Multibooter

The retail Kaspersky Anti-Virus 6.0 is currently still available new at amazon for USD 4.99 plus S+H, but again, it can be activated/updated probably only until mid-March 2013. The activation code on the CD sleeve in the box can be used to activate the downloaded last v6.0.2.621. The CD in the box usually contains an older build.

It's now January 2013 and Kaspersky v6.0.2.621 still updates Ok. There may be some problems with the updater, maybe because I update irregularly, about once every other week. During updating I get quite often error messages like "error updating component KAS300" or "file black.lst is missing or corrupted. Please run Updater to fix this problem". After re-running the Updater, sometimes up to 3 or 4 times, everything is Ok and the message "Update completed successfully" is displayed. The message "Not all components were updated" signals that the Updater has to be run again. But here is the downside: In November 2012 I used 2 activation codes of Kaspersky Anti-Virus 6.0 retail packages, but the Kaspersky License Key Server only generated license keys up to about 21-March-2013, instead of keys for another year, and the License Key Server did not generate any trial keys for v6.0.2.621. This means that Kaspersky v6.0.2.621 cannot be updated with new signatures after 21-March-2013, although it will continue to run after that date with the last signature update obtained. I keep backups of the Update Folder so that I can re-install v6.0.2.621 and update from the Update Folder, in case I should need an activated but expired version in the future. It makes little sense to buy a retail v6.0 now, since it's going to be dead in March 2013. "Kaspersky Anti-Virus 6.0 for Windows Workstations" is the corporate version, it is v6.0.3.837 and still runs fine and updates fine under Win98 and WinXP. I doubt that the Moscow head office will sell activation codes for v6.0.3 to individuals. The Kaspersky License Key server still provides a trial key for v6.0.3.837, valid for 10 computers for 30 days. The activation code and the generated license key for the retail v6.0.2 do not work for the corporate v6.0.3. After having used a trial key for 30 days the virus scanner does not scan for viruses anymore and cannot be updated anymore. It is not possible to start a new trial using the Kaspersky removal tool KAVremover v1.0.53 (of 28Nov2007, last version to work with Win98) http://support.kaspersky.com/downloads/kis7/kavremover.zip There are 3 keys hidden in the registry which prevent a restarting of the trial. One simple self-constructed .inf file can delete these 3 keys under Win98 and WinXP and does not require an uninstall/removal. Kaspersky v6.0.3.837 then turns into un-activated and can then get activated as a trial for another 30 days. Re-activation (reset + activate) is a matter of less than a minute, the hard part was to find the 3 lines for the section [DeleteFromRegistry] in the .inf file, and the testing. In the future, when the Kaspersky License Key Server will not provide trial licenses for the corporate version 6.0.3 anymore, an un-activated Kaspersky v6.0.3 will still run fine with the last obtained virus signatures, except that there is a nag screen at start up "Setup Wizard: Kaspersky Anti-Virus. Welcome! Kaspersky Anti-Virus Setup Wizard will help you to configure protection for your computer", which requires to click on Cancel or Activate Later. The .inf file with 3 instructions has been tested extensively and works fine. I am attaching a screen shot of Kaspersky v6.0.3.837 updated yesterday under Win98. This Plan B works until there are no more trial licenses for v6.0.3. After that there is a Plan C. I am quite confident that Kaspersky v6 wil be updateable under Win98 and WinXP for the foreseeable future, perhaps for several more years.

Hi CharlotteTheHarlot, Strange result: the file modification date of Process Explorer.exe , when downloaded with FlashGet, is 22-Sep-2012 10:14:50 PM. The current date on my computer is 24-Sep-2012 7:11:50AM, so the file modification date cannot have been related somehow to my download date. The file modification date may have been set to the date of the last download by somebody who does not use FlashGet. No idea why this is done. MiTec EXE Explorer displays a timestamp of 8-Feb-2006 6:46:31 PM for the file and may be a more useful way of describing this particular version. When Process Explorer.exe is extracted with Universal Extractor v1.6.1.61 (gora), the date modified of some of the extracted files is also 8-Feb-2006, but 10:46:28AM (different hours, probably due to the time difference here in California), so the version date seems to be of 8-Feb-2006.

