Multibooter

I just wiped a 1.44 MB 3.5" floppy disk with it, it seems to work fine. The device is like an iron for pressing shirts, and I "ironed" a floppy for about 3 seconds on each side. Afterwards the floppy tools in my toolbox were not able to recover any data from the floppy:- Anadisk v2.10, in a Win98SE DOS window, when trying to Scan the floppy, displayed "This diskette is either blank or unreadable": - GRDuw v4.1.17 checked the disk media, then: "Unrecognized Media" - DCF v5.3, in a full-screen DOS window under Win98SE, displayed: "Address mark not found" - WinImage v8.10.8100 displayed: "Error. There is no floppy in the drive". Wiping the floppy with the Bulk Tape Eraser did not destroy the floppy, the floppy could be formatted fine again with WinImage, GRDuw and Win98 Format (but it took about 1 min until Win98 Format actually started to format). No idea how many floppies can be wiped in one batch, the device has the label "120V 5A".

In the U.S. a source of Win98-compatible software and hardware is not only ebay or amazon, but garage sales. Garage sales are an American institution. They take place usually on Saturday mornings between 7 and 12, in some areas also on Sunday, and people who want to sell their junk put it in front of their garage and place signs at street corners with arrows to their garage. Variations of garage sales are neighborhood sales, where a real estate agent organizes around 30-50 garage sales close to each other. When I have time, I enjoy going to these garage sales, asking people whether they have old computer stuff, software CDs or anything related to Windows 98. Very often people then bring out old computer stuff which they had not yet thought of selling. I usually come back from these garage sales with a couple of interesting finds related to Windows 98. I will post here some of the finds, maybe others can give an idea on whether the find was just junk or a little treasure, or what to do with the find. Another good source of Win98-related stuff are swap meets, but garage sales are more enjoyable. Example: About a year ago I bought at a garage sale for $15 a binder "Microsoft TechNet Plus CD Subscription", with about 130 CDs between Sept.1999 and July 2000. No idea what to do with it, it's been sitting in a box since then, but it may contain interesting stuff related to Win98. Here some finds in the garage sales of the past 3 weeks: May 7, 2011 - an unopened box of 25 Polaroid Blu-ray BD-R disks, from a sales rep who was selling his samples, $5, to experiment with Blu-ray under Win98 - an old Realistic (=Radio Shack) Bulk Tape Eraser, "Intermittent duty: 1 min on 20 min off", could that be used to destroy the content of old hard disks before disposal?, 25 cents similar item: http://cgi.ebay.com/150605538740 - a CD with Plextor Manager Utilties 96 v1.73 and drivers, 20Jan1999, (DOS, Win9x). No idea whether it would be of any use for a Plextor PX-712A (has Mount Rainier DVD+MRW, CD-MRW), which I may eventually get, I currently just have a Plextor PX-716A, in a shoe box full of old CDs for altogether $1 (there was also MS Office Standard 2007 and some other newer stuff in there). Some info: http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Reviews/Specific.aspx?ArticleId=6104 May 14, 2011 - 5 CDs with CorelDraw Graphics Suite 11 (last version which runs under Win98), 50 cents http://www.amazon.com/CorelDRAW-Graphics-Suite-11-Upgrade/dp/B000069LH8/ - a SmartDisk FlashPath adapter for SmartMedia cards, which goes into the floppy drive, plus the driver CD, probably just junk, because it's too slow and needs 2 small batteries, no DOS drivers, just Win9x drivers, 25 cents http://cgi.ebay.com/120675591196 May 21, 2011 - 2 CDs with MS OfficeXP Small Business (last version which runs under Win98), $1 http://cgi.ebay.com/200609633630 . - 2 pieces of 512MB RAM, PC3200, Kingston 400MHz (it's much easier to install Win98 with just 512MB of RAM, and then, after the installation, make the required adjustments and replace the RAM with 2x1GB), $5 altogether, I paid too much http://cgi.ebay.com/170643248672 It would be interesting to know what good Win98-related junk others find.

