dencorso

Mmmh, I was under the strong impression that it had been established that scandisk/defrag choked on partitions bigger than 120GB but I am probably wrong then. === I've just finished conducting a further test of SCANDISK.EXE (the true DOS version, from Windows ME): I have used it to scan (including, of course, the surface scan) of a 931.50 GiB FAT-32 formatted (30.5 million 32 KiB clusters) logical partition inside an extended partition, located on the higher-addresses part of a 2 TB WDC WD2002FAEX-007BA0 SATA 300 conventional HDD, and it "did not find any problems", but took 43 h 50 min to finish! So I'm positive it works OK, up to that size, thus further confirming the previous reports. And, just for everyone to be sure what SCANDISK.EXE I'm talking about, it is 245,324 bytes long and has CRC32: 9C3B4DCE; MD5: 05F2832DF02C45D0A5129540B06AC95D and SHA-1: DBF42D66630FD3BE9986697295B7E0EC47A5846C. I've just finished conducting a further test of NDD.EXE (the true DOS version 10E, from Norton Utilities 2002), which is 650,208 bytes long and has MD5: EBFCC3C6643E0880EA43F7F70DC8DEED; SHA-1: A26DED4AD5C6D4AC0C9867EA4A83B1009DDC7D00 and CRC32: 58DF6E44, using the same HDD as above, and no errors encountered in the Surface Test, nor in any other test performed, but it finished flawlesly just 2 h 50 min after it had started, being thus 15.5 times faster than the ME DOS Scandisk, despite what Marius '95 and wsxedcrfv had reported !!! In my hands it worked OK with a 931.50 GiB FAT-32 formatted partition (= 30.5 million 32 KiB clusters) and did it real fast! N. B.: the DOS NDD tries to estimate how long it'll take to perform the surface test, but the estimate algorithm goes bananas with the size of the partition, resulting in totally absurd estimates... but that is just a cosmetic bug, nothing more. Moreover, it's really slower than the ME DOS Scandisk during the logic FAT tests... but it's so much faster during the surface test that the initial slowness is not really important, IMO.

Yeah... well... mea culpa!

I do. I thought it really great somebody is creating everyday-life's products with it, at long last (<link>). ... OK: Somewhat off-topic? Sure. Then again, in this particular thread, what isn't?

@jaclaz: BTW, did you, perchance, read this? It's referenced by the Wikipedia (en) page you gave a link to, you know.

I love pendrives. I have several Corsairs, some Kingstons, two Sony, one Patriot and one OCZ (the great OCZ ATV Turbo 8 GB, out of production for a long time already). I've opened some and read many in-depth reviews that involve full disassembly, and I'm positive the common garden-variety pendrives do *not* contain nor need any type of battery whatsoever, and the same holds for SD (and SDHC) cards, too. Moreover all USB 3.0 pendrives are compatible with USB 2.0 (operating in what they call "USB 2.1 mode") and use to be much faster in that USB 2.0 than any native USB 2.0 device ever was. Last, but not least, Maximus-Decim NUSB should be the sole driverpack ever needed to recognize and use any USB pendrives and/or external HDDs on 9x/ME.

No. If you let Windows 7 initialize the disk, *all* its contents will be lost, so, if it is working, as I understand it is, whatever you do, do not initialize it!

Dear blackwingcat: I have no such problem. My most recent machine is an Asus P8Z68-V LX with an Ivy Bridge i7 3770K, on which I do run XP SP3 (solely, for the time being), for which I do have all drivers, including the 6.14.10.5449 Graphics Drivers which gave me some trouble to install, but I was able to get them working at last. That board has onboard a USB 3.0 controller from ASMedia and I added to it another one, a PCI-e based on the uPD720201, from RENESAS (formerly NEC) . Now, erkange's machine is another thing entirely... and neither my efforts nor those of others ever yielded any result, and AFAIK erkange remains without an adequate solution to run his Intel Graphics 4400, either on 2000 or on XP. His machine is described in the quote below: Please see mine in attached image. It is XP sp3 My device id is: PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_041E&SUBSYS_85341043&REV_06\3&115 83659&0&10 my system is desktop pc. mainboard chipset is H81, cpu is i3-4130, i use xp service pack3. Thanks in advance for your help and interest. You rock!

