Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won

  • Donations

    25.00 USD 
  • Country


Everything posted by dencorso

  1. After Dr. Hoiby's Windows Explorer 256 color TrayIcons Patch and Wijono's hot removal of USB device SYSTRAY.EXE ( Patch, both already included in NUSB, I now offer you: dencorso's USB FDD DiskTSD.VxD Patch, that allows NUSB to work with FDDs without a BSOD! Do you remember this post by Petr? [Petr, where are you??? ] Well, it set me thinking... My first though was: how so? Win 98SE will not allow one to rename and substitue a file in use! But I tested, and in fact Win 98SE does allow it, at least in this case: it works as Petr described. The downside of Petr's solution is that if one forgets to exchange back the DiskTSD.VxDs before shutdown, or has a system crash, the system will refuse to boot due to the failed dynamic loading of v.! And it'll be necessary to boot in DOS to do the renaming, before the system is able to boot up normally again. So, a way to have v. undergo successfully the dynamic load was a must that simply had to be found... ...and here is it: 1) Fetch DiskTSD.VxD v. from inside your Win ME installation CD (it is in WIN_20.CAB), and extract it to a new folder named, say, PATCH. 2) Rename DiskTSD.VxD to DiskTSD.PAT and extract yet another copy of DiskTSD.VxD from WIN_20.CAB, so that now you have two identical files in the PATCH folder, differing only in the name extension. 3) Open DiskTSD.PAT with your favourite HexEditor and search for the hexadecimal sequence 00005A04, which you should find only two times, in two different places (at offsets 140 and 866). 4) Change, in both places hexadecimal 5A for 0A, and save the file. 5) Now, in a DOS box, set to the PATCH directory, run <fc DiskTSD.VxD DiskTSD.PAT /b> You should see this: 00000142: 5A 0A 00000868: 5A 0A 6) If you saw that, copy DiskTSD.PAT to %windir%\SYSTEM\IOSUBSYS, rename the DiskTSD.VxD found there to DiskTSD.ORI and then rename DiskTSD.PAT to DiskTSD.VxD. As Petr found out, you can do that with windows running. 7) If you are using NUSB24 or earlier, that's all. But if you are using NUSB31, now you must got to %windir%\INF, save a copy of USBSTOR.INF as USBSTOR.ORI, and then open USBSTOR.INF in, say, WordPad and uncomment (delete the leading semicolon) all lines referring USB FDDs (there are 8 such entries: one each for Mitsumi, HP, NEC, SMSC, Sony and TEAC, and two for YEData), and save USBSTOR.INF. 8) It's not mandatory, but at this point a recommend you to reboot your system. It's done! Enjoy using USB Floppy Drives in Win 98SE! Of course, the standard disclaimer applies: It works great for me, but YMMV and I can guarantee nothing whatsoever about this patch, and about the use you make of it. By deciding to use it you fully accept that anything you do is of YOUR SOLE RESPONSIBILITY... Also, to use Win ME files you must have a Win ME licence. Moreover, modding files voids the EULA, of course. You have been warned. Hence, if after performing this mod your pc morphs into a purple mushroom and explodes, causing a 10-day worldwide blackout in the process, you know you can't blame me for it!
  2. Kensington MouseWorks Software Version 6.11 for Win 98(FE/SE)/ME/2k/XP, for PS2 or USB mice (it does not support serial or bluetooth mice). It works great also with Microsoft Intellimouse 1.0 or 1.1 (of course, they don't tell you this) and defines more configurable mouse events than MS Intellipoint 4.12 for five-button mice (two more, in fact: right+left chord and outer+inner chord; chord is clicking simultaneously two buttons) and also allows one to program sequences of keystrokes as mouse events. More info: http://us.kensington.com/html/1466.html#mw611 Direct download: http://ftp.kensington.com/PC/Input/mouseworks611.exe Calendar 2000 http://www.gregorybraun.com/Calendar.html CrystalCPUID http://crystalmark.info/?lang=en cpu-z http://www.cpuid.com Sandra SiSoft Sandra ANSI (Win32 x86) v. 2004.10.9.133 HDD Health (S.M.A.R.T. monitor) http://www.panterasoft.com PopUpKiller v.
