no1none

Good question. Perhaps one of our "9x" gurus can answer that, or someone who have tried it IMHO hibernation in WinME is relying on ACPI feature of BIOS, so the BIOS itself is the main factor here. I tried once WinME on an old laptop without ACPI but with APM1.2, and hibernation was not available there and impossible to force it on. Yet the same laptop originally had Win95 and perfectly hibernated with "third party" hibernation (phdisk IIRC), LOL. Also when I upgraded RAM to the maximum and was able to load Win2000 on the same laptop - I got hibernation already by default just with W2K installation, no sweat. Thats why I think WinME's hibernation is not the same as the hibernation on 2000/XP, but probably some kind of 'hybrid' ACPI-dependant (unlike the W2K that is able to hibernate without ACPI). Maybe WinME's hib. is even one of the old "third party hibernation utilities" just rebranded to Msoft and tweaked to work on FAT32? After all, basically *ALL* of Msoft "new stuff" added to every new Windows are basically "third party" apps they simply bought or acquired one way or another...

we're drifting a little off topic but can you see the hibernate feature in your Win95 machine in the Power Management control panel applet? AND what kinds of third party software are you refering to, no1none (name them here as proof you know what you are talking about). not everyone owns an IBM Aptiva or IBM Thinkpad computer. I prefer the OS hibernation feature included in Win2k/ME/XP so that I dont rely on 3rd party soft to use hibernation AND the hibernate option is easily accessible from the Windows Shut Down menu or from the Power Management control panel box. Many modern PCs both desktop and laptop can use hibernation via a OS only in IBM Aptiva & IBM laptop BIOSes. Back then, NEC, HP, Compaq or other brand name desktop computers did NOT have the hibernation option in their BIOSes (laptop PCs from NEC, HP, Toshiba, Compaq, etc. may have either hibernate in laptop BIOS or bundled hibernate utility). only BIOS option was Sleep/Suspend in those desktop machines which was not as powerful as hibernate after Win2000, ME, XP and Vista were released, the hibernate option became widely available to newly manufactured ACPI-based desktop and laptop computers and no longer required special hibernate utilities because hibernate was built-in these Windows OSes Look at the definition of Hibernate (OS Feature) at the Wikipedia site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibernate_%28OS_feature%29 Also read about the hibernate power management feature at the EnergyStar site: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=power_mgt.pr_pm_faq "Hibernate" from ComputerHope: http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/h/hibernat.htm and check out this thread here: http://www.resellerratings.com/forum/showt...3618&page=2 sometimes you are really so annoying in your stubbornes, erpDUDE There is no i.e. cd-burning applet built-in to Win95 OS like it is in WinXP, yet you don't say "Win95 does NOT support cd burning", right? It doesn't have to be built-in OS feature to be supported obviously! Phoenix BIOS supported what we call now 'hibernation' as long ago as of 1994. Yes, manufacturers like Packard Bell, Compaq and such el-cheapos never include such option in their custom-'castrated' BIOSes, but nevertheless it was possible, and *sometimes* used, on a handful of machines from Toshiba, NEC and Acer. Japanese NEC and all Taiwanese Acer machines came with "PHDISK" utility (which to my understanding work even on Win3.1 and AFAIR ran of off separate partition it carved out for itself upon installation and added to boot). This utility didn't require any special motherboard modification, it started on boot much like "Windows hibernation" does now. All it needed was BIOS with APM. You can still find PHDISK on Acer's support sites. Toshiba used "0VS" (0-Volt Suspend, "0" as in zero) which IIRC was their own version of PHDISK for their specific laptop mobos (I may be wrong on that one since personally I never had 0VS installed on anything). Lastly IBM, which actually came up first with idea of dumping video and system RAM content to a file and allowing to reload it upon reboot in its much sophisticated Rapid Resume (I dont know when exactly they made it available at first, but since IBM Aptiva series PCs were introduced in the end of 1993 I would assume thats when it started). I agree that build-in to OS hibernation is much better option since it eliminates user reliance on machine manufacturer's mercy, but then I wasn't discussing such obvious fact, only pointed out that hibernation existed long before Msoft finally got interested in it, and since "third party" hibernation worked on Win95 there is no reason why it shouldnt work on Win98, thats all. As for the links: EOT to me /lets discuss something more interesting ) Oh, I forgot: I think I have the answer why most of companies dropped these "third party" hibernation utilities once they start selling Win98 machines: it is because of introduction of FAT32 with Win98. Phdisk and RapidResume does NOT work on FAT32 partitions (I tried them), so does probably 0VS. But if someone used FAT16 for his C:\ I see no reason why they shouldn't work on Win98. Perhaps someone will try it and let us know? BTW: Rapid Resume was so fantastic, I can't believe it didn't spread to other companies. Computer comes back from "deep suspend" (everything off, only RAM is still powered up) in less than a second! Resuming from 'hibernation' takes obviously longer, but still it is faster than resuming hibernated Windows 2000 on newer machines.