No native Graphics, no USB 3.0 (those can be solved by using add-on PCI-e cards...) and no multiprocessor? And all that works OK with Ivy Bridges (except for USB 3.0 that is absent, so that one add-on PCI-e card is a must)... so that, IMO, an Ivy Bridge is a better choice. Just saying it. (@ bluebolt: I've removed my statement about SATA fro my previous post. Thanks for the correction!)

IMO, at the moment (and today is Apr 21, 2014) there's no way to get either Win 2000 or Win XP running correctly on Haswell processosrs. There's no decent embedded Graphic Adapter drivers, so an external Graphics card is a must. And there's no support at all for Intel USB 3.0... Therefore, IMO, it's much better to go Ivy Bridge. This is just my 2¢, of course and, particularly here, YMMV a lot.

Is there a variety of that driver specific for 2003? If so, do try it (maybe some renaming will be required to just substitute the .sys without reinstalling the driver, though).

And, before the war is lost, supposing it's fated to be lost (which is not necessarily obvious at this time), they'll have to win each battle, that'll always be fought to the bitter end... so, many many years may pass, with the war still raging on and on and on...

You mean 8.1 . Whatever... in fact I mean 8.1+, because, no matter how many updates or upgrades one does to it, crappy 8 remains crappy!

But one thing does worry me, and I'd like for you to answer it. A popular computer guy named Eli the Computer Guy, who is very arrogant and makes very little sense, said that any XP system with an OS vulnerability can be hacked, even if it's just used as a server, cash register, or ATM, because any device connected to the Internet, whether wired or wireless, that uses broadband and is always connected to the Internet is a target for hackers. [...] In principle, anything directely connected to the WAN is more at risk than anything behind a common, garden-variety, router (or wireless router), which firewall (the proverbial hardware firewall) is activated and correctly configured. If there is a router firewall between your machine and the WAN, then its the router firewall (in ROM, linux or proprietary OS) that is seen from the outside. Now tell me please, how can a hacker attack a XP machine that is always on, but which that hacker cannot even see? I say: FUD!!! And I say more: long live XP!

Yeah, just scare tactics to try and sell one crappy 8.

I have a question: isn't a Kernel-General higher ranked than a Lieutenant-General ? And, if so, wouldn't a plain Colonel do?

I see... Glad it worked for you!

Probably yes, after a lot of hard work, much frustration, and some money spent on non-free patches. But the only sure way to know is to try. Why?

Which reg? Which driver exactly?

Yes. Try this thread (<link>).

No. Unfortunately, it was very cloudy until mid morning (the sky was dull gray, not blue)... and it rained a very thin rain, throughout the whole night and early morning. I did see it, but just on cnn.com, not directly, as I had intended. Let's hope the next one will happen under less frustrating weather conditions, here...

What about someone who's still using both XP SP3 and 98SE 5 - 6 years hence?

Well, I do think you've hit jackpot, submix8c! @Marztabator: can we now mark this thread as "solved"?

Yes, you may. System.ini and system.cb are just text files, so that can be done with notepad, wordpad or using edit in a DOS box. There's sysedit.exe but it does not edit system.cb, so it's no use for this. Look inside the system.ini and you'll get the feeling of how the sections are organized. My own has this in the [vcache] section. What follows the colon is a comment. [vcache]MaxFileCache=393216 ; 384M

You still need LLXX's ESDI_506.PDR, with RLoew's SATA patch on top of it, to avoid data loss.And you need to add a [vcache] section to both system.ini and system.cb with a MaxFileCache=393216 directive in both. Then you need to hunt for drivers, but probably VBEMP or SNAP are about all that you'll get as far as graphics go.

Isn't it *identical* to the default LOGO.SYS from the CD? Later edit: Nevermind! There's no LOGO.SYS in the CD, just LOGOW.SYS and LOGOS.SYS... The embeded LOGO.SYS is just in IO.SYS (not also as a standalone file), and that is the one used, every time the default LOGO is shown.