Multibooter

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.

I have been fiddling around, on and off, with LS-120 drives during the past 2 years. They are amazing devices of an age gone by. Actually I got my first LS-120 drive in 2003, but I had rarely used it until 2009, when I archived my regular floppy disks In this topic I will share, with other members of this forum, some of my experience with LS-120 drives. Portions of my postings in this topic, especially my experimentations, may fall into the realm of the esoteric, in the sense of: private, not-intended-for-publication. So for more information in some matters you may wish to contact me by PM. Here some points I may eventually cover: - What can an LS-120 drive be used for in 2011? - Toolbox (good LS-120 software and hardware) - The awful quality of LS-120 drives: Dead and dying drives - The awful quality of LS-120 disks: Destined to die - Formatting software for LS-120 drives - Review of LS-120 drives (Parallel, PCMCIA, USB, ATAPI) - LS-120 drives under DOS - Manufacturer-provided USB/PCMCIA drivers of LS-120 drives vs. nusb/Microsoft-provided drivers under Win98 - Only with DOS or Win9x: What canNOT be done under WinXP? - Creating and restoring images of LS-120 disks - Can bulk-erased LS-120 disks be reformatted? - Secured LS-120 disks - Esoteric: UDF formatted 720kB and 1.44MB floppy disks - Esoteric: UDF formatted LS-120 disks - Esoteric: Forensic software and UDF formatted LS-120 disks - LS-240 drives TOOLBOX 1) Imation SuperDisk USB for Mac Drive, Model No.SD USB M3 - best choice as 1st LS-120 drive, is fast, works fine under Win98 and WinXP, requires a power supply brick, works fine with 720KB and 1.44MB floppies - best choice as a regular external floppy drive for computers which don't have a built-in 1.44MB floppy drive - best choice as a 2nd floppy drive, e.g. for making binary compares, etc. of 2 floppies, as with Beyond Compare 2) Imation Model No.11795 Parallel Port Drive ("old parallel, no dongle drive") 3) Modded Imation SD 120 PPD2 ("new parallel, with dongle") More info about these 3 drives is in posting #88 4) GRDuw v4.1.17 a unique and highly recommended general tool for removable media (regular floppies, LS-120 disks, Iomega zip and jaz). For Win9x only, does not work under WinXP - is the only software which can create an image file of a FAT-formatted LS-120 disk and write the image back to an LS-120 disk - to have a rough indication of the quality of regular 720KB/1.44MB floppies and LS-120 disks - is my preferred tool for formatting regular floppies and LS-120 disks 5) Imation 3.5" Dry Head Cleaning Disk (SuperDisk, 2HD, 2DD Compatible), reorder No. 51122 41066, hard to find apparently the only cleaning disk approved for LS-120 drives, maybe other cleaning disks kill the drive 6) Matsus***a SuperDisk Utility ("SuperDisk Device Driver & Utility") - contains Format Utility for SuperDisk: -- to format some LS-120 disks, which other LS-120 formatting tools cannot re-format, e.g. to format UDF formatted LS-120 disks back to FAT16 -- to format LS-240 diskettes, which no other software can (requires an LS-240 drive) - contains SuperWriter32 v2.03 (to format, read und write on LS-240 drives 1.44 floppy disks formatted to 32MB) - can be downloaded from https://p3.support.panasonic.co.jp/p3/EokpControl;jsessionid=2765AFBF30224277FD16BC06EDA6D5DC.sc-ap16-1?