dencorso

Zip and attach (if you have no objection to it, of course!) autoexec.bat, config.sys and msdos.sys: let's see what's in them. BTW, are all HDDs present PATA? List models, sizes and partitioning for each one, please.

There is something wrong with your 98 installation. It sure isn't related to RLoew's RAM patch, which really has no bugs. And, to me it looks like a software, not hardware, issue.

A -5 V line reading -61.69 V means absence of a sensor or a toast component in the sensor system. Its meaningless. If the machine is running at all, it cannot possibly be true. And, BTW, the -5 V line is not the Vcore line... (and Vcore is less than +5 V since shortly after the times of the 80486s...)!

The real problem are not the drivers... the real problem is the currently known hal patches are not enough. Until someone finds what else is missing, the 2k3 to workstation conversion remains a more reliable option:

PlainOldFavorites solves that.

Fact is that the mods discussed in this thread remain unreliable. OTOH, simply activating /PAE on boot.ini and adding a Gavotte ramdisk using PAE remains a good option for those using XP x86 and having more than 3.2 GiB RAM. If the resulting ramdisk is big enough, after setting DisablePagingExecutive=1, one can even put the pagefile in it, besides things like the Temporary Internet Files... BTW: Gavotte Ramdisk Version History and Read Me in English.

Well... AFAIK, there are, from the oldest to the newest: 1. Old static .VxDs (usually using the .386, not the .VxD extension), from Win 3.0 times. 2. Windows NT Driver Model, from NT incept time. 3. Newer .VxDs (usually using .VxD or .PDR extensions), from Win 95 up to ME (inclusive). 4. 9x/ME WDM drivers (usually using .SYS or .MPD extensions), from Win 95 OSR 2.x up to ME (inclusive). 5. NT-type WDM drivers (usually using .SYS or .MPD extensions), from Win 2k onwards. 6. KMDF drivers, portable backwards to 2k, with add-on installation required, native for Vista+ 7. UMDF drivers, portable backwards to XP, with add-on installation required, native for Vista+ 8. Yet another driver model being pushed now, IIRR, from 7 onwards, the ostensible reason for Intel producing USB 3.0 drivers suposedly impossible to backport... but I may be wrong and this further model may just be a bad dream conjured by my imagination. Although WDM was initially intended to be binary and source compatible between Win 9x and Win 2k, this almost never has been the case, so specific drivers developed for one OS may sometimes be coerced to work on some other OS, although most times even that is not feasible. WDM drivers are designed to be forward-compatible, so that a WDM driver ought to run on a version of Windows newer than the one the driver was initially written for, but doing that would mean that the driver cannot take advantage of any new features introduced with the new windows version. OTOH, WDM drivers are generally not intended to be backward-compatible, so that a WDM rarely can run as-is on an earlier Windows version that the one it was intended for, unless wrapped or shimmed for that (a case-by-case solution, which sometimes works).

That surely was the case in .VxD times (even the LE EXE format is, up-to-now, very poorly documented), then there were at least two installments of WDM drivers (the second of which is the one actually used in XP), and when that was becoming better understood and documented they've moved on to yet another model in 7+, besides the user-mode drivers they've been pushing onto us for sometime, which are backwards compatible to XP, sort of.

<Somewhat Off-Topic:> What reply did you get? Were you able to contact the original owner, too?

Well, Tripredacus has already nailed it, so the issue is solved. Even so, I'll answer your question all the same because mine was a "Galilean Experiment" (= an experiment conducted fully inside one's own imagination), because I don't have at hand neither Photoshop nor Fireworks. I thought that, at worst, my 509 pixels approximation might result in a half-pixel dark/black line/frame just as you envisaged, but it also occured to me that, at best, it might just work, without causing no such dark line, because of the integrating properties of the human eye (viz. the same reason why images made of pixels actually work). Now I do think, in view of Tripredacus finding that You Tube actually does use exactly the approximation I was suggesting, while talking about half-pixels, that the latter is probably the correct answer, even if it's the less intuitive one. So, in short, I think that no such dark line will be noticeable. But I'll wait for your actual experiments to confirm or disprove this.

