bphlpt

cluberti is a respected member here with much experience. Hopefully he will be able to help you solve your problem quicker than we can. Cheers and Regards

StartIsBack and Classic Shell can both be used at the same time to give you the best of all options and configurability, IMO Cheers and Regards

As far as I can tell, you both agree that Ultra DMA 2 has a maximum transfer rate of 33.3 MB/s, so it doesn't seem that Ultrs DMA 4 is needed for CD/DVD use. Cheers and Regards

And Michael Shrieve doing "Soul Sacrifice" 40 years after Woodstock, with his current band Spellbinder. The man can still play. Cheers and Regards

Soul Sacrifice - Santana Feat. Michael Shrieve The Legendary Drum Solo - one of the best of all time The original - Woodstock - 1969: (Sorry this isn't a YouTube link, but due to copyrights, YouTube links get taken down. DrummerWorld has an official licensed copy [that you can download if you wish]. ) http://www.drummerworld.com/Videos/michaelshrievewood.html Another version from a Santana performance at Tanglewood - 1970/08/18 Cheers and Regards

:thumbup Cheers and Regards

In addition to the link you provided, another very excellent source of service info is Black Viper's x86 XP SP3. Black Viper also has suggested service settings for all Windows OS from Win2K through Win8. (He has been around a long time and is well known.) In addition to the various suggestions and tools available on his site, his recommendations have even been incorporated into a tool to set all the service settings up for you to either his Safe, Tweaked, or BareBones settings with just a single step. That free tool is SMART. It works with XP, Vista and Win7. Just another option. Cheers and Regards

Where was this - http://reboot.pro/82/ - supposed to go? Cheers and Regards

LOL Don't worry jaclaz, I was not aiming any criticism whatsoever at you. You notice I did not say "What someone should have told the OP from the beginning is ...", but rather "snoopy55 would have loved to have had this as the first response". I know that others gave partial or unrelated responses, I just said "No one gave snoopy55 incorrect information". I very fully realize that you and every other member of this board who try to answer questions posed on this board do so freely, voluntarily, out of the goodness of your heart, to the best of your ability, and with all good intentions. I recognize that the teaching method of giving enough information and hints for the student to discover the answer for himself, along with the why and how it works, is the best method for the student to truly learn not only the answer, but how to apply it to other problems. Your and Ponch's fictional examples also compare well to what happened in this thread. (Except that I know that you can't use nails to hold a steel plate on concrete walls ) I summarized the most important aspects of the thread for my own convenience if for no one else's. I guess it came off sounding like "we should remember not everyone knows the 'obvious' things we know", which, while that is good to remember, is not the only lesson in this thread. Another very important point is that the student should remember that if they are having a problem, it is just as likely they are doing something wrong as it is that they don't know what to do. If they are doing something wrong, then what they think they know or believe, or what they have done in the past, might not be correct either. When the teacher asks "Why do you believe _____?" or "Why do you want to do that?" or "You usually are not able to do that." there are usually very good reasons that they say that. All the best teachers I have seen ask questions to both draw out information so they can tell what the real problem is, and to make the student think and analyze the problem for themselves. In the end, that is what happened here and snoopy55 finally discovered his mistake. Could someone have laid all the information out for him in the first response? Yes. Could he have supplied more information himself at the beginning? Yes. Could he have accepted our response without question? Yes, but as you said, there was some partial and unrelated info given. It is also, I believe, human nature when given a response or instructions that fly in the face of what you are seeing with your own eyes to question or not believe the response. Until, that is, you learn you have been looking in the wrong place. Anyway, in the end the OP got his answer and learned something, so all is well. Cheers and Regards

Love ELP, and Jerusalem. But that version sounded pretty scratchy. This one sounded a little clearer to me. Cheers and Regards