&sid=835039aeb6f2601eb4c14f25979c1c0f&event=AE0001&fid=17647 7) WinHex v12.8-SR 10 - to create image files of LS-120 diskettes - when repairing bad LS-120 diskettes: to transfer the first sector from the image of a good LS-120 diskette onto a demagnetized and down-formatted LKS-120 diskette 8) Video cassette bulk eraser: - to repair bad LS-120 diskettes. Maybe 40% of the LS-120 diskettes around are bad. First demagnetize the bad LS-120 diskette with a video cassette bulk eraser, then re-initialize and re-format it (see posting #83) 9) Cubig USB floppy bridge inside the Buslink USB floppy drive, hard to find - with this USB floppy bridge all my regular floppy drives were able to down-format de-magnetized LS-120 diskettes to 720KB (see posting #92 ) - also as a tool to quickly test many regular floppy disk drives 10) a .ima image file (created with GRDuw) of a virgin LS-120 disk, zipped up as a small .rar file - to full-format LS-120 disks, with identical disk SNs etc, by writing the image to disk, instead of normal formatting 11) VoptXP v7.22 to display the actual read speed of a particular LS-120 drive, obtained by reading large blocks of data over the entire disk surface -> select drive letter -> Status -> Drive test: - example values: Accurite LS-120 PCMCIA under Win98: 0.40 MB/second; Imation SuperDisk USB for Mac Drive, Model No. SD USB M3: 0.56 MB/second 12) ScramDisk 3.01r3c to create Scramdisk formatted container files under Win98, accessible under Win98 and WinXP with DriveCrypt v3.03b, under Linux with ScramDisk for Linux. The Scarmdisk container format is open source. ScramDisk 3.01r3c does not work with WinXP. Scramdisk container files may be located on LS-120 diskettes. Cannot create NTFS-formatted container files. Needed to create Scramdisk container files, DriveCrypt 3.03b cannot create Scramdisk container files. Easy to use, no steep learning curve. 13) DriveCrypt 3.03b is the last version of DriveCrypt for Win98SE. DriveCrypt 3.03b can be used to mount and work with Scramdisk container files under both Win98SE and WinXP. Scramdisk container files may be located on LS-120 diskettes. Easy to use, no steep learning curve. NOTE: The recommendations are only for the specic model numbers or version numbers indicated, other model or version numbers may or may not be recommendable REMOVED FROM TOOLBOX 1) removed because of outdated encryption method 26-Jun-2011 a .ima image file (created with GRDuw) of a virgin Imation 120MB Disk with Secured Encryption Technology, which is very hard to find, zipped up as a small .rar file - info: http://web.archive.org/web/20000408173905/http://www.superdisk.com/ss/ss_dk_se.html - writing the image onto a regular LS-120 disk converts a regular disk into a disk "with Secured Encryption Technology" (copyright laws must not be infringed) - older versions of this Secured Disk (for Win95) contain SuperDisk Secured v2.2 NA, which is displayed in the Win98 Add/Remove list as "Imation SuperDisk Secured Diskette" - the install-to of this software contains Secured.exe, Copyright 1998 Micah Development Corporation, v2.1.0.0, timestamp 23-Apr-1998 - there is possibly also a newer WinNT-compatible v3.0, but I don't have it http://web.archive.org/web/19990507100740/http://www.imation.com/about/news/newsitem/0,1233,216,00.html THE MOST IMPORTANT POSTINGS: Review of external LS-120 drives, posting #88 How to