tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11573761.post115668435593492548..comments2023-09-23T07:38:46.925-07:00Comments on Chris Quirke's Blog: Safety FirstChris Quirkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05538828571660803875noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11573761.post-1157613713314695962006-09-07T00:21:00.000-07:002006-09-07T00:21:00.000-07:00I wondered when spambots would break the OCR and c...I wondered when spambots would break the OCR and crash the party? Needless to say, I would consider every one of those links to be hostile.Chris Quirkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05538828571660803875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11573761.post-1157014266969110262006-08-31T01:51:00.000-07:002006-08-31T01:51:00.000-07:00Thanks! These days it *is* possible to maintain X...Thanks! These days it *is* possible to maintain XP as one did Win9x (via DOS mode), using Bart CDR boot. See...<BR/><BR/>http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/<BR/><BR/>What's more difficult, is using apps from this mOS, compared to running DOS apps from DOS (mode). That has more to do with apps written for Windows that have to be installed before use.<BR/><BR/>If your XP is installed on FATxx rather than NTFS *and* HD is < 137G, you can use DOS mode as you would from Win9x. No registry access, tho (i.e. the real-mode Regedit from Win9x is very unlikely to work).<BR/><BR/>What NTFS doesn't give you, is data recovery and controllable file system repair tools. If you're used to DiskEdit and interactive ScanDisk as ways to repair/recover FATxx, you have to fall back to dumbo "the PC blinked, so I lost my data forever".<BR/><BR/>I agree on Win9x safety being improved due to less "network" services waving themselves at the 'net, and would feel safer with unpatched Win9x than unpatched pre-SP2 XP. Unpatched pre-SP2 XP is a death trap, as is unpatched Win2000.<BR/><BR/>Alas, timecrush has kept me out of the newsgroups, but I'll be back when the smoke clears!Chris Quirkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05538828571660803875noreply@blogger.com