dencorso

RLoew already answered you in a nutshell. Let me put it in a different light for you: when Win 95 starts, it Isolates that 1088 KiB which is where Real Mode DOS booted in Machine #0. Then it *takes possession* of the machine in the fullest extent and provides each new Virtual-86 DOS machine created it's own "booted DOS" image, which consists of some instanced parts of what is in Machine #0 (and these instanced parts are discardable) and other parts of that memory are actually shared (and if modified in a wrong way can crash the machine). Some data structures created by DOS and HIMEM are used by Win 95 as inherited from DOS. No, or almost no, code, from DOS is ever executed for Win 95 normal functioning. The underlying DOS is in "suspended animation" until Win 95 terminates. Exactly 0% of the CPU time it is running in Real-Mode, after Win 95 has sucessfully started. If this still is too little info for you, I strongly suggest you get a copy of Andrew Schulman's Unauthorized Windows 95 (ISBN 1-56884-169-8, nowadays it should be really cheap, as a used tech book) and read it cover-to-cover at least twice. All your remaining doubts ought to have been dispelled, by then. Those claims are totally baseless, and reveal the depth of either the claimer's cluelessness abour Win 9x/ME or of his interest in downplaying it by misdescribing it. With all due respect, why do you insist in points RLoew already told you are simply wrong?

I'm for giving xper a respite. I say, let's sit tight and wait, say, a whole week, before bothering xper. Let's let him do what's pressing 1st. Have you ever seen a more painless board software update than this one? Remeber boot-land. Provided we don't end up with a skin like their current and all those bugs, all is well. In any case, wishes can be left for next week. BUGS, on the other hand, ought to be listed. If the OP agrees, I may lock this thread after he opens a new one, with BUGS on the title. If not, the current thread goes on. @CharlotteTheHarlot: what do you say?

IP.Board

I think Microsoft Adventure was the first, all right. And, yes, that was the very 1st Larry. It changed the way one woud confront a game, it realy was a change of cognitive paradigm, that one was. And it also helped a lot to learn the correct code spelunking frame-of-mind. I started playing it on a green-only monitor... the day I 1st played it in color it was so much easier!!! And, then, there was the original Prince of Persia, too...

It's one of those new fangled trendy bandwagons. Undiscoverability. Well, what I'm doing is the same I've been doing all my life: leaving no stone unturned... Seems to be the only true way to find out what every nook and cranny of a UI really is there for. Did you ever play the true Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards (not the 1991 remake)?

@CharlotteTheHarlot: It just changed a little... the page count per se isn't there anymore, but instead there is a "Page x of y" and, if you just click on it, the good ol' box opens all right and you actually can type a page number and jump to it, as always.

All mods see that for every user. It used not to be visible to anyone else. And, BTW, the best possible value for it is 0.

You go to the articles in MS knowlwdge base and request, then download, each of the three hotfixes: KB948101-v3, KB945436, KB2828030 ... Once you've got 'em, then you run 'em, one at a time, taking care to let them reboot when they so request. You may actually intall them in any order, but if you install the fixes with higher KB numbers first,then you minimize the files added to your machine, because the newer versions of some files get installed first and prevent the installation of the older versions of the same files, when they exist in the older hotfixes. That's all there is to it.

Here's just the same: if one copies the table to notepad and sets it in COurier New, the Table will show perfectly! You see, it's not simply based in poitertovoid's table: it actually *is* pointertovoid's table with contents changed. Now, when one reads that Table closely, one can see that only KB948101-v3, KB945436, KB2828030 and KB2807986 contain files that aren't superceded by another, later update. Now, it turns out that KB2807986 is a security update, and those are pushed automatically by MS for those who use "Automatic Updates" on, and for those, like me, who keep it turned off, it's still offered whenever one visits the "MS Update Site" (or it's older brother the "Windows Update Site"), so it's quite possible that one does already have KB2807986 installed. The surest way to check is to find those two files and check their version (for normal installations both usb8023.sys and usb8023x.sys will be at C:\WINDOWS\system32\dllcache, and they'll turn out to be version 5.1.2600.6532 already). The other three are hotfixes which must be gotten explicitly, since MS will not offer one them out of the blue, but instead supply only when asked. After gathering them I do install all three by hand, but there always are those who'll prefer to slipstream them with nLite or whatever. About that I cannot give any advice, because I don't do it. HTH.