re-initialize a demagnetized (= bulk-erased) LS-120 diskette, posting #84 INDEX - By Subject UDF formatted LS-120 diskettes: postings 22-28 SuperDisk Secured Diskettes: postings 25-28 INDEX of Postings A) Low-level formatting of bulk-erased LS-120 diskettes: #2 Bulk-erasing LS-120 floppies #3 extracting FMTLS120.EXE with Universal Extractor 1.6, continued into #4 #4 to #7 FMTLS120.EXE #7 Details of the LS-120 diskette format #8 to #9 ANADISK and FDFORMAT #10, #12 WinHex #11 GRDuw #13 Ghost v11.0.2 #14 to #15 BIOS settings #16 WinHex and GRDuw #18 Linux #19 to #21 WinHex #24 UDF formatted LS-120 disks [esoteric] B ) SuperDisk Secured Diskettes #25 UDF formatted LS-120 SuperDisk Secured Diskettes [esoteric] #26 Mounting the UDF formatted LS-120 SuperDisk Secured Diskette [esoteric] #27 Working with the UDF formatted LS-120 SuperDisk Secured Diskette [esoteric] #28 LS-120 SuperDisk Secured Diskette formatted in a version higher than 1.02 [esoteric] #28 Use of UDF formatted LS-120 diskettes to hide data? C) Alternatives to SuperDisk Secured Diskettes (better encryption) #29 Paragon Encrypted Disk 4.0 #30 Paragon Encrypted Disk 3.02 #30 "Partitioning" UDF media #31 TrueCrypt 1.0 and Shutdown problem of Truecrypt v1.0 #32 ScramDisk v3.01r3c #33 A flood of container formats #33 Multi-booting with virtual encrypted disks (Scramdisk and TrueCrypt container formats) #34 Shutdown problem of encrypted virtual disk software under Windows 98SE (TrueCrypt 1.0, E4M v2.02a, DriveCrypt v4.6) #35 DriveCrypt v3.03b #36 Scramdisk container files > 2GB under Win98 #36 ScarmDisk NT v3.02A has problems with NTFS formatted Scramdisk containers under WinXP D) Iomega zip and LS-120 in general #37 to #39 Iomega zip vs LS-120 #39 LS-120 and zip drives - the twain don't meet #39 LS-120 drives are the worst pieces of computer junk #39 Uses of LS-120 drives today #40 MS-DOS compatibility #41 to #42 Formatting LS-240 diskettes (FAT16 and UDF) #43 Bootable LS-120 diskettes #43 LS-240 diskettes - Disk Information #44 LS-120 diskettes - Disk Information E) FD32MB format: 1.44MB floppy disk formatted to 32MB #45 1.44MB floppy disk formatted to 32MB - Disk Information #46 1.44MB floppy disk formatted to 32MB - Sector 0 #46 Creating, modifying and restoring an image file of a 32MB floppy #47 to #49, #51 32MB format is only for LS-240 drives #50 32MB-formatted floppy in a regular floppy disk drive and in an LS-120 drive #52 Review of LS-240 drive #53 FD32MB format #54 Other LS-240 makes? #55 Postings here were split off into a separate topic "On Bootable CD's Floppy Emulation" #56 to #57 32MB-formatted floppy in a regular floppy disk drive #58 32MB floppy disk format #59 "Burning" a 32MB floppy disk #60 to #61 32MB formatted floppy disks - Bad sectors #62 32MB formatted floppy disks - CanNOT repair bad sectors #63 Documentation of 32MB formatting #64 The Que! SuperDisk LS-240 USB drive F) Using the LS-120/240 drive for odd-formatted floppy disk (Win98 and WinXP) #65 to #66 Using 720KB floppy disks under WinXP #67 Tools to format 720KB floppies under WinXP #68 Old floppy disk formats (360KB, 160KB) under WinXP #69 3.5" floppy disks formatted to 1.2MB under WinXP #70 to #71 Format720 under WinXP #71 Searching for a program to low-level format LS-120/240 diskettes #72 to #76 moving postings from the "garage sale" topic to this LS-120 topic (are now postings #2 to #21 in this topic)

