Fedora 18 Linux

Yesterday I installed Fedora 18 LXDE spin, (which I will refer to as FC18). I have a fair amount of experience with Linux, having started using it in 1996. Fedora redid 'anaconda' the installer program (which is written in python, hence the name). The old installer was ok as far as I was concerned. With the new installer, it is 'streamlined', which means it is hard for me to use. The disk configuration utility is quite bad. The old one was far better. The Mageia disk configuration is quite good, and other Linux distributions disk configuration are pretty good. I had windows XP installed on the disk, along with FC17 and FC16. I wanted to get rid of FC16 and put FC18 in instead. Perhaps there is a way to do that, but I couldn't figure it out. I ended up getting rid of FC16 and FC17 and letting FC18 auto partition the empty space. Even Microsoft Windows does a better job with disk partitioning. I could find no way to specify individual packages during install. Another 'feature' is when you have multiple monitors, the installer runs in 'span' mode. That is the display spans multiple monitors. This may make sense for some hardware, but 'cloning' the display on all monitors is a much safer way. For example, if you have a notebook sitting in a rack with an external display hooked up to it, you will be unable to do a install as critical info is displayed on the notebook display which is inaccessible. You will have to remove the notebook from the rack and do something such as disabling the display or switching to 'clone' mode. I reported this bug with FC16, but it has not been fixed. One nice feature of the installer is once you have selected a few options, it happens without further interaction. When it is done, there is a confusing display, where it says it is done and to reboot, but the button you need to press is 'quit' not something like 'exit' or 'reboot'.

When you boot up FC18, it also comes up in 'span' mode, which is a bug, not a feature. Configuring the firewall should be straightforward, as it was in previous versions of Fedora. There is a new, improved firewall, with a new improved interface. Unfortunately it is a POS. There is the 'runtime' firewall configuration and the 'persistent' firewall configuration. There are 9 different zones. I added a few firewall rules, and nothing happened. I tried reloading the firewall, but that didn't work. There is no onscreen help for it. Actually, there is a help button, which will display the version of the tool. After much thrashing around, I was able to modify the firewall to do what I want. What FC18 needs is decent onscreen help to explain what every option does and how they interact. Next it needs a simple mode which would likely work for 90-95% of users. Next it can have the full monty version (still with help menus). The simple mode could look like the FC17 firewall, which worked quite well.

I tried to configure the 'users and groups'. When I press the button however, it does nothing. I can manually run /usr/bin/system-config-users, which works fine. Another bug. If you want to configure disk partitions and mount points you can use the tool under System Tools->Disk Management. Unfortunately, that isn't the tool you want as it is for users to mount user mountable partitions. As far as I can tell, there is no GUI to do disk management, unlike every other Linux distro I have used. This is not a new FC feature, but a long time bug. Similarly, there are no administration tools I can find in the menu for things like configuring hardware, network, display, and the like. The way you install new software or update existing software is called 'yum extender', which is certainly not obvious for novice users. Fedora needs a whole lot more polish. Perhaps they could start with Mageia's administration tools, which work quite well.

Fedora 24 Linux

A pretty solid OS. There are a few issues. Using their yum/dnf GUI it is unclear how to uninstall software. Installing is easy. It is a crappy user interface. I am running it on an older IBM notebook. I can't run the last 2 versions of the kernel. When I try, I get a completely blank screen during boot. I sent in a bug report @ Nov-02-2016, but I have heard nothing back.

Fedora 25 Linux

Runs well on x86 hardware. On my problem IBM notebook (which has run fedora 18...24) the installer hangs before showing any text or graphics. I reported the bug. The only reply was it was likely a kernel issue. Not very helpful. Fedora 25 is the first version officially supported on the Raspberry Pi 2 and 3. I tried it out. You can't install or update any binary packages. So no emacs (unless you build it from source). I sent in a bug report @ Nov-22-2016 or so. No useful feedback, workarounds, or solution yet. Also the wifi doesn't work on the raspberry pi 3 (which is documented).