  3. Sorry, soporific, but I still disagree. 1) RAM 1024 WRAM 922 MaxFileCache=522240 is a daring setting that only a few can use. Gape found it already and revised his tweak in sesp 2.0.1 and later to MaxFileCache=393216 (see item 2.0.1 in post #1). Eck also agrees, as you know. I used that value initially, but eventually got "out of memory" errors every now and then. So I did some tests and decided to set MaxFileCache=262144, which never gave me any grief. My system ran OK with that setting for about a year, with uptimes up to 40h, before I shut it down. If you want a general setting, use MaxFileCache=262144. 2) I am using RAM 1536 WRAM 1156 for less than a week, and engaged in heavy experimenting, at present. I can confirm that MaxFileCache=65535 works, but now I know 98304 is also OK. I'll now try 114688 and report my results, as soon as I have them. I do believe Offler's statement that 131072 is problematic. [New text, added 1st November 2007 - 03:15 AM:] Yes, MaxFileCache=114688 works OK! [New text ends]. 3) For RAM > 1536 I think more testing is needed, but I haven't the memory to do it. So I'd stick to Andy Aronoff's MaxFileCache=29696 (with ChunkSize=512), because of his reporting that more than 30000 prevents windows from starting. 4)Above RAM 2048 I still think is a place no one has ever gone before... Your other settings seem very sensible to me, and I do agree with them. If anyone here has, or has had, a system running stably with 2048MB or more of RAM, please do tell us about your experience.
  4. I gotten that error message (or similar) just by setting the swap file to bigger than 768 MB! That's a new bug I found! Have you ever saw that before? Lots of times! Please read all posts in this thread from, at least, post # 10 and follow the links therein. You'll will find lots of interesting info on that matter in them.
  5. Yes, it does! AVG Free is definitely the way to go!
  6. Hi, Analada! I installed and it is working perfectly. Thanks a lot, once more! And thanks to all others that posted in this thread, too! You all rock!
  7. This thread is very important, IMHO. So I think it ought to be stickified. Could a moderator be so kind as to do it, please?
  8. I managed to get my system to work with 1536 MB. I am loading XMSDSK from config.sys, using INSTALL=E:\UTIL\XMSDSK.EXE 292992 N: /c1 /t /y So, here are my initial results (using MaxFileCache=65535): No MaxPhysPage or MaxPhysPage >= 48D00 -> "Insufficient Memory to Initialize Windows" MaxPhysPage = 48C00 (1164 MB) works, but Win 98SE sees only 1162 MB. It is the absolute maximum that works. MaxPhysPage = 48B00 (1163 MB) works, but Win 98SE sees only 1161 MB. These two configurations above sometimes start OK, sometimes throw "Insufficient Memory to Initialize Windows". MaxPhysPage = 48A00 (1162 MB) works, but Win 98SE sees only 1160 MB; MaxPhysPage = 48900 (1161 MB) works, but Win 98SE sees only 1159 MB; MaxPhysPage = 48899 (1161 MB) works, but Win 98SE sees only 1159 MB; MaxPhysPage = 48800 (1160 MB) works, but Win 98SE sees only 1158 MB. I stopped here and am testing the stability of this configuration. * If I set MaxFileCache=131072, it starts, but I get "There is not enough memory available to run this program" at some point, even with cpu-z. And if I set MaxFileCache=262144, I just get "Insufficient Memory to Initialize Windows" and the system simply doesn't start at all. Added 18th October 2007 - 06:40 PM: * My stability tests on the 1158 MB show that it is stable, at least for 8h. So I reduced some more the value of MaxPhysPage, in order to find the highest value that windows accepted without displaying that strange behaviour of detecting the requested value minus 2 MB (which is a bug I never had read about before!). MaxPhysPage = 48600 (1158 MB) works, but Win 98SE sees only 1156 MB; The above is the smallest value with which windows still detects the requested value minus 2 MB. So, the setting below is the maximum that behaves as expected. I'm using it now (1157 MB). MaxPhysPage = 48500 (1157 MB) works, and Win 98SE sees all 1157 MB; MaxPhysPage = 48400 (1156 MB) works, and Win 98SE sees all 1156 MB. More later. HTH. Added 22nd October 2007 - 05:33 AM: Sorry, sorry, everybody! I made a mess of this post when I wrote it and it eluded me up to now! I fell victim of the "paste bug" and pasted MaxFileCache where I should have written MaxPhysPage, meaning to modify it, and just forgot to do it. Now it is as it should be. Sorry! BTW, I'm presently using MaxPhysPage = 48600 and MaxFileCache=98304, without any problems, for the last two days. I'll try again to raise MaxFileCache (yes, MaxFileCache!) a little more tomorrow...