A direct download link is http://xoomer.virgilio.it/gloriosus/software/programs/regcompact1.0.zip'>http://web.archive.org/web/20060207052459/http://xoomer.virgilio.it/gloriosus/software/programs/regcompact1.0.zip The link http://xoomer.virgilio.it/gloriosus/software/programs/regcompact1.0.zip , which I couldn't download directly via Firefox, downloads Ok with FlashGet v1.72.128. Somehow I seem to have a talent for picking out the alternatives which don't work. The benefit of downloading from http://xoomer.virgilio.it/gloriosus/software/programs/regcompact1.0.zip with Flashget is that the original server upload date is maintained, which is 23-Jun-2007 8:04:40 AM. When downloading from web archive, somehow the file modification date is the current date.

Something wrong with your link, it doesn't work.

I cannot confirm this with the registry files on my 11-year-old Inspiron laptop. scanreg /opt in MSDOS mode did reduce the size of a never compressed system.dat (8905KB) and user.dat (1193KB).scanreg /opt seems to be better at reducing the size of system.dat, while RegCompact v1.0 seems to be much better at reducing the size of user.dat. Here some results of a combined consecutive use of scanreg /opt and RegCompact v1.0: 1) never compressed files before starting the compression experiment: system.dat 8905KB user.dat 1193KB combined size: 10098KB 2) after running scanreg /opt with the files in step 1: system.dat 8825KB (-80KB) user.dat 1189KB (-4KB) combined size: 10014KB (84KB less than uncompressed)) 3) after running RegCompact with the files produced in step 2: system.dat 8873KB (+48KB, i.e. an INCREASE in size) user.dat 981KB (-208KB) combined size: 9854KB (160KB less than after step 2) 4) after running scanreg /opt a 2nd time with the files produced in step 3: system.dat: 8841KB (-32KB) user.dat: 969KB (-12KB) combined size: 9810KB (44KB less than after step 3) So the combined use of scanreg /opt and RegCompact can reduce the size of the registry even more, similar to an improved file compression when a file is first compressed to a .zip file, then the .zip file is compressed to a .rar file. I have no idea whether running scanreg /opt leaves the content of the registry files unchanged, an undocumented feature may not have been tested sufficiently for release.

I checked with Hex Workshop 4 the original uncompressed user.dat (created in step 4 above), the exported .reg file and the user.dat compressed/created by RegCompact, for a difference indicated by Beyond Compare.For this specific string which was different: - the uncompressed user.dat contained 0D 0A 0D 0A [=CR LF CR LF] - the .reg export file converted these 4 bytes to 5C 72 5C 6E 5C 72 5C 6E [=\r\n\r\n] - the compressed user.dat (created by RegComp) contained 0D 0A 0D 0A [=CR LF CR LF], i.e. no error was introduced during the compression by RegCompact. In Regedit under Win98 the value data 0D 0A 0D 0A [=CR LF CR LF] is displayed as 4 thick vertical lines.

I have made the following test of RegCompact v1.0 #5 [MD5 5749...]: 1) Under Win98SE, with a never compressed registry: I exported with Regedit the whole registry as a .reg file 2) I ran RegCompact and Win98 shut down 3) instead of re-booting into Win98SE I booted into WinXP 4) under WinXP I saved the 2 Rcxxxx.tmp files and Wininit.ini created by RegCompact under Win98, as well as the Win98 user.dat and system.dat files (as backups) 5) I rebooted into Win98SE Under Win98SE I ran Beyond Compare v3.3.4 and made a Registry Compare of the active registry under Win98SE (i.e. the compressed registry files created by RegCompact v1.0) and the exported .reg file created in step 1 above (i.e. the exported Win98 registry before running RegCompact). The purpose of this comparison was to check whether the content of the compressed registry was identical to the content of the registry before compression. Here the results: 1) It looks like the content of the compressed system.dat/user.dat and of the pre-compression system.dat/user.dat is identical, except for a few differences which still require investigation. If a registry expert repeats a similar experiment, maybe these differences can be explained. The problem is that Beyond Compare can compare a live registry against an exported .reg file, but not against a system.dat or user.dat file. 2) Regedit seems to have an issue when it exports data as a .reg file: The characters "0A" [=LF] and "0D" [=CR] seem to get converted to something else, at least as displayed by Beyond Compare. The original key value is probably not the same anymore when such an exported registry file is imported. The registry keys of some software packages (e.g. by Iomega, Emailchemy) contain program descriptions containing Linefeeds for nicer display, which seem to get converted when exporting as a .reg file.

