Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

MDAC upgrade: version 2.1 to 2.5 or higher?

Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 5:38:28 AM

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.
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 7:03:58 AM

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.
|
|
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 2:20:32 PM

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.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 6:15:16 PM

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=/libr...

...the v2.8 downlolad
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyI...

& with an intermindate security update for that (does install on W9x)
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyI...

& with its final program update for that:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyi...

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.
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 6:15:17 PM

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=/libr...
/data_mdacinstall.asp
>
> ...the v2.8 downlolad
>
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyI...
b037-185d0506396c&DisplayLang=en
>
> & with an intermindate security update for that (does install on W9x)
>
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyI...
bfcc-87988e062d91&displaylang=en
>
> & with its final program update for that:
>
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyi...
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.
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 9:42:50 PM

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=/libr...
| /data_mdacinstall.asp
| >
| > ...the v2.8 downlolad
| >
|
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyI...
| b037-185d0506396c&DisplayLang=en
| >
| > & with an intermindate security update for that (does install on
W9x)
| >
|
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyI...
| bfcc-87988e062d91&displaylang=en
| >
| > & with its final program update for that:
| >
|
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyi...
| 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.
|
|
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 9:52:02 PM

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=/libr...
>| /data_mdacinstall.asp
>| >
>| > ...the v2.8 downlolad
>| >
>|
>
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyI...
>| b037-185d0506396c&DisplayLang=en
>| >
>| > & with an intermindate security update for that (does install on W9x)
>| >
>|
>
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyI...
>| bfcc-87988e062d91&displaylang=en
>| >
>| > & with its final program update for that:
>| >
>|
>
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyi...
>| 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.
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 10:29:14 PM

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.
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 10:29:19 PM

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=/libr...
>>> /data_mdacinstall.asp
>>>>
>>>> ...the v2.8 downlolad
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyI...
>>> b037-185d0506396c&DisplayLang=en
>>>>
>>>> & with an intermindate security update for that (does install on W9x)
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyI...
>>> bfcc-87988e062d91&displaylang=en
>>>>
>>>> & with its final program update for that:
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyi...
>>> 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.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 12:45:17 AM

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=/libr...
>>>> /data_mdacinstall.asp
>>>>>
>>>>> ...the v2.8 downlolad
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyI...
>>>> b037-185d0506396c&DisplayLang=en
>>>>>
>>>>> & with an intermindate security update for that (does install on W9x)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyI...
>>>> bfcc-87988e062d91&displaylang=en
>>>>>
>>>>> & with its final program update for that:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyi...
>>>> 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.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 3:00:10 AM

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?
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 3:22:47 AM

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?
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 6:56:58 AM

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
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 12:06:56 PM

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
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 12:09:41 PM

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
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 2:24:52 PM

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
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 2:29:21 PM

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
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 4:47:02 PM

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:o qEr15DLFHA.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...
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 4:47:03 PM

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:o qEr15DLFHA.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...
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 10:45:34 PM

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
|
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 3:48:09 AM

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
|
|
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 3:48:10 AM

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
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 9:01:26 PM

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
|
|
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 9:01:27 PM

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
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 2:19:16 AM

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
|
|
!