  9. soporific, my friend, as I have said above: That said, AFAIK your 1158 MB configuration with MaxPhysPage=48899 IS the record. I just don't recall where I read about someone else allowing windows to see 1022 MB... The maximum value ever mentioned by MS is MaxPhysPage=40000 (1024 MB), in Q304943, and Offler, in a post above, reported 1024 MB. And that's all I know about it. For the time being, I think 39A00 is a good idea for 1.5 and 2.0 GB, until some experimentation shows one really can go further. I think you and Offler are the only ones presently in position to start such testing. As for me, I'll try to add 512 MB more memory asap (I already do have such a stick), but I have serious doubts my mobo can manage that much memory well. The A7V600-Xs are know to have problems with more than one memory stick at or near FSB 400 (despite what ASUS says), so I cannot guarantee I'll be able to perform such testings anytime soon. I'll keep you posted, though. And, just for the record, I use ConservativeSwapFileUsage=0. galahs, the point is not performance: above 512 MB, the question is whether windows is able to start at all, and if it does start, whether it will perform normally or throw all sorts of errors at you, the infamous "out of memory" errors in Q253912 among them. But, as I said before, IMHO the key parameters are MaxFileCache and MaxPhysPage. The others can be tweaked for performance, but are not crucial for starting ability and stability.
  10. Have you got MaxPhysPage set to anything in SYSTEM.INI with bugs appearing when MaxFileCache is set to 131072? As both Win 98SE and XMSDSK by Frank Uberto are XMS clients, since one has to load XMSDSK first, not forgeting to use the important /T command line switch to have the virtual disk load from the top (of extended memory) down, when Win 98SE gets to load it only sees the memory the virtual disk left unused. So, provided one sets XMSDSK to a reasonable size, Win 98 SE usually loads even if the MaxPhysPage is left altogether out, although I do like to set it anyway, just to remain on the safe side.
  11. Well, AFAIK, from my own experiences and from what I read around, MinFileCache is not critical and could be left out altoghether. However, setting it to 0 (zero) lets the system potencially to use no cache, and bad things might happen in this case. So I set it to a bare minimum that is a multiple of all ChunckSizes used, so as not having to worry about it anymore. But any value less than the MaxFileCache ought to do equally well. BTW, I disagree with Offler and others that recomend MinFileCache=MaxFileCache, because that makes the cache static, and if MS took the trouble of making it dynamic, I don't see the point of disabling the dynamic behaviour for no aparent reason. Be as it may, in every real word system I ever used, the cache rapidly goes up to the MaxFileCache value set and stays there, after less than 1h of use, and that's why I don't find it critical. There is one more motive to my choice: Intel and AMD processors use 4kB as the standard size for their virtual memory pages, thus I see no point in setting a MinFileCache that's less than a page, although there is no clear relation between these two things, because the cache should never be paged out of memory. Yes, it is! Then again, you might set it to 39A00, just to have exactly 922MB (I do love round numbers ). PS: There are two more interesting links to follow: VCACHE SETTINGS WIN9x/Me, a classic, already mentioned by Offler elsewhere, and the old Q108079, that I forgot to mention before. HTH. Obs.: In view of Offler's cautionary post above, I'd revise my sugestions for 1.5GB to read as: RAM ... MinFileCache ... MaxFileCache ... ChunkSize 1536 .. 4096......... 65535 ...... 1024 just to be on the safe side, if the idea is to create a general use .reg file.
  12. But of course you do. Question is where is it. That might be a reason for the problems you reported. I mean, mixed user.exe/user32.dll versions... Try to find it, by using LOCATE. HTH
  13. RetroOS: Happened to me too! OLEDLG00.DLL is not deleted AND the new OLEDLG.DLL is not added. I used the same workaround as you did.