I have returned the LiteOn iHBS212 Blu-ray burner. Not because I was unhappy with it, but because I have doubts whether current Blu-ray media is suitable as long-term storage media. During my testing I have burnt 36 Blu-ray BD-R disks and 1 BD-RE disk (Panasonic, made in Japan) with the same 10GB data files, under Win98 and WinXP, with 4 different Blu-ray burners, using 4 different makes of BD-R media and 3 different programs for burning. I have "measured" the "disc quality" (=burn quality) with Nero CD-DVD Speed v4.7.7.15 and with Nero DiscSpeed v5.4.24.100. Right after burning, with the better media, disc quality was around 60/100. When I repeated the disc quality test after 2 weeks, however, 35 out of 36 disks had a disc quality score of 0/100, a single BD-R disk had still the disk quality score 8/100. When I repeated the disk quality test with that 8/100 disk 12 hours later, its quality score had fallen also to 0/100. Disk quality of Blu-ray BD-R and BD-RE disks seems to decline rapidly after burning. I plan to check periodically to find out whether and when data loss has actually occurred on these 36 Blu-ray disks. There is the possibility that the Quality scores of Nero CD-DVD Speed v4.7.7.15 and Nero DiscSpeed v5.4.24.100 are incorrect for Blu-ray media. When testing Blu-ray media, values are displayed under 2 differently named headings "LDC" and "BIS", instead of "C1 Errors" and "C2 Errors", as for CDs and DVDs. I ran a "Disc Scan" with Nero CD-DVD Speed v4.7.7.15 on the 2 BD-R disks with the worst values (LDC: Avg 223.18, Max 1530 and BIS: Avg 4.48, Max 32), and the 2 "bad" disks were perfectly readable, all green, which seems to contradict the "Disc Quality" scores. Over the years, however, I have fared well trusting the disk quality scores of Nero CD-DVD Speed of burnt CDs and DVDs. I was unable to get to work on my desktop the only other program I know of which can measure Blu-ray burn quality, Opti Drive Control, also by Erik Deppe. There was no response to my posting #245 for help at club.myce.com a week ago http://club.myce.com/f96/opti-drive-control-erik-deppe-274820/index9.html#post2523530 [link doesn't work as intended, it's posting #245]

I have returned the LG BH12LS35 Blu-ray burner http://www.lg.com/us/computer-products/optical-media/LG-blu-ray-BH12LS35.jsp which I had bought at a sale for $89+tax. Here my reasons: 1) burn quality/media compatibility: it did not burn my Panasonic, Verbatim and PHILIP-R04-000 (Kodak/Polaroid) BD-Rs properly. Nero CD-DVD Speed v4.7.7.15 indicated a Disc Quality of 0/100. 2) The LG Blu-ray burner has issues with Nero v7.2.7.0 under Win98 and with Nero v7.11.10.0c [last build of v7] under WinXP: both Nero 7 versions display a selection of only 1x write speed with this burner, even if the burner does not have a firmware setting for 1x, only for 2x, 4x, 6x, 8x write speeds. No idea how Nero 7 made the LG burner burn at 1x, this shouldn't be possible since the firmware write speeds are indicated by ImgBurn as "2x, 4x, 6x, 8x". ImgBurn has the correct write speed selection "2x, 4x, 6x, 8x" for burning and burns Ok with the LG Blu-ray burner, but also at the burn quality 0/100. The LiteOn and Memorex Blu-ray burners had the correct write speed selection with Nero v7.2.7.0 under Win98 and with Nero v7.11.10 under WinXP, and burnt @2x With Nero v7.11.10 under WinXP, the LG Blu-ray burner was indeed burning at 1x, the actual time for burning the BD-R test-disk was about twice as long as burning at 2x with ImgBurn with the LiteOn/Memorex Blu-ray burners. With Nero v7.2.7.0 under Win98, the burn process broke off twice after about 1/3 complete (12 out of 40 minutes), with the msg: "Write Error. Invalid field command. Could not perform end of Disc-at-once. Burn process failed." Nero then hung, I had to reboot. When I repeated the test, I got another BD-R coaster, with the same message as before, also at 12 out of 40 minutes complete. Again, Nero v7.2.7.0 works Ok with the LiteOn Blu-ray burner. 3) Nero CD-DVD Speed v4.7.7.15 cannot measure the Disc Quality with the LG Blu-ray burner. With the LiteOn Blu-ray burner, in contrast, Nero CD-DVD Speed can measure the Disc Quality. 4) LG seems to provide fewer firmware updates. www.firmwarehq.com does not have a firmware update for the LG BH12LS35 http://www.firmwarehq.com/LG/drives.html . Here 2 examples of makes with frequent firmware updates, i.e. good ongoing support: Pioneer http://pioneer.jp/device_e/product-e/ibs/device_e/dev00002r_e.html#bdr_s03 or LiteOn http://www.firmwarehq.com/Lite-On/iHBS212%2B2/files.html Regular firmware updates are essential for compatibility/burn quality with new Blu-ray media.

I usually don't try out old little-known Win98 stuff without the recommendation by somebody of authority (like members of msfn.org ), unless I am searching for something very specific and after having done some research on my own. In any case, it's good to hear which old can of worms one should definitely not open.My system is very well backed up, and an opsys restore to the exact state prior to the testing takes me about 10-20 minutes, so if something looks good, I may wind up trying it out.

