Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Herumutsu

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
i renamed THUMBS.DB, another was created, and * PROBLEM SOLVED *
( thanks, Herumutsu)

Great - Not a problem. :)

You can safely delete the renamed file at any time, if you haven't done so already.

A few details of this crash do seem unusual - I gather that there was little or no time to note down any recurring process-names. Task-Manager might not have been able to change to process-view under that kind of load, either.

Possibly, this is related to minor conflicts between certain processes combined with some error being triggered at the worst possible other words, a brief occurrence of bad luck. It doesn't sound as if this is likely to happen again - if it did, that would be a different story. Of course, checking for signs of infection, especially new autostart-entries or the like, can't hurt.

Do the thumbnails display images you've never seen, or were they simply 'switched'? It may just be a case of a corrupted thumbs.db-file. You can verify this by changing the folder with the wrong thumbnails into icon-view, list-view or any other display-mode with no thumbnails, then renaming the thumbs.db-file in that same folder, changing the display-mode back to thumbnails and waiting for a new thumbs.db to be created - if, at that point, the problem is resolved, you may want to delete the corrupted file that you renamed.

Note that, in order to see thumbs.db, your configuration must allow you to see 'protected/invisible files'.

LandzDown Lounge / Re: Welcome & enjoy
« on: July 11, 2006, 07:15:40 PM »
Happy LandzDown Day! :D

Computer Problems, Questions and Solutions! / Re: Firefox Weirdness
« on: July 03, 2006, 02:50:17 PM »
is Terminating a Process safe??

That depends on many factors.
The alert is nothing to worry about, it is always displayed before terminating a process through Task-Manager - just to deter those who aren't sufficiently sure of what they are doing. In this case (firefox.exe), there is no reason to expect system instability or other issues to arise, as long as anything closely related to the process (i.e. the Browser) is closed beforehand. Even then, nothing a restart couldn't fix.
In fact, the sole reason a re-boot had the same effect as the process-termination is because the process is terminated during shutdown anyway.

I don't know about the specific causes of the problem, but it does sounds like an error-handling issue from your description. Haven't seen a lot of MySpace pages myself - those I saw did strike me as a tad messy.

thanks for the help. like i said before, i only had mimimal problems with FF until this last update. IT'S TIME FOR ANOTHER, so i don't keep crashing. -- EEEKS!

You're welcome - hopefully, all of this will be fixed in due time.

Computer Problems, Questions and Solutions! / Re: Firefox Weirdness
« on: July 02, 2006, 10:15:21 AM »
This has happened to me once or twice a few months ago - terminating the process (firefox.exe) through Task-Manager after closing it normally did the trick, IIRC.

While not strictly necessary, it does seem a bit more tidy that way.

Some applications may still have 'things to do' in the process of their termination - for example, they might create, edit or delete temporary files, update their configuration, or possibly direct the order of termination for their own processes.
Being end-tasked by Windows might prevent them from doing some of these things the way they would if they were shut down normally.
Consequently, there are some programs that do not 'like' being terminated by Windows and may need to be reconfigured in some way the next time they are used - or they may just complain about it instead, like through an error-message, or by simply taking a lot longer to start up once after being end-tasked. ;)

So usually, nothing terribly serious will happen if you don't shut down all applications yourself - there are many cases in which it doesn't even make a difference. However, it can't be a bad thing to do things the tidy way, and in some cases it is indeed advantageous.

Computer Problems, Questions and Solutions! / Re: can you recommend?
« on: April 18, 2006, 12:20:52 PM »

A silent installation is pretty much just that - the installation of software without displaying any messages or requiring further interaction of any user after it has started.

You stated that you've already consulted Wikpedia; how did you go about this? E.g., if you go to, then put in "silent installation" (with or without quotation marks, doesn't matter in this case) and hit enter or click the arrow, it should take you to a page where expressions such as this are explained, including "Manual installation", "Silent installation", "Unattended installation", "Headless installation", "Clean installation" and "Flat installation".

Hope that helps.

If it is able to read the format, that would make it convenient enough - if not, you may have to convert the segments to WMV or ASF-formats before combining them.

Either way, from what I read, it is indeed pretty simple to use, and if it's already installed on the system anyway, seems to be a good starting point for this purpose. :)

You're welcome - Glad it worked out so far! :D

I've yet to try FRAPS, so I don't know if there is a feature for combining video-segments - I didn't find any mention of such a feature in the FAQs, however. Maybe a program specifically for video-editing would be necessary, though I don't know any simple, free ones.

Yes, the Windows XP install-disk makes it a very simple process - earlier versions of Windows did not have that feature, so it was a bit different a few years ago.