I think THIS VID fits the subject well (Windows 95 setup in 10 minutes :!: )

HERE are the exactly same files as in that video, complete set: startup + wait screen + shutdown screen, straight from the source If you want same color scheme and wallpap just LMK.

actually, I think I may have just patched version 4.72.3612.1700 of explorer.exe for NT4. I figured if only one area in version 4.72.3612.1700 of explorer.exe for Win95/98 needed to me edited, it may also apply for the NT4 version. I got both the 9x & nt4 versions of explorer.exe 4.72.3612.1700 from the ie4shl95.cab and ie4shlnt.cab files of IE 5.x and modded them in XVI32 hex editor. I'll post up more info here to confirm my hunch later. Really! I should've think of that too... Anyways, big thx! I will try it as soon as i do another NT4 box :-) There's a newer explorer.exe file for Win2000 SP4 included in the KB324446 hotfix. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/324446 KB324446 has explorer.exe version 5.0.3900.6920 does this one need patching too? I am 100% sure it DOES. Dudes at Msoft are too severely underpaid and overworked at fixing bugs to be distracted with such unimportant issues on their products such as proper icon's display PS Perhaps we should open a new thread - and have it stickified and closed - with all patched explorer versions in attachments for those who don't know how to do it? NT, 95, 98, 2000 all ver. need it, and AFAIR now we really have all versions finally patched (well, 5.0.3900.6920 needs to be patched too for sure, which Im sure someone will)

There is "Xp Icons" pack if youre into more colours, as a good silent installer. However there is a major problem: once you add reg key to run explorer in separate memory, many icons will come back to default: So either you have colourful icons or explorer runing separately, but not both Personally I always add patched explorer to have "high color icons" in systray (actually 256 only, but looks as good as 16-bit col on 99% of icons), and a reg key with my personal color themes set as default for all & new users (I find all windozes default colours very unattractive, but maybe its just me). Sometimes I add my own Themes too if I do it for my n00bish friends (main reason is to have an Admin's wallpap saying "install/change/do whatever you need to, and immediately get the f*** out of here to your own limited account" /edit: of course in much nicer words lol/

You could do it with IE6 SP1 as well. Just run ie6setup (downloaded from MS website) with additional switches to install it with shell update: ie6setup.exe /C:"ie6wzd /e:IE4Shell_NTx86 /I:Y" (edit: thats assuming your NT is located on drive C) and it will download additional files (ie4shlnt.cab) and install shell update; the only difference is that it will not present you with the option to install or to not install "Desktop Update" as it happens with IE4.

Personally I think WMP or CD-writing dumbapp in XP (and others like this) is what repulse me from XP and one of the reasons why I still stay with 2000... if you use W2K only as an OS, and use other 3rd-party software (far superior to XP's built-in software) you get top-notch most stable Microsoft OS based PC. But of course to each his own. 1) Isn't there WMP 7.1 with mp3? 2) CD burning support in XP is tied with XP's DRM. Even if it'll work if you 'transplant' all the libraries and reg keys needed by XP's cd burner app, I am almost sure you won't be able to burn ie Audio CD (DRMS...).

