). From what I've been able to read about it so
    far,
    | it appears to be a pretty safe upgrade.
    |
    |
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    I was thinking of doing MDAC 2.5x as you said, mae, for two reasons. One,
    it's the last version that includes that Jet stuff and some other goodies.
    Two, it's less of an upgrade than jumping all the way up to 2.7x

    You know what is so ironic? If you install any version ABOVE MDAC 2.5x,
    you have a rollback option, in case anything doesn't work right; but any
    version below MDAC 2.6, and you don't have the rollback option. Yet only
    the versions below 2.6 include all that other stuff! And I'd guess that's
    part of the reason why there is no rollback there - there would be a lot
    more to undue.

    Still, if I install this, and it breaks some existing apps, or screws up my
    system, I'm gonna be SOL. Now that will *really* piss me off - if I have
    to reinstall everything all over again. UGH!! (cue in PCR with his
    sermon on the complete computer system backups - second thought, don't!)

    I wonder if *anyone* has heard any horror stories, in this MDAC upgrade
    dept? Or has run into any problems?

    mae wrote:
    > I haven't had any problems.
    > I had 2.1 updated but when they stopped support, I went to 2.5sp3, and
    that
    > had 3 updates. Now at 2.8 and had 1 update with that. Just don't have all
    > the things that would need 2.8. You might try 2.5sp3 first to see how you
    > do - there was little difference in files as compared to 2.1. Check to see
    > if they still support it first - that I don't know.
    > --
    > mae
    >
    > "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:egnt$45KFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >> Has anyone run into any problems after upgrading their MDAC version?
    >>
    >> I've got MDAC 2.1, but Sisoft Sandra Lite requires MDAC 2.5 (or higher),
    and
    >> I just want to be sure that a MDAC upgrade is basically a "no brainer"
    >> (meaning, no problemo). From what I've been able to read about it so
    far,
    >> it appears to be a pretty safe upgrade.
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:e87qtc%23KFHA.3296@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl
    > I was thinking of doing MDAC 2.5x as you said, mae, for two reasons. One,
    > it's the last version that includes that Jet stuff and some other goodies.
    > Two, it's less of an upgrade than jumping all the way up to 2.7x
    >
    > You know what is so ironic? If you install any version ABOVE MDAC 2.5x,
    > you have a rollback option, in case anything doesn't work right; but any
    > version below MDAC 2.6, and you don't have the rollback option. Yet only
    > the versions below 2.6 include all that other stuff! And I'd guess
    > that's part of the reason why there is no rollback there - there would be
    > a lot more to undue.
    >
    > Still, if I install this, and it breaks some existing apps, or screws up my
    > system, I'm gonna be SOL. Now that will *really* piss me off - if I have
    > to reinstall everything all over again. UGH!! (cue in PCR with his
    > sermon on the complete computer system backups - second thought, don't!)
    >
    > I wonder if *anyone* has heard any horror stories, in this MDAC upgrade
    > dept? Or has run into any problems?

    No horror stories,
    MDAC 2.8 is the latest and here's some details:
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnmdac/html/data_mdacinstall.asp

    ...the v2.8 downlolad
    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=6c050fe3-c795-4b7d-b037-185d0506396c&DisplayLang=en

    & with an intermindate security update for that (does install on W9x)
    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=39472ee8-c14a-47b4-bfcc-87988e062d91&displaylang=en

    & with its final program update for that:
    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=fe2a5b1c-ff30-40a0-8e70-c9f1f4dcd8c2&displaylang=en

    I tracked the entire install and all it does is simply overwrite the existing
    install files of it's very early original, and adjusts the registry
    accordingly.

    I got tired of trying to figure out what MDAC went with what, and even the
    MDAC Component Checker would never run true, until installing 2.8
    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;307255

    Finally I just installed the latest and it was an easy install, no problems.

    About your cue to PCR, if you mean by backup a "full Partition backup" then
    that is the ultimate backup. Many programs to do that and most of the MVP's
    here like and support BootIt NG
    http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/bootitng.html

    I personally like and use TrueImage
    http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/trueimage/
    ...although I rather use the older v6.0.350 or the older DriveImage v5.01
    for Disk to Disk

    What I meant the other day by you could be indestructible or impervious to
    whatever update or SP or Whatever you install or wreck on your computer, you
    can in 2 minutes completely restore the entire partition, or all of them.
    Once you use it you will never go back and you will be truly the Master of
    your own computer protection and backup and never again be at its mercy.

    Rick


    > mae wrote:
    >> I haven't had any problems.
    >> I had 2.1 updated but when they stopped support, I went to 2.5sp3, and
    >> that had 3 updates. Now at 2.8 and had 1 update with that. Just don't
    >> have all the things that would need 2.8. You might try 2.5sp3 first to
    >> see how you do - there was little difference in files as compared to 2.1.
    >> Check to see if they still support it first - that I don't know.
    >> --
    >> mae
    >>
    >> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    >> news:egnt$45KFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >>> Has anyone run into any problems after upgrading their MDAC version?
    >>>
    >>> I've got MDAC 2.1, but Sisoft Sandra Lite requires MDAC 2.5 (or higher),
    >>> and I just want to be sure that a MDAC upgrade is basically a "no
    >>> brainer" (meaning, no problemo). From what I've been able to read
    >>> about it so far, it appears to be a pretty safe upgrade.
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    So far it all sounds good, but I think I'll stick with MDAC 2.5, the last
    one that included Jet and all the other stuff, and see how that goes.

    I have BootItNG, and if push comes to shove, I will backup the partition
    before installing MDAC, but my hunch is it's pretty safe to do the MDAC
    upgrade, so I probably won't even bother. For one thing, I would need to
    clear out a partition. For another, I think it takes almost 2 hours to do
    that partition copy, in my case.

    If the MDAC upgrade were risky, I'd do it, though. But - I'm not hearing
    that, or reading that.

    Rick Chauvin wrote:
    > "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:e87qtc%23KFHA.3296@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl
    >> I was thinking of doing MDAC 2.5x as you said, mae, for two reasons.
    One,
    >> it's the last version that includes that Jet stuff and some other
    goodies.
    >> Two, it's less of an upgrade than jumping all the way up to 2.7x
    >>
    >> You know what is so ironic? If you install any version ABOVE MDAC
    2.5x,
    >> you have a rollback option, in case anything doesn't work right; but any
    >> version below MDAC 2.6, and you don't have the rollback option. Yet
    only
    >> the versions below 2.6 include all that other stuff! And I'd guess
    >> that's part of the reason why there is no rollback there - there would be
    >> a lot more to undue.
    >>
    >> Still, if I install this, and it breaks some existing apps, or screws up
    my
    >> system, I'm gonna be SOL. Now that will *really* piss me off - if I
    have
    >> to reinstall everything all over again. UGH!! (cue in PCR with his
    >> sermon on the complete computer system backups - second thought, don't!)
    >>
    >> I wonder if *anyone* has heard any horror stories, in this MDAC upgrade
    >> dept? Or has run into any problems?
    >
    > No horror stories,
    > MDAC 2.8 is the latest and here's some details:
    >
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnmdac/html
    /data_mdacinstall.asp
    >
    > ...the v2.8 downlolad
    >
    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=6c050fe3-c795-4b7d-
    b037-185d0506396c&DisplayLang=en
    >
    > & with an intermindate security update for that (does install on W9x)
    >
    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=39472ee8-c14a-47b4-
    bfcc-87988e062d91&displaylang=en
    >
    > & with its final program update for that:
    >
    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=fe2a5b1c-ff30-40a0-
    8e70-c9f1f4dcd8c2&displaylang=en
    >
    > I tracked the entire install and all it does is simply overwrite the
    existing
    > install files of it's very early original, and adjusts the registry
    > accordingly.
    >
    > I got tired of trying to figure out what MDAC went with what, and even the
    > MDAC Component Checker would never run true, until installing 2.8
    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;307255
    >
    > Finally I just installed the latest and it was an easy install, no
    problems.
    >
    > About your cue to PCR, if you mean by backup a "full Partition backup"
    then
    > that is the ultimate backup. Many programs to do that and most of the
    MVP's
    > here like and support BootIt NG
    > http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/bootitng.html
    >
    > I personally like and use TrueImage
    > http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/trueimage/
    > ...although I rather use the older v6.0.350 or the older DriveImage v5.01
    > for Disk to Disk
    >
    > What I meant the other day by you could be indestructible or impervious to
    > whatever update or SP or Whatever you install or wreck on your computer,
    you
    > can in 2 minutes completely restore the entire partition, or all of them.
    > Once you use it you will never go back and you will be truly the Master of
    > your own computer protection and backup and never again be at its mercy.
    >
    > Rick
    >
    >
    >
    >> mae wrote:
    >>> I haven't had any problems.
    >>> I had 2.1 updated but when they stopped support, I went to 2.5sp3, and
    >>> that had 3 updates. Now at 2.8 and had 1 update with that. Just don't
    >>> have all the things that would need 2.8. You might try 2.5sp3 first to
    >>> see how you do - there was little difference in files as compared to
    2.1.
    >>> Check to see if they still support it first - that I don't know.
    >>> --
    >>> mae
    >>>
    >>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    >>> news:egnt$45KFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >>>> Has anyone run into any problems after upgrading their MDAC version?
    >>>>
    >>>> I've got MDAC 2.1, but Sisoft Sandra Lite requires MDAC 2.5 (or
    higher),
    >>>> and I just want to be sure that a MDAC upgrade is basically a "no
    >>>> brainer" (meaning, no problemo). From what I've been able to read
    >>>> about it so far, it appears to be a pretty safe upgrade.
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    When I had Component Checker installed & clicked through it's many
    windows, I thought for sure MDAC was TREBLE the monster even McAfee is.
    It was impressive, but HUGE as hell, & I opted to stay with my lowly
    MDAC 2.1 SP2 (2.1.2.4202.3) GA. So, better go do the 2-hour backup.
    Don't know why it takes that long, though.