You're welcome. :)

If you want to reformat a harddrive and re-install Windows XP on it, the Windows XP Installation-CD should enable you to do this rather easily in more or less one step. After putting it into the diskdrive and selecting "Install Windows XP", choosing "New Installation" should erase all of the saved data on the harddrive while processing a fresh installation of whatever version of Windows XP is on the CD.

Please note that, while it is not completely impossible to recover fragments of the erased data, any erased data that has already been written over can not be recovered in this way, so there really is no reliable way to tell which files will be recoverable at all and without any lost data within the file. Also, generally, with every minute of the computer running, it gets more unlikely that any deleted file can be recovered. Now, even under perfect circumstances, recovering lost data from a harddrive using only locally installed software is an unpleasant experience at best and it may take a while before any results or chances of success are evident.

In other words, it is best to avoid a situation in which you have to recover erased data in such a way. Burning back-ups to CD/DVD or transferring them to a back-up drive via other means is both easier and less time-consuming.

As for the actual scenario, this is what I found on the MSDN IEBlog:

How do I uninstall the preview?

To uninstall Internet Explorer 7 Beta 2 Preview and return to Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP

   1. Click “Start,” and then click “Control Panel.”
   2. Click “Add or Remove Programs.”
   3. Check “Show Updates” at the top of the dialog box.
   4. Scroll down the list to “Windows XP – Software Updates,” select “Internet Explorer 7 Beta 2Preview,” and then click "Change/Remove."

If "Internet Explorer 7 Beta 2 Preview" does not exist, run %windir%\$NtUninstallie7bet2p$\spuninst\spuninst.exe. You need to have "view hidden folders" enabled. %windir% is your Windows installation directory, which is normally 'C:\Windows' on most systems.

Maybe this could resolve the situation altogether?

No problem - let us know of the results, as there may be other things to try in case it still isn't working.

Hi, 10rand.

The file-extension is not all there is to determining the codec - multiple formats could use the same file-extension. This is also true for Audio Video Interleave (AVI). If it is a movie-player you are asking about, any versatile player should be able to handle most AVI-codecs, including Winamp and Windows Media Player.

As for your question regarding FRAPS, this is from their FAQ page:

The Fraps codec (FPS1) is put on the system when you install Fraps. If you've reinstalled Windows you will also need to reinstall Fraps in order to play back your movies.

Please keep in mind that if you want to give your raw footage to another person they will also need to have Fraps installed.

According to this, it should work so long as FRAPS has been properly installed. You could try reinstalling the program, or capture another movie to see if it happens again - possibly trying it with different games to check if that might have something to do with it.

You're very welcome, Brynn - glad you found my posting to be informative. :D

I don't think XP settings have any affect on how it displays them, or not very much anyway.  It sounds like that is entirely determined by the upload client.

Yes - basically, that's how it is. While it would theoretically be possible for such a script to take note of the relevant system-settings in regards to display, that would likely require more work and constant attention than the script is worth.

It's quite a different story with actual FTP-clients, the kind that is installed on the users computer. These have their own settings, of course, and they are usually saved automatically.

The simpler scripts will rely on Windows Explorer for providing the filepath etc., but the folder-settings don't enter into the equation - that means that the files will be displayed in list-view, regardless of how they would otherwise be displayed. This can be changed before the upload, by right-clicking into the explorer-window that was opened by  the script, choosing "View" and selecting, for example, "Thumbnails". Note, however, that this setting will not be saved for the next time the window is opened by the script.

[Could someone help me out and give me the proper terminology for the thing that uploads files and/or images to the internet?!!  lol!]

If it is just a simple script for uploading, you could describe it as an upload-client. Since FTP (file transfer protocol) is often used for such procedures, chances are you may be referring to an FTP-client.

Now, keeping my disclaimer in mind ( :hysterical:), I know that the uploader..."belongs to",  It belongs to...or maybe 'provided by' is more provided by the place to which you're uploading the images.

That depends - usually, the FTP-client is simply a piece of software installed on the users computer, and is not associated with the webspace or domain-provider. You could use any client for any upload-location, it shouldn't make much of a difference, so long as you feed your client the correct information.

However, some providers (specifically, many free providers) only support upload through their own upload-scripts, which are typically less sophisticated than your average FTP-client - these do belong to the provider. In such cases, you'd be forced to use that upload-script for uploads, so using a different client is out of the question.

It's true that some image-editing programs have built-in file-transfer capabilities - those are probably mostly the ones that display the thumbnails. I don't know any examples, though, as I've never really looked for this feature in any FTP-client.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7