Jump to content

98 Guy

Member
  • Posts

    105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Country

    Canada

Posts posted by 98 Guy

  1. Update:

    Up until now, I've been preparing (partitioning) this drive by connecting it to a SATA port on another machine and running the Samsung version of On Track's disk manager software (via boot-CD).

    Most recently, I've kept the drive in the destination machine (Levono R61i laptop) and ran the disk-manager software on it.

    One of the first questions that the software asks is what OS you intend to use. It lists the options as:

    Win-XP

    Win-2K

    Win-Me

    Win-98se

    My previous attempts were using the Win-ME choice, but this time I chose XP. It then wanted me to check (or not-check) a box if I was installing SP1 or higher (which I was, and I did).

    I then went on and re-partitioned the drive as a 64gb primary (4-kb cluster size) and 96 gb secondary(8kb cluster size).

    I then booted the XP-pro CD and began XP installation.

    > Two questions:

    >

    > 1. Aren't you offered the option of re-formatting the drive with the same file system?

    No. During XP installation, once you select the destination partition or volume, you have (basically) only 2 choices: Reformat the volume as NTFS, or keep the existing file system. No choice to re-format as FAT-32 (if such a choice ever existed, I don't see it probably because of XP's intentional limitation of 32gb for FAT-32 volumes).

    > 2. Is the partition you are installing XP on marked as active?

    Yes - in all previous attempts it was active. OnTrack's DM software does set the first volume as active.

    So at this point, I've told DM to create a 64 gb Fat-32 partition, and that I intend to install XP on the target drive (instead of ME). The XP installation proceeds with about 10 minutes of solid file copying from the CD, and then upon first boot it actually does work (no missing NTLDR message).

    So what's different here is:

    a) The hard drive was connected to and OnTrack DM was run on the destination machine instead of a surrogate.

    b) DM was told that XP was the target OS instead of ME.

    I'm thinking that (b) was the item responsible for the success, but I wouldn't have thought that a FAT-32 volume needed any special preparation or setup to allow an NT-based OS like XP to boot from it.

    PS:

    After the machine booted the first time during XP install, and it began to ask questions as part of the rest of the install, I shut the system down and copied the XP-cd to a subdirectory on the hard drive. I then resumed XP installation and told it where it could find the install files. Problem is, I was CONSTANTLY being asked where the files were, and I was CONSTANTLY browsing to the same location. Why doesn't XP remember the alternate source location during install?

  2. How did you fdisked/formatted the drive?

    Any of the utilities listed here? :unsure:

    http://www.boot-land.net/forums/?showtopic=4539

    jaclaz

    No, I used On-track's Disc Manager, which has been customized for use by various hard-drive makers and branded as their own software for use only on their own hard drives.

    In my case, I obtained Samsung's version here:

    http://www.samsung.com/global/business/hdd...iskManager.html

    Specifically, the bootable CD ISO image here:

    http://www.samsung.com/global/business/hdd...CDROM_Drive.zip

    During use, you specify

    a) the OS you're planning to use (win-95, win-98se, ME, 2K/XP). For some reason they separate Win-98se and Win-me as separate options.

    b) the type of file system (NTFS, or FAT16/32 as determined by your choice in A)

    c) then you specify the size of each partition, and again you can choose FAT-16 or 32, and then the cluster size

    When the operation is completed, the partitions and volumes have been created, and the volumes have been formatted, but they are completely blank (no bootable sector or system files present).

    I have found that very few other hard-drive preparation tools (PowerQuest, etc) allows for custom cluster sizing when creating FAT32 volumes. Seagate and Western Digital also have their own versions of this DiskManager software.

    Just FYI - using the above method I've been able to install win-98se on the drive in question (as installed in the laptop in question) as well as in other situations where I've installed win-98se on a 500 gb SATA hard drive prepared as a single fat-32 partition with 4kb cluster size.

    I'm under the impression that Win-2K and XP are both capable of dealing with large FAT-32 volumes (larger than 32 or 64 gb) but they've been handicapped in that by design their own native drive preparation tools are prevented to create FAT-32 volumes larger than 32 gb.