Yes there are, many. They play MP3s, and have screens larger than ipods, and sometimes also have GPS built-in, and all run Windows (sorta). Oh, and they have built-in cellphones too. Theyre called PocketPC. Also Smartphones (the ones with Windows Mobile operating system) can have software and codecs installed to playback any divx/xvid etc. TCPMP player does it with subtitles in various text formats (like SRT). Just find one you'll like by size/features/color/etc and buy it. You won't regret it. And did I say many are much cheaper than stupid ipods?

You didn't miss much it seems. Apparently its just another Apple's "much ado about nothing". full thread here: http://forum.videohelp.com/topic331154.html

thx, it works that way

Well, you read and quoted only part of discussions. My personal opinion (and preference) is still the same: If I can avoid windows at all (i.e. user is at least "linux literate") - I think its obvious what I'd install? If I *have to* install windoze (user can't operate any other OS) - I try to fit full or customized to the machine W2K. If machine is too outdated to run W2K - I'll try NT4 if possible; and unless it really has some <48MB of RAM, or user have some other requirements not possible on NT4 - I will go with Win9x. Its not that "I like" or "I don't like" any of them. For example 1 person use computer just for chatting & mail with her friends, but also some sensitive things like banking or browsing, so obviously I had to go with linux on her machine (and for a fact - since she never had any prior "windows experience" - she learned how to use it much faster than some hundred-years-long windoze user... ) OS is a tool, it must fit the user's skills of using it, and the job it is needed for. Obviously I'm not going to install any linux or vista on this very old machine for playing old DOS/Win9x games. Of course WIndows 95 has its uses. If I were 100% sure this machine would never ever connect to internet, I would say same as Benoit-Ren: "perfect" and wouldn't ask any more stupid questions here Yes, that's true, sadly. It will also add Netware. When you add the network card at installation, you can immediately remove all that from Network Setup, but if a network card is detected at Windows boot, you don't have control. If you don't insert the CD, though, it won't get fully installed, hehe. Yes I just did it yesterday. True, TCP is not installed by default as poster above said, but Netware is (not big problem since it is easily disabled in remove in networking). However after adding TCPIP i found "enable netbios over tcpip protocol" checkmarked (enabled) and greyed out in the same time (supposedly can't disable) - is that normal?

Whenever I do something, I at least try to be thorough. Win95 supposedly will not be used to connect to web, thats what NT4 will be there for. But I want to play safe now, rather than hear a complaints later. AFAIR as soon as any ethernet card will be installed there, Win95 will automatically enable netbios over tcpip, right? (correct me if im wrong). Of course I can predict any possible scenario what someone may do with his computer, but in general I always prefer to include firewall on any windows machine. Anyways, IMHO firewall and antivirus are 2 most important things on anything windows... PS oscardog above quoted my opinion. What are you /edit: you=oscardog/ trying to accomplish? Want to start (yet another) stupid 9x vs NT flame here? Good luck, fanboi...