Fedora 26 Linux

I installed Fedora 26 on my raspberry pi 3. Earlier, I tried the alpha version. It hung during booting. I reported the bug July 2017, but I was told I needed to try to the nightly build because the alpha was old. I was also told to use the mailing list, not the bug reporting system. Well, the officially version 26 came out, and it also hung during booting on my raspberry pi. The Pi 3 works fine with Fedora 24, Kali, rasbarian, and open SuSE. Clearly someone did not do enough testing. I have heard hat there is only a few people supporting the raspberry pi. I never got a response to my bug report.

I installed Fedora 26 on another computer which has a 4k monitor. Everything was so small, I needed to use a magnifying glass to see what was happening. I ended up switching video inputs to HDMI 1.2 so that I could see the install. I also installed Mageia 6. Even with the 4k monitor, everything was very large and easy to see. I suspect monitor was being run in some lower resolution mode, which makes a lot of sense during installation. 4k monitors aren't very rare, nor are high resolution laptops...

I was able to install it on two other x86 based computers without issue. The installer is generally user friendly, except when it comes to partitioning the hard drive. The process is very unintuitive and of course hard to read on a 4k monitor. The goal is readability and understandable. The installer has neither attribute.

Fedora 27 Linux

Fedora 27 is the first version of fedora to support the Raspberry Pi 3 with a 64 bit operating system. I installed it on my pi 3. It hung during boot. This was not so surprising to me, as the official version of fedora has never worked on my pi 2 or pi 3. I send in yet another bug report in Nov 2017. I wonder if I will get a response. The last 2 ARM specific bug reports I sent in were unanswered. It looks bad when there is a linux distro that fails to boot. Better to not support hardware than to produce a broken distro. I booted up the latest version of OpenSuSE 64 bit, and it works fine. It is a bit slow, which is a combination of s slow processor and a graphics driver with no hardware acceleration support. Still, it boots and is useful, which fedora has never been on the pi. So someone at Redhat has the same problem, and updated my bug report. It turns out the computer is not hung, as the serial console works. The video is hung, which is a pretty serious problem, as almost everyone uses the HDMI video. Perhaps the issue will get addressed.

On the x86 64 bit platform, fedora 27 works well. It still has a very hard to read login screen on my 4k monitor. The idea is to convey useful information, not to have tiny icons.

Fedora 28 Linux

Fedora 28 is the first version of fedora to support the Raspberry Pi 3+ with a 64 bit operating system. I installed it on my pi 3. After about 30 seconds, the video went away during the boot process. It didn't come back. . This was not so surprising to me, because I have had this issue with fedora 27 and 28 on the pi 3. I reported this bug, just as I did for the last two operating systems. I am quite disappointed with claimed support for the pi. If fedora doesn't want to support the pi, that is ok. However, claiming that it works when it can't even get to a login screen makes fedora look bad. I presume nobody has ever tested it with a pi. They are certainly cheap enough to buy...

Fedora 29 Linux

Fedora 29 is the first version of fedora to actually boot on my Raspberry Pi 3B with a 64 bit operating system. Fedora 28, 27, and 26 all froze when trying to start the graphics system, which I dutiful reported. It is good to see that fedora finally fixed the issue after about one and a half years. The 'workstation' image, is the full fedora Gnome interface, which is unusable slow. You can move the cursor, and wait several seconds to see it move on the screen. It is so bad, that starting Firefox will take over a minute to start up with one tab. Doing a google search will also take a minute or more. What is worse, is after a few minutes, the system completely freezes and requires power cycling. Clearly nobody tested this on a real raspberry pi. You can start a terminal or two, but without a working browser, I think the distribution is pretty much useless. They really should have used Mate or LXDE or LXQT for a super slow CPU with only 1 gb of RAM. But it does work, which is pretty amazing. The wifi and Bluetooth do not work, even after downloading the documented file and rebooting. The GUI interface (which is the default fedora GUI) is quire weird. Also it seems that fedora 29 got rid of the root account by default, in a way similar to Ubuntu. Perhaps that makes sense, but the logic baffles me.