    So, now you know how I prepared the hard drive, do you have any ideas why XP is throwing up this error message upon the first restart after OS installation?

  3. Please ignore for a moment why I'm trying to install XP on a FAT-32 partition.

    What I have is a 160 gb drive that I've used manufacturer's software to partition as a 64 gb primary FAT-32 partition (using 4 kb cluster size) and the remainder of the drive (96 gb) also as FAT-32 (8kb cluster size).

    The drive is SATA, the computer is a Lenovo R61i laptop, and the drive was set to compatability mode in the bios (so no SATA drivers are needed during XP install).

    I've booted the computer with an XP CD (XP-pro, OEM "System-Builder" version, version 2002 with integrated SP2).

    During XP installation, XP sees the drive, sees the 2 partitions, asks which one I want to install XP on, asks if I want to keep the existing file system (yes), and then performs the first phase of installation (a lot of file copying). It then performs a re-start, and that's when I get the message "missing NTLDR".

    Some fixes for this include making sure that NTLDR and ntdetect.com are present in the root directory (they are).

    Microsoft seems to think that the only way this can happen (installing XP on a FAT-32 drive) is when you're attempting to install XP over a pre-existing Win-9x install (which I'm not) so I can't see how a lot of their solutions would or could apply here.

    About 2 years ago I did something similar - I installed XP on a large (250 or 320 gb SATA drive) that was formatted with a couple of FAT-32 partitions (again with 4 kb cluster size) and the installation went smoothly in that case.

    Any idea what's going on here?

  4. If you do a google search, such as:

    http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=ic...earch&meta=

    it appears that there are some ICH8 components with win-98 drivers.

    Is there a single intel chipset utility file for ICH8 that might (or does) contain some win-98 drivers?

    Is there a modded driver file somewhere?

    For example, on this page:

    http://www.xpvistaworld.com/intel_r_ich8_f..._2_2841_643.htm

    They show this:

    Intel® ICH8 Family PCI Express Root Port 2 - 2841 driver

    -----------------------------

    Developer: Intel

    Version: 8.13.1

    Filename: Intel_infinst_autol.exe

    Size: 10.03 Mb

    OS: Windows XP,Windows ME,Windows 98 SE,Windows 2000 SP2,Windows NT SP2,Windows Vista,Windows 95,Windows 2000 SP4,Windows NT SP1,Windows 2000 SP3,Windows NT,Windows 98,Windows NT SP4

    License: shareware

    http://downloadmirror.intel.com/13326/a08/infinst_autol.exe

    -------------------------------

    But that link doesn't work...

  5. > win.com /B /D:M

    The /B argument is either wrong, or undocumented.

    The above command (when typed in as written) results in a safe-mode startup, but an error saying something like "can't find" or "can't run" the file "/B".

    But in any case, it does seem to create a bootlog.txt file.

    And BTW, is it normal to see these entries:

    [0015EDFE] Starting Unknown (HTREE\ROOT\0)

    [0015EDFE] Started Unknown (HTREE\ROOT\0)

    [0015EDFE] Enumerating Unknown (HTREE\ROOT\0)

    [0015EDFE] Enumerated Unknown (HTREE\ROOT\0)

    I'm also seeing lots of these font load errors:

    LoadStart = C:\WIN98\fonts\MARLETT.TTF

    LoadFail = C:\WIN98\fonts\MARLETT.TTF Failure code is 0016

    The following is the last few lines of my safe-mode bootlog.txt:

    LoadSuccess = USER.EXE

    LoadStart = MSGSRV32.EXE

    LoadSuccess = MSGSRV32.EXE

    Init = Final USER

    InitDone = Final USER

    Init = Installable Drivers

    InitDone = Installable Drivers

    Init = TSRQuery

    InitDone = TSRQuery

    [0015F051] Starting Unknown (HTREE\RESERVED\0)

    [0015F051] Started Unknown (HTREE\RESERVED\0)

    [0015F052] Enumerating Unknown (HTREE\RESERVED\0)

    [0015F052] Enumerated Unknown (HTREE\RESERVED\0)

    Are these unknown entries caused by the /b startup option?