  14. Sorry, Fredledingue, but I disagree. I'm responsible for 6 Win 98SE machines and also service on an irregular basis 4 more Win 98SE machines, besides one Win ME machine that was recently upgraded to XP and 3 other XP machines... All 10 Win 98SE machines I've set up originally in 2001, and never ever had to reinstall from scratch, up to the present day! I gladly accept being called overly paranoid, but to backup often, and certainly before adding system critical updates, for me is far from silly: it makes sense! Now, I don't say one should backup before and after every single update one applies, but nothing prevents one from collecting some updates, say 3 to 6, backing up, applying them, letting users use the system for one or two weeks, and if nothing goes wrong, repeating this procedure all over again. If something does go wrong, one can reinstall the back up and then hunt down which update was responsible for what went wrong. BTW, this has allowed me to have up and running again, in less than 2h, machines which hard disks went dead because of hardware problems. It happened twice already. And all I needed to do was to get a new hard disk from my spare parts collection, physically install it and put the backup back in. DVD-R's are cheap and don't occupy too much space. And happy customers are priceless. I now understand your original intention clearly and find it highly commendable. But, since your original post might be understood as a tottaly unwarranted bashing, I felt bound to reply as I did. If I overreacted, my apologies. All best wishes.
  15. 1. They are important. Most, unfortunately, will not work on anything but english 98SE, and might take your finnish system out of comission. A few might work correctly, but that's untested, AFAIK. Only language neutral fixes are guaranteed to work, albeit they are pretty rare. If you are setting up a new system, I, for one, recommend you to use the english Win 98SE. You can find it (the original CD) really cheap on eBay and related sites, nowadays. 3. Yes. I use and recommend strongly AVG 7.5. HTH
  16. My dear Fredledingue:I do respect your grief, and I do respect you. You have my sympathy. But some things must be said! 1)I have installed the updates you mention in more than 10 systems, including my own machine, since they were released, with no problem at all. What you are experiencing must be due to some quirk peculiar to your installation. 2)The files user.exe/user32.dll (in Q981711); and gdi.exe/gdi32.dll (in Q918547) are mods by anonymous, while explorer.exe 4.72.3612.1710 is a mod by erpdude8, AFAIK. All these files work flawlessy and don't cause any problem whatsoever, in my experience. And you seem to confirm it yourself as you do blame the installers! Furthermore the mods by anonymous work as advertised and resolve problems MS didn't care to solve for us. Hence, if the installers do have a problem, we have, in this forum, lots of expertise to improve them. This is a case in which we can light a candle instead of cursing the darkness... But we cannot afford to alienate the few code modders and coders we have among ourselves, especially over an installer issue! It's too bad we've lost LLXX already! Let the coders code. We all can help debug installers, once we know there is a problem, no matter how rarely it manifests itself. And in the meanwhile, if the installer doesn't work, it's just a case of installing the files by hand, in DOS mode, until a better installer is released. 3)Don't be overly dramatic. If you did backup before applying new patches, it was a matter of no more than 20 min, probably less, for you to get back to your previous working system state. If you didn't, and really had to reinstall from scratch as you seem to imply, blame it on yourself alone! There are plenty of disclaimers everywhere telling you to backup first, and, ultimately, that whatever you do to your system you do solely at your own risk, and that YMMV. And do not tell me backuping takes lots of times more than 20 min. If it does, you should try an alternative backup strategy: there are many, and I'm sure I can help you find one that will provide you with a backup in 20 min or less, every time you need one. But if you want to discuss backup strategies, I suggest we start another thread, so as to not drift off-topic here. All the same, thanks for the heads up! All best wishes.
  17. OK, I have read around that Skype works OK with Win 98 SE up to versions 1.xx. I do know many of these are available through oldversion. Now my question is, from those available, which version should I install, or, in other words, which is the last version of Skype known to work OK with Win 98 SE? Please advise. Edit 13th October 2007 - 05:27 PM: Thanks Analada and North of Watford for your swift replies in the posts below. You rock!
  18. If your mobo is a Socket Super-7, yes. On an older plain Socket-7, maybe. But 8prime8 has pointed you to the rigtht places. And if you don't find your board there, still it'll probably work, but maybe you'll need a bios upgrade. If you dont find one for free, e-Support (google for them) probably can provide you one at a reasonable price. However, in most cases the bios upgrade is only needed for the bios to recognize it correctly as a K6-III+. If you don't mind it being described as another chip or as unknown, all odds are it'll work all the same. If the bios thinks it's a plain K6-III, it is a pretty certain bet. YMMV, though. A list of the characteristics of all known K6 exists here. The K6-III+ are at the bottom. There is a K6-III+/500ACZ, which is the pearl of the K6, but it's harder to find than the 450. But, even the 400 would give your system a big boost. But now that I checked I see I remembered wrong, K6-III+ VCore is 1.9~2.1V. So 2.1V is the top of the range recommended by AMD. But with an Socket A heatsink/fan you certainly can go to 2.2V without damaging the chip. And do give it a good thermal paste, say, Arctic Ceramique, for instance. Mobiles do support higher temperatures than the desktop chips do, but good cooling is paramount to stablity and overclockability. Good luck!