ImgBurn according to their website http://www.imgburn.com/ burns Blu-ray under Win98. Are there any issues installing ImgBurn if Nero Burning ROM (e.g. v7.2.7) is already installed? Which version of ImgBurn is preferrable under Win98?

Last update of this posting 14-May-2011 Posting #25 (review of BD-R media) was updated on 7-May-2011 Toolbox for Blu-Ray under Windows 98 1) ImgBurn v2.5.5.0 http://www.imgburn.com/index.php?act=download (best burning software under Win98) 2) Nero CD-DVD Speed v4.7.7.15 (for measuring burn quality) [see posting #18] 3) DVD/CD-ROM Driver Version 1.21 for ASPI (DOS driver, by Matsushta-Kotobuke 1990-1997, when booting into MS-DOS) [see posting #24] 4) Nero CleanTool [see posting #28] 5) Firmware updates: http://www.firmwarehq.com/ 6) my currently preferred Blu-ray burner is LiteOn iHBS212 7) my currently preferred BD-R media, for satisfactory burn quality with the LiteOn iHBS212, are Panasonic LM-BRS25LU25 (spindle of 25, I paid $63) [see posting #25] Rejected Blu-ray burners 1) Memorex MRX-800L Blu-ray burner (posting #25) 2) LG BH12LS35 Blu-ray burner (posting #32) ========= end of update ========== I have recently bought an internal Memorex Blu-ray burner MRX-800L v1 (SATA) and am currently testing it under Win98SE (plain vanilla, without KernelEx) and under WinXP SP2. I have in my desktop an Asus P5PE-VM motherboard, which has onboard SATA 1, a 750GB PATA HDD Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 Model ST3750640A, and a 2.2GHz E4500 dual-core CPU. Because of the onboard SATA I just had to connect the Blu-ray burner to the SATA connector on the motherboard, and the blu-ray burner was recognized without major issue under Win98SE, appearing in My Computer in the "Type" column as "CD-ROM Disc". I have burnt under Win98 a blu-ray disk with Nero Burning ROM v7.2.7, after producing 2 coasters. There seem to be issues with the burnt Blu-ray disk. Beyond Compare v2.5.3, for example, produces error messages when comparing the burnt Blu-ray disk vs the original source. I am hopeful that eventually I will be able read and write Blu-ray disks under Win98SE, just like regular CDs or DVDs. There is a whole bag of questions, like: - which burning software works Ok for Blu-ray under Win98? - which burners burn good quality Blu-ray disks under Win98? - which Blu-ray media has a good burn quality under Win98 or slow computers? - which utilities/general software have issues with Blu-ray disks under Win98? - what should you do if your motherboard does not have onboard SATA? - using a Blu-ray burner with an additional SATA II card, when one has already an older onboard SATA I - using a Blu-ray burner in an external eSATA (eSATA and USB 2.0??) enclosure - are there any file name/file system issues, e.g. when accessing or burning a Blu-ray disk under Win98 vs WinXP? - which BIOS settings work Ok for Blu-ray under Win98? A lot more question will eventually arise. The purpose of this topic is to make available, at one central location, information about Blu-ray under Windows 98.

To avoid time-consuming problems I stay away from SATA HDDs inside my desktop computer, and stick with old expensive PATA HDDs inside my desktop.

Not sure. I have been using the Vantec eSATA II-150 2Port Cardbus card UGT-ST350CB in one of the PCMCIA slots in my 11-year-old Inspiron 7500 laptop for over a year. An 11-year-old laptop with eSATA under Win98 and WinXP! The Win98SE driver is not on the accompanying CD, but can be downloaded from www.vantecusa.comI am not sure whether the card is really SATA II. The box states SATA II-150, but under "Features" the box states "Transfer Rates Up to 1500 Mbps (150 MB/s)". Are there any tools to clear up whether it's really SATA II and what the actual transfer rate is? In any case, the card is great, I have bought 4 of them. Working with external HDDs inside my Thermaltake enclosures and Kingwin EZ-Dock EZD-2535 docking stations is substantially faster when they are connected via eSATA cables to the Vantec card than when they are connected via USB cables to a USB 2.0 cardbus card. Eventually I will get for my dual-core desktop a PCI to Cardbus PCMCIA adapter card, so that I can use the Vantec eSATA and other Cardbus/PCMCIA cards (e.g. my old SCSI PCMCIA card, etc) on my desktop. Any recommendations for Win98-compatible PCI to Cardbus PCMCIA adapter cards with 2 (or 4?) Cardbus/PCMCIA slots? The ASUS P5PE-VM motherboard inside my dual-core desktop has one major limitation: it has only 3 PCI slots and 1 AGP slot. Maybe my desktop can use more cards in this way.