  6. I've got a win-98se system that boots ok most times but sometimes immediately after all the desktop icons are rendered I'll get a blue-screen "Fatal Exception OE" message. When I hit a key, the desktop comes back, the icons are flashed/rendered once or twice, and then the blue screen comes back.

    This exact sequence happens in safe mode as well.

    It basically gets stuck in a loop where it shows the Fatal Exception message, then you hit a key to see the desktop come back, then at the very moment the desktop looks ready for use the blue-screen fatal exception 0E comes back.

    When started with the logging turned on, the very last line in bootlog.txt is something like "enumerated microsoft kernel audio mixer".

    Scandisk with full surface scan turns up no errors.

    Scanreg also says nothing is wrong with the registry, and restoring several older versions of the registry does not make this problem go away.

    I'll power it down for a day or overnight, then turn it on and it will usually boot and work fine.

    Any ideas?

    PS: Is there any way to turn logging on (create bootlog.txt) for a safe-mode startup?

  7. > A convenient way would be to borrow rules from spamassassin,

    > but they don't appear to do this

    I have many rules for filtering spam based on the X-mailer line that I use with my e-mail client (Netscape Communicator 4.79). I don't know how powerful or flexible spam assassin is, but I really don't need to use a third-party pre-filter.

    > presumably it is so easy for a spammer to find a real version number to use?

    Yes, many spams have real or actual legit versions of OE, but as I've posted, I'm seeing new OE versions every week, and I can't find any indication they are real.

    > The long winded way would be to download all the historic OE

    > patches for all windows versions (and all languages?) and check

    > them all...

    I do web and usenet searches for the OE versions I've posted, but (a) I get only a handful of hits, and (B) all the usenet hits are in NANAS.

    In the past day I've got 3 more:

    6.00.2800.2963

    6.00.2720.1409

    6.00.3790.2963

    Does anyone know what 6.00.2720.xxxx is possibly for?

  8. I've been looking at some spam I've been getting recently and noticing specific OE version numbers in the X-Mailer line. I don't see those same versions in my own e-mail. Here are some examples:

    6.00.3790.4682

    6.00.3790.2962

    6.00.3790.1106

    6.00.3790.181

    6.00.2900.2963

    6.00.2900.2969

    6.00.2800.2962

    6.00.2720.4682

    6.00.2600.4682

    6.00.2600.1409

    Is there a conveinent way I can determine if any of those are actual OE versions? Possibly for which OS, and when they would have been the current OE version?

  9. This is a system running NT4 server. It runs in a basement machine room, and can run for weeks without anyone checking on it.

    I noticed last night that it was performing periodic heavy disk access - about 1 minute of continuous disk access every 5 minutes.

    During the 1 minute of disk access, I see this process in the task manager:

    Image Name: Error-Handler

    PID: 282, 290, (I guess this is not important)

    CPU: 90% +

    memory usage: 2 to 6 Mb (seems to fluctuate)

    When disk access stops, that process goes away.

    When I look at the various logs in the event viewer, I see no entries related to an error condition.

    How can I track down what error or condition is causing this process?

  10. I've got a win-98 system (one of several that I operate, own or otherwise maintain) and this particular system should just be wiped and have win-98 reinstalled from scratch...

    Anyways, on this system I will experience a situation at least once a day where if I have outlook open, and if I open a browser (ie6) it will immediately cause outlook to crash, with the message something like "outlook caused something or other in module riched20.dll".

    I've turned up a very very few web hits in various obscure (and old) forum posting that describe pretty much the same issue, but there's never any resolution or fix posted.

    I've replaced riched20.dll with another copy (same version - 5.30.23.1200) but that doesn't seem to help. I'm also not sure where this file needs to be located. Is it c:\windows or c:\windows\system ?

    Any ideas?