I have to correct my previous posting. It appears that the Flash Utility for LiteOn Based Optical Drives v6.0. does NOT work properly under Win98. The program could NOT restore under WinXP a .bin firmware backup file created under Win98. Also, the .bin firmware backup files created under Win98 and WinXP look like 2 different pairs of shoes with the Hex Viewer of Beyond Compare. Under WinXP the software does APPEAR to restore a .bin backup file created under Win98, and the message "FLASH write complete" is displayed, but the firmware of the burner seems to have stayed unchanged. I was lucky that I did no brick my LiteOn Blu-ray burner by restoring under WinXP a .bin firmware backup file created under Win98. I posted the problem at http://club.myce.com/f44/flash-utility-plds-liteon-based-optical-drives-v6-0-1-new-190420/index14.html#post2588006 yesterday.

I am using Tiny Personal Firewall v2.0.14 under Win98 and Kerio Personal Firewall v2.1.5 under WinXP. The defragger VoptXP v7.22 [this is a misnomer, it runs fine under Win98] has no issues with Tiny or Kerio. Under WinXP I have installed VoptXP v7.22 and Vopt v9.21.Tiny v2.0.14 has worked fine for me under Win98, but eventually I will replace it with Kerio v2.1.5 under Win98 so that I have the same firewall software on all computers of a mixed Win98/WinXP peer-to-peer network. Here some old postings of mine regarding Tiny/Kerio: Regarding Vopt/defragging under Win98:

A year ago my laptop got a .exe infection which infected USB archives and across operating systems. I eventually wiped the whole disk on the infected laptop and restored from backups. Most of the stuff on the infected 1TB USB HDD I have deleted, but I have not yet wiped the HDD. 1 year on there is still some stuff on the infected external HDD, and I have been emptying it slowly, as I have time, with binary compares against a clean older archive HDD, with Beyond Compare v2.9.3. Maybe in a year from now I will have finished deleting the last leftover stuff on the infected 1TB HDD. If I remember right, my system got re-infected twice. If this is the case you need to work on your backup strategy. I have the opposite problem: I am swamped with backups.My problem with the .exe infection last year was that at the time of the infection I was in Europe for several months, while many of my backups were in the US. I still have no clear ideas about how to back up new stuff added during extended travels, maybe on DL DVDs or on Blu-ray disks (write-once), they won't be compromised by .exe infectors. I doubt that real-time scanning by my anti-virus software would have protected me from the blazingly fast exe infector Tenga.a. Kaspersky AV a year ago was able to identify etc the malware output, the Tenga-infected .exe files. But apparently Kaspersky AV was not able to identify the original agents causing the infection because I always scan my downloads.

I repeated the Disc Quality test of Nero CD-DVD Speed v4.7.7.15 under Win98 twice, about 10 hours after the 1st Disk Quality test/the burning of the Blu-ray disk. The 2nd Disk Quality test displayed a burn quality of 26/100, the 3rd a burn quality of 22/100.2nd and 3rd tests taken a while after the burning of the Blu-ray BD-R have resulted in most cases in better disc quality scores. Maybe the plastic has to settle for a while or the burner does some learning. No idea why later disk quality tests of burnt BD-Rs tend to show better scores.

Just yesterday I updated under Win98 Kaspersky Anti-virus v6.0.2.261 from their server, Signatures published: 5/8/11, 5371038 signatures.Great scanner and works fine under Win98. The only difficulty is where to purchase a valid key for this old version. Kaspersky will probably provide updates for v6 for another year. In any case I bought me a spare key for v6, with which I should be fine until March 2013, if Kaspersky Lab should decide to extend the updates for v6. In any case, after each signature update I make a backup of the Update Folder (in a rar file of currently 170MB) which can be used in the years to come to update a fresh installation of Kaspersky 6. In this way I will be able in 2015, for example, to install Kaspersky 6 under Win98 and update it to a close-to-the-last signature database, e.g. April xx, 2012, from the Update folder, instead of their server. A license key file with the date of validity beyond the date of the last signature update should allow Kaspersky to run indefinitely, with the close-to-the-last signature database. BTW, the Kaspersky license key file is not the same as the registration code. A registration code is useless if the Kaspersky server doesn't give you a license key file for it. This happened to me a few years back when Kaspersky Lab dropped support for Kaspersky Internet Security v6, and I couldn't update from the server anymore, even if I had a valid license/registration code.