I can't believe you said this. What installation problems? SATA drives have been the most available, cheap, and high-capacity drive type for several years now, compared to ATA... That's a real clear advantage they have over PATA. It doesn't really matter that they (SATA-1) may not be much faster than PATA. Go and find me a PATA drive larger than 500 gb, even 2 years ago. I feel sorry for you if you are staying with PATA instead of SATA. I prefer to use a PATA HDD as the main internal HDD of my desktop, even if my Asus P5PVE-VM motherboard has onboard SATA, to avoid SATA complications (I also have various DOS as boot selections) and because PATA is a proven old technology. I am using Seagate 750GB PATA HDDs ST3750640A internally, they are hard to find and cost now even more than when they came out originally. I am not aware of PATA HDDs with a capacity greater than 750GB.My experience with questionable Seagate SATA HDDs with brick-risk, of which I had a basketful, made me restrict the use of SATA HDDs to external storage. When encountering hard-to-resolve Win98 problems, I'd like to have excluded the possibility that the problem could be caused by a firmware/driver issue of the SATA HDD. For example, my SATA HDDs attached externally via USB occasionally freeze under Win98 for unknown reasons (not under WinXP or with PATA HDDs, more with Seagate SATA HDDs than with Hitachi SATA HDDs, more on my 10-year-old 512MB Inspiron 7500 laptop than on my 2GB dualcore desktop) when 2 drives are attached and I am writing to them. For external storage I use cheap SATA HDDs inside Thermaltake Silver River A2395 and A2396 enclosures or in Kingwin EZ-Dock EZD-2535 and EZD-2536 docking stations. The enclosures/docking stations come with manufacturer-provided USB 2.0 drivers for Win98, which means to me that they were tested Ok by the manufacturer under Win98, a re-assuring feeling even if I use nusb 3.3. I doubt that you can find SATA HDDs which indicate on the box "Windows 98" as system requirement. SATA HDDs work under Win98, but don't contact the manufacturer if you encounter issues under Win98.

I have been using utilities like DCF/WinImage, UltraISO, WinRAR, Beyond Compare and Nero Burning ROM for making backup copies onto HDDs/CDs/DVDs, and standalone Ghost v11.0.2 for partition/HDD images. I have had no need for special backup software.My main backup problem is not creating backups, but getting rid of/deleting unneeded old backups.

I suspect that the Tenga virus works via the indexer of MS Office. Tenga infects .exe files regardless of the specific MS Windows operating system. I would speculate that on the Win98 computer you did not have MS Office installed, so Tenga didn't work, while on the WinXP machine you did.have MS Office installed.

Hi Joe,Scanning with an updated SAV 9 may give you a false sense of security. Since SAV 9 cannot look into/extract .rar archives, I would expect also that it cannot look into/extract many .exe archives or other installers either. I have been amazed how Kaspersky v6 was able to check into/unpack various installers, while I with my tools couldn't (e.g. the InstallExplorer v0.9.1 [plug-in for Total Commander] of 18-Jul-2006, msiX). Accessing the Internet under old Win98SE is just enough protection for me. I have been very skeptical towards runtime protection under Win98, it just uses a lot of resources, may make the system unstable and creates a false sense of protection.I have already removed SAV 9 from my system, so I can't experiment with SAV 9 and eicar.com http://www.eicar.org/anti_virus_test_file.htm It would be interesting to know whether runtime protection would protect against an exe infector virus like Tenga.a. It is blazingly fast because if seems to work via the MS Office file indexer, maybe there is a 50% probability that no current run-time protection software, under any Windows opsys Win9x and later, can prevent Tenga.exe from destroying your system and archives with .exe files. If you need a live specimen for testing, let me know, I kept some on a CD, far away from my system, locked up like in a poison cabinet. But you should be prepared to low-level format anything connected to your computer after double-clicking on a Tenga.a-infected .exe file, with or without runtime protection. Would be an interesting candidate for testing. Another general question may be: Does the installation of KernelEx make Win98 vulnerable to WinXP malware, which a regular Win98SE installation would just ignore? In other words, does the installation of KernelEx eliminate the raison d'être of Win98?

ZoneAlarm v5.5, until I got rid of it, used to place and leave temporary files there. The most current file was then still in use, and I got a msg "Access denied" when trying to delete all Zone Alarm tmp files at the same time, a little nuisance. No idea how cleantmp.exe reacts when it encounteres a file "Access denied".