  11. I'm trying to track down a problem with a graphics app that uses OpenGL.

    I'm concentrating on 2 different win-98se systems. One one system, the app runs. On the other system, the app doesn't run properly (and upon closing, I get an invalid page fault in module <unknown> message).

    I've compared the files in the process list between the two systems, and they differ on two files:

    System 1:

    user32.dll 4.10.2227

    msvcrt.dll 6.10.9844.0

    System 2:

    user32.dll 4.10.2231

    msvcrt.dll 6.10.9359.0

    The app runs on System 2, and doesn't run on System 1.

    I'm going to swap those files around and see if that fixes the problem, but I've got lots of different versions of those 2 files and was wondering what are the last, or maybe "best" versions of those files?

  12. Regarding USB-attached mass storage devices such as memory sticks, external hard drives, external device with their own internal storage, etc:

    Does an Operating System (Windows 9X, 2K/XP, etc) interact with these devices such that it sees them *exactly* as, say, an internal hard drive, to the extent that the host computer can format the storage device with a file system of the user's choice (FAT-12, FAT-16, FAT-32, NTFS, etc) or does the host computer interact with these devices at a higher "layer" where it does not know, or does not see, or does not have control over the file system being used by the device?

  13. The following is a list of AGP and PCI-e cards showing current price and availability as quoted to me by a parts vendor.

    Given a motherboard (such as the VIA-based Asrock) where there is a working PCIe bridge being shown by device manager, and also given the right hacked or modded driver, then:

    Which of these are known to work (or to NOT work) on 98se

    Asus EN7300GT pci-e Fanless -- $69 - Readily Available

    XFX 7600GT pci-e -- $119 - Limited quantities

    eVGA 7600GT pci-e -- $119 - Limited quantities

    Asus EAX800XT pci-e -- $579 or $749 - Different versions - Limited

    XFX 6800GT AGP -- $289 - Very Limited

    Albatron 6800GT AGP -- $359 Very Limited

    BFG 7800GS AGP -- $279 Readily Available

    Sparkle nVIDIA 6200 Ultra 128MB AGP - $49

    I would think the Sparkle 6200 would work no problem, but it would be my last resort because it's a low-end card.

    I'd rather try the Asus EN7300GT or eVGA7600GT but the messing around I did about a year ago with basically any PCI-e boards on the Asrock motherboard didn't work.

    The ATI board above is crazy-priced so it's not an option. What sub-$200 ATI boards (PCIe or AGP) should I look at?

  14. I've tried modifying this key:

    HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\WindowsNT\Current Version\WPAEvents

    (ODBETimer binary value)

    and then running this command:

    %systemroot%\system32\oobe\msoobe /a

    and I've even deleted the value and then the key, but in every case the WPA product activation window just says that XP has already been activated.

    I've run the magic jellybean kf151.exe and something called xppid.exe and have entered another product key, and both of those come back and say the new key wasn't accepted.

    This is what I'm trying to do:

    I have an existing hard drive with XP-pro (sp2, OEM system-builder version) and I've cloned it to a second drive. I want to install the second drive into a second computer with the same motherboard as the first system. The second system has enough different parts (CPU, memory, optical drive, MAC address) that XP on the second drive will invalidate itself when installed and started on the second system, and it will attempt to re-validate itself on the new hardware.

    I've run into this before, and have seen the clone validate itself just fine - without asking me if I want to change the product key first. What I want to do in this case is change the product key BEFORE moving the clone drive to the second system.

    I have 2 legit copies of XP-pro Sp2 (OEM system-builder versions) so I'm not trying to use the same key on 2 systems.

    I noticed that some methods say to attempt a telephone validation, in which case you will get a screen allowing you to enter a product key. Will I get such a screen if I just go ahead and start the cloned drive in the second system?

    If I somehow get the clone to validate itself with the 2'nd key, will it have any memory of the first (original) key?

    Will MS somehow end up knowing that a system that previously had key#1 was modified to use key #2?

  15. > I don't think outgoing firewalls are useless and far from it.