great Im playing with it ATM, and Im not sure is it just my prejudice againt anything 98 but 95 really feels more stable. I guess removing crap from installation was helpful. Anyways I will reinstall it, because Im making completely customized Win95 CD for him (with crap removed from disc and from installation .inf and with the drivers and useful soft instead) and I will have to test it on something, so for the sake of testing Im going to inject it with IE5.5SP2 with shell update (I just made nice standalone single executable with options to install with or without "Active Desktop Update" - gotta test it too hehe). Has anyone notice microsoft's site has nothin left for windows 95? There are tons of bad links to references etc, you can't even find any old windows update for 95 crap as it used to be - but it is like this only in english, if you choose different language there is still some stuff left, ie euro support is not available on english version, but if you choose other lang. (i went with japanese link) its still there same as before. /edit/ Im distracted, sorry What I was going to ask is 1 what firewall soft works on win95 2 how to modify boot image i made from 95's startup disk to work like Win2K's boot - with the prompt to press any key to run bootloader or time out in few seconds and goto/skip to hard disk? Because using original 95 floppy image is pointless in making bootable Win95 CD since it will always load it automatically and end up on the "A:\ " prompt... /edit again/ I want to include USB directly in installation too I noticed that Win95 searches for uhcd.sys and usbd.sys in precopy1.cab - if i add them to the cab (and update its byte size in installation infs of course etc) will that be a problem since it will be rather large for a 'floppy cab', also what reg entries do i need to add as well? and what about openhci.sys and possibly vfwwdm32.dll (which i noticed someone smart added to package for unofficial usb update)? And about USB - I dont know why installing USB supplement from companin disc doesnt automatically install drivers for "PCI USB", I have to manually select it and navigate it to the usbd.sys and uhcd in windows folders for it to become the "Standard Universal USB Host..." in the device manager, otherwise it stays in the yelllow question mark as "PCI USB". Is it because I removed something too many from installation? Somehow I don't remember doing it manually in the past when I used "full" unmodified Win95 installations...

I have to admit I was stupid when I was avoiding NT4 (for personal uses / home computers). I used to always go with W2K (customized often to the needs of the person or machine constraints) or Win9x, until I had to do complete NT4 set up from scratches (from reformatting hdds) . Yet I was still not recommending NT for home/personal machines, until it "grew" on me, that why bother with unstable and buggy 9x OSes on the old machines if we can use NT4 on those old computers and they will run on it perfectly Unless someone still plays the old games and really need Win9x/DOS, on a personal level I'dalways recommend NT4 or W2K to be installed, if possible. I like Win2003 too, I use one machine set as workstation-alike for myself too. I wasn't very impressed with it when it came out, but after SP1 it is excellent. However there only few things on W2K3 (as workstation) that good old W2K cannot do, thus I consider it rather wasteful resource-wise to use W2K3 instead of W2K.

Well I guess I will be joining you guys today in this thread ;-) I just got in something very old and its owner want it restored back in full shine of Windows 95 Glory Gave me its original "restore cd" by Acer, but its Chinese Traditional version and obviously I can't read it LOL useless. So here is what I did so far: Partition for W95 is just 256 MB (yes MB, not GB) then there is half gig for NT4 and 1 gig for shared space where he wants to keep his old DOS games etc. Due to limited space I figured it would be better to start customizing 95's installation to get rid of the old junk that come with it by default and he wouldn't use it anyways (IE3, Mail-News etc). That took it down to just 70MB after WIn95 completed installation. Then I installed USB supplement from Companion CD (since there is dual USB port) and drivers for all the devices. Im at 75 MB footprint ATM. I know I need to update it with Y2K stuff (w95y2k, corpupd, y2kvdhcp - have them all ready), but Im not sure what else? He probably won't use it for internet access while on W95 (thats what NT4 will be there), but still I'd like to patch it up and secure, so any input and hints are kindly welcome

Really? Just like eMachines. eMachines uses MSI too. Are you sure? Most emachines used TriGem befor they merged with Gateway. Most modern eMachines now run Intel/ Low end VIA mobos.( mine was a biostar, my brother's was a intel) This particular Packard Bell motherboard is actually... a Packard Bell motherboard (not MSI make). I found out it is a PB790 model "Anchorage", and its not upgradeable beyond 233 MHz (no hidden or special jumper settings to get more than 3x FSB speed), as well as it won't recognize CPU other than Intel-make Some stuff can be found HERE (if anyone else may ever need it too, ie latest BIOS). Also latest Intel's update (for this chipset) is recommended on Win9x/NT4, because standard windoze drivers won't enable DMA on some devices as it was in my case (DMA-enable was greyed out on one of the hard disks, but enabled on second one - on the same channel LOL ain't it stupid ). PS Im not posting link for chipset drivers because stupid Intel uses anti-leeching page scripting idiocy, so if someone needs it too - go to intel site and search for Chipset Update Utility version 3.20.1008