    Please keep us informed of any idiosyncrasies after doing it. I see
    Chauvin & mae are well satisfied. But how many of Chauvin's URL's have
    to be clicked for this?


    --
    Thanks or Good Luck,
    There may be humor in this post, and,
    Naturally, you will not sue,
    should things get worse after this,
    PCR
    pcrrcp@netzero.net
    "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:eDe$nVALFHA.3832@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    | So far it all sounds good, but I think I'll stick with MDAC 2.5, the
    last
    | one that included Jet and all the other stuff, and see how that goes.
    |
    | I have BootItNG, and if push comes to shove, I will backup the
    partition
    | before installing MDAC, but my hunch is it's pretty safe to do the
    MDAC
    | upgrade, so I probably won't even bother. For one thing, I would
    need to
    | clear out a partition. For another, I think it takes almost 2 hours
    to do
    | that partition copy, in my case.
    |
    | If the MDAC upgrade were risky, I'd do it, though. But - I'm not
    hearing
    | that, or reading that.
    |
    | Rick Chauvin wrote:
    | > "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    | > news:e87qtc%23KFHA.3296@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl
    | >> I was thinking of doing MDAC 2.5x as you said, mae, for two
    reasons.
    | One,
    | >> it's the last version that includes that Jet stuff and some other
    | goodies.
    | >> Two, it's less of an upgrade than jumping all the way up to 2.7x
    | >>
    | >> You know what is so ironic? If you install any version ABOVE
    MDAC
    | 2.5x,
    | >> you have a rollback option, in case anything doesn't work right;
    but any
    | >> version below MDAC 2.6, and you don't have the rollback option.
    Yet
    | only
    | >> the versions below 2.6 include all that other stuff! And I'd
    guess
    | >> that's part of the reason why there is no rollback there - there
    would be
    | >> a lot more to undue.
    | >>
    | >> Still, if I install this, and it breaks some existing apps, or
    screws up
    | my
    | >> system, I'm gonna be SOL. Now that will *really* piss me off -
    if I
    | have
    | >> to reinstall everything all over again. UGH!! (cue in PCR
    with his
    | >> sermon on the complete computer system backups - second thought,
    don't!)
    | >>
    | >> I wonder if *anyone* has heard any horror stories, in this MDAC
    upgrade
    | >> dept? Or has run into any problems?
    | >
    | > No horror stories,
    | > MDAC 2.8 is the latest and here's some details:
    | >
    |
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnmdac/html
    | /data_mdacinstall.asp
    | >
    | > ...the v2.8 downlolad
    | >
    |
    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=6c050fe3-c795-4b7d-
    | b037-185d0506396c&DisplayLang=en
    | >
    | > & with an intermindate security update for that (does install on
    W9x)
    | >
    |
    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=39472ee8-c14a-47b4-
    | bfcc-87988e062d91&displaylang=en
    | >
    | > & with its final program update for that:
    | >
    |
    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=fe2a5b1c-ff30-40a0-
    | 8e70-c9f1f4dcd8c2&displaylang=en
    | >
    | > I tracked the entire install and all it does is simply overwrite the
    | existing
    | > install files of it's very early original, and adjusts the registry
    | > accordingly.
    | >
    | > I got tired of trying to figure out what MDAC went with what, and
    even the
    | > MDAC Component Checker would never run true, until installing 2.8
    | > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;307255
    | >
    | > Finally I just installed the latest and it was an easy install, no
    | problems.
    | >
    | > About your cue to PCR, if you mean by backup a "full Partition
    backup"
    | then
    | > that is the ultimate backup. Many programs to do that and most of
    the
    | MVP's
    | > here like and support BootIt NG
    | > http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/bootitng.html
    | >
    | > I personally like and use TrueImage
    | > http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/trueimage/
    | > ...although I rather use the older v6.0.350 or the older DriveImage
    v5.01
    | > for Disk to Disk
    | >
    | > What I meant the other day by you could be indestructible or
    impervious to
    | > whatever update or SP or Whatever you install or wreck on your
    computer,
    | you
    | > can in 2 minutes completely restore the entire partition, or all of
    them.
    | > Once you use it you will never go back and you will be truly the
    Master of
    | > your own computer protection and backup and never again be at its
    mercy.
    | >
    | > Rick
    | >
    | >
    | >
    | >> mae wrote:
    | >>> I haven't had any problems.
    | >>> I had 2.1 updated but when they stopped support, I went to 2.5sp3,
    and
    | >>> that had 3 updates. Now at 2.8 and had 1 update with that. Just
    don't
    | >>> have all the things that would need 2.8. You might try 2.5sp3
    first to
    | >>> see how you do - there was little difference in files as compared
    to
    | 2.1.
    | >>> Check to see if they still support it first - that I don't know.
    | >>> --
    | >>> mae
    | >>>
    | >>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    | >>> news:egnt$45KFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    | >>>> Has anyone run into any problems after upgrading their MDAC
    version?
    | >>>>
    | >>>> I've got MDAC 2.1, but Sisoft Sandra Lite requires MDAC 2.5 (or
    | higher),
    | >>>> and I just want to be sure that a MDAC upgrade is basically a "no
    | >>>> brainer" (meaning, no problemo). From what I've been able to
    read
    | >>>> about it so far, it appears to be a pretty safe upgrade.
    |
    |
  6. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
    news:uTMYuPBLFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
    > When I had Component Checker installed & clicked through it's many
    > windows, I thought for sure MDAC was TREBLE the monster even McAfee is.
    > It was impressive, but HUGE as hell, & I opted to stay with my lowly

    Huge? .. the install file is only 4mb

    It doesn't add files over v2.1 as I said - it only replaces them with newer
    ones.

    > MDAC 2.1 SP2 (2.1.2.4202.3) GA. So, better go do the 2-hour backup.
    > Don't know why it takes that long, though.
    >
    > Please keep us informed of any idiosyncrasies after doing it. I see
    > Chauvin & mae are well satisfied. But how many of Chauvin's URL's have
    > to be clicked for this?

    How many links - what do you mean?
    I was kind to give 1 link for the kb page, 1 link for the install, and 1 link
    for each update. I could of gave none and saved time but was in the sharing
    and making it easier for others mode today :) ..I thought that's what it
    was all about here in this forum ;)