Hi CharlotteTheHarlot, I tried that and my Win98 registry has only 2 instances of "temp" (with quotes): [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\KasperskyLab\AVP6\environment] "Temp"="%DataRoot%\\temp" and [HKEY_USERS\.DEFAULT\Software\CpuIdle] "Temp"=dword:00000046 HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\SessionManager\ in my Win98 registry has no string or subkey, whatever, with the name Environment, no idea why your Win98 registry has one. My specific Msdos.sys loaded at boot time by System Commander contains the following, maybe this has something to do with it: [Paths] WinDir=E:\xxxxxx [actual directory name replaced here with xxxxxx for security reasons] WinBootDir=E:\xxxxxx HostWinBootDrv=E [Options] BootMulti=1 BootGUI=1 DoubleBuffer=1 AutoScan=0 WinVer=4.10.2222 DisableLog=1 Logo=0 I have System Commander installed, with about 15 different opsys selections, each containing a configurable set of boot time files. It would be no problem to reboot with an empty autoexec.bat or with an autoexec.bat without the Temp statements, but I am not sure about the usefulness of such an experiment. My system has worked fine for years with the Temp and Tmp entries, and without the environment entry in the registry.

I just test-installed the still downloadable file kav6.0.2.621en.exe, digitally signed 21-Mar-2007, under Win98, then activated it with my a valid license key file, updated it and finally advanced the system time by a year. In contrast to what I expected in my posting #1, once activated this version of 21-Mar-2007 does NOT expire after the expiration of the license key file. I was still able to virus-check with it, even if I got the red warning msg: License expired. This msg indicates only that the activated version cannot be updated anymore with updates newer than the expiration date of the license key. The downloads from filehippo and softpedia are still useful. I have updated posting #1 accordingly.

I have just installed ClamWin Antivirus v0.96.5 under Win98SE. The software makes a positive impression, it can look into .rar archives, but it seems to be a weak scanner. It detected only 1 out of 10 infected files in the above sample, so unfortunately it's currently not an alternative to Kaspersky.

I just tried to install Symantec Norton Antivirus Corporate Edition v10.0.0.359. under Win98SE, no luck, it requires Win2000 at least. So galahs posting LAST - $$$$ - Symantec AntiVirus Corporate Edition 9.0.5.1000 (I had tried Ok Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition v9.0.3.1000 with current signatures, see above) is correct, even if his posting LAST - $$$$ - Kaspersky Anti-Virus Personal 5.0 (5.0.712 BETA) --- ftp://d5y.kaspersky-labs.com/beta/kav50/Personal/English/ is not. Apparently there are no good alternatives to Kaspersky v6.0, at least for my purposes. Or are there any other good virus scanners for Win98 with current signatures, which might be a serious alternative to Kaspersky 6.0?

