dencorso

The complete catalog of RLoew's patches and related products is available here. Among them, in the Prerelease and Beta Softwre, is the freeware CDFS patch to make Win 9x show the correct size for DVDs, which I consider precious. @ RLoew: BTW, what about SATA CD/DVD drives? Does Win 9x/ME support them natively? Is a patch needed? Did you test any?

Must be a talent you were born with... Maybe this or this may be the answer you're looking for?

What exactly is the model of that Gateway? Maybe the manual is findable online, and it'll tell us how to access the BIOS.

I subscribe to this idea, too. A backup library is an invaluable asset.

Depending on the POV, a "not clean" shutdown *MAY* be due to Read/Write Errors...

If I were you, I'd partiton first, then install. That's how it was meant to be done.

Try AutoScan=2, in MSDOS.SYS (more info at MDGx's).

FreeDisk.exe version 5.2.3790.0 can do what you want. The one you have is too old, so it just doesn't understand 59825229820 and truncates it, thus giving the wrong result you've got.

Do *not* upload a file known to be infected to MSFN, please! In case anyone wishes to test it, they should contact you by PM, and arrange for the transfer, but *outside* MSFN. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding.

Use midiox desktop restore... Get both the GUI version and the command-line version. Then sort the desktop and save the layout. If you use regshot just before and just after saving the layout, you'll find where in the registry it saves that info. Then create a .reg file from it. Create also a run entry to run the command-line version of desktop restore, and set it to restore your custom layout on startup. For the unattended you should merge to the registry those two regs, the one that has the custom layout and the one that runs desktop restore.

Yeah! I guess so. Arthur Simms - It's only mystery

Desireless - Voyage Voyage

Xeno86 really isn't appearing often, but that's normal, he's never been around much. But every time he does post, he brings new interesting things. As for the KernelEx project, rest assured it's still going on strong, and there'll be further updates to it.

The QVT/Net suite had a Win 9x/ME FTP server that worked OK. It was shareware, but has been discontinued. You should enquire QPC about its status, since QPC still exists.

Here some info on the 128 vs 256 bytes inode conundrum: Why change inode size?.

That can happen, too. But it's not usual. It depends on the particular hardware one has. In any case, the real problems begins > 1 GiB RAM, and that's why we have a thread dedicated to it.

Try updating the video driver. In case the machine already has the latest video driver, then try using a previous version of it, instead, at least 6 months older.

It's great having you here, Martin L. Cheers!

With USB 1.1, the only advantage NUSB 3.3 has over 2.4 is the added support for USB floppies. If that's required, then NUSB 2.4 isn't enough. But NUSB 2.4 + IOSYS98, followed by updating by hand (= substituting) the USBSTOR.INF to the one in NUSB 3.3 (or one of the latter versions, available from the NUSB thread) is another way to add the required USB FDD support.

Well, I've already said most of what I think about this matter in various posts scattered around MSFN. So I took the liberty to collect those I think more relevant to answer your question and collect them here. While each unity is coherent in itself, and the subjact remains the same, I do not claim the particular order in which I now present them is the best one possible, nor did I try to edit them (except minimally) to better concatenate them nor to remove repeated ideas. Bear in mind this became long-winded, but that is the inevitable result of such a joining of quotations. HTH Now, you have and use Ghost. Ghost is not for free, but it's the best of its kind. So, with Ghost, and with XXCopy, you should be able to cover all your back-up needs pretty comprehensively. Great! When in doubt, this is the way to go! This kind of image (-z9 -ir) can be called a compressed "True Image" or "Dumb Image", or "Raw Image" (hence "ir" = image-mode: raw), because it makes no assumptions whasoever and, instead, just copies sector-by-sector. You can get it somewhat smaller, by zeroing-out the unused areas. And ghost can restore it to any HDD bigger or equal to the original one the image was acquired of. It's as near fool-proof as you can get and quite a good backup, but it's time-consuming. For saving and recovering the state of my system partitions, I usually do single partition images. Once you have the full true image backup optimized, do a partition backup of one of your system partitons, reformat that partition, sdelete -c that partition and restore that single partition image back to its place, and test to see whether everything is working OK. If so, that's the best way to create snapshots of a system being tuned or debugged. Repeat the test for your other system partitions and, all going well, start a library of backups for them. Before doing major experiments, always create a new image of the partition you're gonna mess with, so, no matter what you do, you remain less than 1h away from having it back as it was when you started (compared with full-disk operations, single partition operations are quite fast). It'll also most probably boot OK from a similar or bigger HDD of the same type, used to replace the physical HDD in case of hardware failure. The more similar the replacement HDD is to the one it is replacing, the more probable one gets a good result.

I'm not so sure of it... by reading carefully KB888137 one might conclude that, given a modern machine, with > 3.5 GiB of RAM and a memory-hoisting BIOS, the PAE kernel of XP SP0/1 might actually make use of all the RAM! Since such a hardware wasn't available (at least for most users) way back when, I think nobody ever tested it! Of course the memory hoist must be enabled first in the BIOS configuration, because the default configuration, even today, usually is "disabled". Of course, from my POV, the benefits brought in by SP2/3 far surpass any advantage that might accrue from accessing some more RAM directly, and, moreover, one can always use the remaining RAM for a RAMDISK, in which to hold those archives one prefers to see destroyed automagically at each shutdown, like the Temporary Internet Files, cookies and the like. But this idea sure did excite my curiousity.

RPM - London, London

Some applications intended for Win 9x/ME did include psapi.dll, and notable examples of it are X-Ways Software's great hexeditor WinHex (which included psapi.dll v. 4.0.1371.1) and Grisoft's AVG 7.5 (which included psapi.dll v. 5.0.2134.1). The link I gave at MS is for psapi.dll v. 4.0.1371.1, which is known to work. Now, while MS never officialy offered psapi.dll for Win 9x/ME, it never said it must not be used in 9x/ME either, and the above real-world use examples do establish which versions are good to be used. And MS surely was aware of its use, at least in AVG 7.5, which once was very widely used, and did not object to it. However, you're right in pointing out I went to far when I wrote "MS says works", so I stand corrected, and have modified my previous post accordingly.

Only you, Ironman69, who are operating the actual machine, can determine the best value for MaxFileCache for your specific machine, and that can only be done by testing in real use conditions. Start with MaxFileCache=131072 use it for some days, log some convenient performance data of your choice, and then enlarge that by steps, up to 393216. Bear in mind that those numbers are the size of the cache in kiB (binary kilobytes aka kibibytes). In my experience, 128 MiB steps are usually enough, so you should try 131072, then 262144, then 393216, and then settle on the one that gives you the best performance. And if you find that all three give you the same performance, use the smallest. I cannot possibly give you a more precise answer than this, only you can find out, by testing. However, to be able to test, the machine must be working and all the necessary software must be installed, so I think all you need right now is to get the machine to boot and be stable. MaxPhysPage=40000 and any of the three above values for MaxFileCache should allow you that. Try it and keep us posted. Good luck!

Well, my intention was to provide a "just work" set of parameters that would boot windows with 1GiB RAM, just after the OP added the RAM. Never did I wish to imply they were the best parameters. MaxPhysPage=40000 is all the RAM, so this cannot be bested, but MaxFileCache can be freely optimized afterwards, of course. To me the OP is interested in being able to use the newly added RAM fast first, and think about optimizations next... so I replied accordingly.