    Rick

    >
    >
    > --
    > Thanks or Good Luck,
    > There may be humor in this post, and,
    > Naturally, you will not sue,
    > should things get worse after this,
    > PCR
    > pcrrcp@netzero.net
    > "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:eDe$nVALFHA.3832@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >| So far it all sounds good, but I think I'll stick with MDAC 2.5, the last
    >| one that included Jet and all the other stuff, and see how that goes.
    >|
    >| I have BootItNG, and if push comes to shove, I will backup the partition
    >| before installing MDAC, but my hunch is it's pretty safe to do the MDAC
    >| upgrade, so I probably won't even bother. For one thing, I would need
    >| to clear out a partition. For another, I think it takes almost 2 hours
    >| to do that partition copy, in my case.
    >|
    >| If the MDAC upgrade were risky, I'd do it, though. But - I'm not
    >| hearing that, or reading that.
    >|
    >| Rick Chauvin wrote:
    >| > "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    >| > news:e87qtc%23KFHA.3296@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl
    >| >> I was thinking of doing MDAC 2.5x as you said, mae, for two reasons.
    >| >> One, it's the last version that includes that Jet stuff and some other
    >| >> goodies. Two, it's less of an upgrade than jumping all the way up to
    >| >> 2.7x
    >| >>
    >| >> You know what is so ironic? If you install any version ABOVE MDAC
    >| >> 2.5x, you have a rollback option, in case anything doesn't work right;
    >| >> but any version below MDAC 2.6, and you don't have the rollback
    >| >> option. Yet only the versions below 2.6 include all that other stuff!
    >| >> And I'd guess that's part of the reason why there is no rollback there
    >| >> - there would be a lot more to undue.
    >| >>
    >| >> Still, if I install this, and it breaks some existing apps, or screws
    >| >> up my system, I'm gonna be SOL. Now that will *really* piss me off
    >| >> - if I have to reinstall everything all over again. UGH!! (cue
    >| >> in PCR with his sermon on the complete computer system backups -
    >| >> second thought, don't!)
    >| >>
    >| >> I wonder if *anyone* has heard any horror stories, in this MDAC upgrade
    >| >> dept? Or has run into any problems?
    >| >
    >| > No horror stories,
    >| > MDAC 2.8 is the latest and here's some details:
    >| >
    >|
    >
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnmdac/html
    >| /data_mdacinstall.asp
    >| >
    >| > ...the v2.8 downlolad
    >| >
    >|
    >
    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=6c050fe3-c795-4b7d-
    >| b037-185d0506396c&DisplayLang=en
    >| >
    >| > & with an intermindate security update for that (does install on W9x)
    >| >
    >|
    >
    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=39472ee8-c14a-47b4-
    >| bfcc-87988e062d91&displaylang=en
    >| >
    >| > & with its final program update for that:
    >| >
    >|
    >
    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=fe2a5b1c-ff30-40a0-
    >| 8e70-c9f1f4dcd8c2&displaylang=en
    >| >
    >| > I tracked the entire install and all it does is simply overwrite the
    >| > existing install files of it's very early original, and adjusts the
    >| > registry accordingly.
    >| >
    >| > I got tired of trying to figure out what MDAC went with what, and even
    >| > the MDAC Component Checker would never run true, until installing 2.8
    >| > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;307255
    >| >
    >| > Finally I just installed the latest and it was an easy install, no
    >| > problems.
    >| >
    >| > About your cue to PCR, if you mean by backup a "full Partition backup"
    >| > then that is the ultimate backup. Many programs to do that and most of
    >| > the MVP's here like and support BootIt NG
    >| > http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/bootitng.html
    >| >
    >| > I personally like and use TrueImage
    >| > http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/trueimage/
    >| > ...although I rather use the older v6.0.350 or the older DriveImage
    >| > v5.01 for Disk to Disk
    >| >
    >| > What I meant the other day by you could be indestructible or impervious
    >| > to whatever update or SP or Whatever you install or wreck on your
    >| > computer, you can in 2 minutes completely restore the entire partition,
    >| > or all of them. Once you use it you will never go back and you will be
    >| > truly the Master of your own computer protection and backup and never
    >| > again be at its mercy.
    >| >
    >| > Rick
    >| >
    >| >
    >| >
    >| >> mae wrote:
    >| >>> I haven't had any problems.
    >| >>> I had 2.1 updated but when they stopped support, I went to 2.5sp3, and
    >| >>> that had 3 updates. Now at 2.8 and had 1 update with that. Just don't
    >| >>> have all the things that would need 2.8. You might try 2.5sp3 first to
    >| >>> see how you do - there was little difference in files as compared to
    >| >>> 2.1. Check to see if they still support it first - that I don't know.
    >| >>> --
    >| >>> mae
    >| >>>
    >| >>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    >| >>> news:egnt$45KFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >| >>>> Has anyone run into any problems after upgrading their MDAC version?
    >| >>>>
    >| >>>> I've got MDAC 2.1, but Sisoft Sandra Lite requires MDAC 2.5 (or
    >| >>>> higher), and I just want to be sure that a MDAC upgrade is basically
    >| >>>> a "no brainer" (meaning, no problemo). From what I've been able
    >| >>>> to read about it so far, it appears to be a pretty safe upgrade.
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    Rick Chauvin wrote:
    > "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:eDe$nVALFHA.3832@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
    >
    > [...]
    >
    >> For one thing, I would need to clear out a partition.
    >> For another, I think it takes almost 2 hours to do
    >> that partition copy, in my case.

    I should add - to copy my 20 GB partition. As I mentioned in the other
    post:
    I think it took almost two hours to partition copy 20 GB, but I don't
    remember now. My four partitions are each 20 GB, and I'm happy with this
    simple arrangement. Works great for me this way. It's very flexible, too
    (being all equal sized).

    > I just wanted to comment on just this 'time' issue Bill since you seem to
    > have all else under control then.
    >
    > I have 5 partitions but of which 3 are different OS's and each of those
    are
    > under 8GB each to stay within the preferred cluster size etc, but my only
    > point in mentioning any of this is to show how anyone can make it so it
    only
    > takes them like me 1 minute or less to create or restore any one of those
    OS
    > partitions. The key is keeping them trim with just OS and all your normal
    > software installation files typically between 2 to 3GB for a fully loaded
    > OS partition. Of course ideally all the backup partitions images are
    > stored on the Images partition, and file/software storage is on the
    Storage
    > partition, etc, My point is saying that if one is to utilize any
    partition
    > imaging programs efficiently then it's a must to have everything in its
    own
    > place providing you with a smaller OS footprint which allows rapid & easy
    > changes of partition images. There should be no need to fuss with 2 hours
    of
    > clearing out partitions or anything like that ? ..a minute is all it
    should
    > take to create or restore a lean OS partition. I have created and
    restored
    > more than a thousand images so I guess I'm pretty use to the system but I
    > constantly do software testing and so have the need to install and
    re-image
    > it in or out when I'm done. Anyway, screenshot below or attached.
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    Rick Chauvin wrote:
    > "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
    > news:uTMYuPBLFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
    >> When I had Component Checker installed & clicked through it's many
    >> windows, I thought for sure MDAC was TREBLE the monster even McAfee is.
    >> It was impressive, but HUGE as hell, & I opted to stay with my lowly
    >
    > Huge? .. the install file is only 4mb

    That's right. Well, unless you use MDAC 2.5 (the last one with Jet, etc),
    in which case it is about 8 MB. Big deal.

    > It doesn't add files over v2.1 as I said - it only replaces them with
    newer ones.

    Right.

    >> MDAC 2.1 SP2 (2.1.2.4202.3) GA. So, better go do the 2-hour backup.
    >> Don't know why it takes that long, though.

    I think it took almost two hours to partition copy 20 GB, but I don't
    remember now. My four partitions are each 20 GB, and I'm happy with this
    simple arrangement.

    >> Please keep us informed of any idiosyncrasies after doing it. I see
    >> Chauvin & mae are well satisfied. But how many of Chauvin's URL's have
    >> to be clicked for this?
    >
    > How many links - what do you mean?
    > I was kind to give 1 link for the kb page, 1 link for the install, and 1
    link
    > for each update. I could of gave none and saved time but was in the
    sharing
    > and making it easier for others mode today :) ..I thought that's what it
    > was all about here in this forum ;)
    >
    > Rick

    Thanks. Yea, I went to the MS download site, and looked at what they had
    to offer in the MDAC department, and there are several versions out there.
    I think I'm just gonna do MDAC 2.5 sp3 (as I mentioned before), at this
    point.

    >>
    >> --
    >> Thanks or Good Luck,
    >> There may be humor in this post, and,
    >> Naturally, you will not sue,
    >> should things get worse after this,
    >> PCR
    >> pcrrcp@netzero.net
    >> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    >> news:eDe$nVALFHA.3832@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >>> So far it all sounds good, but I think I'll stick with MDAC 2.5, the
    last
    >>> one that included Jet and all the other stuff, and see how that goes.
    >>>
    >>> I have BootItNG, and if push comes to shove, I will backup the partition
    >>> before installing MDAC, but my hunch is it's pretty safe to do the MDAC
    >>> upgrade, so I probably won't even bother. For one thing, I would need
    >>> to clear out a partition. For another, I think it takes almost 2 hours
    >>> to do that partition copy, in my case.
    >>>
    >>> If the MDAC upgrade were risky, I'd do it, though. But - I'm not
    >>> hearing that, or reading that.
    >>>
    >>> Rick Chauvin wrote:
    >>>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    >>>> news:e87qtc%23KFHA.3296@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl
    >>>>> I was thinking of doing MDAC 2.5x as you said, mae, for two reasons.
    >>>>> One, it's the last version that includes that Jet stuff and some other
    >>>>> goodies. Two, it's less of an upgrade than jumping all the way up to
    >>>>> 2.7x
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You know what is so ironic? If you install any version ABOVE MDAC
    >>>>> 2.5x, you have a rollback option, in case anything doesn't work right;
    >>>>> but any version below MDAC 2.6, and you don't have the rollback
    >>>>> option. Yet only the versions below 2.6 include all that other stuff!
    >>>>> And I'd guess that's part of the reason why there is no rollback there
    >>>>> - there would be a lot more to undue.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Still, if I install this, and it breaks some existing apps, or screws
    >>>>> up my system, I'm gonna be SOL. Now that will *really* piss me off
    >>>>> - if I have to reinstall everything all over again. UGH!! (cue
    >>>>> in PCR with his sermon on the complete computer system backups -
    >>>>> second thought, don't!)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I wonder if *anyone* has heard any horror stories, in this MDAC
    upgrade
    >>>>> dept? Or has run into any problems?
    >>>>
    >>>> No horror stories,
    >>>> MDAC 2.8 is the latest and here's some details:
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>
    >
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnmdac/html
    >>> /data_mdacinstall.asp
    >>>>
    >>>> ...the v2.8 downlolad
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>
    >
    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=6c050fe3-c795-4b7d-
    >>> b037-185d0506396c&DisplayLang=en
    >>>>
    >>>> & with an intermindate security update for that (does install on W9x)
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>
    >
    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=39472ee8-c14a-47b4-
    >>> bfcc-87988e062d91&displaylang=en
    >>>>
    >>>> & with its final program update for that:
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>
    >
    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=fe2a5b1c-ff30-40a0-
    >>> 8e70-c9f1f4dcd8c2&displaylang=en
    >>>>
    >>>> I tracked the entire install and all it does is simply overwrite the
    >>>> existing install files of it's very early original, and adjusts the
    >>>> registry accordingly.
    >>>>
    >>>> I got tired of trying to figure out what MDAC went with what, and even
    >>>> the MDAC Component Checker would never run true, until installing 2.8
    >>>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;307255
    >>>>
    >>>> Finally I just installed the latest and it was an easy install, no
    >>>> problems.
    >>>>
    >>>> About your cue to PCR, if you mean by backup a "full Partition backup"
    >>>> then that is the ultimate backup. Many programs to do that and most of
    >>>> the MVP's here like and support BootIt NG
    >>>> http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/bootitng.html
    >>>>
    >>>> I personally like and use TrueImage
    >>>> http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/trueimage/
    >>>> ...although I rather use the older v6.0.350 or the older DriveImage
    >>>> v5.01 for Disk to Disk
    >>>>
    >>>> What I meant the other day by you could be indestructible or impervious
    >>>> to whatever update or SP or Whatever you install or wreck on your
    >>>> computer, you can in 2 minutes completely restore the entire partition,
    >>>> or all of them. Once you use it you will never go back and you will be
    >>>> truly the Master of your own computer protection and backup and never
    >>>> again be at its mercy.
    >>>>
    >>>> Rick
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> mae wrote:
    >>>>>> I haven't had any problems.
    >>>>>> I had 2.1 updated but when they stopped support, I went to 2.5sp3,
    and
    >>>>>> that had 3 updates. Now at 2.8 and had 1 update with that. Just don't
    >>>>>> have all the things that would need 2.8. You might try 2.5sp3 first
    to
    >>>>>> see how you do - there was little difference in files as compared to
    >>>>>> 2.1. Check to see if they still support it first - that I don't know.
    >>>>>> --
    >>>>>> mae
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:egnt$45KFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >>>>>>> Has anyone run into any problems after upgrading their MDAC version?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I've got MDAC 2.1, but Sisoft Sandra Lite requires MDAC 2.5 (or
    >>>>>>> higher), and I just want to be sure that a MDAC upgrade is basically
    >>>>>>> a "no brainer" (meaning, no problemo). From what I've been able
    >>>>>>> to read about it so far, it appears to be a pretty safe upgrade.
  9. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    An update:
    So far, so good. I've installed MDAC 2.5 sp3. At this point, all systems
    are go (or seem to be).