My LiteOn Blu-ray burner iHBS212 was manufactured in Sept.2010, according to the sticker on it. It has Firmware 5L06, Firmware Date: 9-Sep-2010 (displayed by Nero InfoTool v4.0.3). The reputable firmware update page http://www.firmwarehq.com/Lite-On/iHBS212%2B2/files.html indicates 3 firmware updates for this burner since then. Since the burn quality for the PHILIP-R04-000 BD-Rs was an awful 0/100, I have decided to update the firmware, maybe the newer firmware has a better writing strategy for this media. Before running the firmware update, I made backups, as recommended by mciahel http://club.myce.com/f44/looking-5l03-bin-file-ihbs212-316819/#post2561143 Both Flash Utility for LiteOn Based Optical Drives v6.0.1 http://club.myce.com/f44/flash-utility-plds-liteon-based-optical-drives-v5-0-0-new-190420/ and EEPROM Utility for PLDS-LiteOn-Sony-BenQ CD & DVD Writers v6.2.0 http://club.myce.com/f44/eeprom-utility-plds-liteon-sony-cd-dvd-writers-v6-0-1-new-112103/ [good info at http://club.myce.com/f44/liteon-eeprom-utility-110900/ ]seem to run fine under Win98, no installation necessary, although I have only created backup files with them, not yet restored the backups under Win98. UPDATE 11-May-2011: Please see correction in posting #31 I then ran under WinXP the firmware update utility 5L09.exe, downloaded from www.firmwarehq.com. Under Win98 the firmware update utility 5L09.exe does not run, it displays the error msg: "Error Starting Program. The 5L09.EXE file is linked to missing export SETUPAPI.DLL:CM_Connect_MachineA" I then burnt another PHILIP-R04-000 BD-R with ImgBurn under Win98. Unfortunately, the burn quality stayed at 0/100, due to several spikes, even if the Average and Maximum of LDC and BIS were substantially lower than with firmware 5L06. My testing does not confirm the positive evaluation by burnfreak http://www.movie2digital.at/index.php?page=Thread&postID=573001#post573001 (also in post #7 there) for the combo LiteOn+new firmware+PHILIP-R04-000 media. Maybe the manufacturers send the better-quality media to Europe and the low-quality stuff to the U.S. Or the hardware in my desktop is not fast enough, or...

The single .exe file has 32,618,304 bytes, MD5 is 1591BE4E0A7F889DEFFAEDD9DD1A5201. MS Windows Installer 2.0 should be sufficient, the installation completed apparently Ok, without an error message. I have 2 good versions of Nero CleanTool which work under Win98 (without KernelEx) and WinXP: - Nero CleanTool for Nero 6,7,8 (Win98+WinXP, .exe digitally signed 31Jan2008) [i used this version to uninstall Nero v7.2.7, both under Win98 and WinXP] - Nero CleanTool for Nero 6.6.1.5 v2.1.5.17 (Win98+WinXP, .exe digitally signed 2Jun2006) [i used this version to uninstall an earlier Nero v6.6.0.13, both under Win98 and WinXP] No idea where to get them now. The following version does not work under Win98 (without KernelEx), but works under WinXP: - Nero CleanTool for Nero v7,8,9,10 v5.0.0.18 (WinXP, .exe digitally signed 5Jan2010) I restored the system from a previous clean backup to clean Nero leftovers after test-installing Nero v9.4.13.2 Micro under Win98SE with KernelEx.

Hi allen2, oldapps.com is a great site, but their description of v7.5.1.1 http://www.oldapps.com/nero.php?old_nero=24 is just wrong, v7.5.1.1 does not install under Win98. When one installs v7.5.1.1 the following err msg comes up during installation, just after extracting: "Nero ProductSetup. This version doesn't support Windows 95/98/Me". One also gets this installer error when KernelEx is installed. So Nero Burning ROM v7.2.7.0 is definitely the last version which runs under Win98. I have tried maybe a dozen Nero modifications (Lite/Micro from v7-v10), they all didn't install under Win98 with KernelEx v4.5. The only exception was "Nero v9.4.13.2 Micro", which installed Ok under Win98+KernelEx, but Nero then started with an error message: "There is not enough free memory to run this program. Quit one or more programs, and then try again". Before the installation of v9.4.13.2 Micro I had run the Nero Cleaning Too and installed Visual C++ 2005 Redistributable and MS .Net Framework v2.0 Redistributable Package (x86). I had installed v9.4.13.2 Micro on my old laptop (512MB RAM) and on my dual-core desktop (1150MB RAM available to Win98). Maybe Nero v9.4.13.2 Micro needs .Net Framework v3.0, or it is an actual RAM issue. Any ideas?