    They are more of a nuisance for the average user and the only real use for "power" users is to monitor what their software is doing on their box.

    Almost all malware these days are designed to deactivate software firewalls (and AV software) or even modify them to make it look like they're still running.

    > Jetico 1.1.

    > On my machine it blocked several 0-Days trojans

    > that got dropped in my system while I was browsing with IE.

    Obviously you didn't lock down your IE properly, or your JRE.

    > It would be foolish to believe 98 systems are not at risk

    Win-98 has vulnerabilities because of the integration with IE (and those vulnerabilities don't go away just because you're using another browser like Firefox). But while the vulnerability exists, the exploit code probably won't function properly on win-98 like it was designed to do.

    > AFX Rootkit 2003 which is a user mode rootkit (running in ring3)

    Yea, but win-9x doesn't run Ring3.

    > and 9xRX which is a kernel mode rootkit (running in ring0).

    Archphase posted 9xrx a year ago so it's very new, and most probably nobody will use it.

  16. > > The threat caused by IE6 when running win-98 is heavily over-rated.

    > > I have no fear running win-98 and IE6.

    > > I also run:

    > > - Adaware

    > > - Spybot SD (browser innoculation)

    > > - Spyware Blaster (browser innoculation)

    > > - a good hosts file

    >

    > You just defeated your own argument.

    No I didn't.

    I wouldn't run Firefox either without innoculating it with Spyware Blaster and also use a hosts file.

  17. > 98 runs very well with an alternate browser.

    And it runs very well with IE6, and in some cases (like booking air travel) you need to use IE6.

    I find too many web sites that are not rendered correctly with Firefox, for example.

    ALL browsers are affected by system-level file associations and file handling or parsing. The application of the "innoculation" feature by Spybot SD and Spyware blaster protects both IE and Firefox (and maybe other browsers) from the same threats. So too does a hosts file, and so too does the use of the most updated JRE.

    Active-X is perfectly safe if a few simple settings are changed, and that is exactly what Spybot does to IE.

    > leaving bad decisions by the user as its worst vulnerability.

    The characterization that the user is usually responsible for web-based malware intrusion is wrong. There is DNS poisoning and server-farm hijacking that can result in infection that has nothing to do with the judgement of the user.

    > AVs are going to be a problem for 98 users who want to use one.

    The use of older versions of NAV (Norton Anti Virus) - say, the 2001 and 2002 versions, make a suitable AV solution for win-98. Those older versions will update themselves with the latest scan engine DLL and definition files via the LiveUpdate feature. In addition, simple un-install and re-install them to gain another year of free updating. While NAV is universally recognized as being bloat-ware, that is only true of versions 2003 and newer. Another option is Symantec Corporate AV (versions 8, 9 and maybe 10). That package runs on win-98, and does not expire.

    In general, I am not a big advocate of AV software since quite a lot of malware these days are polymorphic (fast-flux) and most AV packages (even Kaspersky) doesn't always detect them. In addition, most AV does not do a good job (possibly ANY job) of removal.

    The use of a firewall on a win-98 system is also stupid and a waste of resources.

    Win-98 was never vulnerable to network intrusion the way win-2k and XP were. The most effective, efficient way to block unsolicited incoming attempts is to use a NAT-router between your broad-band modem and your computer.

    As for un-authorized out-going attempts, such an attempt would have to require that your system is already infected with something, and most likely that something will have already turned off your software firewall anyways, so again the usefullness of a software firewall is pretty close to zero.

    > I've been using a combination of Kerio 2.1.5, SSM free, and Proxomitron

    > to protect my 98 box for a couple years,

    Then you are foolish.

    > It has never failed to protect me

    Win-98 doesn't need protecting from unsolicited incoming requests. In other words, win-98 doesn't need the protection of a firewall UNLESS you've enabled file-sharing on TCP/IP.

    > The common opinion, one promoted by M$, hardware vendors, and

    > the big name security companies is that 98 is too insecure and

    > unsupported to use on the net.

