The New Guy Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 (edited) Well, basically what the title states....is there? I mean the latest but yet still support windows 98SE, 98, 95(all editions), 3.1, 3, ME and others that I don't know but older....? Also - this may be not relevant to this section but it's quick question of confirmination: Is Cccleaner v2.36 the last version to be supported by windows 98SE and ME, or is there a slightly newer one?Kind Regards, The New Guy. Edited April 5, 2012 by The New Guy What you see is what you get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kroozer Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 . . . the latest but yet still support windows 98SE, 98, 95(all editions), . . ? V1.31.437 and older versions. Is Cccleaner v2.36 the last version to be supported by windows 98SE and ME, Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The New Guy Posted April 10, 2012 Author Share Posted April 10, 2012 V1.31.437 and older versions. Well, thanks for that, now need to get that running under my Windows ME PC...(I sort of accidentally re-formatted the drive....knowing that I forgot to reset after using fdisk on the other drive...) Let's see if this little program will recover all the files on that drive.... Yes. Hm, well that explains why v3.03 didn't work under windows 98se.... What you see is what you get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The New Guy Posted April 10, 2012 Author Share Posted April 10, 2012 welll, how do i tell which files are which? the most of the files are [and some random numbers].zip!? I don't recall having that much zip files on that drive nor do I have any files called [random numbers].zip before... What you see is what you get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Augeas Posted April 10, 2012 Moderators Share Posted April 10, 2012 If you're running deep scan then there will be a lot of files with an ascending number as the file name, followed by the extension type. This is because the file name is not held as part of the file, and Recuva can't establish what the original file name was. The file signature in the first few bytes of the file determine what file type is, and what extension to use. Perhaps you have some or many files with a file sig that's being interpreted as zip. I'm no great expert in FAT, which I guess you're using in Win ME. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The New Guy Posted April 11, 2012 Author Share Posted April 11, 2012 If you're running deep scan then there will be a lot of files with an ascending number as the file name, followed by the extension type. This is because the file name is not held as part of the file, and Recuva can't establish what the original file name was. yes, I ran a deep scan on my 40GB HDD because it didn't find anything on the normal scan. The file signature in the first few bytes of the file determine what file type is, and what extension to use. Perhaps you have some or many files with a file sig that's being interpreted as zip. um, can you uh explain that to me? I'm not following.... I'm no great expert in FAT, which I guess you're using in Win ME. I'm using FAT32 filesystem. Surely there isn't much difference between NTFS and FAT32, just one can support higher data bytes than the other, has encryption thingy, performance is static on NTFSs, but FA32 would be better off on smaller data drives. I'm pulling all of this from my head - I do hope all of them are right... What you see is what you get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Augeas Posted April 11, 2012 Moderators Share Posted April 11, 2012 Many file types - but not all - have a file signature of a few bytes at the start of the file data which identify it as a jpg, or flv or doc etc. Whilst a Recuva normal scan can extract the file name and extension - and thus the file type - from the file table a deep scan has to determine the file type from what's in the file data - the file signature. Simple file types, txt or dat files etc, have no file signature and can't be identified with a deep scan, they're just chunks of data. There are lists of file sigs that can be Googled. As you can't police the use of file sigs perhaps some application is using a sig that Recuva is interpreting as zip. Or perhaps some application has downloaded many zip files. There's nothing wrong with FAT32. I have looked at NTFS internals and can bore people for hours on the subject. I haven't looked at FAT, so I can only bore for a few minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kroozer Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 . . . that explains why v3.03 didn't work under windows 98se.... OT here, but since you still have Win98SE, please check to see who created the native defragmenter. Is it licensed by Norton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The New Guy Posted April 14, 2012 Author Share Posted April 14, 2012 Many file types - but not all - have a file signature of a few bytes at the start of the file data which identify it as a jpg, or flv or doc etc. Whilst a Recuva normal scan can extract the file name and extension - and thus the file type - from the file table a deep scan has to determine the file type from what's in the file data - the file signature. Simple file types, txt or dat files etc, have no file signature and can't be identified with a deep scan, they're just chunks of data. There are lists of file sigs that can be Googled. As you can't police the use of file sigs perhaps some application is using a sig that Recuva is interpreting as zip. Or perhaps some application has downloaded many zip files. There's nothing wrong with FAT32. I have looked at NTFS internals and can bore people for hours on the subject. I haven't looked at FAT, so I can only bore for a few minutes. ...right....so I have to Google the file name? Well, I don't really remember having that much zip files, nor had this computer been connected to the net yet....if I can't recover all the folders and files, I guess I will have to eventually find those files and or folders, either on the internet or from another computer I got....god damn, wish there was a manual save and re-load button in real life....like in some games....so I can reverse what I did and just format the *right* driver this time without forgetting again....but of course somthing like that cannot possibly come true....however there is one way - if it works...commit suicide, be born and about a few minutes before this and there you are, a new life. but yes, I do know no babies can grow that fast after birth...and get that smart either.... @ Kroozer,yes well, I didn't want to bother anyone there....besides, I got my answer now; thanks to you! You mean windows' disk defragmenter? I think that was made by microsoft, otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about.... What you see is what you get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kroozer Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 You mean windows' disk defragmenter? I think that was made by microsoft, otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about.... MS didn't make the Win98se Disk Defragmenter — it was outsourced. It's been many years since using that OS, but as I can best recall, I found the maker by clicking on Windows Disk Defragmenter\Help\About. Anyway, thanks for responding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodles Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Not sure about Win98, but I recall that Diskeeper made the defrag at least for Win2000, WinXP and Win2003 Server. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kroozer Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 I found the label at evinsol. Apparently was a Symantec product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The New Guy Posted April 17, 2012 Author Share Posted April 17, 2012 Not sure about Win98, but I recall that Diskeeper made the defrag at least for Win2000, WinXP and Win2003 Server. I know one that's called Diskeeper 9 home edition that I still got, still supports 2k to whatever OS present at the time....Wish there was one for Win9x line....there probably is, but I don't have it....It's a pretty good defragger to add. @ kroozer, But since 2k and onwards, they don't show the little square clusters of files/folders been moved, except shows lines on the screen agains a white background as free space.... I've pulled out a screenshot from my win ME PC and it says it has something to relate to Symantec product as you said.... But there's no help or about thingy in the diskfragmenter itself! @OT, thanks for helping, I'll just not worry about and get on with life....it's just too complicated to recover files from this program and google it for every single file I found - that'll take forever if it states lots of zip files.....! What you see is what you get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now