oscardog

ZaPbuZZ have a look in here http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showforum=91 you will find more info about 98>me, rp etc and kup which allows running some xp apps under 98.

As long as I remember CreateThread()/_beginthread() leak some memory on Win9x this is why Apache has the following compile switch: PMT_PTHREAD This MPM is based on the PREFORK MPM and begins by forking the desired number of child processes, each of which starts the specified number of threads. When a request comes in, a thread will accept the request and serve the response. If most of the threads in the entire server are busy serving requests, a new child process will be forked. This MPM should be used on platforms that have threads, but which have a memory leak in their implementation. The important advantage of the NTFS is however that since it's journaled it's way more reliable than FAT. Also it has some cool features like additional streams that can be used by antiviruses (for example kaspersky) to store checksum data to avoid scanning the same files twice. There are linux ext2 users that could say the same thing of ext2 because they have a stable setup: that doesn't change that with ext2 or fat32 you risk losing more data if the O.S. crashes or the computer is suddently powered off. If you didn't notice this thread is named "Why continue to use Windows 9x?" so I didn't come here accidentally saying that NT-based OSes are better without reasons just to p*** other people off. I answered in this thread because somebody asked why windows 9x should still be used and I gave my reasons not to use it, because it's unsupported and very unreliable. If you prefer performance over stability it's your preference however that doesn't change the fact that NT based oses are years ahead in terms of stability. _beginthreadex is preferable over _beginthread and CreateThread? the reason behind this is simply that the C runtime library was first invented long before multithreading was available and as far as I am aware is not os specific. Regarding performance http://www.devhardware.com/c/a/Software/Win98SE-vs-WinXP/ I know you will say disable this service disable that service, but I could also minimise my 98 setup and boy would it fly. MS made a lot of claims about XP, it is in the interests of marketing to make something new appear far superior. Creating a barebones 98 install with any programs preinstalled is a snip, it is easy to copy to any machine and then run hardware detect ren setupx/4.dll etc. I do not think i will be buying a copy of XP and then purchasing additional ram for my 98 systems that run just fine with what is already there

Max it has been changed,it is now new and improved with a hyphen, at no extra cost

I suppose it is the way of the world, you have a chap putting an awful amount of his effort into putting back what he received from the os, then you have another party putting all the latest patches breaking ms eula coming the higher ground? It beggars belief Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year

Like I said before when the hardware allows XP (or win2k) to run I think it should preferred over 9x. I don't know how can you say that an OS is "running fine" when such OS stability can be compromised by any bad-written application. And as you may know finding an application that doesn't suffer memory leaks or doesn't have any bugs is very, very hard. The only idea of using an OS that has memory leaks even when creating new threads (yes, win9x does) and that relies on a partition type that risks to get completely corrupted with each crash gives me the creeps. You seem to be the master of generalization, which createthread() in our virtual address space leaks memory, please be more specific. With regard to ntfs or fat, both have there own advantages disadvantages. disk size,if you like to multiboot,non(sequential) write capability,if you like control from dos,if you have software to defrag mft, all come into the equation. Both types allow only the os to disk write and in my many years of experience fat(32) has never let me down. This forum has come across people like you before, it is all about choice, we have made our choice,you have made yours. The only difference being that you are posting in the forum of the particular os you have not chosen. Do they not talk much in their?

