Sfor

According to my measurements, the bindings in the Windows 2000 systems do not affect the network efficiency. The speed server is answering is practicaly the same with both TCP/IP and NetBeui protocols. So, the exclusion of some protocols from the Microsoft services does affect the network security, only.

I know nothing about the default protocol setting in the Windows 2000 professional. Please tell me where I can find this option. According to my measurements there is no significant difference in speed when using different protocols in Windows 2000. So, setting one protocol as the default one seems to be of no importance to the network efficiency in this case. I've tested all available combinations. The results were quite intersting. It seems the NetBeui is the fastest protocol on Windows 98. The TCP/IP is handled significantly slower. In case more than one protocol is binded with the Microsoft Networking, there are setups resulting with multiple times slower network response. The tests were made using the same client computer with two operating systems on it. The Ethernet connection settings were exactly the same. The only possible differences could be found in driver settings as Windows 98 and 2000 had different driver version sets installed. So, different protocol sets and network services bindings were tested with exactly the same driver settings. There is no simple file sharing in the windows 2000 professional, as far as I know. Also, a 120MB file was not pulled from the server. The whole data set does take about 0.5GB. The tested operation makes thousands of seqential reads from multiple data files. The total amout of data transmitted from the server is about 120MB. Also, the database is based on Clarion Top Speed (TPS) format. So, the server could be considered as just a plane NAS device with no SQL related software on it.

One of my clients has a problem with an application. The time necesary to generate a report takes a few minutes, at least. The idea was to replace the server with something stronger, but I decided to test a few things, first. So, I begun from comaring server efficiency with OpenFiler Linux. But, in the process I've noticed a few interesting facts. The server is Windows 2000 professional. The amount of memory is sufficient to buffer all the application data stored on the hard drive. So, the hard drive speed is not important, here. The client computer is a dual Windows 98, Windows 2000 system, so it is possible to test the speed of the same task in both systems. The application tested reads about 120MB of data in a huge amount of small read operations from the server. The first run takes about 10 minutes, when the server does not have all the data buffered in RAM. Results. Windows 98 with TCP/IP protocol only - about 6 minutes. Windows 2000 no matter what protocol is used - about 5,5 minutes. Wndows 98 with NetBeui protocol only - about 5 minutes. Windows 98 with more than just one protocol - from 6 to 21 minutes!?! It looks like, when there are more than just one protocol binded with the Microsoft Networking, Windows 98 networking can work several times slower. I'm not sure, how the default protocol setting is related to this issue. As, I was unable to find any good explanation or consistent results in this matter. The conclusions are: - The fastest setup is to bind just NetBeui with Microsoft Networking. - If the TCP/IP is necesary to use with the Microsoft Neworking, it is beter not to use the NetBeui with it. Somehow, I was unable to observe the reduced network speed when both TCP/IP and NetBeui are binded with Microsoft Networking and the default protocol is set to TCP/IP. But, there is no good proof such a combination works with full speed all the time.

According to the knowledge I've collected, the Intel Application Accelerator gives Windows 98 an ability to work with the large hard drives without a proper BIOS support and without EDSI_506.pdr patch. One of my computers with I815 chipset is correctly working with such a drive, when the BIOS does not allow to access the higher partitions under DOS. The same rule applies for Windows 2000 system, as well. In this particular case the BIOS support is faulty through cutting the hard drive size down to the 137GB. From the practical point of view the DOS does not see partitions above the 137GB limit, while working correctly with the lower placed partitions. The EDSI_506.pdr update could be replaced either with Intel Application Accelerator or with proper VIA IDE controller chipset driver. In other cases EDSI_506.pdr update is a must. Also, only the Intel Application Accelerator seems to be able to work correctly without the proper BIOS support.

The newer operating systems do have a significantly better power management abilities. So, Windows 98 is not a particulary good choice for mobile computers. I strongly doubt in it's ability to take the central stage. Personaly, I'm preferring to use Xandros when working without the power adaptor, as it seems to work longer on the battery power. I'm using Windows 98 when I do have an external power attached, or when I need to troubleshoot some ethernet network related problems.

The built in card reader is an USB device as well. It is possible to boot the system from it the same way as from other USB devices. The SD cards are treated by BIOS the same way as pen drives. So, they are mounted as hard drives, and can be partitioned. Still, the built in BIOS flash routine does not seem to be able to use it.

That's not exactly the case, as we were referring to the built in card reader. In any case it was a plane 2GB SD card, as far as I know.