    Thank goodness. But it's still a bit early in the game, and time will
    tell.

    Bill in Co. wrote:
    > Rick Chauvin wrote:
    >> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
    >> news:uTMYuPBLFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
    >>> When I had Component Checker installed & clicked through it's many
    >>> windows, I thought for sure MDAC was TREBLE the monster even McAfee is.
    >>> It was impressive, but HUGE as hell, & I opted to stay with my lowly
    >>
    >> Huge? .. the install file is only 4mb
    >
    > That's right. Well, unless you use MDAC 2.5 (the last one with Jet,
    etc),
    > in which case it is about 8 MB. Big deal.
    >
    >> It doesn't add files over v2.1 as I said - it only replaces them with
    newer
    >> ones.
    >
    > Right.
    >
    >>> MDAC 2.1 SP2 (2.1.2.4202.3) GA. So, better go do the 2-hour backup.
    >>> Don't know why it takes that long, though.
    >
    > I think it took almost two hours to partition copy 20 GB, but I don't
    > remember now. My four partitions are each 20 GB, and I'm happy with this
    > simple arrangement.
    >
    >>> Please keep us informed of any idiosyncrasies after doing it. I see
    >>> Chauvin & mae are well satisfied. But how many of Chauvin's URL's have
    >>> to be clicked for this?
    >>
    >> How many links - what do you mean?
    >> I was kind to give 1 link for the kb page, 1 link for the install, and 1
    link
    >> for each update. I could of gave none and saved time but was in the
    sharing
    >> and making it easier for others mode today :) ..I thought that's what
    it
    >> was all about here in this forum ;)
    >>
    >> Rick
    >
    > Thanks. Yea, I went to the MS download site, and looked at what they had
    > to offer in the MDAC department, and there are several versions out there.
    > I think I'm just gonna do MDAC 2.5 sp3 (as I mentioned before), at this
    > point.
    >
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Thanks or Good Luck,
    >>> There may be humor in this post, and,
    >>> Naturally, you will not sue,
    >>> should things get worse after this,
    >>> PCR
    >>> pcrrcp@netzero.net
    >>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    >>> news:eDe$nVALFHA.3832@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >>>> So far it all sounds good, but I think I'll stick with MDAC 2.5, the
    last
    >>>> one that included Jet and all the other stuff, and see how that goes.
    >>>>
    >>>> I have BootItNG, and if push comes to shove, I will backup the
    partition
    >>>> before installing MDAC, but my hunch is it's pretty safe to do the MDAC
    >>>> upgrade, so I probably won't even bother. For one thing, I would
    need
    >>>> to clear out a partition. For another, I think it takes almost 2
    hours
    >>>> to do that partition copy, in my case.
    >>>>
    >>>> If the MDAC upgrade were risky, I'd do it, though. But - I'm not
    >>>> hearing that, or reading that.
    >>>>
    >>>> Rick Chauvin wrote:
    >>>>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:e87qtc%23KFHA.3296@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl
    >>>>>> I was thinking of doing MDAC 2.5x as you said, mae, for two reasons.
    >>>>>> One, it's the last version that includes that Jet stuff and some
    other
    >>>>>> goodies. Two, it's less of an upgrade than jumping all the way up to
    >>>>>> 2.7x
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> You know what is so ironic? If you install any version ABOVE MDAC
    >>>>>> 2.5x, you have a rollback option, in case anything doesn't work
    right;
    >>>>>> but any version below MDAC 2.6, and you don't have the rollback
    >>>>>> option. Yet only the versions below 2.6 include all that other stuff!
    >>>>>> And I'd guess that's part of the reason why there is no rollback
    there
    >>>>>> - there would be a lot more to undue.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Still, if I install this, and it breaks some existing apps, or screws
    >>>>>> up my system, I'm gonna be SOL. Now that will *really* piss me off
    >>>>>> - if I have to reinstall everything all over again. UGH!! (cue
    >>>>>> in PCR with his sermon on the complete computer system backups -
    >>>>>> second thought, don't!)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I wonder if *anyone* has heard any horror stories, in this MDAC
    upgrade
    >>>>>> dept? Or has run into any problems?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No horror stories,
    >>>>> MDAC 2.8 is the latest and here's some details:
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>
    >
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnmdac/html
    >>>> /data_mdacinstall.asp
    >>>>>
    >>>>> ...the v2.8 downlolad
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>
    >
    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=6c050fe3-c795-4b7d-
    >>>> b037-185d0506396c&DisplayLang=en
    >>>>>
    >>>>> & with an intermindate security update for that (does install on W9x)
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>
    >
    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=39472ee8-c14a-47b4-
    >>>> bfcc-87988e062d91&displaylang=en
    >>>>>
    >>>>> & with its final program update for that:
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>
    >
    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=fe2a5b1c-ff30-40a0-
    >>>> 8e70-c9f1f4dcd8c2&displaylang=en
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I tracked the entire install and all it does is simply overwrite the
    >>>>> existing install files of it's very early original, and adjusts the
    >>>>> registry accordingly.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I got tired of trying to figure out what MDAC went with what, and even
    >>>>> the MDAC Component Checker would never run true, until installing 2.8
    >>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;307255
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Finally I just installed the latest and it was an easy install, no
    >>>>> problems.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> About your cue to PCR, if you mean by backup a "full Partition backup"
    >>>>> then that is the ultimate backup. Many programs to do that and most
    of
    >>>>> the MVP's here like and support BootIt NG
    >>>>> http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/bootitng.html
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I personally like and use TrueImage
    >>>>> http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/trueimage/
    >>>>> ...although I rather use the older v6.0.350 or the older DriveImage
    >>>>> v5.01 for Disk to Disk
    >>>>>
    >>>>> What I meant the other day by you could be indestructible or
    impervious
    >>>>> to whatever update or SP or Whatever you install or wreck on your
    >>>>> computer, you can in 2 minutes completely restore the entire
    partition,
    >>>>> or all of them. Once you use it you will never go back and you will be
    >>>>> truly the Master of your own computer protection and backup and never
    >>>>> again be at its mercy.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Rick
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> mae wrote:
    >>>>>>> I haven't had any problems.
    >>>>>>> I had 2.1 updated but when they stopped support, I went to 2.5sp3,
    and
    >>>>>>> that had 3 updates. Now at 2.8 and had 1 update with that. Just
    don't
    >>>>>>> have all the things that would need 2.8. You might try 2.5sp3 first
    to
    >>>>>>> see how you do - there was little difference in files as compared to
    >>>>>>> 2.1. Check to see if they still support it first - that I don't
    know.
    >>>>>>> --
    >>>>>>> mae
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:egnt$45KFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >>>>>>>> Has anyone run into any problems after upgrading their MDAC
    version?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I've got MDAC 2.1, but Sisoft Sandra Lite requires MDAC 2.5 (or
    >>>>>>>> higher), and I just want to be sure that a MDAC upgrade is
    basically
    >>>>>>>> a "no brainer" (meaning, no problemo). From what I've been able
    >>>>>>>> to read about it so far, it appears to be a pretty safe upgrade.
  10. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    I've been following this MDAC thread wondering the following:

    We run AccPac 4.2 on a small network where the database is on a
    machine running NT4 server and the clients are all Win-98. Pervasive
    SQL 2000 is also used.