I thought Win9x already supported this as long as it was a proper win32 application. No, please don't insert that s*** into Win9x! It only leads to headaches and more complexity. I hear you, BenoitRen, and I kind of agree. Moreoever, I guess, it would be to make 9x something that it's just not. Retreating back from that (sort of), some better password protection at boot time would be good (although again, I'm really not sure how this could be achieved, since such measures are always easily bypassed through DOS). Windows 9x remains totally insecure at the (physical) point of access. I don't think I'd ever run 9x on a laptop, for example. Dos can also be your friend in securing Win9x, a multiitude of apps exist to encrypt your system files before your system can start (just type your password at system start,takes a couple of seconds),installing the os to a non standard folder prevents safe mode attacks. Using the freeware pgp disk prevents anybody accessing your program folders/important files. Putting untrusted user accounts into ram or onto a bootable cd prevents them infecting theirs or your own system. Using the above with even a basic 128bit encryption would be far harder to break into, than to rename/bruteforce sids on xp, even on a laptop

If tcp/ip is unbound from netbios your home network file sharing will work fine between win9x computers, I transfer over mapped drives most days with it unbound. Your problem lies at your winxp end, which does not support netbeui as standard it needs copying from your xp disc or downloading. Once you have sorted your xp end out, file sharing will work, it is not a win9x problem. I would seriously consider ditching ics and getting a router, they offer far greater security.

In the past I have made a bootable cd using a win98 setup floppy as an image, the other part of the cd had a barebones win98 os i.e one that had not been allowed to detect hardware on a previous system. After formating via the cd and renaming setupx.dll etc, whilst copying an inf folder collected over the years to it. The enum filled quite nicely and the setup completed even on difficult latter day (to me) hardware very very quickly (less than probably a mindows setup). Have not attempted it since my xp3200 machine though

If you unbind it as nogurus link shows you will have nothing to fear and still retain your file sharing capabilities on a lan. Netbios cannot travel over a wlan,www etc unless it bound to another protocol

http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/Ntfs...ofessional.html NTFS for Win98 from sysinternals provided fully accessible drives as native windows volumes, NTFS for Windows 98 uses the NTFS and NTOSKRNL system files from a Windows NT, Windows 2000 or Windows XP configuration. The unreged version allowed read only whilst the reged version allowed read/write but since ms took over sysinternals it seemed to disappear, looks like ms does not want us accessing NTFS via win98 anymore. It is still around in the wild though and is well worth picking up

Sorry glock_94 kartel you are boasting it is going to need a 750w power supply no wonder it is smoking, how you could cope with the noise from one of those things for any length of time is beyond me. You do realise the inefficiency of transformers and the constant load you will put on it via your hds,ram,graphics card, let alone your cpu/s etc just whilst attempting meanial tasks but there again it looks good in your sig and you probably do not need to pay the electricity bill. Sod the ice caps melting, and the climate change, when we all should use and need something approaching leaving a kw fire running all day when running full bore to save you time when you probably have plenty of time on your hands. Back to the point, as already said "What exactly would we need quad-core for? "

I am using the same browser download seems to work fine, in firefox goto Tools then Options then click on the content tab. You will see enable java and enable javascript put a tick in each box and click ok. You might need to close firefox and rerun it for the changes to take place. Then try to download again, if it is successful untick the same two boxes until you need java/script again HTH

Just thought xmsdsk might also be useful for any further times Analada might wish to use ramdisk, and at 20k in size its not going to fill the cdrom up much Analada search in google lots of download places HTH

As jaclaz mentions use xmsdsk to create a small ramdrive copy you batch exe to there,then execute your batch.exe. If it complains copy command.com and set comspec to the ramdrive, and set up any memory manages if needed to run your app,

Set comspec might help on bootup, examining currentversion in the registry will identify which os is installed

@Ludwig Von Cookie Koopa I do a lot of capturing and have very little trouble with file limits a lot of the software I use automatically splits the filesize into 2gig chunks. Which enables me to edit and convert the files whilst capturing continues. I also have realtime mpeg2 capture encoding cards which again have no problem with the file limit. Regarding win9x uptime I have had systems bypass the maximum machine ticks many many times with no memory\reboot needed problems. A lot of the time windows 9x uptime is not the fault of the os but down to memory leaks from poorly written software, if a minimal 98 setup is used and reliable software is used or written by yourself (using ocx,activex etc) you will be surprised how long and how stable the system can be.