W2K with SP4 / IE6 / RUI1 / all updates integrated etc = 900 MB on hdd I didnt actually check how much this 'light' version of mine would have had, because i added to install disc all toys that she may need and i made it completely autoinstalling (dont forget, its for a girl...), so yeah, the 460 MB does include other crap too; AFAIR just the Sun's Java gobbles up 100+ MB itself when installed... and other 'heavy weight' crap thats incorporated in this install is .NET1... so there you go, at least 200MB just for these two. ACrobat reader IIRC is another 50 MB if not more... I guess you may be right, its not "VeryLight" as an installation, but as an OS I'm pretty sure it is, and it certainly would be well below 200 MB on its own. On the other hand, there isn't much use for such light OS without anythin else. I guess I could play with it more and make it or at least try to make it fit on a miniCDR (50-60MB) but still it would be just a proof of concept, nothing useful, aka waste of time even if i would be succesful in doing so LOL

Just an update Since the old 16-bit wifi cards working on NT4 are hard to find, and once found (ie on ebay) their owner are crazy about them ($25 for a 7 years old slow wifi card?! LOL gimme a break ) I did what I think is the best solution: I made a 'custom' Windows 2000 VeryLight version (everything stripped away and removed down to the level of NT4 but with all the updates etc) and instead of wasting $20+ on some old stinky wifi card I spent $5 instead and bought old 64MB SoDIMM RAM and installed this VeryLight W2K. It purrs same as NT4 did, but has plug'n'play support, and of course it comes with hibernation working (as any W2K would) and so on and on The footprint is just 36MB and 0.03-1% when windoze is running on its own, 460 MB of the hdd space. Not bad IMHO (edit: thats with other basic software such winrar, k-meleon browser, adobe reader, and some extras that i know this person needs - .net framework 1.1, java, etc etc). WIth total of 98MB RAM now it runs with NOD32 pretty good, it is responsive fast enough too (had to get rid of all the window animations and such since there is only 1MB of video memory). Memory footprint is au-pair with what NT4 had (30-ish MB) it only take more space on hard disk (NT4 took what, 160-180 MB or so). Im posting it as an advice to those who may be in same shoes - if you wanted NT4 on that old laptop because you didnt have enough RAM or CPU power, consider making your own Windows 2000 "light" version that will work same as NT4 just taking a bit more space on your hdd, but giving you advantages of plug'n'pray, hibernation (important on laptops IMHO) and others... Heck, even Skype runs fine on this Pentium 133 MHz old junk (I just tested it with 802.11b D-Link DWL-650) (no video, just talk) PS How to make your own Windows 2000 "lite" version? search for nlite (but its not as good as doing it yourself; good starting guide for those who'd want to customize their W2K in every possible way should still be HERE

No offence, but IMHO someone who can't even make a website is in no position to judge or compare any software ALl you can tell is that the 'skin' or layout of non-adjustable bars/buttons is more preferable to your liking in Opera than in Firefox, thats probably all...

Well, live'n'learn... until I read your post I never tried that And I never knew K-Meleon don't go above 32 tabs and then overwrites the last one, I guess I never noticed that before LOL However, another surprise I just learned too it doesn't use any more memory than what it loaded once started, hmm... My memory load was 45% and after 32 tabs opened (about half of them youtube bookmarks from my group) it is still 45% Good lizard, hehe screencap:

jaclaz, you are right about different version of this card model. I found mine to be revision P1, while the drivers for NT4 that I found are for revision A - however those drivers are not listed as NT drivers on dlink site either (none of the cards has any mention of NT driver compatibility at all), I used them only after I found some post on one of the million boards I read earlier that this 98-ME-2K driver in particular is for NT4 as well (and indeed it displays nice "D-Link Wireless 11Mbit drivers for Windows NT" message when installing and has a very well described step by step info just for NT4 in ReadMe). God how I hate this laptop already Its CD drive doesn't read CD-RWs (thank god it is able to read CD-Rs at least LOL) and of course I didn't have any blank CD-Rs (and its a CD-only, not a CD-DVD combo), so I had no other way to transfer any files to this junk but to set up direct connection with my computer; took me good half an hour to solder DB-9 connectors and setup null modems, and to transfer the drivers painfully slow from my computer to that laptop just to learn its not for this card, thanks god I don't have any hammer at hand or I'd really use it on this piece oif crap I can't believe people could design such "deaf'n'blind" portable computer without built-in modem, or ethernet, or infrared at least I can imagine wifi was probably very expensive back then to include, but god - not even an infrared?! Shame on Acer engineers /edit/ sorry for the rant, but I m so p***ed. Im going to repartition the drive, install 98 on second part just to have wifi working there, and install NT on the other partition so she could use it 'normally' (without crashes) for now. In the meantime Im going to search for some old used 16-bit wifi card with NT drivers for $5 or less

My friend got an old laptop 133MHz / 48MB RAM. It was painfully slow on Win98, and it crashed few times a day too. All she use it for is to read ebooks in bed, and listen to music, so I loaded old NT4 on it, and it work fast and stable for almost a month without a single crash (and she doesn't even turn it off, simply closes it and it goes into standby). BUT I just spent 2 hours trying to install her wifi card and Im stuck. I can't install any other card I have instead, because that old laptop has only 16-bit PCMCIA slots and my cards are 32-bit. The card is D-Link DWL-650. I can't find NT drivers for it. Installation from CD goes fine, installs ANIO and ANIWZCS services, and D-Link Air Utility. PCMCIAsees the card in socket 0 properly, but no drivers are installed (unknown.sys). Device status - No data base entry for this card. I found the NT4 driver for Intersil Prism 2 card from D-Link Australia site, which is supposedly the same card, I can add it and remove in Network/Adapters, but apparently Windows reads the card's hardware id and it doesnt use this drivers (Intersil Prism Wireless PC Card) for D-Link DWL-650 or else. What am I doing wrong? I installed WMI for NT, Visual C++ libraries, etc. libraries already (learned the 'hardway' of off the errors popping up until i eliminated them all hehe), but maybe Im still missing something I couldnt think off? Any help/input greatly appreciated /edit/ laptop doesnt have usb, modem or other built-in NIC, so this wifi card is the only way to load music & ebooks on it, and my friend dont want to go back to Win98 anymore LOL

are u through here, no1none? take your childish behavior elsewhere and beat it. go take a vacation Youre quoting my reply to a specific person. Haven't learn how to read msg board posts yet, kiddo? Then yeah, you may take that quote to yourself too

Is there any truth in that ? None what so ever. Big rumor going around is that 9x is 'DOS based' when it actually is a 32 bit OS which simply runs a DOS emulator when you see a Windows' DOS box and not a whole lot unlike NT's command.com and cmd.exe emulators. Vastly better DOS emulator on 9x but we then lack the real utility in batch files that NT's cmd.exe has - how odd a situation can it get? In NT batch, it seems all things are possible but that certainly doesn't apply to 9x batch at all. Win9x is sure enough loaded into memory from 'true' DOS mode, but once the 32 bit system is all loaded in, DOS is abandoned totally and is never to be seen again usually. We are not standing on a DOS base so much as we were just drop kicked by DOS early in the boot process - that's a vastly different scenario. NT then just left out the DOS mode beginning and went straight for the 32 bit drop kicker at boot up. Win3.1 was DOS based however, - the true, so-called "enhanced GUI for DOS". Im no expert, I won't argue. But I was always under impression from Microsoft's own statements, that the 95/98/ME are "DOS-based Windows" and 2000/XP/2003/Vista/2008 are "NT-based Windows". Confusing it is, as Master Yoda would say As last as it works its all good, who cares even if it is 32-bit extension for a 16-bit kernel.