dencorso

Yeah, well... I was hesitating in suggesting you to try USB20DRV because I imagined you might end up having the usbstor issue. To use usbstor.sys v. 5.00.2195.6773, it must be loaded together with wdmstub.sys, which is also already present in the right place, since it's installed by USB20DRV, too. So, simply go to C:\WINDOWS\INF, open USBSTOR.INF and find this place in the file: ... notice that the third line is commented (that is, has a semicolon which I marked in red before it) and fourth line is not commented. So move the semicolon from the third line to the fourth, thus: After doing it, you may put back usbstor.sys v. 5.00.2195.6773, and when you insert your USB devices they may be detected correctly straight away. If not, enter the device manager with the device connected (one at a time), delete the device with the yellow exclamation mark, then disconnect and reconnect the device, that it will be recognized and mounted correctly.

True enough. It doesn't always work. So, I might say it's complicated... But it's *not*, really. Your problem, as with most other cases where simply adding a MaxPhysPage and Xeno86's VCache is not enough, is probably due to your video cards. In other cases, there are also some LAN cards that use virtual addresses in the 3rd GiB, as well as some more modern motherboards that won't allow the simple tweak method to work. But for your average PIII/P4 (or Athlon) board with onboard video and LAN, it'll work in most cases. So the hardware that really forces one to use the RAM Limitation patch is reasonably recent, and was quite rare four years ago. And that's my main point. Moreover, even with forgiving hardware, more than 3 GiB RAM (also rare some years ago) leads to unstable configurations, with rare exceptions, unless one uses RLoew's patch. If you look at the 4 GiB section of the list you'll see 4 machines, two of which don't use RLoew's patch... these are some of those exceptions I've just mentioned. Don't get me wrong: myself, I'm a satisfied customer of RLoew's, and I think his is *the best* solution. But that does not make it the only one. And I think we're fortunate to have options. *And* I'm quite tired of people insisting in saying running with > 1 GiB is not *at all* possible. To dispel that urban myth is the main reason why I started the list, to begin with.

It depends on what are you out to achieve: If all you want is to have Win 9x working with about 1150 MiB or Win ME with about 1995 MiB, despite the fact that there may be more actual RAM than that, you can do that without the RLoew's RAM Limitation Patch. If, however, you want all your system's RAM to be actually detected *and used* by Win 9x/ME, then the RAM Limitation Patch is the only solution (by the way, it's name means it's a patch to *overcome* Win 9x/ME RAM limitation). So, the point I'm trying to make is if you have up to 1120 MiB RAM and Win 98SE or up to 2 GiB RAM and Win ME, you really don't need any patch to have Windows recognize all the systems memory (or just about all of it for ME, in my example). Now, if your system has more than those limits, then you have to decide whether you need or want Windows to recognize and use all of it (then you need RLoew's patch) or if you can live with it working, but not seeing all the RAM. A simple inspecion of the > 1 GiB list (for which there's a link in my signature) shows very well that there are users satified with either solution, and what's great is that there is not just one solution, but actually two, to run Win 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM.

How so? Does the motherboard not support USB 2.0 or are you using VIA's USB 2.0 stack? In any case, please do install IOSYS98 and see whether the BSOD goes away.

Calm down, folks, please. There's been enough thread hijack here already. 9x vs. NT is a no-no. Let it go, already.

@larryb123456: #3 Well, actually there really *is* a 151, but you're right: I meant 115. The schedule you proposed seems OK to me. Bear in mind, please that the Flash for IE is different from the others. For it you must use the "ax" installers, which mean ActiveX (a feature only IE has). But you can have both the ActiveX and the non-ActiveX versions installed at the same time, it's harmless.

Welcome to MSFN! You'll find a pretty active Win 2k community here, BTW.

Use Microsoft's own USBView (v. 5.1.2600.2180, from Win 2k DDK) works under Win 9X and provides useful information about the USB ports in a computer and the devices therein attached. Note that VID = Vendor Id and PID = Product Id. Note also that USBView will give you a duplicate entry for each of your physical USB connectors since it sees each as both a USB 1.1 and a USB 2.0 connectors, which it lists under the appropriate controller. Since your device is 2.0, it should be one of the entries under the EHCI (Enhanced Host Controller Interface = USB 2.0), OK?

Are you using NUSB 3.3? If not, update to it (just install the newer one over the older). What is the VIP and PID of the BlackBerry?

@larryb123456: don't worry: neither your files nor your computer can be damaged *because of either RLoew's patcher vxd or because of the testing you're doing*. You're just as safe as you'd be doing any other usual task with the computer. However, this does not mean you're safe from the usual haphazard problems that may befall any user of any computer under any OS, like disk failure or power supply failure, or even file corruption from a crash... they are not routine events but can happen anytime. To be safe from these you must tame Murphy's law... and if you manage to do that, don't report it here: do patent it first, because it'll make you a rich man. The errors you're getting make me think flash 9.0.280.0 has buffering problems in your setup. It's safe to disable the patcher -- reinstal another flash version -- reenable the patcher and test. However, to exclude any influence from the patcher, I'd like to ask you to go back to 9.0.47.0, and then run the tests 1st with the patcher disabled and then, once again, with it enabled (although it's not needed for v 47). Then, please, move on to 9.0.151.0 and do it all over again, but only with the patcher enabled, because we already know flash won't run without it, in this case. And, yes, the IE6 you have is OK for the testing, too.