Hi CharlotteTheHarlot, I have made a preliminary test of RegCompact v1.0 #5 [MD5 5749...] on my 11-year-old laptop under Win98SE. I installed Win98SE on this laptop 9 years ago, no re-installation of Win98, and there are about 100+ apps installed under Win98. I do not use software to clean up the registry, or software to compact the registry, but I keep my system clean by creating clean restore points and then re-install new useful apps on a previous clean restore point, building in this way the next clean restore point. I never had any problem with the registry becoming bloated. Before running RegCompact 1.0 system.dat was 8904kB and user.dat was 1192kB. After running RegCompact they were 8860kB and 976kB respectively, i.e. a decrease of about 2.6% in size. Running RegCompact was easy and did not cause any damage. What are the benefits of running RegCompact? 1) After running RegCompact my 11-year-old laptop appeared to be a little bit faster and crisper, for example when running Norton Disk Doctor, opening Explorer windows or loading MS Word. 2) Are there any other benefits or uses of RegCompact? Here an excerpt from Jerry Honeycutt's book about the Win98 registry: "Registry Checker [scanreg] has an undocumented feature [/opt switch, only under DOS] that allows you to optimize the Registry. Registry Checker compresses the Registry whenever it detects that it has over 500KB of dead space"

I have no idea which program created the .bin file. UltraISO displays nothing in the field "Application" under Properties -> Label tab. Isobuster is quite reliable. Isobuster v2.5.0.0, when extracting the 2 bad .avi files from Track 01 -> ISO9660 [also via Joliet], generates error messages like: "Unreadable sector. Sector 127836 couldn't be read. Error: 05/64/01. Retry, Ignore this sector or Quit" -> Ignore DOS and WinXP. Also a Farsi-patched WinXP, with a lot of non-Western code pages. No idea what the Isobuster error message "Error: 05/64/01" means, maybe a non-Western date. My Linux laptop is currently packed away. The physical media can be excluded, the .bin file has been physically saved on a USB HDD, the original CD is not available. jaclaz, this tip was jackpot When I mounted the .bin/.cue to a virtual drive of Alcohol v1.9.8.7612, Unstoppable Copier created a bad .avi file #2, which DivXRepair v1.0.1 was able to repair by reducing the size of the bad .avi file from 740 to 644 frames (90 bad frames found, Bad frames intervals from 225 to 240 and from 241 to 316. The not-yet-repaired .avi file #2, created from the Alcohol virtual drive, ran Ok in VideoLAN v1.0.3 under WinXP, but caused VirtualDub to crash. Unstoppable Copier did not find any corrupt bytes when copying the bad .avi file #2 from an UltraISO virtual drive, but the file created in this way could not be repaired with DivxRepair. To repeat: mounting a bad .bin file on different virtual drive software (e.g. Alcohol vs UltraISO) produces different results. The bad .avi file #1, extracted with UltraISO from the .bin file and then repaired with DivxRepair, however, was much better than the file repaired file obtained by using Unstoppable Copier and the Alcohol drive. Only 2/989 frames were lost in the repaired UltraISO file, while in the repaired Unstoppable Copier/Alcohol file 85/989 frames were lost. I am still looking for a way to repair the bad .avi file #2 with fewer lost frames. I rejected Digital Video Repair v2.2.3, it wants to install some adware and my firewall blocked it. The website states: "Digital Video Repair come bundled with RelevantKnowledge research tool to help us keep these software titles free". I had actually tried to repair this bad .avi file#2 about 2 years ago, and I had tried out many tools then, including Digital Video Repair v1.02. Here my notes regarding Digital Video Repair v1.02 and this bad .avi file #2: "v1.02 just truncates it after the 1st major error - but you can at least see 1/3 of [the bad .avi #2]. Careful: later versions contain adware"