In this link http://www.google.com/search?q=%22secnat%22.zip&hl=en&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= (strange positioning of the quotation marks!) you can find at the top of the search results "/ Index ..."These server listings contain a file SECNAT.ZIP, which contains only SECNAT.TXT, a description of Clyde Washburn's SECOND NATURE Accessory ROM Set http://cd.textfiles.com/pcmedic9310/UTILS/HARDWARE/SECNAT.ZIP There may be a remote chance that the text there could help you formulate a new Google search string for finding zip files containing MOVEHDD.SYS.

Burn quality seems to be a major issue with Blu-ray disks. A Blu-ray BD-ROM movie disk just recently bought, for example, had a disk quality of just 16 out of 100, as measured by Nero CD-DVD Speed 4.7.7.15. When I burn DVDs for archiving stuff, the burn quality has to be between 93-98/100, anything below is put into the trash can. I bought 2 more current Blu-ray burners last week, a LiteOn iHBS212 and an LG BH12LS35. I returned the Memorex MRX-800L Blu-ray burner, which I had bought initially, because I was not satified with its burn quality, it burnt the Panasonic LM-BRS25LU25 BD-Rs with 0/100 burn quality. The LiteOn iHBS212 has a better burning quality than the LG BH12LS35, at least with the Blu-ray media I have tried out up to now. The "Disc Quality" test of Nero CD-DVD Speed 4.7.7.15 is available for the LiteOn, but not for the LG. One advantage of the LG burner is that it can write BD-R at 2x, 4x, 6x and 8x, the LiteOn only at 4x. I am still looking for a burner which can write BD-R at 1x, 2x and 4x. I have also bought 4 different spindles of BD-R disks. Unfortunately, the Kodak BD-R CAT 52125 [printable surface] and the ProHT by Inland BD-R stock no. 26001[not printable surface] were identified both as "PHILIP-R04-000", just different packaging and printable surface, and nearly all of the test-disks burnt with them on the Memorex and LG burners had a burn quality of 0/100. Update 7-May-2011: I also tested the 25GB Polaroid BD-Rs, the 25-disc-spindle has the UPC bar code 8 55681 00232 0, they were also identified as "PHILIP-R04-000", just like the BD-Rs sold under the Kodak and Inland labels, and the Polaroid BD-Rs had a burn quality of 0/100 on the LiteOn iHBS212. The "PHILIP-R04-000" are Made in India. The 25-disk-spindles of Kodak BD-Rs cost me $25 as a special, the ProHT by Inland $25 minus a $12 mail-in-coupon, and the Polaroid ones, still sealed, $5 at a garage sale. With the Verbatim BD-R (Verbatim #96769 0903-203, Made in Taiwan, hard coating) I burnt a 10.3GB test-disk with the LiteOn with ImgBurn under Win98 with a burn quality of 16/100, with: LDC: Avg=4.18, Max=357 BIS: Avg=0.07, Max=7 The Panasonic BD-Rs (LM-BRS25LU25, 1-4x, Made in Japan, hard coating, marked "50 Years Archive Life" and quality seal of the German TÜV Rheinland), Disc ID MEI-T02-001 as displayed by ImgBurn, seem to be the best of the lot and work fine with the LiteOn Blu-ray burner. The burn quality at 4x writing speed of the LiteOn burner, with ImgBurn under Windows 98 , was 65/100, with: LDC: Avg=0.54, Max=152 BIS: Avg=0.01, Max=3 The CPU on my desktop is a dual core E4500, 2.2Ghz. Burning Blu-ray disks at 4x is very CPU intensive, CPUIdle under Win98 fluctuates around 40% free, going occasionally down to 20% free. The system requirements for the LG Blu-ray burner are "Intel Pentium D 3.2GHz or equivalent (Recommend: Core 2 Duo E6600 or higher". The system requirements for the LiteOn Blu-ray burner are "3.0GHz Intel Pentium-D processor or equivalent or better". The LiteOn Blu-ray burner will probably produce better burn quality if I upgrade the CPU to an X6800, but I would then have to upgrade the power supply to maybe 800 Watts, and then the constant noise... Another possibility to obtain a good burn quality in the range of 93-98/100 might be to downgrade to an older Blu-ray burner which can burn at only 1x, but I am not sure whether such an old Blu-ray burner would work with currently available Blu-ray disks, e.g. "Blu-ray Disc Recordable Format Version 1.2".