Gosh, no matter how knowledgeable about 9x/ME you may be, I've never seen you around this forum offering support. To come here, not to offer any help, but, instead, just to tell the OP he/she ought to move on to a NT-family OS, with all due respect, is not welcome at all. We've had our share of 9x vs. NT wars, and we're *really* tired of them by now. Moreover, people here have, along the years, solved most of the problems of 9x/ME well enough for it to allow a very good level of usability. The RAM limitation and the 48-bit limitations are fully solved and the Resources issue is very much under control, by now. The number of users know to run 9x/ME stably with > 1 GiB RAM grows steadly with passing time, even if the total user number dwindles much faster (but those that remain using this OS-family do so because they love it). All this has happened in the last 4-years or so, and your own words make it clear you've not been interested in following them up. In Portuguese we have a saying (which Latin rendering is the motto of my profile): "one who doesn't hamper helps more"... I respectfully ask you to abide by it. Thank you.

OK, larryb123456! Now let's stop using Firefox. Try Opera, Netscape and it would be great if you also tried IE6SP1, because it uses a different flash executable. Try the exact same videos, and lets see what happens. If the problem persists, then do it all over again with 9.0.115.0... Let's get to the bottom of it! Now, BTW, while RLoew's patcher allows flash to run, it (at least in principle) shouldn't be affecting the video/audio sync. There sure is more to this problem, but I doubt it's related to the patcher...

Iggy Pop - The Passenger Sure, Tripredacus. Glad to know there are keepers of the fire.

@mst3kpimp: For 98SE, if you want to run with up to 1 GiB, all you need is either: Add a "MaxFileCache=393216" (without the double inverted-commas) line under the section [VCache], both in SYSTEM.INI and in SYSTEM.CB, and if the [VCache] section does not already exist, one should create it. It is described in Q253912 - "Out of Memory" Error Messages with Large Amounts of RAM Installed, although MS doesn't mention SYSTEM.CB (which is needed for Safe Mode) and suggests using MaxFileCache=524288 (which has been demonstrated by practice to be too much in many occasions). This is one approach that does work. or Install Xeno86's modified VCACHE.VXD, without ever having to edit either SYSTEM.INI or SYSTEM.CB. It just works! Now, if you want to run with > 1 GiB, then it gets somewhat more complicated... if this is the case, please do refer to the apposite thread for which a link exists in the left side of my signature.

You mean that after Win9x/ME caches a file, due to executing it, it'll never go back to the file (until reboot), so that if one uses flash intensively enough, so that all missing instructions get patched, and then copies the file, the resulting copy will be made from the cached copy, not from the actual stored file. It makes perfect sense, but I hadn't realized it'd work like this until you mentioned it. However if the machine is used intensively enough, with many other programs, without ever going back to flash, the cached file may end up flushed to make room for others, may it not? So the surest way to obtain a patched file would be to use flash intensively enough, and then copy the flash files right away, just to be on the safe side, right? @larryb123456: I'm glad to see you are now testing the patcher. And that the initial results are promising. Welcome to the world of patched executables and related tricks! This is the only way open for us 9x/ME users to keep up to date enough, at this point of time.

@draco: The tweak you had in mind consists in adding a "MaxFileCache=393216" (without the double inverted-commas) line under the section [VCache], both in SYSTEM.INI and in SYSTEM.CB, and if the [VCache] section does not already exist, one should create it. It is described in Q253912 - "Out of Memory" Error Messages with Large Amounts of RAM Installed, although MS doesn't mention SYSTEM.CB (which is needed for Safe Mode) and suggests using MaxFileCache=524288 (which has been demonstrated by practice to be too much in many occasions). This is one approach that does work. However, the (simpler and more elegant, IMO) altenative, which also works perfectly, is to install Xeno86's modified VCACHE.VXD, without ever having to edit either SYSTEM.INI or SYSTEM.CB. I think MS-DOS 7.10 (the one underlying Win 98SE) doesn't actually have a driver.sys... However, the one from MS-DOS 6.22, after being patched to accept v. 7.10 should work OK. Without any patching, however, it will simply fail to install, giving a "Incorrect DOS version" message. That's why I mentioned DRIVPARM but did not talk about driver.sys. However, DRIVPARM should work only when the drive is correctly detected by the BIOS (it seems that's not exactly your case), while driver.sys should work regardless of what the BIOS thinks. Thanks for the info. I had never heard about 5 1/4" double-sided 720k drives before. Were they common?