Well, he admitted later (which we had no way of knowing) that his knowledge of virtual memory was practically nil, and also hadn't realized that in order 'To view the Pagefile.sys file along with checking "Show hidden files and folders" you must also uncheck "Hide protected operating system files (Recommended)"', (yes, MS didn't make it easy/obvious for the uninformed user to see, but it's a rather important file, so that's to be expected), so to give snoopy55 the benefit of the doubt, if I had been in his place I would probably have believed the Control Panel as well. He didn't see anything (but it's supposed to be virtual, right?), he didn't get any errors, everything "worked", performance was good, so with the knowledge he had about pagefiles/virtual memeory why shouldn't he have believed what the Control Panel told him? No one gave snoopy55 incorrect information, but without having it all together at once, his experience of what he was seeing with his eyes contradicted what he was being told. As a person new to this aspect of Windows, I guess that snoopy55 would have loved to have had this as the first response to his original post: So, You should look to see where the Pagefile.sys actually is. ['To view the Pagefile.sys file along with checking "Show hidden files and folders" you must also uncheck "Hide protected operating system files (Recommended)"'] Be aware that there is a bug in 32bit XP such that: AFAIK, in order for a location to be used as virtual memory/pagefile, a Pagefile.sys file must exist there regardless if the pagefile is actively being used at that time or not. Please confirm where any Pagefile.sys files are located anywhere on your system and get back to us if you still have any questions. At which point snoopy55 would have probably said "Ohhh. Thank you very much, my mistake. LOL " and gone on his way and this would have been a three post thread. But without all the ruckus that was raised, I, for one, would have most likely skipped over this thread and it would not have made the impression on me that it has in its present form. So I still say "Thank You" to snoopy55 for having raised the issue, even though I'm very sorry that the discussion got so heated and that anyone's feelings were hurt. EDIT: By the way, I noticed in snoopy55's pics that he had set the minimum/maximum settings for his Kingston pagefile slightly differently, ie 1023/1024 MB. I believe that the accepted practice, if you are not going to have them set automatically, is to set them to the same value, ie 1024/1024MB. But I could be wrong. Cheers and Regards

And yet another "one last point" ... @snoopy55, I don't know if jaclaz, or anyone, knew that 32bit XP would "allow" you to choose a non-valid drive for the paging file and then outright LIE to you about where it actually was, leading you to your mistaken impression that started this whole thread. I sure didn't know that. jaclaz was correct in post #9 when he stated that 'A "normal" MS NT based OS won't allow having a pagefile on an "external" disk, let alone a "removable" one.', then Ponch came the closest to your situation in post #13 when he actually tried what you had done and then said "all 4 volumes (2 on the HDD) appear in Virtual Memory settings, but ... there is no new file on that key". But yet no one came out and said that what is shown in the Virtual Memory settings control panel is not guaranteed to be accurate. I'm sure if anyone who responded to this thread knew that they would have said so and cleared things up long ago. So as it is, regardless of how argumentative the thread became, I believe we all owe you thanks for helping us all learn something. At least I do. Cheers and Regards

On the first page of this thread, the second post, you should find a link for Adobe Flash 9.0.283.0, which is what I think you want, AFAIK. Cheers and Regards

@geneticplasma, I know you have given very specific instructions on how to replicate the Orb detach bug every time you do it, so I'm sure it is real. (How you ran across this bug I don't know, since double clicking the Orb has never done anything but open and immediately close the Start Menu in all versions of Windows that I am aware of so I don't know why you would do it, but that's besides the point.) But no one else seems to be able to reproduce it, especially not Tihiy. Until he can, he has no way to try and fix it. Since I have not seen the bug I'm having a hard time visualizing what exactly happens when the bug occurs. Is there any possible way you can make a screen capture video showing what exactly you do and the effect of the bug? The request for this is not to prove that the error occurs, I believe you, but it will help demonstrate the effect and it might trigger some ideas of what is causing it and how to fix it for Tihiy. I'm just trying to help make this tool perfect and bulletproof. Cheers and Regards

But many people will not like the fact that Julie Larson-Green has taken his place. Cheers and Regards

It's been awhile since I've used, or looked at, 98SE2ME. According to it's page on MGDX's site it's last been updated Dec 14, 2011. Are there any changes necessary to using it with the latest version of SP3.x? Cheers and Regards

Yep. Everyone probably knows "that guy" who always uses green ink, etc. LOL Cheers and Regards

One of the old classics. Thanks Larry!