I have test-installed various versions of the CyberLink Power2Go burning software under Win98SE. The last build to install and run under Win98 is Power2Go v5.50.1626 (26Apr2006). Unfortunately, build 1626 could not burn a BD under Win98, at least on my Memorex Blu-ray burner, even if the software was supposed to have this capability, the menus include include Blu-ray. When I actually tried to burn a Blue-ray data disk, I got the err msg: "Data Disc - #0xEB020882. This drive doesn't support the desired operation". Maybe build 1626 works with a different Blu-ray burner make and model. Later builds of v5.50 (2614, 2706, 3307, 3917) and of v6.0.0 (0929a, 1314) terminate during the installation under Win98, v6.0.0 terminates with the cryptic error message "Can't load SKUtil.dll". These later builds of v5.5 and v6.0 cannot be installed under Win98 with KernelEx v4.50 either. Since I cannot burn with my Blu-ray burner a BD under Win98 with any build of CyberLink Power2Go, I have postponed testing the media player software CyberLink PowerDVD under Win98 with a Blu-ray drive. On the positive side I was able to read under MS-DOS 7.1 (Windows 98 [Version 4.10.2222]) from a Blu-ray disk which was burnt with an ISO9660+Joliet file system (burnt with CyberLink Power2Go v6.0.0.1314 under WinXP) and from a Blu-ray disk with an ISO9660+Joliet+UDF 1.02 file system (burnt with ImgBurn v2.5.5.0 under Win98). The DOS driver which worked for the Memorex Blu-ray burner is the DVD/CD-ROM Driver Version 1.21 for ASPI by Matsushta-Kotobuke 1990-1997. I am using an Asus P5PE-VM motherboard. Accessing a Blu-ray disk burnt with only the UDF 1.02 file system produced the following err msg when I booted into MS-DOS 7, with the Matsushta driver in config.sys: "CDR103. CDROM is not High Sierra or ISO9660 format."

Not sure, but one has to go over lists like:http://www.techspot.com/downloadid33by4.html http://www.filetransit.com/files.php?name=Lossless_Backup_Blu_Ray_Disc_And_Dvd-1-2 and check out applicable packages and test them under Win98 with a Blu-ray burner. Just in the 2 software lists above there are 4 other burning programs, which claim to work Ok with Blu-ray under Win98: AV Burning Pro 3.0.4, TrueBurner 1.2, AVS Disc Creator 4.1.1.473 and KRyLack Burning Suite 1.00. I would guess that a lot of older versions of players, etc. also work with Blu-ray under Win98. I'll try out PowerDVD 8 eventually, which may work with Win98 and Blu-ray, but my main interest is Blu-ray as a data storage media. Hopefully others will post here their findings about Win98-compatible Blu-ray software in their areas of interest.

Thanks loblo, but I was there too already. The installer file for Nero v7.2.7.0 is digitally signed 23-Aug-2006, and the help files downloadable from the links above have a file modification date (inside the zip file of the "All in one download package") of 26-Oct-2007, over a year later. I would suspect that these currently downloadable Help files are different from those for v7.2.7.0 because there was a major developmental change after v7.2.7.0 (no Win98-compatibility anymore) and the currently downloadable Help files have a file modification date more recent than v7.2.7.0. The currently downloadable Help files should be good for a later build, e.g. v7.11.10.0, but I am not sure about v7.2.7.0.Somebody who has downloaded the Nero 7 Help files around Sep-2006 could clarify the matter with a simple binary compare. There are for example 2 different versions of Nero CD-DVD Speed v4.7.7.15, one has the modification date 22-Jan-2008 and runs under WinXP but not under Win98, the other has a modification date of 8-Jan-2008 and runs under Win98 (is the last version for Win98). User interface and features appear to be the same, however. Update 8-May-2011: The version of Nero CD-DVD Speed v4.7.7.15 which works with Win98 has the filename "CDSpeed.exe", is not digitally signed, has 1,785,856 bytes, its MD5 hash is 5599933A466538F765CC66583EE4A6E9 and MiTeC EXE Explorer displays a timestamp of 9-Jan-2008. No idea where it can be obtained now. The WinXP version of Nero CD-DVD Speed v4.7.7.15 has the same filename "CDSpeed.exe", is digitally signed 22-Jan-2008, has 2,598,184 bytes and MiTeC EXE Explorer displays a timestamp of 22-Jan-2008. It gets installed with Nero v7.11.10.0c into \Nero Toolkit\, Any ideas about the Nero Blu-ray plugin? I have been looking quite intensively for it, to no avail. This seems to be a quite elusive butterfly.

