Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | my password | register | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum   » Community   » Film-Yak   » load=load=load=load (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: load=load=load=load
Paul G. Thompson
The Weenie Man

Posts: 4718
From: Mount Vernon WA USA
Registered: Nov 2000


 - posted 01-02-2001 06:37 PM      Profile for Paul G. Thompson   Email Paul G. Thompson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
An error message when Winblows 2000 boots up. Cow Hum? Help!!!!! Any suggestions? ARG!!!! Grrrr... Have I said it all?

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17662
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 01-02-2001 06:58 PM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
Moving to Film-Yak.

 |  IP: Logged

Paul G. Thompson
The Weenie Man

Posts: 4718
From: Mount Vernon WA USA
Registered: Nov 2000


 - posted 01-02-2001 07:12 PM      Profile for Paul G. Thompson   Email Paul G. Thompson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
OOPS! Sorry, Brad.

 |  IP: Logged

Rachel Carter
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 248
From: Gloucester, Massachusetts, USA
Registered: Dec 2000


 - posted 01-03-2001 12:34 AM      Profile for Rachel Carter   Email Rachel Carter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I don't really have all that much experiance with NT but when my fiance installed it that happened. Make sure you active desktop is off, thats why his was being screwy

Hope I helped!

 |  IP: Logged

Paul G. Thompson
The Weenie Man

Posts: 4718
From: Mount Vernon WA USA
Registered: Nov 2000


 - posted 01-03-2001 11:53 AM      Profile for Paul G. Thompson   Email Paul G. Thompson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks, Rachel. The error "cannot find load=load=load=load=load or one of its components, blah, blah, blah" is the actual message. it started out with one load = load, then it got longer. Last time I booted, it had 6 load = load. Besides, I could not get the modem drivers loaded even when the drivers were Windows 2000 compatible, and I could not get the network up and running with compatible drivers.

I temporarily fixed the problem. I used the Maxi-Blast software, reformated the drive, and re-installed Windows 98.

I am going to build another junk computer and play around with Windows 2000. It is something I have to become familiar with. If that pops up again, your suggestion will be the first thing I will look at. I can see the hand writing on the wall. It's eventually going to happen in my radio station. But, I am always open for suggestions with Windows 2000. If anyone has had weird problems, I'm all ears...


 |  IP: Logged

Rachel Carter
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 248
From: Gloucester, Massachusetts, USA
Registered: Dec 2000


 - posted 01-03-2001 01:32 PM      Profile for Rachel Carter   Email Rachel Carter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I've been asking around and every single person I asked that has Winblows 2000 had problems after they first installed it. I have no clue why? Many of them just reinstalled a couple times and finally it worked....I know that doesn't help but I'm just letting you know.

 |  IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9442
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 01-03-2001 02:41 PM      Profile for Gordon McLeod   Email Gordon McLeod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
From a dedicated OS2 user the problem is obvious it is just windows itself that is the problem

 |  IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 7966
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 01-03-2001 02:45 PM      Profile for Scott Norwood   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Norwood   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I played with one of the early versions back in February of this year. My general impression with Win2k was that it's OK, but is not a substantial improvement over WinNT, unless you have an all-Microsoft network and don't plan to ever have alternate platforms on the same network. The Active Directory stuff is a nice idea, but it's fairly useless unless you're willing to commit your entire network to NT (since it is essentially useless if you have any Unix, Novell, OS/2, Macs, etc. on the same network).

In short, for desktop use, I didn't see much benefit to Win2k over NT4, except for laptops which benefit from the improved hardware support. NT4 doesn't support USB, but I happen to think that USB is a pretty crappy idea in the first place, so there's no great loss. I also felt at the time that it was too early to move to a brand-new OS which was then relatively untested.

NT4 _can_ be made to be pretty stable, if you strip out all the junk and don't install MSIE or active desktop or anything else which creates hundreds of registry keys and is basically impossible to uninstall. I've had NT servers with uptimes over 100 days. (I've also had Unix machines with uptimes of 250+ days). Not that I would recommend using NT as a server, but there are some applications which require it.

As usual, backups are super-important, not just because of OS issues, but also for insurance against flaky hardware, fire, flood, etc.

 |  IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6410
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 01-03-2001 04:58 PM      Profile for Randy Stankey   Email Randy Stankey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I hear this a lot from Windows guys... Why don't you like USB?

