dencorso

It sure does. Thanks! : And the better part of it is that you're a happy bunny once again.

Wow! Way to go! Great work, you're reporting! Thanks for sharing your findings. Would you please elaborate some more about that? How is it one can use Excelcnv.exe as a "Office Isolated Converter Environment" in 9x/Me?

Not necessarily... last time, he had a quite pragmatic (although maybe questionable) reason for doing it, remember?

It's not. They're separate issues. One thing is programs failing to work because of lack of SSE2 support: since MSVS 2012 MS decided to enforce a (generally unnecessary) default standard of requiring SSE2... Which, in fact it can be turned off by simply compiling with the with /arch:SSE and /Oi- command-line switches. Then again, recompilation is mandatory for removing the SSE2 requirement, and most developers don't bother to do it at all. This spells the decomissioning of most non-SSE2 processors (all AMDs from before the introduction of AMD-64 and all Intel processors preceeding the Pentium IV). This cannot be worked around. The other thing is programs refusing to work on XP because of missing software functionality. This can be overcome by kernel extenders, WDM extenders and the like, and by simple patching of the problem executables, when the refusal to run on XP is just due to version recognition, without absent functionality being required.

Just for the record, both the KB872952 article, as well as the actual hotfix remain available from MS to this day...

Glad you did solve it! And you have all my sympathy regarding your experience with that unappreciative client, for sure. But... you said you actually solved the problem... so I can't help but wonder: how? Did you call the ghostbusters or what? Please do elaborate.

Well, the previous time Nomen took us for a similar dance, half again a year ago, I gave him the above answer, which think it's pretty comprehensive. However, on re-reading it, I've decided to add some extra words and punctuation (in red, to highlight they are later additions), to make it even clearer. In any case, I then recommended the thorough reading of Andrew Schulman's Unauthorized Windows 95 (ISBN 1-56884-169-8, nowadays it is really cheap, as an obsolete used tech book), for further information (a wealth of it, BTW), and I continue to stand by that recommendation.

Sure. .NET 3.5 is an integral part of Win 7, which cannot be removed even after adding .NET 4.x

Once running it does not depend upon DOS code, except for Compatability Mode Functions. 9x/ME uses many data tables and variables it inherits from DOS, that is, most of the DOS data, which remains in use while 9x/ME is running, and which is returned to DOS control when 9x/ME terminates. Although, in the case of ME, that's somewhat better hidden than before. The assimilation metaphor holds very well.

Yes, there's a known procedure for converting to AHCI at the point you are... I can look it up for you, in case you decide to do it. However, IMO, the real-life gains you may accrue from such a change are minimal, except in disk benchmarks. Your system is working OK, why risk hosing it? But, in any case, if you create a full disk image (or maybe a full partition image, but that's less safe), or -- even better -- two such images and verify they are good, then there's really no risk, because you can always fall back to the point where you started, by simply redeploying the previously acquired image.

Maybe, just maybe, E1000PKT.COM from Intel, found inside the GigPktDrvr.exe package, would be the right missing piece of the puzzle?

That link isn't loading here. It just says "sending request to www.crynwr.com" but never goes any further. Sounds interesting! Well, Drugwash's link isn't working for me either, but through the Wayback Machine <link> it does work and actually has the files I had in mind. These 2 are Russ Neslon's drivers: pktd11.zip and pktd11c.zip... but this other one is also interesting: intele100b-11-10.zip, which is for a 100B intel adapter... In any case, from the 2nd of those packages I just mentioned, I fished lan595.com, which is also intended for intel adapters... I'd try it with the following parameters: c:\> lan595 0x60 10 0x300 and see where does it lead... Later edit, after following jaclaz's links: Here is a working link to dis_pkt.zip, thanks to the late Dan Lanciani (RIP), which site deserves a visit, too.

A DOS-based Packet-Driver perhaps? Like Russell Nelson's freeware NE2000.COM, which used to come in a package called: "pktdrv11.zip" (I must have a copy of it somewhaere...) ?

Yes. 9x/ME actually is monolithic. And, BTW, BSD and Linux are monolithic, too. OTOH, the NT-OSes are hybrid. Yes: you can envisage 9x/ME running over DOS as a form of assimilation (in the Borg sense), but one that can be reversed more easily, so that after 9x/ME finishes and relinquishes DOS, it still behaves as fully as DOS as it did before starting 9x/ME (differently from, say, 7 of 9).

Of course. And what you posted is not at all generally known, so you added important info, too.

Yes. LC is right, in what regards getting drivers to work on 9x/ME. But, if the DOS driver can be used successfully, and it looks like it can and Dave-H is almost there, IMO, so I think we should pursue this avenue (viz. the DOS driver) to the end, before switching to any altenative approach, even if that one may prove better, in the end. Although, here, better will always be somewhat subjective... anything that permits avoiding the use of an add-on card is very good already, and as far as network cards/adapters go, there's plenty of them for DOS, for many cards/adapters having no win 9x/ME drivers at all. So I think harnessing the DOS drivers for use with 9x/ME may be the more general approach, at the end of the day. Then again, these are just my 2¢, of course.

Wow! I think you've made a lot of progress! I think you now will have to create by hand a binding to the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP)... Now is the time to dig deeper into those sites that don't exist anymore! Try this one <link> and prepare to plunge head on into the wayback machine...

No; should I do so? Absolutely! Better still SP3 with integrated Driverpacks MassStorage, which should just work.

Nonsense! Of course it does work! You must be doing something wrong. What did you do?

It sure seems you're getting somewhere, now. And maybe by selecting just slot 0x0500 it may finally start working... Or is it recognising as slots 0x0500 and 0x0501 the two interfaces in your "Intel (ESB2/Gilgal) 82563EB Dual-Port Gigabit Ethernet Controller," and simply ignoring the non-Intel network card? If that's the case you'd maybe have to load two driver instances, perchance?

I have split the posts about Canal's machine into his own project thread, which is located in the proper sub-forum <link>.

Just a longshot: try substituting "1:E1000.dos" in "devdir=1:E1000.dos" by the actual path to E1000.DOS...

@Dave-H: Yet, something must be wrong, since it's not working... Maybe you should try to get, say, ftp, working in plain DOS, just for us to know how it's done in plain DOS, and then move on to get windows recognize the DOS setup?

Get the Paint Shop Pro version indicated there. You're entitled to try it for 30 days, IIRR.

Yet another Intel manual here. You've probably already found it, but just in case...