dencorso

I agree "USB flash drive" is probably the best option. But I think "USB pen drive", or even just "pendrive" has become vernacular already. My 2 ¢ only, of course.

Congratulations. But no, not impossible, do read this: nVidia GeForce and Win 9x/ME - Relevant Threads

Well red circles are frustrating but that's how it is. Windows has LDT cleanup (not really effective though) which is triggered when system is out of segments starting a program. RP calls that cleanup when LDT is lower than 20%. Yesterday, it dawned on me I might be using too big values for USERMaxHeapSize and GDIMaxHeapSize. So I set both to 4096 and the red is gone. Yay!

Welcome to MSFN!

Hi, JorgeA! Welcome back! You've been missed! What I'd do would be to make a full backup (an image), then install the updates and see what happens... And, if it turns out I don't like the result a bit, just fall back to the saved image, and that's that! But, as you know, I love using full system images like that, and I do admit it's like killing a fly with a Polaris missile. Oops! I'm really getting old: there are no Polaris missiles anymore, for a long time, already... But, you've got the idea anyway. Later edit: After reading the MS KB document you've pointed to, *my* opinion is that this may be completely unneeded, if one has a good antivirus in place and common-sense enough, at least, to previously scan any office document/spread- sheet of unknown origin one receives and decides to open, before going ahead and opening it. I prefer to admit to and to control my own paranoia and to act proactively myself, instead of outsoucing it (the paranoia, I mean). This, then, is my 2 ¢... YMMV, of course.

+1. As a faithful user of ZIP100 internal, who's considering adding an LS-120 to my already very unusual configuration (for 2011, of course), mutual compatibility is a concern.

You said: So I say: Nothing is impossible... and if a machine can boot, then it can double-boot (and multi-boot). If you still want to do it, open a new, appropriately named thread about it, tell us what you've done *in detail* and describe your hardware, and we can help you achieve it. As for this thread, the problem is solved, so there's no reason for it to continue.

Ah, good old Raymond Chen! I think the 2 MiB less effect kicks in, when you're above some threshold but I saw it higher than you. Whatever it is, it does exist, and may be hardware dependent. BTW, What's the MaxFileCache value you used throughout your tests? If you didn't set it then, set it now to 524288, reboot and tell me what happens.

Patch pattern for Flash7d.ocx added to original release post. B) Of course there's more action for Win 98SE: it has more users. Both 95 and ME get less attention and 98FE gets the least. It seems to me to reflect well the relative level of interest those OSes attract, among the 9x/ME community, IMHO.

How so? 1022 MiB *is* the System Memory, *and* Win 98 can use all of it without any patching. Now, the Physical Memory must have been 1024 MiB, or you do have a really unusual memory stick!

I use the A7V600-X and like it a lot. However, there's a caveat: it only supports SATA I This holds both for the A7V600-X and for the A7V880, since they both use the same southbridge.

The link is fixed, now. [rant] We even had the button renamed to "Quote", to encourage people to use the "Add Reply" instead, and only use "Quote" when a quote is really needed... But still, lots of posts get unecessarily quoted on replies... [/rant] You mean, the activex version of that Flash plugin? Sure it's possible. As soon as I find some time, I'll see what I can do.

It may be, yes. Consider buying either: 1) RLoew's >137 GB Patch + SATA Patch (find more about them here). No additional hardware is needed in this case. or 2) A hardware SATA to IDE converter, and then use the free LLXX >137 GB patch. (More info through the link to the right side of my signature).

Guns N' Roses - Patience

Everyone has different opinions about which version of Windows one prefers... Diversity of opinions is welcome, and, as such, we have set up different sections in the forum where people can discuss their favorite one... In fact, there's even a poll about Vista vs. XP. Would you like to participate?

It's OK! It wouldn't be a problem, because it's warranted. In any case you were careful, and that's appreciated, too! And do read this, too: On Bumping

Maybe Process Hacker can shine a light on what's happening on your system...

I know But the issue is in the NT-family OSes from the start, and has only been fixed, unofficially BTW, in XP and perhaps officially in the later OSes, if at all. It may be the source of your problem. Then again, I may be wrong.

Can it be related to this issue, perhaps?

Welcome to MSFN! The GeForce FX 5200 will work OK with 9x/ME. Search this forum a little, and you'll find lots of info for what you are intending to do. There is a sticky on important threads, that has pointers to many threads that'll interest you. And the link to the left in my signature covers what's known on running with 2 GiB. Good reading!

Did you regsvr32 the .dlls and reboot the machine?

Well, just to keep things in the correct perspective, the 4004, Intel's very first (4-bit) processor, had as much computing power as the ENIAC did.

There are no device drivers for the Intel GMA 950 graphics card, and possibly for network and Wi-Fi, that will work with Win 9x?ME. So you'll end up with a not fully working system on the machine. Read this thread to see what I mean. If that's OK by you, then fine, but I thought it's just fair that I warn you about this problem. And yes, you'll need the product key, of course, for it to work. If you decomission the old computer, you can reuse the product key. But you cannot use the same product key on two computers at the same time.

As you know, I now use the RAM Limitation Patch, so I'm not willing to remove it, and remove some of the RAM (I don't even own 512 MiB sticks anymore) so as to be able to reproduce my findings in that old post of mine. However, what I thought striking at that time (and still do) is that, with 1.5 GiB of installed RAM, no matter what MaxPhysPage value I set, above MaxPhysPage = 48500 (1157 MiB), it always resulted in Windows seeing 2 MiB less. Below is the report of Geoff Chappell's FWMEMMAP, with the current 3 GiB of RAM installed, in case it helps elucidating things. It was obtained under Win PE 2.1 (the Vista PE), because FWMEMMAP requires Vista at least to run. The last three lines are comments I added, and not part of FWMEMMAP's report, the last line reflecting what Win XP SP3 sees as total memory. Map of firmware memory ranges (from int 15h function E820h) Address Size Type =================== =================== ================= 0x00000000`00000000 0x00000000`0009D800 1 (memory) 0x00000000`0009D800 0x00000000`00002800 2 (reserved) 0x00000000`000F0000 0x00000000`00010000 2 (reserved) 0x00000000`00100000 0x00000000`BFEFB000 1 (memory) 0x00000000`BFFFB000 0x00000000`00004000 3 (ACPI Reclaim) 0x00000000`BFFFF000 0x00000000`00001000 4 (ACPI NVS) 0x00000000`FEC00000 0x00000000`00001000 2 (reserved) 0x00000000`FEE00000 0x00000000`00001000 2 (reserved) 0x00000000`FFFF0000 0x00000000`00010000 2 (reserved) Summary (in MB, ignoring partial MB): Total memory: 3071 Memory above 4GB: 0 Total memory: 3145330 with reclaim (in Kib) 3145314 without reclaim 3145236 reported by XP

Auf Englisch, bitte!