Since the 64 bit version of Fedora doesn't work on the Pi 3, I decided to try the 32 bit version. A LXDE version is available. I successfully installed it, and I decided to update it. It took several hours, and during the time the screensaver kicked in. The screensaver is broken, and you can't unlock it, nor start a new session. I decided to wait overnight and then power cycle the pi. It now fails to boot. During the boot process, it doesn't switch from the low res text to the high res text. So the pi 3 is bricked. During the update, I tried to configure the wi-fi without success. The GUI for it is pretty crappy. Fedora needs to actually test their software before making it available for general download. If they said this is alpha or beta software, which is unreliable, I could live with that. Clearly not ready for prime time.

Normally, I would send in bug reports for Fedora. However, after having my bug reports for 26, 27 and 28 pretty much ignored, I have given up on sending in bug reports for Fedora. I think there needs to be some kind of understanding that when you send in a bug report, that someone actually looks at it, and ideally addresses it. Failing that, there is no point in sending in bug reports. Anyone who tries to use Fedora on a raspberry pi will almost certainly have the same issues. It is not like there is a shortage of raspberry pi's.

Things work much better on x86-64 machines. I was able to update mine from fedora 28 to 29 with minimal effort. And my root account stuck around, and was still usable after the upgrade. I am using the Mate GUI for x86-64 which seems more intuitive to me.

Mageia 5 Linux

Mageia is a community based linux distribution. I have been running it as long as it existed (that is a long story). It works on machines with small amounts of memory (512mb). It works on 32 bit machines. It works on 64 bit machines. Mageia 6 was supposed to come out in August 2016. It didn't. In December 2016, they released Mageia 5.1, which is Mageia 5, with all the patches since it came out. Mageia 6 is scheduled to come out in Jan 2017. When I send in bug reports, they are usually quickly addressed, but not always.

Mageia 6 Linux

I was planning on installing Mageia 6 in early Aug 2016. However, the scheduled release slipped about a year. In any event, it is shipping now. I installed Mageia 6 on three computers. The default desktop is 'Plasma', which is a version of KDE. It is not obvious how to scale the menu bar at the bottom of the screen. It turns out the first step is to click on 'Unlock Widgets' which is far from obvious. Then you can change the height of the menu far. It isn't a simple or intuitive user interface. I hate to say it, but Windows 95 was simpler to configure. If the Linux desktop is going to take over the world, it needs a simple and easy to configure desktop. The apple people have done a great job of this,. Microsoft has done a mostly decent job of this. KDE needs to get much better.

The installation went quite smoothly, unlike Fedora 26 on my 4k monitor.

I updated another computer from Mageia 5 to 6. Although the upgrade process went smoothly, the results wee pretty bad. I was unable to start the Mageia control center from the menu. I was able to access it from the command line. The menus looked disorganized. The menu bar looked pretty bad. I am now in the process of doing a fresh install. It will take a bit to configure the computer to my liking, which is why I tried the upgrade first. I have another computer to update, and I will do a fresh install on it, based on my experience trying to update the OS.

The full install went smoothly and all the menus look great. The menu bar also looks great. Unfortunately it seems the rpm database is a bit borked for Mageia 6. I can't install samba or openssh-server because the new versions need older versions of other software that is currently installed. I hope the issue is resolved quickly as these are pretty important programs. Well, it turns out that the installation media has never versions of the programs than the online repositories. I like to use the online repos, but I decided to install the programs from the install media. It went smoothly.

OpenSuSE Tumbleweed @Jan 2017 Raspberry Pi 3 Linux

SuSE Enterprise linux and OpenSuSE are the first 64 bit operating systems for the Raspberry Pi 3. I installed it, and it works pretty well. Unlike Fedora 25, the wifi works. Also unlike Fedora 25, you can install binary programs such as emacs. There are some obscure programs that I can't find a repository for, but overall it is really quite nice. That is until you try to update the system. The update succeeds, but the system hangs during boot.

