Sfor

The LFNDOS appears to work correctly. But, ARJ can not handle file names with ANSI characters properly. ARJ32 is needed to do so, as it is not possible to translate all ANSI characters from ANSI to OEM and back. I'm curious how the LFNDOS will handle the ANSI characters. --------------- edit ----------- Yes, I was right. It is not possible to backup and restore files with some ANSI codes in their names. Just an example: Might and Magic® IX On the other hand LFNDOSMS seems to handle all Polish national characters correctly. So, it can be a very good tool, indeed. This new possibility makes another dilema. I was using the LFN DOS extension service detection routine to check for Windows GUI running. It was enough to run ARJ32 safely, then. But the LFNDOS made a new condition possible. I mean, LFN DOS extension can be available without windows GUI running, and ARJ32 can not work in such a case. Now I need to find a way to detect the the Windows GUI running from a 16 bit DOS application, directly. And I have no idea, how to do it.

I'm using 3 Windows 98 computers in my LAN. Every one is fitted with IE and Firefox and/or Opera. The challenge is to take controll over the Favourite WEB pages links in such an enviroment. An automated way to synchronise favourite links across browsers and LAN is quite a task. It is not an urgent task for me, but I'm considering it to be useful in the future.

What can I say? To put it simply, WGET works as expected. The only downside is, it is not a part of the Windows OS, so I have to keep the EXE with the script. In my particular case it is not a problem. However it can be a problem in some other cases. I'm satisfied with the current solution, for now.

I've been playing with the FreeDOS last time, when it was in the beta stage still. It did not supported LFN, then. I'm unable to download the FreeDOS 1.0 ISO image. So, I can not play a bit with the newest version. But, did the FDOS kernel changed so much, so it is supporting LFN, now. As, the base distribution does not have drivers to support LFN, apparently. Also, I found no reference to the LFN support in FDOS, so far.

It is possible to say Win9x systems are DOS based and they are not DOS based, in the same time. Everything depends on what "based" word means to the person speaking in the particular moment. There are no "real" DOS in the NT based systems, except for the emulation. It is true the DOS is used to run the Win9x kernel. The DOS is still present in the memory while the 9x OS runs. The windows has a feature to shut down the kernel and run a DOS application, without a reboot. Also, all DOS drivers loaded before Win9x kernel starts are available when it is working. Windows can use DOS supported disk access if needed, as well. So, DOS is a part of the Windows 9x design. Windows 3.xx was more DOS based for sure. All disk and network acees was done trough DOS layer drivers (except for the 32bit disk acces feature, I think). In relation to the system boot and design, Windows 9x and 3.xx are DOS based. In relation to the system kernel operations only the Windows 3.xx is DOS based, I believe. Windows NT is not DOS based, for sure. What matters in the multi CPU systems is the hardware and memory access management. And, the windows kernel is the one holding both jobs, in the 9x systems.

The VBS script can be a solution, as well, I think. But, I do not have a skill in the VBS programming. The WGET seems to be a solution, as well. It is within my batch programming skill, also. I'll look in to the WGET a bit closer.

As far as I remember, every memory block does have the access rights. Each thread does have the rights to access certain memory blocks. If a thread tries to access wrong memory block a protection fault error condition is raised by the CPU. The system core has the access rights to all memory blocks, while higher level processes do have some limits. As the system kernel keeps the best access rights, the application running on the second core would not be able to work in the same manner, I think. The memory block list is maintained by the system core. The second CPU has to have the access to the memory block list, as a CPU can not work in protected mode without it. The protected mode virtual memory block system used in Windows makes the second CPU used by another application idea looking impossible. As, the second CPU would not have the access to the memory block list.

I was using FTP to download some files from batch scripts, so far. But, recently I encountered a problem. Some files are available through HTTP, only. I'm trying to create a new script able to download files using HTTP, this time. But, I do not know what to start from. I can start an URL using START command. But, it will display a dialog asking what folder the file should be saved in. So, I need to find a way to download a file without the confirmation dialog and I need it to be saved in a particular place.

