Jump to content

billtodd

Member
  • Content Count

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    $0.00 

Everything posted by billtodd

  1. Thanks for the thought, but I've tried several over the years and found that not being able to use Explorer itself was a minor annoyance (aside from a few quirks exhibited by the potential replacements). This seems like such a basic flaw that there MUST be a simple work-around which I just haven't yet found - at worst, some Registry modification that would prevent it from doing what it so clearly doesn't need to. I don't remember checking to see whether XP exhibited the same flaw; if not, that would be an option, though if I'm going to leave Win2K - in whole or at least in part - it might mak
  2. As a stubborn decade-plus Win2K user I'm starting to consider upgrading to Win 8 (or possibly Win 7: I'm not a fan of the 'improved' UI in Win 8) in order better to future-proof my Windows activities for the NEXT decade or so. One of the long-standing annoyances I have with Win2K is contributing to this decision, in part because it's also annoying that I've never been able to fix it. When expanding a directory in the left-hand Explorer pane in Win2K it processes subdirectories at the rate of around 20 per second, which means that it can take well over a minute just to expand the left-hand pa
  3. Sorry I didn't notice this earlier. I'm still running Avira AntiVir (free version) and getting updates for Win2K (can't say how long that will last, but my impression is that they're not going to stop until they need to for some reason). Version 10.0.0.648 was I think the last one I installed but after subsequent update activity it now says it's 10.2.0.704 (despite the fact that it was shortly after 648, in July of last year, that Avira warned that it could no longer be installed on Win2K - so you could try installing SLIGHTLY later versions if you'd like to try AntiVir but can't find 648).
  4. Please don't apologize: I'm grateful for any insights I can get. That would have been good to know back when I arranged for my daughter's laptop to multi-boot with Win2K 3 years ago. Unfortunately, that laptop recently died so I can't try it out on that hardware. But the motherboard that's frustrating me now has an AMD 770 / SB710 chipset, not an nVidia one, so I thought that the only nVidia support I needed was the graphics drivers - though am certainly willing to try out the above nVidia chipset drivers if you think they might help in some way. The latest nVidia graphics driver I know of
  5. My board (770 + SB710) has no integrated video, so no integrated video support on its install DVD. Also, the cards I'm using are nVidia (just in case yours were ATI). Just looking for possible differences as possible clues (or grasping at straws). Tried it. No difference. Tried running AMD's driver detector/downloader, but (naturally) it doesn't want to run on Win2K. Haven't been able to find any AMD drivers for this chipset that claim to run on Win2K (which seems odd given that Win2K was supported for about 3 years after this chipset came out - and for that matter while the board's inst
  6. No, and it was certainly a reasonable idea - but it turns out that nothing useful appears when you show hidden devices either (nor does it on XP before the driver has been installed and magically caused the Display Adapter to appear in DM). So for this particular board XP and Win2K act the same (not seeing any Display Adapter) UNTIL you try to install the appropriate driver, at which point XP installs the driver (whether it be for the GeForce 210 or the 6200LE) and all becomes well while on Win2K the driver either refuses to install (for the 210, saying that no suitable device is present) or i
  7. Thanks for the additional ideas. Speccy (1.06, apparently the last version to support Win2K) can't see the 6200LE at all (nor the on-board audio hardware, for which I didn't bother installing the driver this time around). Perhaps it can only see devices that have a driver installed - its only entry under 'graphics' is the generic Vgasave support. UnknownDeviceIdentifier found both the 6200LE and the on-board audio hardware, with a red background for both (perhaps its way of saying that no driver is present, but at least it can see the card - only the fact that Win7 could also see it during it
  8. Thanks for the speedy response - but I'm not sure which BlackWingCat drivers you're referring to. As I noted, the chipset drivers on the board's installation CD appeared to install just fine on Win2K (including a top-of-the-screen title indicating that they were installing for Win2K, not something later), and the driver file dates are 2007, which is I think later than anything that the Win2K installation (basic HFSLIP 1.7.9) would have provided during the Win2K install. Unless the board's installation CD's top-level autorun.exe facility (which does run on XP but not on Win2K) installs somethi
  9. Me again, with another question regarding the above. I just purchased a very inexpensive Socket AM3 board (mostly to have a spare) - the first MB I've bought in a long time that wasn't nVidia-based but rather on AMD 770 / AMD SB710 - an ECS IC780M-A2 (V1.0A). The Win2K installation seemed to go fine, but when I attempted to install the nVidia 197.45 graphics driver for the GIGABYTE GV-N210SL-1GI GeForce 210 it claimed that no suitable video card was present (I had just successfully installed this driver for that card on a Win2K installation on another MB, so this was unexpected). At that poin
  10. Since a quick search didn't reveal any answer to this, could you confirm that the statement above applies to the new (a-series FM1 and AM3+) motherboards as well as the earlier AMx ones? The Web sites for at least some FM1 boards don't seem to include drivers for anything prior to XP (nor does the AMD site), and for an integrated GPU one might expect drivers beyond what's available in the Win2K distribution to be required. Thanks.
  11. Thanks for such a clear and complete explanation. The main reason I questioned whether 2286198 actually superseded 967715 was because the Microsoft 'replaces' information for the former did not appear to recognize that it superseded the latter (nor did the descriptions of the problems addressed appear similar). I would have taken a closer look at what was going on had I not assumed that the question could be answered off the top of someone's head, so apologies (and further appreciation) if you had to do more than that. It surprised me that 2286198 was itself superseded without any mention in
  12. billtodd