    I'm not sure which version of MDAC is being used on any given machine.

    What do I need to be careful of regarding which version of MDAC I'm
    running on this network?
  11. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    I don't know the answer to that, but someone here might. However, if you
    haven't visited the MS web site, I'd encourage ya to do so. There is a
    *ton* of information on MDAC over there.

    98 Guy wrote:
    > I've been following this MDAC thread wondering the following:
    >
    > We run AccPac 4.2 on a small network where the database is on a
    > machine running NT4 server and the clients are all Win-98. Pervasive
    > SQL 2000 is also used.
    >
    > I'm not sure which version of MDAC is being used on any given machine.
    >
    > What do I need to be careful of regarding which version of MDAC I'm
    > running on this network?
  12. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    news:uSIGmWBLFHA.3104@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    | "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
    | news:uTMYuPBLFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
    | > When I had Component Checker installed & clicked through it's many
    | > windows, I thought for sure MDAC was TREBLE the monster even McAfee
    is.
    | > It was impressive, but HUGE as hell, & I opted to stay with my lowly
    |
    | Huge? .. the install file is only 4mb

    Well, "Component Checker.exe", itself, is 587 KB, compressed. Opening it
    with WinZip, I see endless screens full of files, that likely go with
    the endless but impressive number of tabs/windows of the Checker. (I've
    uninstalled it, but kept the download.) Perhaps I was thinking of the
    number of files, not the KBs.
    |
    | It doesn't add files over v2.1 as I said - it only replaces them with
    newer
    | ones.

    OK, but it's quite a number of files.

    |
    | > MDAC 2.1 SP2 (2.1.2.4202.3) GA. So, better go do the 2-hour backup.
    | > Don't know why it takes that long, though.
    | >
    | > Please keep us informed of any idiosyncrasies after doing it. I see
    | > Chauvin & mae are well satisfied. But how many of Chauvin's URL's
    have
    | > to be clicked for this?
    |
    | How many links - what do you mean?
    | I was kind to give 1 link for the kb page, 1 link for the install, and
    1 link
    | for each update. I could of gave none and saved time but was in the
    sharing
    | and making it easier for others mode today :) ..I thought that's
    what it
    | was all about here in this forum ;)

    Sure, you are kind, & making it easy is what it's about. Let me look
    again... it STILL looks like a lot of URL's, though, to do just one
    thing. I guess, one would take the "v2.8 download" & then the two
    updates that followed, the "intermediate" & the "final". (But Colorado
    went for 2.5 because of JET & is another satisfied customer, I see.)

    Really, I'm impressed with you, mae, & now Colorado for actually doing
    it!

    |
    | Rick
    |


    --
    Thanks or Good Luck,
    There may be humor in this post, and,
    Naturally, you will not sue,
    should things get worse after this,
    PCR
    pcrrcp@netzero.net
    ....snip
  13. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    "PCR" wrote in message
    news:uQ5$WFGLFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl
    > "Rick Chauvin" wrote in message
    > news:uSIGmWBLFHA.3104@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >| "PCR" wrote in message
    >| news:uTMYuPBLFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
    >| > When I had Component Checker installed & clicked through it's many
    >| > windows, I thought for sure MDAC was TREBLE the monster even McAfee is.
    >| > It was impressive, but HUGE as hell, & I opted to stay with my lowly
    >|
    >| Huge? .. the install file is only 4mb
    >
    > Well, "Component Checker.exe", itself, is 587 KB, compressed. Opening it
    > with WinZip, I see endless screens full of files, that likely go with

    ?!?!?
    ...By actually installing - or better said: using the component checker which a self-run
    exe - it does not install any files, it only places 3 tiny xml files with the sys info it gives!


    > the endless but impressive number of tabs/windows of the Checker. (I've
    > uninstalled it, but kept the download.) Perhaps I was thinking of the
    > number of files, not the KBs.
    >|
    >| It doesn't add files over v2.1 as I said - it only replaces them with
    >| newer ones.
    >
    > OK, but it's quite a number of files.


    Yes I'll give you that, but it is only replacing files that are Already there!!!

    Rick


    [...]
    > --
    > Thanks or Good Luck,
    > There may be humor in this post, and,
    > Naturally, you will not sue,
    > should things get worse after this,
    > PCR
    > pcrrcp@netzero.net
    > ...snip
  14. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    "98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:423BB1DA.D5A6C1D8@Guy.com
    > I've been following this MDAC thread wondering the following:
    >
    > We run AccPac 4.2 on a small network where the database is on a
    > machine running NT4 server and the clients are all Win-98. Pervasive
    > SQL 2000 is also used.
    >
    > I'm not sure which version of MDAC is being used on any given machine.
    >
    > What do I need to be careful of regarding which version of MDAC I'm
    > running on this network?

    MDAC 2.8 is simply the latest updated version and it will not uninstall Jet
    if you already have it installed; if you didn't you can install Jet
    separately.

    AccPac newest versions require the newer MDAC

    If you are the System Admin for your company or not, then check with ACCPAC
    to see if the updated v2.8 is now recommended with your older 4.2 setup. I
    wouldn't doubt for a minute it is, but ALWAYS check with the source software
    to be sure.

    Rick
  15. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    Rick Chauvin wrote:
    > "PCR" wrote in message
    > news:uQ5$WFGLFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl
    >> "Rick Chauvin" wrote in message
    >> news:uSIGmWBLFHA.3104@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >>> "PCR" wrote in message
    >>> news:uTMYuPBLFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
    >>>> When I had Component Checker installed & clicked through it's many
    >>>> windows, I thought for sure MDAC was TREBLE the monster even McAfee
    >>>> it. It was impressive, but HUGE as hell, & I opted to stay with my
    lowly
    >>>
    >>> Huge? .. the install file is only 4mb
    >>
    >> Well, "Component Checker.exe", itself, is 587 KB, compressed. Opening it
    >> with WinZip, I see endless screens full of files, that likely go with
    >
    > ?!?!?
    > ..By actually installing - or better said: using the component checker
    which
    > a self-run
    > exe - it does not install any files, it only places 3 tiny xml files with
    the
    > sys info it gives!

    Exactly. Rick is right, PCR. Be sure you have the latest version of
    Component Checker, and not the really old one.

    >> the endless but impressive number of tabs/windows of the Checker. (I've
    >> uninstalled it, but kept the download.) Perhaps I was thinking of the
    >> number of files, not the KBs.
    >>>
    >>> It doesn't add files over v2.1 as I said - it only replaces them with
    >>> newer ones.
    >>
    >> OK, but it's quite a number of files.
    >
    >
    > Yes I'll give you that, but it is only replacing files that are Already
    > there!!!
    >
    > Rick

    EXACTLY!

    > [...]
    >> --
    >> Thanks or Good Luck,
    >> There may be humor in this post, and,
    >> Naturally, you will not sue,
    >> should things get worse after this,
    >> PCR
    >> pcrrcp@netzero.net
    >> ...snip
  16. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    PCR wrote:
    > "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    > news:uSIGmWBLFHA.3104@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
    >> news:uTMYuPBLFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
    >>> When I had Component Checker installed & clicked through it's many
    >>> windows, I thought for sure MDAC was TREBLE the monster even McAfee is.
    >>> It was impressive, but HUGE as hell, & I opted to stay with my lowly
    >>
    >> Huge? .. the install file is only 4mb
    >
    > Well, "Component Checker.exe", itself, is 587 KB, compressed. Opening it
    > with WinZip, I see endless screens full of files, that likely go with
    > the endless but impressive number of tabs/windows of the Checker. (I've
    > uninstalled it, but kept the download.) Perhaps I was thinking of the
    > number of files, not the KBs.

    Be sure you get the latest version of Component Checker too (not the old
    ones). At first I had the old one and it didn't even have MDAC 2.5 sp3 in
    its database (the sp3 wasn't)

    >> It doesn't add files over v2.1 as I said - it only replaces them with
    newer
    >> ones.
    >
    > OK, but it's quite a number of files.

    It's just updating them, as Rick said. I think SFC said it updated about
    70 of them, as I recall now.