Hi jaclaz, The unrepaired .avi #1 plays Ok in VirtualDub v1.9.11, the bad .avi #2 crashes VirtualDub with the message "VirtualDub Program Failure. Oops --- VirtualDub has crashed... An out-of bounds memory access (access violation) occurred in module 'ir32_32'... while decompressing video frame 242..." BTW, DivXRepair v1.0.1, which could repair the bad .avi #1, is based on VirtualDub v1.4.2 and when DivXRepair crashes on the 2nd bad .avi file, a window "VirtualDub Program Failure. Crash Reason: Access violation" comes up. I have to correct my previous posting #42. The CD image file is not a .iso file, but a .bin file. When I extracted the .bin file with UltraISO v9.3.6.2750 there was no error message. When I extracted under Win98SE the same .bin file with Isobuster v2.5.0.0, however, Isobuster displayed CRC errors: - for the bad .avi #1 sectors 127836-127838 could not be read (altogether 3 bad sectors) - for the bad .avi #2: sectors 164657-164662 and 165033-165036 could not be read (altogether 10 bad sectors) So Isobuster seems to be a very good tool for testing the integrity of .bin files, probably also of other CD image file types. The 2 bad .avi files extracted with UltraISO were better than those extracted by Isobuster, however. The bad .avi #1 extracted with UltraISO could be repaired with DivXRepair, but not the bad .avi #1 extracted with Isobuster.

I am currently trying to repair a .iso CD image which contains program files and short .avi files. The underlying CD apparently had bad sectors, so that 2 .avi files are corrupt and hang the VideoLAN player. The .iso file itself seems to be Ok. I have tried to repair the 2 corrupt .avi files, so that I can re-inject the repaired .avi files into the .iso image file. DivXRepair v1.0.1 of 6-Mar-2003 http://divxrepair.sourceforge.net/ was able to repair one of the two files, so that it plays Ok with VideoLAN, with cracking sounds where the bad stuff was, and VideoLAN does not crash anymore. DivXRepair could not repair the 2nd .avi file, and crashed while trying to repair it. DivFix++ v0.34 was also able to repair the 1st file, but not the second file. ASF-AVI-RM-WMV-Repair v1.82 did something useful to the 2nd file: although the repaired file caused VideoLAN to crash, the sound continued playing apparently Ok. Any suggestions for a better repair tool for .avi files?

Hi dencorso, Sorry for the mix up. I had copied VRFYPE (27Jul2012) to the folder containing the various files RegCompact_x.exe, and then ran VRFYPE without a file parameter <filespec>, like "*.*": > vryfype or >vrfype /a This resulted in no files being listed, the same for running > vrfype *.* without indicating an option parameter </option> When running VRFYPE with both parameters entered, everything was Ok: vrfype *.* /a Maybe in the next version of of VRFYPE you could use "/a" as default parameter if no </option> parameter was entered, and "*.*" if no <filespec> parameter was entered. BTW the parameter "/s" [for checking all sub-folders] is still on my wish list down the line, even if there is a workaround, as you suggested in , but adding such a /s switch looks like a major undertaking. VRFYPE is an excellent program, with many potential uses. Here the screen output by VRFYPE (27Jul2012), sent to a text file vrfype.txt, when entering in a Win98SE DOS window: >vrfype *.* /a >vrfype.txt VrfyPE v1.0 Freeware by dencorso, 2012 .\RegCompact_2.exe => Cheksums: Header = 00000000 Real = 000132DC Zero in header! .\RegCompact_3.exe => Cheksums: Header = 00000000 Real = 000162F4 Zero in header! .\RegCompact_4.exe => Cheksums: Header = 00000000 Real = 0001BCD9 Zero in header! .\RegCompact_unpacked_6.exe => Cheksums: Header = 00000000 Real = 0001887F Zero in header! .\RegCompact_7.exe => Cheksums: Header = 00000000 Real = 00014227 Zero in header! .\VRFYPE.EXE => Cheksums: Header = 0000431C Real = 0000431C BTW, when ">vrfype *.* /a >vrfype.txt" is run in a WinXP command prompt window, an identical .txt file is generated, except that the last line has the file extension in small letters: .\VRFYPE.exe => Cheksums: Header = 0000431C Real = 0000431C

I have checked files #2,3,4,6 and 7 with dencorso's VRFYPE of 24-Jun-2012 (old version) All files have the same header checksum 00000000, so in the case of RegCompact.exe VRFYPE (old version) cannot be used to identify a PE file as patched @dencorso: Your new version of VRFYPE of 26-Jul-2012 with the switch /0 or /z displays only "No files found!" for files #2,3,4,6 and 7. If you find the time to fiddle around with VRFYPE, could you increment the version number?