    Windows Updates

    I posed what may be a stupid question at WildBill's petool topic but on reflection wondered whether I should have posed it here. In bristols' Win2KSP4 update list 2286198 is said to supersede 967715, but a cursory examination suggests that the latter deals with autorun/autoplay functionality while the former does not seem to have anything to do with that - nor apparently claims to supersede any of the previous patches in that area. Could this be an error, or did WildBill simply include additional stuff that would make it correct, or am I missing something really obvious? Thanks, - bill Edit:
  13. Thanks for the speedy response. I understand what 2286198 does, it's just not clear to me that this also addresses what 967715 fixes (i.e., that the assertion that the former supersedes the latter is correct: that assertion appears in bristols' Win2K SP4 update list, so - as I said - forgive me if this is not the right place to ask about it). - bill
  14. A cursory look at 2286198 as superseding 967715 leaves me wondering whether it really does (the latter dealing with autorun/autoplay functionality and the former not obviously having anything to do with that - nor apparently claiming to supersede any of the previous patches in that area). Rather than spend more time trying to analyze this, I'm willing to risk implying what may be a stupid question here (because you presumably can answer it off the top of your head). Please forgive me if I should have posed it somewhere else Thanks, - bill
  15. The data clusters of a FAT32 volume can be arbitrarily aligned on a disk using available (often free) tools. The explanation below describes using them on old-style MBR partition formats (where the first partition on the disk normally starts at sector offset 63 and logical cylinders are normally defined as comprising 255 heads covering tracks of 63 sectors apiece) for those who may want to multi-boot among both older and newer systems (the newer systems and third-party software can usually be tweaked to honor the old format, but older software often cannot be used without risk on disks using
  16. Please forgive my vague memory about this (and my laziness in not refreshing it by running tests), but I may have had a similar problem after having updated the contents of \HF (in order to prune entries that had been superseded by post-1.7.9 patches) and then running the result with the 1.7.9 command file (I'm sure that doing so resulted in problems running the resulting .iso image from CD, where the size of the target 500 GB SATA drive got reported as 131 GB and the existing partitions on the drive were all reported as corrupt). Clearly, removing those superseded patches (but leaving out the
  17. The Data area is after the FAT tables, so the size of the FAT Tables can affect the alignment. This is why the Partition size is important. So for FAT partitions there is NOT any fixed offset to the first cluster, and one would either need to use a standard partition size (for which that offset had been determined previously) or create the partition, check the offset, and then recreate it at a 'cylinder' boundary which would cause that offset to create aligned multiple-of-4KB clusters. (A complementary approach could tweak the partition size to affect the offset, I suppose - though since eac
  18. Yes. But Partition Size is also a factor. If the partition start location is set such that the file system clusters (as long as they're multiples of 4 KB in size) will be 4KB-aligned on the disk, then unless there's some other non-file-structured system data that gets frequently written I would think that where the partition ended wouldn't matter (i.e., if it ended at some odd boundary the file system simply would leave the final few sectors that were insufficient to create another cluster unused - just as it has always done). I don't understand HOW anything could be broken as long as one us