OpenSuSE Tumbleweed @Jan 2019 Raspberry Pi 3 Linux

I was able to download and install OpenSUSE Tumbleweed Jan 2019. I have been unable to get the wifi working, but other than that, I was able to install software as well as update the system without incident. This compares to fedora 29 (32 or 64 bit) which is unusable slow and freezes after a few minutes (64 bit) or fails to boot after updating (32 bit). In my limited testing, tumbleweed actually seems usable.

OpenSuSE Tumbleweed 6/10/2017 Raspberry Pi 3 Linux

I installed it, and it works pretty well. The wifi is not installed by default, unlike the previous build I tried. Overall it is really quite nice. That is until you try to update the system. The process is less than obvious, but I was able to do it via the command line. The update succeeds, but the system hangs during boot.

Microsoft Windows 10

I have run the windows 10 upgrade/installer several times. It has worked a few times, but it has failed many times. For my old HP DV 8305 it downloaded everything and took several hours before it gave an error message. Even though I was running Windows 7 64bit and 64 bit Linux, 64 bit Windows won't install. It turns out the old AMD 64 bit processor doesn't have a 128 bit comparison instruction, and Windows 10 requires it. I could have installed Windows 10 32 bit, but I couldn't do a free upgrade from Windows 7 64 bit to Windows 10 32 bit. So that notebook won't get an update. It would have been nice to determine that before downloading gigabytes of files and taking several hours.

I had many other issues. I was unable to do a fresh install on an existing computer with Windows 7, and my disk was reformatted in the process. So I had to do a fresh install of Windows 7, do an upgrade to Windows 10, and then do a fresh install of Windows 10. It was not a smooth process. At least I learned to download all of the files once, rather than doing it each time. That was a waste of a day and about 6gb or so of wasted bandwidth. I have had other issues with the upgrade, but I have blocked them from my memory. Clearly the update process was not well thought out. Given that many million people used it, it should have been a smoother process.

Today I tried to format a big usb drive to fat32. Windows 10 wouldn't let me do that. I could format it to NTFS or exFAT, both of which are nice, but the hardware I will be using the flash drive for only accepts fat32. There are a few dvd/bluray players with usb ports that only deal with fat32. I did download a utility called SmartDisk fat32 for matter which did the job. Epic fail Microsoft.

So Microsoft is rolling out their anniversary update. One of my computers got it, and when I logged in, I got the "We can't Sign Into Your Account" error. There is a fix. UGetFix I ended up creating another account and using the registry editor. However, I fear this is beyond the skills of the average windows user. One might wonder how this bug got deployed. One would think this sort of thing would be tested before deployment. The web site above has 5 different solutions. I know regression testing can be difficult. I know there are many different configurations of windows. But clearly, this is a widespread issue that should have been detected and corrected before deployment. I am disappointed.


I needed to reinstall windows 10. One good thing is that on modern computers, the UEFI has the windows 10 key backed in. No need to type in a long key. In fact you can't even see the key, unless you use a tool like OEMKey. So using the Microsoft tool to create a usb stick, it downloaded a fresh image to install. The installation went well and was reasonably quick. Now it was time to update the computer. I clicked on PC Settings->Update & Security. I have had it take a long time to run in the past, but one would think Microsoft would have fixed the slowness. About 8 hours later, when progress was minimal, I decided to manually run the tool to get the latest build of windows. One might ask why I didn't get that version when I download the files for the USB key yesterday... In any event, the tool quickly ran. Now 8 hours later it is stuck at 99% done. I simply don't understand it. I have installed several year old versions of linux on old hardware and ran software updates. Even with hundred of mbytes of data and hundreds of updates, the process is pretty quick. The longest I have seen is less than 2 hours (and I am talking about processors speeds measured in mhz not ghz). You can see the progress. It doesn't freeze. It can be interrupted. You don't have to reboot during the process. Why does Microsoft update seem to freeze for hours? Why does it take many hours (I have seen multiple reports of it taking more than 24 hours with fast processors). What is the machine doing? There is minimal CPU and network activity. Something must be happening, but I have no idea what. This is completely unacceptable for any software, let alone software that purports to be serious software. I cannot recommend windows 10 for any system that needs high availability, due to the unacceptably long time it takes to do a software update. This issue needs to be fixed right now.

