dencorso

It's possible that I was the one who wrote that "impossible". If so, I take it back. Nowadays I envisage two possible scenarios: 1) the easier one would be a wrapper that let one move selectively, by hand, one given process at a time (or perhaps even a small group of interdependent processes) to another core, for all of its execution time (useful for playing videos, for instance, while keeping everything else fast and responsive). 2) the more complicated one would be to keep just the OS and the VxD executing on one core, while all other processes get to execute on another one (a variation of the master-slave processor scheduling scheme). Both are simpler to implement than full symmetric multiprocessing... and two cores, which is the commonest hardware available at present is perfect for either. And both can be a great improvement for those having at least a second core sittng idle, while they use 9x/ME.

True. Then again, "you've got e-Bay!" (as Sonny and Cher would've put it, had it happened in their time ).

Post a link for a *good quality* pic of the actual card, and we may figure out which EEPROM does it have, if any. But the pic has to be good enough for us to be able to actually read what's written on the chips, OK?

You surely meant to say:

Boot from a linux live CD (like grml, RIP or tinhat) and delete all RECYCLER and RECYCLED folders that you find while on linux *and* all of their contents. Then boot to Windows again, and it will recreate them as needed, brand-new and empty. No need to worry, it simply works!

I don't know about any Russians working on it, but RLoew sure is/was! Whatever the interest may be, if anyone has interest (or knows about it, at least), there's a good chance he/she is an MSFN member, and a regular to this particular forum. So the OP posted in the exact right place. Now, if you don't have any interest whatsoever in Win 9x/ME, I respect that, but I sure hope you'll respect the fact that we actually do have lots of interest in it. So, please, *don't* flame-bait! Consider yourself warned. @all: Please everybody, do me a favor, *do* ignore the flame-bait. Thanks!

Glad you found out what to do befere I was able to reply. I left that entry there exactly for that, but I had to leave it commented out, because it's not needed for NUSB 3.3, unless you use it together with USB20DRV (and that's still reserved to advanced users). BTW, now that you have WDMSTUB.SYS correctly installed, you may want to download WdmCheck and use it to test those XP files you're using for any dangling dependencies, because passing the WdmCheck test is the minimal requisite for a driver to be safe to use, in general use. Dependency Walker is not reliable with WDM drivers (i. e.: .sys or .mpd files). Also, do please read again my post #24, in this thread. Usbehci.sys 5.1.2600.1106 may work well, but Usbport.sys 5.1.2600.1106 is bound to give problems, sooner or later.

I confirm that one was my 1st post here, all right. I had lurked in the shadows for about two years, by then... I don't mind some eventual thread resurrection... it brings over fond memories. BTW, duplicate post removed.

I do agree with jaclaz, on this matter. :

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 <blank line> [-HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\MountedDevices] [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\MountedDevices] [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control] "SystemBootDevice"="" [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Control] "SystemBootDevice"="" [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet002\Control] "SystemBootDevice"="" <blank line> Yes. The items in red are missing. Note that <blank line> denotes just that: a blank line.

Where is WDMSTUB.SYS? What entries do you have in the registry for WDMSTUB.SYS?

"Recycled" the part of "Recycle Bin" that exists in each individual FAT device, while "Recycler" is akin to it, but exists in NTFS devices only (and has subfolders for each individual user). The namespace object called "Recycle Bin" can be see as all "Recycled" and all "Recycler" subfolders joined together. This is so by design. If you're logged in as Administrator, you'll see all the deleted files from every user, when opening the "Recycle Bin", while a normal user will only see his/her stuff. That's quite normal. BTW, are you using removable drives in more than one machine?

Both sticks in principle support the selfsame timings. But I'd like to see whether your system behaves better after some RAM underclocking... Would you please set the FSB:SDRAM ratio to 3:4, just for testing purposes? I bet you'll hardly notice the memory slowdown caused by it in actual day-to-day use, except when using RAM performance benchmarks... and it may stabilize your machine (then again, it may not)... and the only way to find out is by trying it.

Have you WDMSTUB.SYS installed? How is it being loaded? Note that either using MDGx's method or my method, after you add USB20DRV, you must remove and redetect bothe the USB2 controller and all your usb devices to get WDMSTUB.SYS installed as a filter driver. If you don't do that, Usbstor.sys 5.00.2195.6773 will not work. So, after installing USB20DRV, you must go to safe mode and delete all entries for your pendrives and hubs and the EHCI controller, then reboot to normal mode, let windows redetect the EHCI controller, and then plug one-by-one your USB devices, in order for them to be redetected. It's not like nusb 3.3, which you install, reboot and it just works... USB20DRV needs you to actually make some extra effort to get it to work. And, BTW, I do really doubt those XP SP1 files you're using will ever work right...

This is not a solution, in my opinion, but it's worth reading, nonetheless: Vista - Unable to safely remove eSATA disk

Agreed. Moved.

Kitty had a snack

Before you take them out, use cpu-z to read the actual ram timings, as they are, and the SPD info&tables for each stick and report them here (the info under the "Memory" and "SPD" tabs, in the "SPD" select each ram stick in the box, to see its info). It may prove Coffee's point.

Welcome to MSFN, toutounet! And thanks!

mrci2.vxd seems to be the Matrox version of mrci.vxd, which is related to DoubleSpace (see this and this). The other 3 are normal Win 98SE VxDs, probably v. 4.10.0.2222, as AFICR there were no updates to them (and they also exist inside VMM32.VxD). All four are harmless, but you can rename them to, say, .ant and see whether they are missed. If you don't have any DoubleSpace compressed drives, I'd say they won't. Well that's now right. But I did hope it would help... too bad it doesn't. Yes. I think the problem is Win XP actively avoids anything having to do with VxDs (or executables in the LE format), while it will gladly read the version info for both NE (16-bit) and PE (32-bit) executables. So, while it knows all about VS_VERSION_INFO structures, it ignores those that are inside VxDs (and .386 files). I think that's "by design". So, when in XP, the only way I know of finding the version of VxDs is by opening them in an hexeditor and browsing for the version info.

You're being modest... Rest assured your English is quite good, and very understandable. If you remain actively participating of MSFN, as I sure hope you will, you'll have numerous opportunities of encountering real difficult examples of badly broken English around (most due to Babel Fish, the Google translator or the Bing translator, it's true: before those wonderful programs they wouldn't even try to post in English, now they *think* they can! ), scattered all around MSFN. Now, if the drive is bad, you're right: you need another one. It can be SATA, though, but make sure it *is* SATA I or that it has the jumper to set it to SATA I, because the 6421 don't know what to do with SATA II, and be sure not to buy anything bigger than 500 GiB, also due to the limitations of the 6421.

KernelEx 3.6 is not enough. AFAIK, you ought to update to the newer 4.x for it to work. 4.x is so much better, more comprehensive, and safer. STFF before asking...

@andreainside: Don't post in Italian! jaclaz and I can read it, of course, but most everybody else cannot, and it is against Rule # 2.d That said, attach a dump of the first 256 sectors of your sata HDD. jaclaz may be right. Have you ever succeded at booting the SATA HDD or you've always booted solely from HDDs connected to the motherboard's IDE controller?

Have you read this carefully before installing UniAta? If not, do try again.