  19. Upgrade to a K6-III+ 450 (not a K6-III 450), if you can find one, and you'll be surprised how much better than the P-III it is. They keep turning out on sites like eBay, from time to time. They are fine to overclock and will work at reasonable temperatures if cooled by any common socket A heatsink/fan assembly (the K6-III+ IS a socket super-7, but mounting a socket A heatsink/fan assembly on a socket super-7 is straightforward and works well), even with a reasonably higher VCore (they're mobile chips, intended for notebooks, hence their normal VCore is 2.1V, not 2.3V). Here is one case where YMMV, of course.
  20. Thanks for the info, fastlanephil, I was not aware of that. IMHO the problems people had must have been related to the pppmac.vxd files... I have tested pppmac.vxd, and it prevents my fully updated system from starting, although it works OK in a plain-vanilla Win 98 SE installation. I never found v, so I don't know for a fact it would cause the same problem, but your info leads me to think it may. As it is, I found out that, despite using the Win ME winsock stack in my main Win 98 SE installation, it boots and works OK using either pppmac.vxd or, but won't finish starting windows with I say this because the other files from Q329128 for Win 98 SE work flawlessy, in my experience. Well, erpdude8, since the files for Win 98SE from Q329128 apeared in SESP30-alpha-1, I had a spark of hope that Gape would have, in some way, found the full Q329128, and that the other files, for 98FE and ME would soon be available also. But now I'm begining to realize it's far more probable that he got the 98 SE files from some system that had them already installed... Yet, I'm still resiting to let go of that spark of hope... And speaking of "shortlived" updates, Q265405 is probably hopeless either, I suppose, from MS at least. Unless someone finds cdvsd.vxd inside some system somewhere, by sheer luck...
  21. Hi, soporific! I see you didn't follow the links in my previous post... Here're my 2 cents: RAM ... MinFileCache ... MaxFileCache ... ChunkSize 32 ...... 4096 ............ 8192 ...... 512 64 ...... 4096 .......... 16384 ...... 512 128 .... 4096 .......... 32768 ...... 1024 256 .... 4096 .......... 65536 ...... 1024 512 .... 4096 ........ 131072 ...... 1024 1024 .. 4096......... 262144 ...... 2048 1536 .. 4096......... 131072 ...... 2048 2048 .. 4096 ......... 29696 ....... 1024 4096 ... I doubt it can be made to work For 1024MB, those are the settings I use. for 1536MB, they are Offler's and for 2048MB, they are Andy Aronoff's (see posts #1 and #5), corrected to be a multiple of 1024 and <= 30000 (the highest value he found to work with 2GB). I never saw anyone claim to have Win 98SE working with 4GB, and I belive it impossible because there would be no free addresses left for the virtual memory, if I'm not mistaken. Best wishes! Keep on the great work!
  22. Hi, Offler! Tihiy is right! MaxFileCache is the critical setting. And your setting is definitely too big for 1.5GB Try 262144 or less. See also my post here, but bear in mind I was thinking about 2GB when I wrote it. HTH Edit added some moments after the first post... Oops, sorry! I didn't realize you were just testing the patch. You have solved the problem by setting MaxFileCache =131072, with some additional settings! I just saw the thread you started here, which is the one quoted by Tihiy. Anyway, for what it is worth, my point is one should use lower and lower MaxFileCache values, as the memory gets bigger and bigger. Best wishes!
  23. I have an AMD Athlon XP-M 2800+ @ 2400 MHz
  24. Thanks, Drugwash. You rock! Added text 9th October 2007 - 04:25 AM: Thanks for the links in you post below this one, soporific! They sure help a lot. You do rock too!
  25. Hi, Drugwash! Since everybody here clearly understands .INFs better than I do, I'll just take this opportunity to ask, before I die of unsated curiousity: what do the ,,4 and ,,,4 flags mean, please? Thanks in advance and best wishes!
  • Create New...