    >>
    >>> MDAC 2.1 SP2 (2.1.2.4202.3) GA. So, better go do the 2-hour backup.
    >>> Don't know why it takes that long, though.
    >>>
    >>> Please keep us informed of any idiosyncrasies after doing it. I see
    >>> Chauvin & mae are well satisfied. But how many of Chauvin's URL's have
    >>> to be clicked for this?
    >>
    >> How many links - what do you mean?
    >> I was kind to give 1 link for the kb page, 1 link for the install, and 1
    link
    >> for each update. I could of gave none and saved time but was in the
    sharing
    >> and making it easier for others mode today :) ..I thought that's what
    it
    >> was all about here in this forum ;)
    >
    > Sure, you are kind, & making it easy is what it's about. Let me look
    > again... it STILL looks like a lot of URL's, though, to do just one
    > thing. I guess, one would take the "v2.8 download" & then the two
    > updates that followed, the "intermediate" & the "final". (But Colorado
    > went for 2.5 because of JET & is another satisfied customer, I see.)
    >
    > Really, I'm impressed with you, mae, & now Colorado for actually doing
    > it!

    Mae and I both went for MDAC 2.5 sp3, as I recall (the latest version of
    2.5).

    >>
    >> Rick
    >>
    >
    >
    > --
    > Thanks or Good Luck,
    > There may be humor in this post, and,
    > Naturally, you will not sue,
    > should things get worse after this,
    > PCR
    > pcrrcp@netzero.net
    > ...snip
  17. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    You might see this afterward. If so remove the "run once" in the registry.
    MDAC 2.5 Configuration Dialog Appears After Every Restart [Q268062]
    http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=268062
    --
    mae

    "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:OqEr15DLFHA.3552@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    | An update:
    | So far, so good. I've installed MDAC 2.5 sp3. At this point, all
    systems
    | are go (or seem to be).
    |
    | Thank goodness. But it's still a bit early in the game, and time will
    | tell.
    |
    | Bill in Co. wrote:
    | > Rick Chauvin wrote:
    | >> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
    | >> news:uTMYuPBLFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
    |
    | >>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    | >>> news:eDe$nVALFHA.3832@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

    | >>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    | >>>>>>> news:egnt$45KFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
  18. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    Fortunately not. So far, the installation went without a hitch. But
    thanks for posting it.

    After I installed MDAC 2.5 sp3 (and, of course, rebooted to finish it up), I
    went ahead and installed the free SiSoft Sandra Lite 2004, which is a nice
    system analysis tool.

    Sisoft Sandra is a "system diagnostic, analysis, and reporting assistant"
    tool, kinda like AIDA 32 (which is now Everest).

    mae wrote:
    > You might see this afterward. If so remove the "run once" in the registry.
    > MDAC 2.5 Configuration Dialog Appears After Every Restart [Q268062]
    > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=268062
    > --
    > mae
    >
    > "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:OqEr15DLFHA.3552@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >> An update:
    >> So far, so good. I've installed MDAC 2.5 sp3. At this point, all
    systems
    >> are go (or seem to be).
    >>
    >> Thank goodness. But it's still a bit early in the game, and time will
    >> tell.
    >>
    >> Bill in Co. wrote:
    >>> Rick Chauvin wrote:
    >>>> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
    >>>> news:uTMYuPBLFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
    >>
    >>>>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:eDe$nVALFHA.3832@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >
    >>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>> news:egnt$45KFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
  19. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    | > OK, but it's quite a number of files.
    |
    | Yes I'll give you that, but it is only replacing files that are
    Already there!!!

    Right, that's how I recall it, when I had Component Checker installed &
    began to look through it's screens. I see Colorado counted 70 of them.
    Now, all I can do is R-Clk "Component Checker.exe", & open it in WinZip.
    That way, surely I see a thousand little files & some large. Naturally,
    those may not be MDAC files, per se, but these only deal with the
    Checker. (I don't know.)

    I can't do a thing now. I must complete my taxes before I blow this
    machine up, by solemn vow! OK, thanks, Chauvin, Colorado, mae. I suppose
    it hasn't killed any of you, BUT two of you are more likeable than me by
    far!


    --
    Thanks or Good Luck,
    There may be humor in this post, and,
    Naturally, you will not sue,
    should things get worse after this,
    PCR
    pcrrcp@netzero.net
    "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    news:u%23dve5ILFHA.2252@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    | "PCR" wrote in message
    | news:uQ5$WFGLFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl
    | > "Rick Chauvin" wrote in message
    | > news:uSIGmWBLFHA.3104@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    | >| "PCR" wrote in message
    | >| news:uTMYuPBLFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
    | >| > When I had Component Checker installed & clicked through it's
    many
    | >| > windows, I thought for sure MDAC was TREBLE the monster even
    McAfee is.
    | >| > It was impressive, but HUGE as hell, & I opted to stay with my
    lowly
    | >|
    | >| Huge? .. the install file is only 4mb
    | >
    | > Well, "Component Checker.exe", itself, is 587 KB, compressed.
    Opening it
    | > with WinZip, I see endless screens full of files, that likely go
    with
    |
    | ?!?!?
    | ..By actually installing - or better said: using the component checker
    which a self-run
    | exe - it does not install any files, it only places 3 tiny xml files
    with the sys info it gives!
    |
    |
    | > the endless but impressive number of tabs/windows of the Checker.
    (I've
    | > uninstalled it, but kept the download.) Perhaps I was thinking of
    the
    | > number of files, not the KBs.
    | >|
    | >| It doesn't add files over v2.1 as I said - it only replaces them
    with
    | >| newer ones.
    | >
    | > OK, but it's quite a number of files.
    |
    |
    | Yes I'll give you that, but it is only replacing files that are
    Already there!!!
    |
    | Rick
    |
    |
    | [...]
    | > --
    | > Thanks or Good Luck,
    | > There may be humor in this post, and,
    | > Naturally, you will not sue,
    | > should things get worse after this,
    | > PCR
    | > pcrrcp@netzero.net
    | > ...snip
    |
  20. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    I can't do it right now, though your report is very encouraging. Have
    you run a big app/two since then, like DxDiag or WMP? The files in
    SFCLog.txt, are they truly obscure ones or names that we have all come
    to know & love?


    --
    Thanks or Good Luck,
    There may be humor in this post, and,
    Naturally, you will not sue,
    should things get worse after this,
    PCR
    pcrrcp@netzero.net
    "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:%23IHJUGLLFHA.436@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    | PCR wrote:
    | > "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    | > news:uSIGmWBLFHA.3104@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    | >> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
    | >> news:uTMYuPBLFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
    | >>> When I had Component Checker installed & clicked through it's many
    | >>> windows, I thought for sure MDAC was TREBLE the monster even
    McAfee is.
    | >>> It was impressive, but HUGE as hell, & I opted to stay with my
    lowly
    | >>
    | >> Huge? .. the install file is only 4mb
    | >
    | > Well, "Component Checker.exe", itself, is 587 KB, compressed.
    Opening it
    | > with WinZip, I see endless screens full of files, that likely go
    with
    | > the endless but impressive number of tabs/windows of the Checker.
    (I've
    | > uninstalled it, but kept the download.) Perhaps I was thinking of
    the
    | > number of files, not the KBs.
    |
    | Be sure you get the latest version of Component Checker too (not the
    old
    | ones). At first I had the old one and it didn't even have MDAC 2.5
    sp3 in
    | its database (the sp3 wasn't)
    |
    | >> It doesn't add files over v2.1 as I said - it only replaces them
    with
    | newer
    | >> ones.
    | >
    | > OK, but it's quite a number of files.
    |
    | It's just updating them, as Rick said. I think SFC said it updated
    about
    | 70 of them, as I recall now.
    |
    | >>
    | >>> MDAC 2.1 SP2 (2.1.2.4202.3) GA. So, better go do the 2-hour
    backup.
    | >>> Don't know why it takes that long, though.
    | >>>
    | >>> Please keep us informed of any idiosyncrasies after doing it. I
    see
    | >>> Chauvin & mae are well satisfied. But how many of Chauvin's URL's
    have
    | >>> to be clicked for this?
    | >>
    | >> How many links - what do you mean?
    | >> I was kind to give 1 link for the kb page, 1 link for the install,
    and 1
    | link
    | >> for each update. I could of gave none and saved time but was in
    the
    | sharing
    | >> and making it easier for others mode today :) ..I thought that's
    what
    | it
    | >> was all about here in this forum ;)
    | >
    | > Sure, you are kind, & making it easy is what it's about. Let me look
    | > again... it STILL looks like a lot of URL's, though, to do just one
    | > thing. I guess, one would take the "v2.8 download" & then the two
    | > updates that followed, the "intermediate" & the "final". (But
    Colorado
    | > went for 2.5 because of JET & is another satisfied customer, I see.)
    | >
    | > Really, I'm impressed with you, mae, & now Colorado for actually
    doing
    | > it!
    |
    | Mae and I both went for MDAC 2.5 sp3, as I recall (the latest version
    of
    | 2.5).
    |
    | >>
    | >> Rick
    | >>
    | >
    | >
    | > --
    | > Thanks or Good Luck,
    | > There may be humor in this post, and,
    | > Naturally, you will not sue,
    | > should things get worse after this,
    | > PCR
    | > pcrrcp@netzero.net
    | > ...snip
    |
    |
  21. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    Lately I've been finding out most things in life are a bit obscure, so I
    really can't answer this.