There was apparently a Nero Blu-ray HD DVD Video Plug-in for Nero v7.2, but it's not available at Nero's current web site now. Here descriptions from the wayback machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20071011002814/http://www.nero.com/eng/bluray-hddvd-video-plugin.html http://web.archive.org/web/20071011003635/www.nero.com/eng/store-blu-ray.html I have no idea where one could still get it. In any case, Nero v7.2.7 can burn Blu-ray disks under Win98 without this Plug-in, but it would be nice not to have to install another software besides Nero, just for playing Blu-ray disks/movies under Win98. The general description of Nero v7.2.7 can also be found in the wayback machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20071021033647/www.nero.com/eng/downloads-nero7-98me.php Help files could be downloaded from Nero, but the old link is now 404: ftp://ftp6.nero.com/user_guides/nero7/Nero7_chm_eng.exe No idea where one could get the Help files for v7.2.7 now The version history/release notes for Nero v7.2.7 can be found in the wayback machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20061113151150/ww2.nero.com/nero7/enu/Nero_7_Premium_Release_Notes.html http://web.archive.org/web/20061113155638/ww2.nero.com/nero7/enu/RN_details.html?Nero_Burning_ROM The release notes there apparently list incorrectly for Nero v7.5.1.1 (does NOT run under Win98 anymore): "New Features: Blu-ray disc data recording". This is incorrect since the earlier v7.2.7.0 can already write Blu-ray data disks and contains a selector icon for "Blu-ray Disc Copy". Maybe in the release note for v7.5.1.1 they meant "HD DVD" recording, for which v7.2.7.0 does not have a selection, while the last build of v7 (v7.11.10.0), for example, does have this "HD DVD" media selection, besides CD, DVD and Blu-ray Disc. Any ideas, also via PM, are welcome.

One of the reasons I got the memorex Blu-ray burner was to help me decide which last version of Nero Burning ROM I should install under Win98. The last build of Nero 6 is v6.6.1.15d and the modification date of nero.exe in the install-to directory is 26-Sep-2007. The last Win98-compatible build of Nero 7, which is v7.2.7.0, has an older installer file, digitally signed 23-Aug-2006, and the modification date of nero.exe in the install-to directory is 21-Aug-2006. So the higher version number v7.2.7.0 is over a year older than the lower version number v6.6.1.15, which could appear as a paradox. I test-installed the more recent v6.6.1.15 under Win98. It did not have a Blu-ray selection, only CD and DVD. (Older Nero v6.6.0.13, which I have been using before, did have a Blu-ray selection, but was not able to burn a Blu-ray disk). Since I consider the ability to burn Blu-ray disks as essential, Nero v7.2.7.0 is the preferred last version of Nero under Win98.

I believe version 2.5.0.0 was the last version without some "garbage ware" included, toolbars, etc etc. It's the version that I use, although as I stated in the other thread I have not experimented any with Blu-Ray yet. Thanks LoneCrusader, I checked, ImgBurn v2.5.5.0 apparently does not install the Ask Toolbar anymore, but it's not on the changelog page http://www.imgburn.com/index.php?act=changelog only that with v2.5.2.0 the Ask Toolbar became optional.I have successfully burnt with ImageBurn v2.5.5.0 under Win98 a Blu-ray disk. So there are at least 2 programs which can burn Blu-ray disks under Win98. On the downside, the quality of the Blu-ray disk burnt with ImgBurn was just as bad as with Nero v7.2.7.0 under Win98. When I burnt under WinXP a Blu-ray disk with Nero v7.11.10.0c (last build of Nero 7, does not run under Win98), the quality of the burnt disk was 0/100, i.e. near-coaster. The low burn quality is apparently not caused by the software or the operating system used. Possible culprits are the Blu-ray burner, the BD-R media or the high writing speed (4x, 17,980 KB/s). ImgBurn indicates that the memorex burner/firmware has only a single 4x writing speed for Blu-Ray disks, maybe another burner with 1x, 2x and 4x writing speed can produce better results. The low burn quality indicated by Nero CD-DVD Speed v4.7.7.15 for the burnt Blu-Ray disks seem to be correct: A binary compare with Beyond Compare of the 10.3GB Blu-ray disk with its original source took 1 hour and 13 minutes, while the burning of the disk with ImgBurn took just 11 minutes. Beyond Compare probably had to repeat disk reads many times in order to read the poorly-burnt Blu-Ray disk correctly.

Somehow my horizon hasn't gone beyond CD-minus and DVD-minus when I have written about CDs and DVDs. I have no experience with DVD+ media because my 11-year-old Inspiron laptops have old Panasonic burners inside which cannot read/write DVD+, only DVD- and DVD-RAM. I never got around to another upgrade of the internal burners of my laptops, even if I use more modern burners in my desktop and in external enclosures. In order to maintain compatibility between all my computers, I just stuck with minus media. This principle of the lowest common denominator, between my 11-year-old laptop and the dual-core desktop, will also determine whether I will actually use Blu-ray or not. If I should not be able to read Blu-ray disks with my 11-year-old Inspiron 7500 laptop, the Blu-ray burner and the Blu-ray disks will end up in a box in the basement. I am optimistic, however, that I will be able to get a Blu-ray burner to work Ok inside an external SATA enclosure, connected to my old laptop via a Vantec eSATA PCCard. With a little luck I'll also be able to burn Blu-ray disks with my old P3 750MHz laptop, under Win98 and WinXP. The box of my memorex Blu-ray burner lists as system requirement: P3 800MHz, P4 1.8GHz for fastest results.