Well, I waited 8 hours while the update was stuck at 99%. I searched the internet again, and found https://ugetfix.com/ask/how-to-fix-windows-upgrade-assistant-is-stuck-at-99-error-on-windows-10/ I tried method one, which actually worked, though I don't understand why. Of course it didn't update me to the current version of windows, just to a newer version. I am trying to update to the current version now.

A FRESH INSTALL OF WIN 10 build 1703

I decided to update my OS drive to a SSD. This computer is my main fileserver, and it usually runs linux. Previously I had a very old version of windows running on it. I decided to install Windows 10. Now the SSD is a 300gb Intel SSD, and the computer also had six 4tb drives and one 5tb drive (where my raid array lives). The Intel SSD was partitioned using MBR partitioning and the big disks were partitioned using GPT partitioning (which is what is used for drives over 2tb). I put my new copy of windows 10 which I had just downloaded on a USB drive and I was off to the races. After perhaps 15 minutes the windows 'window' gave way to a prompt where I could pick a language and other options. After another 5 minutes or so I could enter my product key. I selected the partition I wanted to install the OS on, and everything went smoothly from there - in my dreams. In reality, win 10 said it could not install there. I removed all partitions, and made a new partition. It didn't work. I rebooted and tried again - no joy. I booted up knoppix linux and created a new MBR record and a partition - no joy. I finally decided to unplug all the other hard drives (which wasn't a big deal as they are all hot swap) and let Microsoft use the default option to install - no joy. Finally, I manually selected the partition where I wanted to install and it worked. That took about 3 hours. I guess windows gets confused when there are MBR and GPT hard drives and won't work. After running all of the updates, I installed linux. Start to finish, including hardware detection was about 30 minutes. It didn't seem to mind the MBR and GPT disks. It is not such a rare thing for people to have a smaller SSD for the OS and a bigger than 2tb drive to store most of their files. This is a pretty serious bug which needs to be fixed, like yesterday.

Yesterday, all the color disappeared on my screen. I booted linux, and I had normal color, so I knew it was not a hardware issue. Long story short, there is a windows 'shortcut'. If you press control-windows-C, then all the color goes away, and you are left with a black and white desktop (and all applications are also black & white). If you press it again, the color comes back. No idea why this exists. No indication that the computer was in this mode. Thanks to the wonder of google it only took me a few hours to find the 'feature' and get a normal desktop.


For black friday, I bought some SSDs. I decided to put one in a recent computer that dual boots into windows and linux. The SSD was a Samsung 860 EVO 500gb. I first tried cloning the existing hard drive. I was able to boot linux, but not windows. I decided to do a fresh install since there were some issues. About 20 installs later, I gave up. I put in a HP 120gb SSD, and the install went quite smoothly as it should. No UEFI changes. Same install media. Somehow the Samsung SSD doesn't like windows 10. I can boot up with USB media, and copy all the files, but the computer will not boot the windows partition. I was able to do a fresh install of a recent linux. Fortunately, I had a spare SSD lying around. With an identical copy of that computer, I did a fresh install of windows 10 on a rust drive this morning. I have successfully installed windows 10 more than 10 times, so it is clear there is some issue with the Samsung SSD. I even ran the linux 'dd' command and wrote all zeros to the hard drive. No joy. I am exchanging the SSD for another Samsung. I sure hope it was an isolated incident. It would be nice if there was some kind of error message, but there was nothing. It is likely some weird interaction between the SSD and Windows, as my HP SSD worked fine, and linux installed fine with the Samsung SSD.