    PCR wrote:
    > I can't do it right now, though your report is very encouraging. Have
    > you run a big app/two since then, like DxDiag or WMP? The files in
    > SFCLog.txt, are they truly obscure ones or names that we have all come
    > to know & love?
    >
    >
    > --
    > Thanks or Good Luck,
    > There may be humor in this post, and,
    > Naturally, you will not sue,
    > should things get worse after this,
    > PCR
    > pcrrcp@netzero.net
    > "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:%23IHJUGLLFHA.436@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >> PCR wrote:
    >>> "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:uSIGmWBLFHA.3104@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >>>> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
    >>>> news:uTMYuPBLFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
    >>>>> When I had Component Checker installed & clicked through it's many
    >>>>> windows, I thought for sure MDAC was TREBLE the monster even McAfee
    is.
    >>>>> It was impressive, but HUGE as hell, & I opted to stay with my lowly
    >>>>
    >>>> Huge? .. the install file is only 4mb
    >>>
    >>> Well, "Component Checker.exe", itself, is 587 KB, compressed. Opening it
    >>> with WinZip, I see endless screens full of files, that likely go with
    >>> the endless but impressive number of tabs/windows of the Checker. (I've
    >>> uninstalled it, but kept the download.) Perhaps I was thinking of the
    >>> number of files, not the KBs.
    >>
    >> Be sure you get the latest version of Component Checker too (not the old
    >> ones). At first I had the old one and it didn't even have MDAC 2.5 sp3
    in
    >> its database (the sp3 wasn't)
    >>
    >>>> It doesn't add files over v2.1 as I said - it only replaces them with
    newer
    >>>> ones.
    >>>
    >>> OK, but it's quite a number of files.
    >>
    >> It's just updating them, as Rick said. I think SFC said it updated
    about
    >> 70 of them, as I recall now.
    >>
    >>>>
    >>>>> MDAC 2.1 SP2 (2.1.2.4202.3) GA. So, better go do the 2-hour backup.
    >>>>> Don't know why it takes that long, though.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Please keep us informed of any idiosyncrasies after doing it. I see
    >>>>> Chauvin & mae are well satisfied. But how many of Chauvin's URL's have
    >>>>> to be clicked for this?
    >>>>
    >>>> How many links - what do you mean?
    >>>> I was kind to give 1 link for the kb page, 1 link for the install, and
    1
    >>>> link for each update. I could of gave none and saved time but was in
    the
    >>>> sharing and making it easier for others mode today :) ..I thought
    that's
    >>>> what it was all about here in this forum ;)
    >>>
    >>> Sure, you are kind, & making it easy is what it's about. Let me look
    >>> again... it STILL looks like a lot of URL's, though, to do just one
    >>> thing. I guess, one would take the "v2.8 download" & then the two
    >>> updates that followed, the "intermediate" & the "final". (But Colorado
    >>> went for 2.5 because of JET & is another satisfied customer, I see.)
    >>>
    >>> Really, I'm impressed with you, mae, & now Colorado for actually doing
    >>> it!
    >>
    >> Mae and I both went for MDAC 2.5 sp3, as I recall (the latest version of
    >> 2.5).
    >>
    >>>>
    >>>> Rick
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Thanks or Good Luck,
    >>> There may be humor in this post, and,
    >>> Naturally, you will not sue,
    >>> should things get worse after this,
    >>> PCR
    >>> pcrrcp@netzero.net
    >>> ...snip
  22. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    Just answer the part about DxDiag & WMP, then. They didn't blow up yet?


    --
    Thanks or Good Luck,
    There may be humor in this post, and,
    Naturally, you will not sue,
    should things get worse after this,
    PCR
    pcrrcp@netzero.net
    "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:eNLGmSeLFHA.2796@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    | Lately I've been finding out most things in life are a bit obscure, so
    I
    | really can't answer this.
    |
    | PCR wrote:
    | > I can't do it right now, though your report is very encouraging.
    Have
    | > you run a big app/two since then, like DxDiag or WMP? The files in
    | > SFCLog.txt, are they truly obscure ones or names that we have all
    come
    | > to know & love?
    | >
    | >
    | > --
    | > Thanks or Good Luck,
    | > There may be humor in this post, and,
    | > Naturally, you will not sue,
    | > should things get worse after this,
    | > PCR
    | > pcrrcp@netzero.net
    | > "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    | > news:%23IHJUGLLFHA.436@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    | >> PCR wrote:
    | >>> "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    | >>> news:uSIGmWBLFHA.3104@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    | >>>> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
    | >>>> news:uTMYuPBLFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
    | >>>>> When I had Component Checker installed & clicked through it's
    many
    | >>>>> windows, I thought for sure MDAC was TREBLE the monster even
    McAfee
    | is.
    | >>>>> It was impressive, but HUGE as hell, & I opted to stay with my
    lowly
    | >>>>
    | >>>> Huge? .. the install file is only 4mb
    | >>>
    | >>> Well, "Component Checker.exe", itself, is 587 KB, compressed.
    Opening it
    | >>> with WinZip, I see endless screens full of files, that likely go
    with
    | >>> the endless but impressive number of tabs/windows of the Checker.
    (I've
    | >>> uninstalled it, but kept the download.) Perhaps I was thinking of
    the
    | >>> number of files, not the KBs.
    | >>
    | >> Be sure you get the latest version of Component Checker too (not
    the old
    | >> ones). At first I had the old one and it didn't even have MDAC
    2.5 sp3
    | in
    | >> its database (the sp3 wasn't)
    | >>
    | >>>> It doesn't add files over v2.1 as I said - it only replaces them
    with
    | newer
    | >>>> ones.
    | >>>
    | >>> OK, but it's quite a number of files.
    | >>
    | >> It's just updating them, as Rick said. I think SFC said it
    updated
    | about
    | >> 70 of them, as I recall now.
    | >>
    | >>>>
    | >>>>> MDAC 2.1 SP2 (2.1.2.4202.3) GA. So, better go do the 2-hour
    backup.
    | >>>>> Don't know why it takes that long, though.
    | >>>>>
    | >>>>> Please keep us informed of any idiosyncrasies after doing it. I
    see
    | >>>>> Chauvin & mae are well satisfied. But how many of Chauvin's
    URL's have
    | >>>>> to be clicked for this?
    | >>>>
    | >>>> How many links - what do you mean?
    | >>>> I was kind to give 1 link for the kb page, 1 link for the
    install, and
    | 1
    | >>>> link for each update. I could of gave none and saved time but
    was in
    | the
    | >>>> sharing and making it easier for others mode today :) ..I
    thought
    | that's
    | >>>> what it was all about here in this forum ;)
    | >>>
    | >>> Sure, you are kind, & making it easy is what it's about. Let me
    look
    | >>> again... it STILL looks like a lot of URL's, though, to do just
    one
    | >>> thing. I guess, one would take the "v2.8 download" & then the two
    | >>> updates that followed, the "intermediate" & the "final". (But
    Colorado
    | >>> went for 2.5 because of JET & is another satisfied customer, I
    see.)
    | >>>
    | >>> Really, I'm impressed with you, mae, & now Colorado for actually
    doing
    | >>> it!
    | >>
    | >> Mae and I both went for MDAC 2.5 sp3, as I recall (the latest
    version of
    | >> 2.5).
    | >>
    | >>>>
    | >>>> Rick
    | >>>>
    | >>>
    | >>>
    | >>> --
    | >>> Thanks or Good Luck,
    | >>> There may be humor in this post, and,
    | >>> Naturally, you will not sue,
    | >>> should things get worse after this,
    | >>> PCR
    | >>> pcrrcp@netzero.net
    | >>> ...snip
    |
    |
  23. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    So far, so good. I tested DxDiag and all is well on the tests there.
    I've also tested some video apps (even bigger than WMP). No problemo.
    (My hunch is if there were any real problems with the installation, you'll
    know about them soon enough. And you'd probably have to reboot and
    reinstall it again. But I don't see much out there talking about lots of
    problems in upgrading MDAC, at least from what I've read)

    The reason I did this was
    1) it was required by Sisoft Sandra Lite (and who knows what else out
    there),

    AND

    2) it's probably not a bad idea at this point anyway, since some of the
    previous version (files) date back to 1999, if I remember right. And
    we're just fallin behind in what we can have on our system anymore (as far
    as some programs are concerned).