Yes, but Nero v7.2.7.0 terminated burning with an error message and produced a Blu-ray coaster, twice, at the same overlong file name and burn time. When burning CDs and DVDs, Nero continues burning Ok and truncates the names on the burnt CD/DVD, so this may be a Blu-ray bug of Nero v7.2.7.0 Fry's had a special, the 25-pack of BD-R disks cost $25. My favorite high-quality brand is Taiyo Yuden, made in Japan, for CDs and DVDs. I just checked ebay, Taiyo Yuden BD-Rs are about $1 a piece in the U.S, but I'm not sure whether they are made in Japan. Taiyo Yudens described as "made in Japan" are offered at ebay for $2.50 a piece http://cgi.ebay.com/10-Taiyo-Yuden-bluray-data-25GB-bd-r-blu-ray-dvd-LTH-4X-/290529059652?pt=BI_Blank_Media&hash=item43a4e1a344Also, the Kodak BD-Rs I have been using are "4x", while the Taiyo Yuden are "1-4x". I prefer to burn at a low speed, with good burn quality. Unfortunately my Memorex Blu-ray burner was not on the compatibility list of the Taiyo Yuden BD-Rs... maybe another reason to return it.

I have just run a disk quality check of the burnt Blu-ray disk, with Nero CD-DVD Speed v4.7.7.15 under Win98. The burn quality was terrible, next to trash, only 8 out of 100: LDC: Avg 27.91, Max: 254, Total: 0 BIS: Avg 0.71, Max:16, Total: 0 This bad burn quality explains why Beyond Compare stopped with errors. So my Memorex Blu-ray burner doesn't like my Kodak BD-R disks [Manufacturer ID: PHILIPR04 (000), as displayed in the Disc Info tab of Nero CD-DVD Speed], or my desktop is too slow, or... Maybe I should return the burner, it was on sale at Fry's for $92... I'll make another burning test under WinXP, maybe Win98 is the culprit...

Nero v7.2.7.0 is the last version for Win98SE without KernelEx. I have repeated the binary compare with Beyond Compare under Win98, this time Beyond Compare finished Ok without any issue. No idea why I got the error messages earlier, maybe because I made the compare with a freshly burnt blu-ray disk, or the new burner needed a couple of hours of burn-in.There were 2 annoying differences in file/directory names between the original source and the burnt Blu-ray disk, no idea why: 1) The folder on the original source J:\Junk_blu-ray_24Apr2011\Source_17\MS Java VM Removal Tool\Test MS Java VM (jheroen)-doesnt work offline\Installation Check - Microsoft Java Virtual Machine Resource_files\ was burnt by Nero v7.2.7.0, without any message, under a different name as: L:\Source_17\MS Java VM Removal Tool\Test MS Java VM (jheroen)-doesnt work offline\Installation Check_-_Microsoft Java Virtual Machine Resource_files#2F7C\ [underscores were also inserted!] 2) and the file J:\Junk_blu-ray_24Apr2011\Source_17\MS Java VM Removal Tool\Test MS Java VM (jheroen)-doesnt work offline\Installation Check - Microsoft Java Virtual Machine Resource_files\Installation Check - Microsoft Java Virtual Machine Resource.htm was burnt by Nero v7.2.7.0, without any message, under a different name as: L:\Source_17\MS Java VM Removal Tool\Test MS Java VM (jheroen)-doesnt work offline\Installation Check_-_Microsoft Java Virtual Machine Resource#7FD7.htm [underscores were also inserted!] BTW, the burnt Blu-ray disk is displayed in My Computer under Win98 with the label "BD-R So#XQW" (incorrect), under WinXP as "BD-R Sources"(correct, as entered into Nero when burning the disk) Also, Nero v7.2.7.0 flagged, during earlier attempts at burning, 4 file names as being too long under Joliet. When I ignored it, Nero produced the 2 coasters. I had in Nero in the "UDF" tab under "File System Options" the setting "Automatic settings (recommended)" Nero v7.2.7.0 can apparently also write under Win98 multi-session Blu-ray disks, which I eventually will have to try out. The Blu-ray test-disk I burnt and finalized has 10.3GB stuff on it (11000 files, 2000 folders, burn time at 4x [17,980 kB/s] was 11:26 minutes). 4x was the only writing speed offered by Nero with the firmware of the Memorex burner, I would have preferred 1x, maybe it was caused by the Kodak BD-R disks, which stated just 4x.