Microsoft Windows 7


I ran the Microsoft Windows 7 compatibility checker tool. It mentioned that I would need to update my scanner driver and Nero wouldn't work. I did a fresh install of Windows 7 64 bit. Well, there is a scanner driver for my Epson 3200 scanner for Win7, but only for the 32 bit version. No driver at all for the 64 bit version. My HP LaserJet 2100 printer has a driver, but the link is broken at the HP web site. I manually selected HP 2200 for the PCL driver and HP 2300 for the PS driver. They work ok. I run my display through a KVM switch. It turns out that the KVM switch doesn't pass the 'display data channel', which is needed for plug-and-play. On the other OS's I have used, I could specify the display, but with Win7, there is no way to specify the display, and Dell has decided to not provide a driver for any displays before made before 2007. So, it looks like I will have to upgrade my KVM switch (the resolution is 1920*1200, but Win7 does 1600*1200 which makes everything wide).

I updated an older notebook (my HP DV 8305) to Windows 7, as the operating system it came with (Windows XP) is no longer supported. The install went smoothly, but a few devices were not detected. I don't care much about the modem, but the audio controller was not detected. HP doesn't have a driver for their old notebooks and new operating systems. It turns out that the audio chip is a pretty standard part, but HP had the manufacturer change the hardware IDs so you can't use the manufacturer's drivers. After a few days of failure, I was able to use a HP driver for a different notebook and force the installation. The specific driver file from HP is called sp35558.exe. It is unclear if this is a Microsoft problem or a HP problem, but most likely it is a combination of several issues. Microsoft doesn't want to install an incorrect driver, and so I can understand them being conservative about installing software that doesn't match the hardware. On the other hand, Microsoft didn't include the generic HD audio driver for me to choose from while installing the driver, even though it was known that the hardware was an audio controller. Of course Linux was able to figure out that the audio hardware was, and install a working driver for it.


There is a bunch of software I used to use which doesn't work any more. I expected some of the issues, but not all of them.

I am sure there will be some more issues I will find. For the driver problem I mainly blame Microsoft. They could have updated existing drivers, if they have the source code for them, for Win7. I also blame HP, Dell, Epson, and anyone else who doesn't provide a driver for Win7, or for Win7-64. It is interesting that most apps are still 32 bit. I also run 64 bit Linux. All the programs are 64 bit. All the drivers work. If Linux can do that without any manufacturers support, than surely Microsoft with its billions should be able to do so also. Stability is reasonably good. I also installed Microsoft's 'WinXP mode' which is their VirtualPC software as well as Sun's VirtualBox. Both seem to work pretty well. I can run my scanner using either virtualization program.


Microsoft has serious problems with the Update program. Most of the issues I ran into when doing a fresh Windows 7 install related to the Update program. On several occasions, it seemed to take forever. There is a known issue with that, and by searching the internet, I was able to download a specific fix for the specific issue. However, Update is still unacceptably slow, if you run it manually when it is running in the background it will fail, and it requires the computer to be rebooted too many times. Each of these issues is critical, but all of them together are completely unacceptable. When I was frustrated with Update hanging, I rebooted the computer, installed Linux, and did a complete update. For Linux, the time it takes to figure what needs to be updated is typically 2-5 minutes or so (with a slow 9 year old computer). Then it does an update. On some occasions you need to do a second update. No reboot is needed in between, and you end up with a totally patched system. Why can't Microsoft do that? I think I needed to reboot about 8 or 9 times to go from a fresh Windows 7 install to a fully patched one. Total Linux install and update time was under 2 hours. Total Windows 7 install time was about 4.5 days. Do the math.

Microsoft Windows XP Bugs

You can make a 'boot floppy' with windows XP. This is very useful for installing hardware flash updates for things like motherboards, disk controllers and the like. Just go to 'My Computer' and right click on the floppy drive. Under 'format' select 'Create an MS-DOS startup disk'. Doesn't sound very difficult, does it?