Regarding MS Runtimes, you might be interested in checking out some of the threads over at RyanVM's forum for a history lesson and examples of the type of Runtime Packs that have been put together by others for XP. (They were done for Win2K first, but I'll leave the history search for them as an exercise for the reader. ) Some of the earlier Runtime Packs for XP started as MS Runtimes only but grew to include other Runtimes to avoid the dreaded "This program needs blah.dll to run" prompts. They began to be published at RyanVM's in the early 2000's. The two most well known ones were done by RogueSpear (No longer maintained and deleted from the forum years ago) and Kelsenellenelvian (Kel ended up taking out the MS Runtimes from his Runtime Pack about a year and a half ago. but more on that in a bit). Then code65536 posted his pack specifically for MS Runtimes only in July 2007. But code65536 is notorious for staying away from the forums for LONG periods of time every so often, so in one of his absences, YumeYao picked up the ball and published his version of code65536's pack in September 2010. YumeYao's pack became so stable, well respected, and regularly updated as required, that Kel dropped the files from his own pack that were in the one made by YumeYao and suggested people use the two packs together - YumeYao's for the MS Runtimes and Kel's for the other non-MS Runtimes. Then YumeYao graduated from University and got a job so he has not had as much time as he used to have to participate in the forums and project development. So in December of 2011 Ricktendo64 began updating YumeYao's pack in YumeYao's thread, but he did not update the first post in the thread. After doing this until May 2012, Rick then started his own threads for the pack maintenance over at Wincert, first the original VB/VC++ type, then expanded that to an AIO that also includes VC++ 2012, F# and J# Runtimes and is also applicable to at least Vista and Win7 as well as XP and perhaps others. So what does this have to do with Win98 and SP3? Nothing directly, but it shows that for many years many people have found it useful to include multiple versions of various non-conflicting Runtimes in their OS builds for convenience so they are ready to run the various apps that might require them. There are different valid opinions about Runtimes. Some want to only include the ones they actually use, others like to have all they can have so they are always prepared. (Guess which camp I'm in. LOL) Admittedly, even YumeYao began to separate the VC1 and VB1-4 Runtimes out into a separately available legacy pack since they were most useful to those running older software, but I figure that anyone running Win98 is also likely to be running older software so... Anyway, it's up to you, my friend, to do what you think is best for you and your users.

But that's the thing about runtimes. Certain, admittedly poorly written, apps require a specific version of a particular runtime. You see this with versions of VB, VC++ (which is why all of the 2005, 2008, and 2010 versions continue to be updated as required and are usually all installed if any of them are needed), not to mention the worst offender .NET (in XP you can have 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 all installed and potentially need all of them depending on what other apps you are running - you can even need v1.0 for a very specific case). So anyway, if you think you are going to need any version of the VB runtimes, you usually install all of them. Besides, if I remember right they are rather small. Cheers and Regards

I would vote yes, but you know me. Cheers and Regards

Many Thanks, Larry! An unexpected treat! (And I've always loved Steve Martin.)

MSPAINT.EXE 5.00.1523.1 Thanks PROBLEMCHYLD, but I'm still a little confused. I usually find that MDGX's site links to the newest version of a file unless there is an issue with either compatibility, features removed in newer versions, or something like that, and I don't see any of those things mentioned at the link you provided. But it must be something like that if the newer 5.00.1740.1 is included with 98ES and you and MDGX are promoting the use of an older version. Is it the Paint Graphic Filters (FLT)? Are they in the 5.00.1523.1 version and not in 5.00.1740.1? Can they not be added to the newer version? It also seems odd to me if there are extra features in the older, smaller, version that are not in the newer, larger, one. I'm not doubting you at all, I'm just trying to get it straight in my head. Very sorry for the noob questions and taking you away from your more important activities, but thank you, my friend, for your patience with me. Cheers and Regards

Please forgive my confusion, and sorry I missed it, but what was the reason for deciding to use the older version of Paint please? (5.00.1523.1 vs 5.00.1740.1) A link to the explanation will be fine if this was already explained. Cheers and Regards

Yes, MGDx's site is a huge, glorious, overwhelming, complicated, confusing, mess of a treasure trove. (No offense meant. ) If you need it, it is likely there. But finding it and ensuring that there is either not something else you need as well, or which of some of the various choices is the best one to use, has always driven me crazy. Cheers and Regards