    The big con with that argument is that M$ and IT people are really talking about desktop or login security (the ability to turn on a computer and access it's files or use it to access the network connected to it). They say that Win-9x is insecure, but that's what they really mean. It means they can't control who is using the computer. Naturally, home and SOHO users are not concerned with that type of security, but the popular or tech-press doesn't differentiate between login security and internet security.

    I've operated an office with about a dozen win-98 systems (and some win-nt and win-2k systems) each with their own unique IP address, all of them directly facing the internet with NO firewall. That was between mid-2000 to late-2005. Guess what -> none of the win-98 systems ever had a network-based trojan or worm infect them, while the same couldn't be said for the NT and 2K machines.

    > This forum is a rare and welcome exception to that

    > planned obsolescense mentality.

    And I suggest that more people here also participate in the win-98 usenet newsgroups (microsoft.public.win98.*) because quite frankly usenet is easier to use than these web-based forums.

  18. First of all, Windows 98se does not handle memory above 256 very well AT ALL.
    Where are you getting this from if I may ask ?

    I was going to ask the same question. Will he post an answer?

    As for substitutes for AdAware, there is Spybot S&D, Doctor Alex and SuperAntiSpyware.

    And don't forget to run a good firewall. I would recommend Jetico 1.1.

    I know that many people think Norton Anti-Virus is bloated and slow, I must say that NAV 2002 is the last version that was NOT bloated and slow. And I have confirmed that when you install NAV 2002, it will update itself (LiveUpdate) with the latest definition files and scan engine. And you can re-enable it once a year (for free) if you delete the program completely and re-install it. NAV 2002 came either as stand-alone or as part of Norton System Works (NSW) 2002.

    As for firewall, I don't believe in running a software firewall (for win-98 anyways). Get a NAT-router between your computer and your broad-band modem for BEST protection. Outgoing firewalls are useless.

    Actually, AV software is pretty much useless these days. They will NOT detect the newest threats, and when they do detect something, they won't delete it. Of course, the situation is worse with win-2K or XP (they are more vulnerable and removal is more difficult vs win-98). I think quite a lot of exploits don't work properly on win-98 anyways.

  19. What a PITA.

    I managed to get the (!) removed from the primary IDE controller, but it came back when I enabled DMA on the hard drive connected to the primary channel. I think I caused the (!) in the first place by enabling DMA.

    I think this explains the situation:

    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/w...r.mspx?mfr=true

    When the (!) is present, Win-98 is operating the hard drive in DOS compatibility mode.

    The hard drive is a Quantum Fireball (I think a 30 gb drive, circa 2001 or 2002).

    I guess I'll have to leave it as non-DMA.

    Bonus question:

    When in safe mode, if I remove the Generic hard drive (type 47 in my case), the hard drive is gone from the Device manager when I restart in normal mode. But I can't add a hard drive in Add-remove hardware in control panel. How do you exactly add the hard drive back again? Why is there no "hard drive" in the device list in the "add new hardware" catagory list?

    (I made the hard drive come back by restarting the computer with the hard drive attached to the secondary master channel)

  20. DFI PA61 Motherboard

    Via Apollo Pro133 chipset (693A/596B)

    In Device manager, under hard drive controllers, there is the standard list of 3 items:

    - Primary IDE controller

    - Secondary IDE controller

    - Chipset-specific IDE controller

    Exclamation mark is beside the Primary IDE controller. Secondary is fine (no !) and the last device (Via Busmaster PCI IDE controller) is also fine.

    Error message for Primary controller says this:

    Device is either not present, not working properly, or does not have all the drivers installed (code 10).

    I've downloaded and ran the most recent version of the 4-in-one driver package from Via Arena, and I've manually tried to update the driver by pointing it to the Via directory where everything was unpacked, but it keeps saying that it's already using the "best" driver (native MS driver, circa 1999).

    No conflicts showing in the resource list.

    System seems to work fine, boots into win-98 and no hard drive issues. But I'd like to make the yellow (!) go away.

    Any ideas?



×
×
  • Create New...