  19. Thanks for replying. Actually DOS 7 and Windows 9x can support 4KB Sector Drices WITHOUT 512 Byre Emulation with the proper modifications. I was attempting to ascertain whether merely positioning partition start locations strategically on 4 KB sector drives that DO support 512-byte-sector emulation would be sufficient to allow several legacy operating systems of interest installed within those partitions without any modification (or special formatting) to suffer no significant performance degradation (e.g., to avoid almost all read/modify/write sequences caused by the larger sector size) - a
  20. I usually don't because it doesn't work 3/4 of the time I try it. But tried it now and got the name of the software and was able to download it (under WSC it's called "WSC Guard", under McAfee it's called "McAfee Wireless Security"). Such are things when most of the references just say "here's the link" or "google this and you'll find it". Doesn't work too well if it's not current. If anyone else finds this software, you have to click "Disable Authentication" to be able to use the free mode of the software, which is the WPA networking part. I also found an open source project called "WPA Su
  21. I read only the first page of your link above, but it did contain a link to multibooters.co.uk which contains a link to http://support.microsoft.com/kb/931854 (describes only losing a Vista partition after using XP to add a new one, but I'm pretty sure that there's another somewhere that describes - IIRC - losing all old-style logical partitions after a new one created with Vista/Win7).
  22. Is it possible just to choose appropriate partition starting locations to get pre-Vista systems to work well with 4 KB sector drives, as long as they emulate 512-byte sectors (as I'd kind of expect them to do for a long time, at least as an option, if disk manufacturers don't wish to kiss the legacy aftermarket good-bye)? E.g., for the normal case where traditional partitions are based on fictitious 'cylinder' boundaries (512-byte sectors plus the fictitious 255 heads and 63-sector tracks - i.e., 16065-sector 'cylinders' each a bit under 8 MiB; old Thinkpads and perhaps other systems used 240
  23. tommyp - Indeed, you keep a running changelog in the first post of this thread. The fact that this thread is specifically directed at 'test releases', and the fact that its first entry starts with the statement "These versions are test builds and are pretty much stable. As usual, use them at your own risk", and the fact that it then redirects people (twice) to the 1.7.8 release, pretty much ensures that anyone looking only for base functionality rather than for the latest bells and whistles will first check out the 1.7.8 release and if it appears to offer the facilities they need look no fart
  24. Got distracted for a while by real life, but I did mean to get back to the problems I was describing in the Windows Update topic. It turns out that they don't seem to occur (though I did switch test machines too) when using the 1.7.9 S release rather than the nominally stable 1.7.8 release (I did mention at one point that I was using that release, but perhaps not prominently enough). Since HFSLIP.org encourages people to report problems in the forums here I did so; since I was using the stable release rather than a test release, I did so in what appeared to be the appropriate topic. It might
  25. I never did get Win98SE to awaken from standby with this board but the problem here does not involve that - just letting the monitor power down after some period of inactivity (which I've never had any problem with in Win98SE elsewhere, and which it would do even on this board with the MX 4000 as long as the refresh rate was not set to 'optimal'). - bill
×
×
  • Create New...