dencorso

Great. Then do it, already. It's obvious nobody has volunteered to do so for you... If you don't want any advice, stop posting about it.

+1

To delete System Volume Information, hyberfil.sys and pagefile.sys, any Live Linux will do (I'd recommend the latest Porteus or TinHat). Now, if all that remains are phantom entries inside the registry, then the best course is to open regedit as the Trusted Installer, and then trash the phantoms. Warning: Take care what you do either as the Trusted Installer or from a Live Linux distro: both ways it's quite easy to damage your system beyond all recognition.

I've downloaded 6 different months from the archive discussed above (starting with August 2010 and into 2011) and there are no Windows 2000 updates to be found at all. [...] With all due respect to you, the xt guy, I do fail to see your point... please follow me: Did you download every single .ISO corresponding to the 12 months of 2013 (the year mentioned by tomasz86) and check inside it? No. You downloaded instead just some .ISOs from 2010-2011 and hit jackpot 6 times (as in there *wasn't* any Win 2k update in any of them). Does that disprove in any way what tomasz86 said? No. Did tomasz86 say the Win 2k updates, if and when present, were non-public? No. Are security updates non-public updates? No. All tomasz86 said was that some non-public Win 2k updates were leaked in episodes not necessarily ( -- in fact: not at all --) related to the security update .ISOs. And, last but not least, tomasz86 said was that "the last official updates for Win 2k were released last year, 3 years after EOL", but he did *not* say nor imply MS released continuously official updates for Win 2k galore, up to 3 years after EOL.

Post screenshot, please.

That's what they get from betting on a cloud-based computing model. I'm glad to see much less people than I imagined are willing to burn their hard-earned money on that.

Or maybe the good old freeware Native Winds Docx2Rtf (now aka "NW Docx Converter") might do the job, now that it also works with the .doc format.

But the internal dates are preserved in the .zip/.cab/.7z/.rar files, so that, provided they were packed shortly after version creation, the most recent date of all the internal files should be our best guess to the date of the whole package, which cannot possibly, at any rate, have been created before that date. But, of course, it's just an estimate. And mentions to specific files in the original release thread may also help dating things. So, let me be the one to start the systematic identification, as requested by jaclaz: The package I uploaded is named: Win98LiveCDBuilder_108.7z and it is 25,359,928 bytes long. The latest internal date in it, which appears in multiple places, is 2010-jan-06 or, as a string, 20100106. Its hashes are: CRC32: 10A9F9E3 MD5: 10F326B03DF2C4108386E8880FA42562 SHA-1: 169BF6380F06FF461092CDC3B3C55F03E34CDA28 SHA-256: CF67E4776115F1FAA7562AF20AC04C65019141BB2970749DE040162E285CFF4F

What Jody seems to be failing to realize is that the names of the executables are unmistakable: any Win 2k update has a name like, say, "Windows2000-KB892130-x86-ENU.exe"...

Should be doable likewise. Find the DEV number and make the changes to the .INF, and let's see how it goes. BTW, here's what I know (but GeForce 6150 isn't among them, sorry): "NVIDIA GeForce 6100 nForce 430" uses DEV = 03D0;"NVIDIA GeForce 6100 nForce 405" uses DEV = 03D1;"NVIDIA GeForce 6100 nForce 400" uses DEV = 03D2;"NVIDIA GeForce 6100 nForce 420" uses DEV = 03D5.

This works: IntelSDK 1.1 (but, then again, the second link already provided does so, too).

Just for the record, as a matter of fact, we did so. It's Rule # 1a. You've agreed to it each time you've joined the forum. And now you're banned on Rule # 4b, to which you've also agreed.

It should. If not in VirtualBox, Virtual PC 2004, Virtual PC 2007 and Bochs are also good tries. That may only work by switching modes in BIOS at each boot, if at all.

No. Yes.

OPPCOMME

Here : http://www2.zshares.net/jna09jvhxiwl Now it's here, too. BTW, the Win98LiveCDBuilder_109.7z with date inside 2010-01-15, mentioned by jaclaz, I don't have in my archives.

Try again... zshares is back on. And get the one I uploaded, too, because Filedropper is notorious for keeping files with few downloads for a very short time...

Sounds like Jan 2010 must be the working version. Can you upload it please? Is it, perchance, this one?

Maybe it's still too soon? Suppose you were one of the 1st user to notice it, which is likely... That'd mean this very thread is the 1st one about it...

+1

I'm done here. Auf Wiedersehen. No, wait, stay! You know you're welcome here, and jaclaz meant no offense at all... and that text, despite being framed as a fable, is quite good. Do persevere!

Some (not too much) random thoughts elicited by the reading of your latest post: 1. It's OK to have difficulty at explaining things... as long as one honestly tries to, practice makes perfect and one gets better at it the more one does it. 2. Now, .sys and .VxD are very different animals... renaming a .sys to .VxD or vice-versa, in the very best case, will result in things not working at all... 3. A .VxD for a Mass Storage Device usually goes into %windir%\system\iosubsys, while other types of devices usually leave their .VxD files in %windir%\system, whereas all .sys files go into %windir%\system32\drivers... there are exceptions, of course (and those confirm the rule...). 4. I doubt avast has anything to do with whatever happened, unless it decided to delete and/or quarentine things it should not, as anti-virus applications are prone to do, when run unleashed...

Done. You cannot delete any posts by yourself here, BTW. There sure are ways of doing what you want... search the forum and read. It's all around you.

Here's another possible reference... transverse, but it has the right date in it... I'm still figuring out how to unpack the installer and install this thing manually, since I have a system with a 945GM but they only want to support 945G. I want to force the 945G drivers on it, I think it should work fine since the two are very similar. (It says "unsupported chipset" when run). There already is a modded Scitech SNAP Graphics video driver that supports the Intel 910G(ML), 915G, 945G, among other video chipsets, around the net, it seems.