Indeed. DOS running with Windows GUI is not the same as DOS running without GUI. I would rather say, the GUI DOS is just a DOS emulation. The DOS itself can not work with multiple CPU cores. But, it could be possible to run two DOS instances on two different CPU cores. Still there is a problem dividing the system resources (ports, graphics cards and other). The DOS can not do it by itself. A multitasking multi CPU enviroment, requires some OS layer between application and hardware resources. It is necesary to divide hardware between multiple threads. The windows 9x systems do provide such a layer. One of the kernel fuctions is thread managing through dividing the CPU time between threads. All it is necesary to replace is part of the kernel with a multi CPU one. This makes a multi CPU driver idea completely wrong, as the kernel core is responsible for the multi CPU support. Drivers are working on a higher layer then the CPU support. So, I see no possible solution with a multi CPU driver. As for replacing the Windows 9x kernel with NT kernel. I think it will not work. As, the NT kernel is a completely different design. The NT kernel does have some security features on the lowest layer, this makes it completely different than 9x kernel. NT based drivers are working on a higher layer than the 9x ones, as far as I know. This makes the system more stable, as a driver can not stop the system kernel. Also, nobody mentioned a non paralel multitasking feature such as a system kernel running on one CPU with all remaining application threads running on the other CPU. This could increase the system stability mainly. The speed can go up a bit, but not very much. Also, one CPU can do all the hardware access, while the other would do the other things. With such a solution, it would not be necesary to divide system hardware between two CPU cores. The kernel core can be much simpler, that way.

Interesting. I did not know Firefox can work with windows 95. It's official requirements is Windows 98, as far as I know. On the other hand, Opera is working in Windows 95, for sure.

Indeed it does work with the Kingston USBstick 1GB flash drive, I have. On the other hand it does not work with USB external 2.5" IDE case based on Myson Century chip. Both devices are using different communication systems, I think. I was able to connect the USB HDD using DOS driver, while the Kingston flash drive was not working with the same driver.

The windows 98 does not work well with memory amount exceeding 512MB. The problem is caused by a conflict with the graphics card memory adressing, as far as I undertand the problem. It is possible to get around the 512MB memory limit, but I never did it by myself. There are topics about this particular problem, on the forum.

Some graphic card drivers do not work without the Internet Explorer 5. I think both Nvidia and Ati drivers do have such a requirement. So, it is necesary to install IE before the graphics card drivers. The Nvidia drivers do not need a NET Framework, as far as I know.

Unfortunately, this is not exactly the truth. The /custom switch tells Scandisk to use SCANDISK.INI file located in the WINDOWS\COMMAND directory. So, the /custom switch will change the way Scandisk works exactly as set in the file. By default the undo file is disabled in the SCANDISK.INI file. All other prompts are disabled, as well. The /custom switch is used by Windows during boot disk checking. If I enable the prompts in the SCANDISK.INI file, they will appear in automatic boot scans, as well. I've encountered yet another problem. The SCANDISK.BAT file is not run instead of the SCANDISK.EXE file, when a SCANDISK command is entered. I know the .BAT files were processed before .EXE files in the old DOS versions. But, now it seems to work some other way.

Opera is a great browser, indeed. It's abilities to block unwanted web contents is unmatched, to my knowledge. All I do not like in the Opera 9.21 is the problem with opening links, and the mail client. The fully patched IE 6 SP1 does seem to be much safer. But, it does have many issues, still. I've been observing numerous infections caused by unpatched IE, comming from sites that should be safe. I do believe, there is some sort of automated system attaching java downloaders to poorly secured web pages.

Bulls***. You're talking as if Firefox is vulnerable to those exploits. It isn't. The only thing you can encounter while surfing those sites is a download prompt for a file because it's an attachment to a page. Just don't download it. Erm, I think you missunderstood the point. TravisO was talking about the system networking services vulnerabilities. The idea was the safer browser as Firefox will not guarantee safety, as system can be infected through network services. This is true in case of the Windows NT based systems as Windows XP is. But, the Windows 9x systems do not have services designed for servers. So, it is much easier to make Windows 9x systems to be safe form the "direct network assaults".