Hi CharlotteTheHarlot, I checked the registry, HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Environment contains the entry Path, with the value ";H:\IsoBuster", but nothing else The key HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\SessionManager [i.e. without a space] has no Environment subkey So apparently these 2 global variables are not there in the Win98 registry. I have checked the old Inspiron 7500 laptop, it's been my main computer since June 2000. The last installation of Win98SE on it was 7 years ago, in October 2003. The autoexec.bat file created then already contained the 2 lines: set temp=C:\TEMP set tmp=C:\TEMP Another autoexec.bat file used in Oct.2003 contained the 2 lines: set temp=c:\TEMP set tmp=C:\ When I checked under WinXP the environment variables ( -> Control Panel -> System -> Advanced tab -> Environment Variables button), I found 2 user variables TEMP AND TMP, and 2 system variables TEMP and TMP. TEMP and TMP were pointing to the same directories, even if WinXP was loaded by System Commander with an autoexec.bat containing no entries TEMP and TMP. WinXP had earlier used the autoexec.bat left from earlier boots into Win98 until I created a dummy autoexec.bat for WinXP. Maybe WinXP keeps these environment variables in the registry if ever loaded via autoexec.bat, while Win98 doesn't. I got curious about this tmp variable and have searched the HDD for the string "tmp", with 3 interesting results: 1) The file \windows\SYSTEM\Hptcpmui.dll [description: Standard TCP/IP Port Monitor DLL] contains the string "c:\tmp\UIDbgMon.out" 2) The file \windows\SYSTEM\Hpbcom.dll [description: HP IEEE-1284 Driver] contains the string C:\TMP\TRACE.LOG Both files were possibly part of the software I dug out to print from the Inspiron 7500 under Win98 via Ethernet cable directly to the HP2605dn Color LaserJet printer. I currently have no folder C:\Tmp\ on the laptop, maybe I didn't restore it after the infection with the Tenga.a virus. I have created an empty folder C:\Tmp\ now, maybe it's needed. 3) \windows\Scanreg.ini contains the 3 lines: ;Backup directory where the cabs are stored is ; <windir>\sysbckup by default. Value below overrides it. ; It must be a full path. ex. c:\tmp\backup I just don't remember whether TEMP and TMP were set by the installer of some ancient software, or by me intentionally. I would guess probably by me intentionally:The HDD on my old Inspiron 7500 laptop still has a now outdated partition layout, initially set up in such a way that I could recover/repair the HDD under DOS 6.22. 7 years ago I didn't trust Win98 and DOS 7 yet. DOS 6.22 can only see FAT16 partitions up to 2GB. This is much too small for the Win98 partition, so I eventually installed software to a program/data partition H:, a now 30GB FAT32 partition, which could not be accessed by DOS 6.22, while Win98 with its folders \Program Files\ and \windows\ could be accessed under DOS 6.22 on E: (2GB, FAT16). Space on this 2GB Win98 partition is precious, so I probably forced software installers to use the C:\ partition (boot drive, 2GB FAT, nearly empty because no windows opsys was installed on it) for their temporary files. So the line "set temp=c:\TEMP" in autoexec.bat enabled me to install big software, even if the E: Win98 partition was only 2GBs in size. Within the next few months I actually intend to completely change the partition layout on my old Inspiron 7500, converting the Win98 partition from 2GB FAT16 to probably 8GB FAT32 and moving about 80 applications from the program/data partition H: back to the Win98 ppartition E: In 2004 I used Application Mover v2.6 to move applications from E: to H:, now hopefully it will work in moving the 80 applications from H: back to a resized E: The main benefit of having both Win98 and the installed programs on the same partition is to be able to backup the whole Win98 opsys with a Ghost partition backup. I would definitely agree, I am a little on the cautious side, but this shouldn't exclude that there are special uses for cleantmp.exe BTW, the MiTeC EXE Explorer couldn't look into it. Does it work Ok on FAT32 partitions?

I have just tried to install Symantec AntiVirus Corporate v10.1.6.6000 Client under Win98, but it won't install. The minimum requirement is Win2000. v10.2 apparently requires Vista. I'll try to install v10.0 under Win98 shortly

I just installed Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition v9.0.3.1000 Client under Win98. Its About displays just after installation: Program: v9.0.3.1000 Scan engine: 1.2.0.13 Virus Definition File: 10/20/04 rev.38 I updated the virus signatures by just copying the downloaded virus definition file vd333c03.xdb to the install-to directory. No need to reboot, SAV 9 extracted the virus signatures by itself. SAV 9 uses on the install-to partition currently at least 1.2GB of free space for processing the .xdb file. I repeated the same scanning test as with SAV 8. Unfortunately, the scan results were just as poor, this build of SAV 9 could NOT look into .rar files either or detect infected .wmv files. There was no need to register/activate etc this build. In contrast to SAV 8, SAV 9 requires the installation of the Microsoft Root Certificate update. This file could be downloaded Ok from http://download.windowsupdate.com/msdownload/update/v3/static/trustedr/en/rootsupd.exe as described in SAV 9, just like SAV 8, does not have a good options menu for selecting what file types to scan. Unfortunately, I currently have to reject SAV 9 under Win98. Does SAV 10 run under Win98?