The first problem is if your floppy is write protected, you will not get an error message, and you won't get a startup disk either. Hey Microsoft, can you say 'Error Message' ? The second problem is the disk that is created is not a startup disk. First, it won't boot. What is worse, it does something nasty to the disk, and makes it think there is 4gb of data somewhere on the floppy. And you can't reformat the disk after that. Throw it out.

The solution is to get a different floppy, boot up windows 95/95/ME and type to a DOS prompt "format /s a:". Now you have a boot floppy.

Microsoft Windows 2000 Bugs

I have a system that had Windows 98, and Windows NT 4 workstation on a fat16 partition, and Windows NT server on a different partition. I decided to install Windows 2000 server on yet another partition. The installation went smoothly. It installed the Win2k boot manager on the boot sector. I can now boot win98, winNT, and win2K fine. The problem is, there is something in the win2K boot manager that screws up the com ports for winNT. The event viewer showed some unnamed device driver got the resources of com1. I used to have com1 and com2 enabled. That somehow got switched to com2 and com3. What is worse, is the modem won't work, and can't be reinstalled. I had to restore the winNT boot manager (which won't boot win2k), in order to fix the problem. Say bye bye to win2k.

Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 Bugs

When installing NT 4.0 with an all SCSI-II system, the disk blocking size is set incorrectly when you have Three 2 gig disks. The way I found this was by installing Diskeeper which told me how big the blocking was on my disk (D:). Fix by installing another copy of NT, on another disk (E:), and formatting the disk (D:) you care about. Then install NT on disk (D:), and format (E:), and install NT 4.0 on (E:).

If you have a 4mm DAT formatted by some weird program, NT backup can't format the tape, and says the tape is bad. Fix by booting Windows 95, and use Adaptec Backup to format the tapes.

If you install a sound card (in my case on the motherboard) with Windows NT 4.0, and something goes wrong, you cannot simply re-install the software. It may act as if it is being installed, but it simply gets confused. Instead, you must install *a different version* of the software. Then it is possible to install correctly. I found this out when trying to get MIDI playing working with my crystal audio on my Providence motherboard.

If you install a Windows 95 program that doesn't like Windows NT, it hoses up the system, including the Registry. Partial Fix by using Emergency Recover Disk. Full Fix by reinstalling Windows NT from scratch. See below for more details...

I have a machine running Microsoft Windows 95 and Windows NT Server 4.0. Like a fool, I got a copy of Microsoft Personal Web server, and like an idiot, I tried to install it on Windows NT. This software is available from their web server. Remember kids, don't try this at home. Now this software is designed to run under Windows 95, and not under Windows NT. The web site said that it worked with Windows 95. I made a mistake in trying to install it on Windows NT.

Seems this program has some 16 bit code in it. When I ran the executable, it installed a buncha files, without asking me anything at all, or checking if I was running Windows 95. Somewhere in the install, it blew, saying something about not being able to deal with 16 bit applications. Did it un-install itself? No. So I tried to uninstall it, with the very nice Windows NT uninstall. But it gave me a similar error message about not being able to run some 16 bit application. I was able to disable it to the point where it would not pop up nasty error messages during boot. But there were still all those nasty files around. I deleted them manually, but then I got another nasty error message at startup, saying that it couldn't find a program. I couldn't find where the program was starting up. I am sure that I looked everywhere except where it was started up from.

After spending several hours with the nice folks at Microsoft technical support, I was able to repair my registry, and get rid of the nasty messages at boot. The %$%$!!@ icon for Personal Web Server is still in my Command Panel, and nobody knows how to get rid of it. I can click on it, and change various settings of the program. Looks like I will have to re-install Windows NT from scratch (again).

Microsoft Windows 95 Bugs

If you have 2 SCSI controllers, Windows 95 gets very confused unless you disable one. I found this out when I upgraded to my new motherboard (with onboard SCSI) and kept my disks on my PCI card SCSI controller. Fix by disabling one controller in the control panel.

If you have comments or suggestions, Email me at turbo-www@weasel.com

Created with gnu emacs and template-toolkit, not some sissy HTML editor.

No Java or javascript needed to view my web pages. They both have significant security issues.