This is topic load=load=load=load in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000093
Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-02-2001, 06:37 PM:
An error message when Winblows 2000 boots up. Cow Hum? Help!!!!! Any suggestions? 
ARG!!!! Grrrr... Have I said it all? 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-02-2001, 06:58 PM:
Moving to Film-Yak.
Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-02-2001, 07:12 PM:
OOPS! Sorry, Brad.
Posted by Rachel Carter (Member # 693) on 01-03-2001, 12:34 AM:
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!
Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-03-2001, 11:53 AM:
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...
Posted by Rachel Carter (Member # 693) on 01-03-2001, 01:32 PM:
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.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-03-2001, 02:41 PM:
From a dedicated OS2 user the problem is obvious it is just windows itself that is the problem
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-03-2001, 02:45 PM:
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.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-03-2001, 04:58 PM:
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.
Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-03-2001, 07:08 PM:
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.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-03-2001, 08:19 PM:
Also win2000 does not support any DOS16 apps so things like the R@ or dras10 don't run
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 01-03-2001, 11:23 PM:
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.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-04-2001, 09:54 AM:
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.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-04-2001, 11:17 AM:
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. 
)
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-04-2001, 11:22 AM:
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?
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 01-04-2001, 04:36 PM:
I did a little prowling around the Internet, and found a site that describes a very similar problem. It's an NT solution, but my guess is that the solution is the same. According to this article, the problem is an error with the registry.
This link gives a possible solution:
http://support.systemaxpc.com/kb/document.cfm?ID=889
Mark Lensenmayer
------------------
"As a moral to young men who come down to the city, don't go round breaking people's tambourines."
Posted by Russ Kress (Member # 461) on 01-07-2001, 12:12 AM:
ICQ does not like to re-connect if you have just disconnected.When I try this, I get a "security error".
I am guessing that the server has not yet noticed that you are gone and thinks you are trying to sign on twice.
I'm still using Windows 98 at home and I signed up for that "Critical Update" service from Micro-Soft.
My computer prompts me (at least twice a week) that I need a patch and I install it.
I have to admit, I haven't had a "fatal" or "such and such has stopped responding" error for a long time now.
All in all, I have no problems with Windows in general. All of the theatre's stuff (except Theatron) runs on it. Theatron has a dedicated machine that runs on DOS.
One machine alone runs Time-Clock Plus, Data Display (marquees), an AOL based company e-mail system, Lotus and Word Perfect.
Usually the only problem is more than one person needing to use it for something at the same time.
Three other machines (also Windows 98) run concession and boxoffice displays for customers (menu boards, showtimes, etc.)
One machine supports the upload from the theatre's live web cam.
Needless to say, these computers are appreciated in the winter time! (Lots of heat for the office!)
Russ
Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-07-2001, 12:38 AM:
Mark: Thanks for the link. I looked at it, and yes, that is what the computer was doing on its load=load thing. Armed with the info in that link, I will make another wild pea-brain gorilla attempt to make a clean install, since I have a spare hard drive. Installing things like this make me feel like I have a slanted forehead when something goes wrong. Again, many thanks.And, thanks to the rest of you who tried to help me resolve the problem.
Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-07-2001, 11:36 PM:
Can anyone tell me how to make a bootable CDROM?
Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-11-2001, 02:45 PM:
Reg edit cleared the load=load=load problem. Thanks, Mark. Anyone know how to disable a firewall in Windows 2000 so I can use Napster Via AOL?
Thanks...