Well. I did update the BIOS to 10.06, but I've encountered a few difficulties on the way. - The built in Alt-F2 update procedure does not support SD card USB devices. A pen drive is necesary. - The Alt-F2 procedure have stuck on Reading 900.ROM message. I had to power the computer down. It could be related to the fact I've used a 16GB pen drive with two partitions on it. - Everything went fine when I've used AFUDOS.EXE flash update utility. - The bios defaults had to be restored after the flash update. - It looks like the BIOS update procedure triggered the battery charging on, as well.

Looks like my log file is significantly shorter. eeectl_0.2.4_on_W98_SE_SP2.1b.zip

I think I do understand how to handle the Dependancy Walker, now. It appears the CoWaitForMultipleHandles functions is not available in the OLE32.DLL.

The Dependency Walker complains about APPHELP.DLL and USERENV.DLL files missing, after loading EeeCtl. I have no experience with the Dependency Walker. So, it will take me some time to figure out more in this case.

I've been using the Intel INF update utility 6.3.0.1007 for quite a time, already. There are no GPU drivers in it, but the chipset related drivers. A BIOS version 10.06 was released. There were some changes to CPU fan speed functions and CPU temperature related events reporting functions. Still, I had no opportunity to test it yet, as I'm working with 09.06 BIOS version. I've heard some older BIOS versions had an option to manually set fan speed and energy saving strategies. My EEE PC 900 scored a whole year of service, just recently. Still, I see no suitable replacement candidate between the new models on the market. Looks like it is the only one below 1kg with SSD and screen resolution 1024x600. I'm a bit busy with other projects, but I'll add the eeectl to the list.

Yes, I did. The DNS was not working for me, at first. But, now it is working as expected. I'm not receiving any E-Mail notifications, however.

I've sent the IP, but I do not know if just one IP will be enough. As, I do not know how the DNS servers of my Internrt services provider are working. Also, I'm curious, if I will be able to receive E-Mail notifications.

The old problem is back, I suppose. I have to use the proxy server, again. Is it really necesary to block the whole country IP range?

It doesn't seem to be working in my case. All I can see is something like an error message with just one word "Arial" in it. But, I did not try the KernelEX, yet.

What particular driver kit do you have on your mind? Also, I've noticed the DOS mode Ethernet driver I've used so far has an importand disadvantage. When the CPU gets hoter, the network speed gets slower. Apparently, the CPU speed goes down, when it gets hoter. Since the DOS mode driver consumes a lot of CPU power, the network speed is affected as well. Funny thing is the problem is visible with the inbound traffic, only. The outbound traffic seems to be working as usual.

Well. The program works. But, a batch made that way is hardly a portable one. Also, I made my own program in Borland Pascal. The resulting EXE file is just a half size of a COM made by C compler. Program Beep; uses CRT; var Tone,Duration: Word; Check: Integer; begin if ParamCount<=2 then begin Writeln; Writeln ('BEEP Frequency Duration'); Writeln; Writeln (' Frequency - Hz'); Writeln (' Duration - mS'); Writeln; Tone:=800; Duration:=1000; end else begin VAL (ParamStr(1),Tone,Check); VAL (ParamStr(2),Duration,Check); end; Sound (Tone); Delay (Duration); NoSound; end.

I wouldn't say it is a ding.wav like sound. It's rather the sound generated when a wrong key is pressed. It's more a tick than a soud. So, it's hardly audible and hardly useful.

It says the application performed an illegal operation (or something like that, since I'm working with a polish version of Windows 98).

I've been trying to make a beep by using batch file in a DOS window of 95/98 system. All I could get was a very short sound same as the Windows error condition sound. Without GUI everything is working as it should to, but in DOS window the PC Speaker sounds are less than audible.

The Go-OO 2.4 OpenOffice release does support the Microsoft XML formats from the package, and it works in Windows 98 without the KernelEX.

I've been told by the support stuff member, their qualified certificates will not work on Windows 98, because of some fault in the system verification procedures. On the other hand qualified certificates from a different authority are working correctly. I've tested the same certificate is not verified correctly on Windows 98, while everything works fine on Windows 2000. I would like to know, what differences in the certificate verification systems are in Windows 98 and 2000? And possibly, if there is some way to make Windows 98 certificate verification services to work the same way as in Windows 2000. --------------------- I have found some informations the problem is related to UTF8 coding problems in Windows 98.

The newest ffdshow codec does not support Windows 98, any more. The status should be changed from ONGD to LAST.

I can not remind the Pablo, while the Gape nick name is still in use. After posting a few comments about Unofficial Service Pack Plus, I tried to keep away from the flames. There was no point in arguing with people preferring quantity over the quality, I believe.