Flip flopping between the 2 quickly and easily might be a problem, converting to ntfs is no problem but converting from ntfs to fat32 is where the problem lies. Apparently partition manager 8 can allegedly do this, but I would back any important data up first.

Good helpfull people always welcome here, glad to see you back Jeremy

Bristols if it is of any help i could put the file on emule for you, or you could try wget which will resume the download. If you have a pc with 512mb or above I could also compress it with a higher compression algorithm to reduce its filesize. HTH

soporific it does matter from a boot point of view, Jaqie Fox can you practice your adolesence elsewhere

I think most people who p*** on new IT's (anything before 2000) just have trouble coping with how big Windows is, since you're probably some 35 year old whose been using PCs since the day they only needed such-and-such KBs of RAM to run, and with how "insecure" and "unstable" many "pioneers" seem to believe XP is. Don't get me wrong, I think needing 512MBs of RAM just to run a vanilla default OS is rediculous, but it is the way it is. With RAM drives and dual core becoming main stream soon and 1GB sticks of RAM becoming cheaper, the filesize of an OS just doesn't matter to as many people as it used to. Not to mention all the drivers for hardware and compatibility for devices and new technologies being implemented into games, and M$ not supporting Win9x... bigger harddrives, more RAM, faster CPUs, dual core, SLI, upgradable GPUs, etc... Windows 9x is Dead. I'm not trying to shove my opinion up anyone's a** here, I'm not saying you can't stick with what you like, but I believe someday... and sooner rather than later... it is going to catch up to you. Let's face it... times change, people change, everything changes. It's inevitable. 1995 was nearly 12 years ago. 1998 was nearly 9 years ago. Technology now changes by the month, if not every few weeks.... If Windows 9x is dead, XP is a very poorly os in the next bed trying to have a transfusion from the alleged deceased os which judging by the forum is blatantly alive. I would suggest that intrinsically money might be better spent on purchasing a system which via any means, supports win 9x still. In this way people have a built in redundancy if a system fails. It can easily be farmed for example via a lan if any of the multiple ghz systems needs to record and compress captured videos via wol it can be made to do this. This way you are not running goodness knows how much wasted capacity when doing ordinary everyday tasks browsing,emailing etc. Plus saving any wear and tear. Multitasking, simultaneously playing music,browsing the web,downloading files,programming etc has never been a problem for me and this is mostly on a P2 system whilst the faster machines are working,hibernating or shutdown. I appreciate that after all these years XP has most of its foibles ironed out and is on the road to redundancy, but I will not go to that forum and hyperthetically fish from the vista side of the pond. I appreciate that for the future a concerted effort is required in re/writing future device drivers for this os, but time permitting and the intelligent people gathered here I am hopeful. This xmas I will be getting a new laptop, one that enables me to carry out my work and does not require me to carry around a hydrogen fuel cell

It would mean a complete rewrite, a lot of our hardware would not support it ( a lot of time and effort is going to be needed to support new device drivers for new hardware without rewriting older ones). As already mentioned our existing dword systems can support upto 4 gig of virtual address space, more than enough for efficiently coded programs to run on for donkeys years to come. And finally even if all the above were done not many programmers will be writing software to exploit using a 64bit 9x system

The wdmcheck utility might be useful for displaying unresolved imports, which can be resolved by defining a stub for the kernel mode routines (used to port kernel mode functions from nt to 9x/me).

A lot of linux distros can be booted via grub for dos to run straight from the hard drive into memory, and work from fat drives without problems needing no floppy or cdrom drive

Grub4dos and memdisk are very useful for dual booting dos/linux (with no slowdown), For different Nix/Win9x if I do not use the previous after an install I use a floppy that points to the win9x os I wish to boot, modifying msdos.sys,config.sys to point to the necessary after using subst.exe D drive E: drive etc during setup. I mostly use the win95 shell in a win98se install so some of this may not work for you but might help you in the right direction.