This improvement should remove the "FileList.txt" file from the list created.

One has to remember a simple NAT router acts as a quite effective firewall. So, Windows XP not connected to the Internet directly is quite safe against the blaster or other threats infecting the XP system directly. Since there are 5 XP machines in your house. I do believe there is a router connecting them to the internet. The Polish branch of the CHIP magazine performed a security test on Windows XP, Vista and Linux operating systems. They connected the 3 computers through a DSL router, and left them running two weeks. And gues what they detected. The only network activity was from the automatic update systems. The NAT within the router stopped all the traffic comming from the Internet.

Well. I replaced the SCANDISK.EXE with the one I found on a Windows ME setup CD. Unfortunately, the bug still exists. When SCANDISK is about to repair the disk it asks to show where it should write the changes undo file. The possible choice is A: or "cancel undo". In both cases it wants to insert a floppy disk in the drive A:. Then it returns back to the same A: or "cancel undo" window.

Well. It is easy to say, buy a cheap NG version. But in my case we are talking about numerous computers. Buying a license for every computer would be a significant investment. On the other hand I installed my own application on all Windows 98 computers my clients are using. Some of them are in other town, as well. In certain situations I can order to restore the system by phone. Or, they can decide to do it themselves. The main reason to create such a backup system is reduction of the time needed to maintain the remote Windows 98 computers.

But, does the Windows ME have the DOS version of the SCANDISK? I'm not a Windows ME expert. But, it seems Windows ME uses GUI scandisk version, when booting.

Well. - The Norton Ghost is not free, you know. - Not every computer does have a DVD-RW device. - The backup of the whole partition can take more than just one DVD - Backup of just the system folders instead of the whole partition is much faster. - Restoration of the whole partition erases user data. It is much more convenient to restore just the system folders leaving user data unchanged. I've heard the Norton Ghost can do it, as well. But can NG do it in automatic mode? - It is possible to keep system folders backups on the same partition as the system files. System restoration option in the boot menu is a very useful feature.

There is yet another problem related to the ARJ and long file names. DOS is using OEM codepage, while the Windows runs on ANSI codepage. The Windows does convert the ANSI to OEM characters for every DOS 16 bit application. It is not possible to convert all ANSI characters to OEM and back. That's why ARJ is not able to deal with some long file names, correctly. On the other hand ARJ32 is able to store long file names using ANSI codepage. But, the ARJ32 does require windows GUI to run. So, ARJ32 will not work in "clean" DOS. The ANSI to OEM character conversion can be a quite significant problem in some languagage Windows versions.

When the DOS mode SCANDISK.EXE version finds some problems, before starting to fix anything it asks to insert a floppy disk to save changes on it. The problem is, it is not possible to continue without saving the changes. There is an option to abort the save changes to FDD procedure, but it is not working. I had no opportunity to test English language Windows 98 version. But, all Polish language Windows 98 versions do have this bug, as far as I know. If the SCANDISK was started by Windows during a boot, everything works right. But, if the SCANDISK was run from the DOS prompt, the save changes to a floppy disk is a must. I've been using a Windows 95 SCANDISK.EXE version, and it works correctly. But it is not possible to peplace the Windows 98 SCANDISK.EXE file with it, because Windows 98 uses different command switches. I do not want to replace the SCANDISK file with the English language version. I'm looking for solution I could apply on every Windows 98 running computer under my management, and there are quite many of them.

Well, the ARJ does support the long file names as long as the OS supports them. So, the ARJ can not restore long names without Windows running. In clean DOS without Windows core running there is no LFN supports, and ARJ will fail to restore long names. As a matter of fact, I'm using ARJ as well. My application does create file lists and then runs the ARJ during backup and restore jobs. So it is a sort of shell over the ARJ archiver. The file compression is not necesary for storing a copy of system folders, but it makes it much more usefull. As, it takes much less disk space and makes everything much simpler when restoring from CD.