dencorso

+1

I don't think so, because of the following small -- but significant -- detail: ...whereas the same file in Tihiy's pack says:

AFAIK, that's Tihiy's mod of the actual target of the reference that bearwindows made. And the link is alive again...

Not so much. It worked in the past... and it's fixed, now, for the time being...

Once VIDs and PIDs are known, one can even try adding them to the .INF for the .VxD driver, to find out whether it can work with the given hardware or not.

Of course, RLoew does continue to support Win 95. Moreover, besides the contact info on that page, RLoew usually replies swiftly to all PMs sent him. Do try.

What hardware are those WUSB54AG drivers for, if I may ask?

Your request makes no sense at all to me. But that's not required. Unless those files have a path expressely set in the registry (do search it thoroughly), just dropping both filles in %windir%\system should be a safe bet. If that's not enough, leave the .VxD there and move the .sys to %windir%\system32\drivers ... Wait a sec! Are them USB drivers? If so, they simply aren't needed for Win ME. Good luck!

Thanks for the swift reply, LC! And for the interesting info (so far, all the -- few -- tests I had conducted resulted in problems with the DOS boxes...)

I understand that, after disabling USB emulation in the BIOS, just one letter is assigned to each drive, albeit the order changes depending on whether the pendrive is inserted in one of the USB connectors or not. So, IMO, nothing further needs to be done, at the moment... am I mistaken?

I'm happy jumper's idea solved it! And I'm happy you tried the experiment I proposed: because eventually coming up is different from never coming up, and knowing for sure which case one has helps a lot in finding solutions, but also because, when it comes up -- albeit after a long time --, many further experiments may be performed in order to find out what's happening... of course, this time that avenue won't have to be pursued any further, because you've already hit jackpot! Congratulations! And thanks for reporting back: the most frustrating experience for the helpers is to be left without notice of how it all ended. You rock!

+1!!! Windowed DOS Boxes are a very deeply integrated part of the day-to-day use for serious 9Xers... That was the main reason I've not adopted VBEMP 9X as the default for my installations on newer hardware, up to now. I wasn't aware, however, that there is some hardware in which those issues do not manifest themselves. Please LC, do elaborate on it... OTOH, I must say that VBEMP 9X brings fresh air galore to the currently somewhat still atmosphere of the 9X/ME scene... So... thank you a whole lot, Bearwindows! You do rock!

nVidia GeForce and Win 9x/ME - Relevant Threads

For me, the problem occurs on FF ESR 24.3.0 (regardless of having NoScript enabled or fully disabled), but not at all on IE8, nor on Opera 12.16...

No. I'm seeing it all *exactly* as you described. I'm on just released Firefox ESR 24.3.0, right now.

Enough, you two!

JFYI, someone possibly misunderstood the sense of your post and started worrying about the death of Vista in 2017 : http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/170959-use-vista-after-2017/

Unless the sky falls onto our heads too soon, MS has no choice, really, if not to release a next Windows version. It'll neither be the usual abomination, nor quite a good OS, but it'll do for a time, and shall be codenamed "Brave New Windows". After 7 years, it'll be followed by "Windows X", codenamed "Redemption", which shall be the greatest OS created by MS, ever, and shall wipe all competition forevermore. Legend will have it was based on Windows XP, after MS eschewed all later nonsense and got back to the basics... [off topic] Sorry... I've got to stop. I'm getting short of liquid helium, which is sorely needed to keep my crystall ball below 100 °C... [/off topic]

So, now, we've got two different flushers suggested... Please, Dave, tell us whether they do make any difference or not. They ought to, but, then again, the difference between theory and practice is that there's no such difference in theory, whereas in practice...

Just download a new instance once a week. +1

Unless one uses the RAM Limitation Patch, the max RAM one can use is about 1 GiB, so another 1 GiB of swapfile should be enough. And there are limitations to how much RAM + swapfile + XMS ramdisk can be used in total. Hence, in some situations, RLoew's non-XMS ramdisk is also a much welcome addition to the system.

Well... I guess you've convinced me: let's let the original title stand for the time being... When you all solve the problem, then we may reevaluate this point.

@jaclaz: with all due respect, every time I read the title of this thread I daydream something along the lines of: Because, the imaginary quote above represents what I do understand by a "Seagate 7200.11 malediction". So... ...since you are the 1st responder, could you please help creating a clearer title for this thread?

Signed! +1

What did I say some posts back?