In any case, using 509 pixels from above and from below would be a fair enough approximation, and one that is easy to implement, at that.

Cow farts, pig farts, chicken farts... methane is said to be, at least, 20 times more effective as a global warming agent than carbon dioxide... so, in the coming brave new world, every being capable of farting will have to wear a {plucked up!) catalytic converter, for sure!

@larryb123456: You're welcome! BTW, in theory a "pixel" is the smallest unity of collor a pic (generically, no matter whether it's a drawing or an image). In this sense, the pixel should be "atomic" (i.e.: allowing no further division whatsoever). So, it makes sense that, just as you reported, photoshop resorts to a color dithering trick (suposedly causing the impression of a semi-pixel, at least in some contexts), because pixels are indivisible. That said, I always like to remind people that, although in theory there no difference between theory and practice, in practice there often is at least some difference between them, so that there may actually be programs that can work on fractional pixel levels, regardless.

Yes. But on leave of absence. He checks back from time to time, so he may chime in sooner or later.

+1

Wow! Congratulations!!! Now, that's not how do we do it here at MSFN: the idea is to help others in a similar situation to get there, too! So: those three lines you've quoted below... whence do they come? who are you quoting? how did you finally get the OS installed?

Set SATA Configuration in the Advanced Tab to "IDE" or "IDE Mode". Install on a VM or on an older machine with a real IDE HDD, then clone to the new machine. Read more abot it here: <link>

Ooops!... Yes! we did and I still abide by that agrrement. I thought however that our agreement wouldn't prevent offering an example of a USB-connected "internal" disk. If, in fact, it does, do please consider my example officially retracted.

Other theorists (which pot was better and more plentiful) have come up with the idea that the incoming comet was, in fact, a massive chunk of dry ice...

Yes... No. My lovely Kingston DataTraveler Workspace 64GB, which is a common pendrive (although much maligned by the likes of you, who insist in saying the poor thing is a transvestite SSD, just because it has a decent SF-2241 SandForce controller), not only is seen as fixed by XP SP3, but also XP SP3 will gladly put the pagefile (and the hiberfil too, when hibernation is enabled) without DIskMod, and actually boot from it, from the BIOS (or using PloP, if required), when connected as "USB 2.1" to an USB 2.0 port. I don't have any machine capable of booting directly from USB 3.0, but I do belive it should behave the same, if connected instead to and USB 3.0 port. And, moreover, Dave-H's dual-interface enclosure has a USB 2.0 connection (not a USB 3.0), AFAIK, so the parallel applies perfectly. Therefore "no": USB cannot be internal for me and external for Dave-H at the same time.

When you open "My Computer" in Win 7 it shows the fixed and removable media separatedly, so it's easy to know whether the OS deems some HDD as fixed or removable... I presume 8.x+ does the same, so it's easy to be positive regarding how the OS classifies some HDD. So: Are you positive 8.1 is seeing eSata as fixed (= internal) and USB as removable? Can you provide screenshots of "My Computer" showing it? It'd great as an evidence for later times, your set-up, in this case, is very uncommon, just because dual-interface enclosures are pretty uncommon, in fact, and that probably won't change, because USB 3.0 tends to kill both eSata and FireWare or, at the very least, render them yet more uncommon than they already are...

Done!

It must've been some transient internet quirk... it's working all right, right now. Do try again.

Even so, it's quite easy (and harmless) to disconnect the USB cable, so please do test it. If the behavior is the same with USB either connected or disconnected, when the switch indicates USB is turned off, you may skip doing the reverse test on e-SATA.

Sure, but my links were regarding obviating the UAC prompt, which is not avoided by "elevate.exe"... so I guess you've missed my point.