Of course you can rename the "Copy of SYSTEM.INI" to: "This_is_that_back-up_copy_of_System.InI_we_disscussed_about.MY_BACK-UP.txt" if you so wish. And you can as well even let it remain named "Copy of SYSTEM.INI", for what's it worth. But I'm a DOS minded user, who prefers to have a plain, all-caps, DOS compatible, easy to find under either DOS or Windows, 8.3 file-name, when at all possible, especially for my backups. So, no matter how much effort I may do to think like you would (in my opinion), I'll always end-up getting caught thinking like myself. It's unavoidable. Of course you can simply delete SYSTEM.INI and rename the backup to SYSTEM.INI. But then you stop having a backup, whereas if you copy the backup and rename the copy, you still have a backup. No, it's harmless. As you've guessed correctly, SYSTEM.INI is used *only* at startup. Provided there is one there before you reboot, restart or shut down, there is no problem at all. Please understand that, to install RLoew's file you'll have to: 1) copy the P3CPU.VXD to C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM 2) create a backup of SYSTEM.INI 3) edit SYSTEM.INI to add the line DEVICE=P3CPU.VXD anywhere at the section [386Enh] 4) reboot. [*New info*] But to disable P3CPU.VXD, it's enough to 1) edit SYSTEM.INI to add a semicolon before the line DEVICE=P3CPU.VXD at the section [386Enh], so that it becomes ;DEVICE=P3CPU.VXD 2) reboot. And to re-enable it you: 1) edit SYSTEM.INI to remove the semicolon from before the line ;DEVICE=P3CPU.VXD at the section [386Enh], so that it becomes DEVICE=P3CPU.VXD 2) reboot. Of course you can delete the line instead of just putting a semicolon before it, but that's just in case you want to remove it for good. Just to disable the VxD before, say, updating flash to a higher version, the semicolon will do great. Whatever is between a semicolon and the end-of-the-line in SYSTEM.INI is understood by Windows to be a comment, and is not acted upon.

If you intend to cram it to the brim with small datafiles or applications, FAT-32 is the way to go. If not, it's not worth the effort. Moreover, if you use the micro-SD also in a camera, mobile phone or any other such device, you've got to check first whether all the devices you use it with support FAT-32, because some do require FAT-16 (if you thin that's odd, then what about older cameras that are known to require FAT-12 exclusively?). So consider all factors before reformatting.

Do you get the message: "There is not enough memory available to run this program."? That's an easy one! Just install the FREE - Xeno86's modified VCACHE.VXD (direct download) BTW, which driver.sys did you try?

But... but.. the OP reported (in post #3) that for him Win ME lags but Win 98SE does not. Hence it *cannot* be a common Win 9x/ME-family issue.

You're worrying too much!!! The simplest solution is to use a router to translate IPv6 to IPv4. It just works! BTW, search before you post... Can Windows 9x support IPv6

SYSTEM.INI is a *TEXT* FILE. The one in C:\WINDOWS is the one that matters. To be on the safe side, one creates a backup, in this way: ---- Go to C:\WINDOWS using WINDOWS EXPLORER. Highlight SYSTEM.INI Click on Copy. Click on Paste. Result: A new file will be created, named Copy of SYSTEM.INI Now highlight Copy of SYSTEM.INI, right-click on it and select Rename Rename it to SYSTEM.ORI --- Now you have a copy of SYSTEM.INI, which is named SYSTEM.ORI and is identical to your present SYSTEM.INI --- [*RECOVERY PROCEDURE*] So that, if anything ever goes wrong you can just: 1) Create a copy of SYSTEM.ORI 2) Delete SYSTEM.INI 3) Rename Copy of SYSTEM.ORI to SYSTEM.INI Result: whatever went wrong has been removed and your SYSTEM.INI is pristine once again. === Now do the following exercise: Open NOTEPAD. Select the File menu, then the Open menu. Drop the "Files of Type" box and select "All Files" Navigate to C:\WINDOWS and select SYSTEM.INI and click Open. Result: SYSTEM.INI will be opened and you'll be able to convince yourself it's just a text. Now Select the File menu, then the Exit menu. Result: Notepad will close without any modification being done. === At this point you'll have acquired all the skills needed to edit system.ini So that you can decide just how hard it is.

OK, if you are using Xeno86's modded VCache.VxD, you should set MaxPhysPage to 40000, not 60000, and it should then work. You can have as much RAM as you want, but you cannot let Windows detect more than about 1152 MiB at most, unless you use RLoew's RAM Limitation Patch. Without it, MaxPhysPage=48000 is about the highest you can go, but you should start with 40000 or even 38000, and then set it a little higher by steps, until you get the "not enough memory" error again, and then lower it a little. Read again post #2, concentrating on users that don't use the RAM Limitation Patch and have Win 98SE. For Win ME, the maximum possible value is higher. Now, the remaining RAM that Win 98SE cannot use may be used for a ramdisk, using XMSDSK, so that all the RAM gets put to use. Good luck!

Hi solomon! Welcome to MSFN!

Well, it seems the DOS boxes are the problem area, here as well as in bearwindows VBEMP(9x)... I hadn't noticed it, because when I enter Safe mode (which is quite rare), it is to do things I cannot do in a DOS box, or are easier to do from windows. Like removing installed drivers from Device Manager or editing the registry. Most things I'd need a DOS box to do, I can also do from true DOS, so I boot to it, instead of to Safe Mode. It's a pity, because this means we still do not have a fully usable generic video driver.