Patience. xper has just upgraded the software. Tweaks begin now. Up to this point it was a question of how long it'd be till the forums were up again. IMO, that's been a success, simply because the forums are back. So give xper a break to catch his breath. We're back, and that's great. You rock, xper!

+1

Thanks for the heads-up but what you're suggesting seems a bit beyond my noobish experience & capabilities. The method I used works fine for me. Well, saving the activation files and retrieving the key before formatting seems to be the trickiest part, and for it there is the "advanced tokens manager"... besides the alternatives in this thread and links therein.

Amazon HEL-81 aka LAM HEL-81 Drivers (for XP and Vista).Block diagram + some info... So, if I'm not mistaken, it's an Intel 945 PM/GM + ICH7-M board... It should be viable to use with 95, all right....

@mindingu: it seems the board's database had to be rolled back, so that my question and your answer about your hardware got lost. I'm sorry to have to ask it, but would you please describe your laptop again? But wait some hours hence, before doing it, because the forums may not be fully stable yet. If this post disappears, then we'll know it's not.

Go here and download the Demo version of the RAM Patch and install it. If it fixes your problem, you will know that the RAM is at fault. unknown invalid or uncompressed vmm32 If that is what the RAM Limitation Patch Demo installer returned, there's something major wrong with your installation. *Major*... In any case set MaxFileCache=131072 under the [VCache] section, while keeping MaxPhysPage=20000 at system.ini on [386Enh] section.

Deprecating GetVersionEx? The people at MS are definitely out of their minds!

this is no bug, this is by design. While it may be by design, with all due respect, it's simply stupid to go through the pain of establishing a standard just to break it a few years down the road. It should return 6.2.9201, to be consistent with what is explained here (KB971486) and here (KB2779030), for instance... In a nutshell: Then again, isn't that what windows 8.x is all about? I mean, destroying, at the drop of a hat, what MS took ages to build? So, why am I surprised at all?

Windows 8.1 - Is a complete mess!

You mean Win NT 3.51? Well, that sure has more chance of yielding a stable system faster and quite interesting results overall... There's a lot of work on NT 3.51 and 4.0 by bearwindows which you may find of interest. I'll try to find some links to that and then I'll get back to you.

Jefferson Airplane - Tobacco Road

There's more! Try applying tcp32b.exe, too. It seems it complements WFWFILES. It's mentioned in KB99891 and in KB122544:

No problem. I hope that PC shall still serve you all well for a long time ahead. The more machines running XP after support's end, the merrier!

Wow! That's a difficult question... but, the main point is the 512-bytes sectored (= 0.5 KiB sectored) vs. the 4 KiB sectored HDDs (so-called Advanced Format), which is a question we've discussed in many places, some time ago, but I think Comos' thread is perhaps the best start point for you (it distills into the fact that 0.5 KiB sectored are really fundamental for XP, in what regards internal HDDs (PATA or SATA) or internal SSDs, while USB Mass Storage Devices can fake 0.5 KiB sectors and get away with it). Now, since SCSI are older than ATA, and, in fact, even within ATA there's no PATA HDD ever produced bigger than 0.75 TB 0.5 TB (thanks a lot, buyerninety!), AFAIK, then the biggest 0.5 KiB sectored SATA HDDs that Win XP SP3 can recognize, which are 2 TB, define maximum hard drive size (per HDD). While this is not exactly the answer to your original question, at the end of the day it boils down to it, because, even in case your actual motherboard (I didn't check it) can recognize HDDs bigger than 2 TB, your OS won't be able to deal with them. Now, about the specific model of WD HDD I recommended you, that one I had specifically searched because I was interested in buying one such disk, and that was the one I eventually decided to buy. See also: Drives With 4KB Sectors and WD Caviar Black (BTW, notice that the 0.5 TB WD Caviar Black listed, the WD5003AZEX, already has 4 KiB sectors... so the FAEX series may very well be the last 0.5 KiB sectored WD Caviar Blacks).

Since you're using XP SP3, the maximum size internal HDD it'll detect is effectively the maximum size individual HDD you'll be able to mount and actually use, and that's a 2 TB ( using 512 bytes sectors). One of the last such HDDs is the Western Digital Caviar Black WD2002FAEX. Please notice that the analogue Caviar Green uses 4 kiB sectors, instead of 512 bytes sectors.

Try to set a 40 MiB VCache (see: KB108079). Try also the /EISA switch. And let's see if applying the WFWFILES (KB133255) update solves it. Good luck! BTW, which Win 3.11 is yours?