It's slow. Grant you that, but I've never really had any trouble with it. Just make sure your USB "chain" is up and running before your OS starts up. Even then, you can get your USB going again by unplugging the hub, even after the OS is running. I rarely have any trouble with that, though.

 |  IP: Logged

Paul G. Thompson
The Weenie Man

Posts: 4718
From: Mount Vernon WA USA
Registered: Nov 2000


 - posted 01-03-2001 07:08 PM      Profile for Paul G. Thompson   Email Paul G. Thompson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Scott and Randy: I have had good luck with USB hardware under Windows 98SE Full Version. It seems to be a very stable platform when all the updates are installed, as long as I don't use MSIE 5.5.

Scott, If I understand you correctly, I can expect USB fail under Windows 2000. I have Peer-to-Peer networking at home, with as many as 7 computers on the hub. Is Windows 2000 going to have problems with that also?

All programs loaded fine under Windows 2000, except the Modem drivers and the network card. All my machines on network at home (where I want to play with 2000) have either Win 95, 98, 3.11, and Windows Millennium.

I made an appointment with a computer goon so I can observe the installation of 2000. It'll cost me a couple of bucks, but if I can learn something, it is money well invested.

To all - thanks for the input. Very much appreciated. If the computer goon points out some things I was doing wrong, I'll pass them along to all of you via this forum so you may have an easier time trying to get that 2000 running.

 |  IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9442
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 01-03-2001 08:19 PM      Profile for Gordon McLeod   Email Gordon McLeod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Also win2000 does not support any DOS16 apps so things like the R@ or dras10 don't run

 |  IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000


 - posted 01-03-2001 11:23 PM      Profile for Darryl Spicer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It seems I read somewhere that the windows 2000 was primarily developed for office use involving networking and that it was not recomended for those who primarily use their computer for gaming purpuses. It's funny but buy the time I updated to a new computer I entirely skipped win95 and went straight to win98 second edition. I also seem to remember reading something about windows 2000 being developed as an inexpensive version of NT. But it didn't offer true 32bit processing. Suposedly the NT uses 32bit processing without trying to trick the hard drive into processing 32bit useing the fat32 software. I wish I could find these articals to no for sure but I have to many computer magazines to go thru.

 |  IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 7966
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 01-04-2001 09:54 AM      Profile for Scott Norwood   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Norwood   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
First, Win2k is what really would have been WinNT 5.0 if the marketing dweebs hadn't gotten involved. It's the same kernel (with bugfixes and new bugs added, of course) and is fully 32-bit-capable and memory protected. There's no relationship to DOS at all (unlike Win9x, which is based entirely on DOS). It uses NT-style device drivers and does support USB.

Second, as to why I think USB was a bad idea: it's just a new I/O port design which does little more than duplicate existing (and better) technologies. For example, SCSI already exists and is perfectly useful for scanners, disks, etc. It's expensive, but good. Ethernet connectivity is best added with a PCI card. Parallel and network connectivity is best for printers (and doesn't have the CPU overhead that USB does). And so forth, and so on.

This is not to say that I am against new technology, but I do happen to have the opinion that anything new should at least be significantly better than whatever preceded it. USB isn't. Firewire is, but was considered to be "too expensive" for the masses. Besides, only two OS's really support USB: Win2k and Win98. Everything else (DOS, Win95, OS/2, Linux/BSD/Solaris, etc.) don't have much if any USB support yet they support existing interfaces (parallel, serial, scsi, ethernet) just fine.

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17662
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 01-04-2001 11:17 AM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
Quick poll. How many members here believe Scott can actually read the green rows of numbers in the movie "The Matrix" like the actors could?

USB may not be a vast improvement, but all I use it for is to transfer pictures from my digital camera and at roughly 1.3 MB per shot, a serial connection just doesn't cut it. It only takes a couple of seconds to transfer a shot via USB, but it takes a few minutes to do it via serial. (Just don't introduce me to firewire, or USB suddenly won't cut it. )


 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17662
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 01-04-2001 11:22 AM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
By the way, while we are talking about Windows 2000, I am running it and have had no problems whatsoever thus far. It's been running for at least 4 months now without a crash (I never turn it off), which was a 2 or 3 time daily occurence with Windows 98.

So on to my question for any Win2K users...has anyone successfully got ICQ to work? This is the only program that gives me trouble. I can connect for a few minutes and then I get booted off. From that point, it is an endless attempt to re-connect to the ICQ servers. However, if I close out the program and re-start it, it will immediately connect and stay running for a few more minutes. Any ideas?

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2018 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.