    PCR wrote:
    > Just answer the part about DxDiag & WMP, then. They didn't blow up yet?
    >
    >
    > --
    > Thanks or Good Luck,
    > There may be humor in this post, and,
    > Naturally, you will not sue,
    > should things get worse after this,
    > PCR
    > pcrrcp@netzero.net
    > "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:eNLGmSeLFHA.2796@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >> Lately I've been finding out most things in life are a bit obscure, so I
    >> really can't answer this.
    >>
    >> PCR wrote:
    >>> I can't do it right now, though your report is very encouraging. Have
    >>> you run a big app/two since then, like DxDiag or WMP? The files in
    >>> SFCLog.txt, are they truly obscure ones or names that we have all come
    >>> to know & love?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Thanks or Good Luck,
    >>> There may be humor in this post, and,
    >>> Naturally, you will not sue,
    >>> should things get worse after this,
    >>> PCR
    >>> pcrrcp@netzero.net
    >>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    >>> news:%23IHJUGLLFHA.436@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >>>> PCR wrote:
    >>>>> "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:uSIGmWBLFHA.3104@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >>>>>> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:uTMYuPBLFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
    >>>>>>> When I had Component Checker installed & clicked through it's many
    >>>>>>> windows, I thought for sure MDAC was TREBLE the monster even McAfee
    is.
    >>>>>>> It was impressive, but HUGE as hell, & I opted to stay with my lowly
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Huge? .. the install file is only 4mb
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Well, "Component Checker.exe", itself, is 587 KB, compressed. Opening
    it
    >>>>> with WinZip, I see endless screens full of files, that likely go with
    >>>>> the endless but impressive number of tabs/windows of the Checker.
    (I've
    >>>>> uninstalled it, but kept the download.) Perhaps I was thinking of the
    >>>>> number of files, not the KBs.
    >>>>
    >>>> Be sure you get the latest version of Component Checker too (not the
    old
    >>>> ones). At first I had the old one and it didn't even have MDAC 2.5
    sp3 in
    >>>> its database (the sp3 wasn't)
    >>>>
    >>>>>> It doesn't add files over v2.1 as I said - it only replaces them with
    >>>>>> newer ones.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> OK, but it's quite a number of files.
    >>>>
    >>>> It's just updating them, as Rick said. I think SFC said it updated
    about
    >>>> 70 of them, as I recall now.
    >>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> MDAC 2.1 SP2 (2.1.2.4202.3) GA. So, better go do the 2-hour backup.
    >>>>>>> Don't know why it takes that long, though.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Please keep us informed of any idiosyncrasies after doing it. I see
    >>>>>>> Chauvin & mae are well satisfied. But how many of Chauvin's URL's
    have
    >>>>>>> to be clicked for this?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> How many links - what do you mean?
    >>>>>> I was kind to give 1 link for the kb page, 1 link for the install,
    and 1
    >>>>>> link for each update. I could of gave none and saved time but was in
    the
    >>>>>> sharing and making it easier for others mode today :) ..I thought
    >>>>>> that's what it was all about here in this forum ;)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Sure, you are kind, & making it easy is what it's about. Let me look
    >>>>> again... it STILL looks like a lot of URL's, though, to do just one
    >>>>> thing. I guess, one would take the "v2.8 download" & then the two
    >>>>> updates that followed, the "intermediate" & the "final". (But Colorado
    >>>>> went for 2.5 because of JET & is another satisfied customer, I see.)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Really, I'm impressed with you, mae, & now Colorado for actually doing
    >>>>> it!
    >>>>
    >>>> Mae and I both went for MDAC 2.5 sp3, as I recall (the latest version
    of
    >>>> 2.5).
    >>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Rick
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> --
    >>>>> Thanks or Good Luck,
    >>>>> There may be humor in this post, and,
    >>>>> Naturally, you will not sue,
    >>>>> should things get worse after this,
    >>>>> PCR
    >>>>> pcrrcp@netzero.net
    >>>>> ...snip
  24. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    OK, Colorado, you make the update sound reasonable & safe. It's on my
    to-do list. Thanks. However, I imagine, when I get to it, there may be a
    delay deciding whether to stop at 2.5 SP-whatever or to go all the way
    to 2.8 SP-whatever. Chauvin has made that one sound good, saying, while
    it doesn't include JET, it won't upset it, either, if already installed.
    OK, then. OK, bye.


    --
    Thanks or Good Luck,
    There may be humor in this post, and,
    Naturally, you will not sue,
    should things get worse after this,
    PCR
    pcrrcp@netzero.net
    "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:uriwgmnLFHA.3076@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    | So far, so good. I tested DxDiag and all is well on the tests there.
    | I've also tested some video apps (even bigger than WMP). No
    problemo.
    | (My hunch is if there were any real problems with the installation,
    you'll
    | know about them soon enough. And you'd probably have to reboot and
    | reinstall it again. But I don't see much out there talking about
    lots of
    | problems in upgrading MDAC, at least from what I've read)
    |
    | The reason I did this was
    | 1) it was required by Sisoft Sandra Lite (and who knows what else out
    | there),
    |
    | AND
    |
    | 2) it's probably not a bad idea at this point anyway, since some of
    the
    | previous version (files) date back to 1999, if I remember right.
    And
    | we're just fallin behind in what we can have on our system anymore (as
    far
    | as some programs are concerned).
    |
    | PCR wrote:
    | > Just answer the part about DxDiag & WMP, then. They didn't blow up
    yet?
    | >
    | >
    | > --
    | > Thanks or Good Luck,
    | > There may be humor in this post, and,
    | > Naturally, you will not sue,
    | > should things get worse after this,
    | > PCR
    | > pcrrcp@netzero.net
    | > "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    | > news:eNLGmSeLFHA.2796@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    | >> Lately I've been finding out most things in life are a bit obscure,
    so I
    | >> really can't answer this.
    | >>
    | >> PCR wrote:
    | >>> I can't do it right now, though your report is very encouraging.
    Have
    | >>> you run a big app/two since then, like DxDiag or WMP? The files in
    | >>> SFCLog.txt, are they truly obscure ones or names that we have all
    come
    | >>> to know & love?
    | >>>
    | >>>
    | >>> --
    | >>> Thanks or Good Luck,
    | >>> There may be humor in this post, and,
    | >>> Naturally, you will not sue,
    | >>> should things get worse after this,
    | >>> PCR
    | >>> pcrrcp@netzero.net
    | >>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    | >>> news:%23IHJUGLLFHA.436@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    | >>>> PCR wrote:
    | >>>>> "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    | >>>>> news:uSIGmWBLFHA.3104@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    | >>>>>> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
    | >>>>>> news:uTMYuPBLFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
    | >>>>>>> When I had Component Checker installed & clicked through it's
    many
    | >>>>>>> windows, I thought for sure MDAC was TREBLE the monster even
    McAfee
    | is.
    | >>>>>>> It was impressive, but HUGE as hell, & I opted to stay with my
    lowly
    | >>>>>>
    | >>>>>> Huge? .. the install file is only 4mb
    | >>>>>
    | >>>>> Well, "Component Checker.exe", itself, is 587 KB, compressed.
    Opening
    | it
    | >>>>> with WinZip, I see endless screens full of files, that likely go
    with
    | >>>>> the endless but impressive number of tabs/windows of the
    Checker.
    | (I've
    | >>>>> uninstalled it, but kept the download.) Perhaps I was thinking
    of the
    | >>>>> number of files, not the KBs.
    | >>>>
    | >>>> Be sure you get the latest version of Component Checker too (not
    the
    | old
    | >>>> ones). At first I had the old one and it didn't even have MDAC
    2.5
    | sp3 in
    | >>>> its database (the sp3 wasn't)
    | >>>>
    | >>>>>> It doesn't add files over v2.1 as I said - it only replaces
    them with
    | >>>>>> newer ones.
    | >>>>>
    | >>>>> OK, but it's quite a number of files.
    | >>>>
    | >>>> It's just updating them, as Rick said. I think SFC said it
    updated
    | about
    | >>>> 70 of them, as I recall now.
    | >>>>
    | >>>>>>
    | >>>>>>> MDAC 2.1 SP2 (2.1.2.4202.3) GA. So, better go do the 2-hour
    backup.
    | >>>>>>> Don't know why it takes that long, though.
    | >>>>>>>
    | >>>>>>> Please keep us informed of any idiosyncrasies after doing it.
    I see
    | >>>>>>> Chauvin & mae are well satisfied. But how many of Chauvin's
    URL's
    | have
    | >>>>>>> to be clicked for this?
    | >>>>>>
    | >>>>>> How many links - what do you mean?
    | >>>>>> I was kind to give 1 link for the kb page, 1 link for the
    install,
    | and 1
    | >>>>>> link for each update. I could of gave none and saved time but
    was in
    | the
    | >>>>>> sharing and making it easier for others mode today :) ..I
    thought
    | >>>>>> that's what it was all about here in this forum ;)
    | >>>>>
    | >>>>> Sure, you are kind, & making it easy is what it's about. Let me
    look
    | >>>>> again... it STILL looks like a lot of URL's, though, to do just
    one
    | >>>>> thing. I guess, one would take the "v2.8 download" & then the
    two
    | >>>>> updates that followed, the "intermediate" & the "final". (But
    Colorado
    | >>>>> went for 2.5 because of JET & is another satisfied customer, I
    see.)
    | >>>>>
    | >>>>> Really, I'm impressed with you, mae, & now Colorado for actually
    doing
    | >>>>> it!
    | >>>>
    | >>>> Mae and I both went for MDAC 2.5 sp3, as I recall (the latest
    version
    | of
    | >>>> 2.5).
    | >>>>
    | >>>>>>
    | >>>>>> Rick
    | >>>>>>
    | >>>>>
    | >>>>>
    | >>>>> --
    | >>>>> Thanks or Good Luck,
    | >>>>> There may be humor in this post, and,
    | >>>>> Naturally, you will not sue,
    | >>>>> should things get worse after this,
    | >>>>> PCR
    | >>>>> pcrrcp@netzero.net
    | >>>>> ...snip
    |
    |
Ask a new question

Read More

Microsoft Windows