Hi CharlotteTheHarlot, 1) I checked the 6th file RegCompact.exe (at the bottom of your list, with MD5 fa3f9649f5f5f74b7036a48bcf205d42) with MiTeC EXE Explorer, it has a time stamp of 1-Dec-2000 9:33:06AM, very similar to the file modification date indicated for the 5th file. The time stamp by MiTeC EXE Explorer is more helpful than the file modification date for categorizing the various versions of RegCompact.exe. MiTeC EXE Explorer displays for file #6 in the Strings tab several error messages which were localized into Italian. I would speculate that file #6 is only a modification with a hex editor of file #5, not a new compilation. 2) The Readme.txt files accompanying the file #3 (modif.date 28-Oct-2000) and file #4 (modif.date 18-Nov-2000) have 2 main differences, possibly helpful for identifying version differences: a ) added to Readme.txt of file #4: "Command Line Arguments ======= ==== ========= If you execute RegCompact with the /NOGUI command line argument it will automatically compact the registry hives and reboot the system with no user interaction." b ) removed from Readme.txt of file #4: "Installation ============ Run the RegCompact1.0.exe installation program inside the zip archive you downloaded. It will install the program to the location you select. Please note no uninstall feature is included, as all you need to do is delete RegCompact's program folder to uninstall it." 3) I have come across a 7th version on the mule, it has MD5 3D5DF950B2DCAE3B886C4FC625A4F512, also 73728 bytes, file modification date October 04, 2001, 3:52:02 AM, and a time stamp with MiTeC of 17-Oct-2000 2:39:29 PM, i.e. the identical time stamp of your file #2. This 7th version is a derivative of the file #2, with some error messages patched with non-Western characters. The accompanying .txt file is also in non-Western characters, perhaps Russian. 4) Which version to use? I have no idea what the impact would be of running under US Windows 9x a program patched for a different Windows localization/codepage, and would stay away from the Italian/Russian? localized versions. This would leave file #4 (modif.date 2000-11-18) as best version, as long as no download location can be found for file #5 (modif.date 2000-12-01). RegCompact v1.0 looks like an interesting program, but I haven't tried it out yet, I am waiting for more reports about the experience other users had with it.

Hi jds, I would speculate that the frequency of false positives depends on what one is scanning. Most of the stuff I am scanning comes from the mule and often contains patches etc. Some of these little files are apparently created by software with which also malware may be produced. Some antivirus programs tend to identify all files created by such software as malware, even if the files are good and clean. False positives might lead one to delete files which are actually good. I have come across a rare false positive by Kaspersky Anti-Virus for one series of little files, which was incorrectly identified as a trojan "packed win32.black.a". About 5-20% of the downloads with the mule are infected, as identified by Kaspersky. Avast flags more - but it is practically impossible to know whether these files flagged by Avast, and not by Kaspersky, are really infected or just false positives. About 2 years ago, after the terrible infection with the Tenga exe infector, I had installed Avast under WinXP and Kaspersky under Win98, for double-checking. After a while I stopped using Avast because of the (probably) false positives. virustotal is impractical for checking large quantities of files. I make a pre-check of the stuff from the mule as follows:1) I open archive files (e.g. .rar) with WinRAR. Maybe 5% don't open (corrupt archives or the file extension was changed from e.g. .avi to .rar). I then look at the modification dates of the files in the archive. If the file modification dates differ substantially, e.g. by several years, then some recent malware may have been injected and the archive is suspicious. If the archive contains just a few files, including a .dat and a .exe file, it is in most cases malware. 2) nfodiz is a most useful program for pre-checking downloads containing an .nfo file. After opening an archive in WinRAR I just double-click on the .nfo file in the WinRAR window. If nfodiz displays a nice-looking nfo, and the modification dates of the other files in the archive are close to the modification date of the .nfo file (and close to the date often displayed in the .nfo window), there is a good chance that the archive is Ok. If nfodiz displays jibberish, then the archive is infected and can be deleted. The description page of nfodiz is http://web.archive.org/web/20050205083144/http://www.softpile.com/Development/Distribution/Review_03050_index.html nfodiz can be downloaded from http://liveweb.archive.org/http://www.brigada.ro/downloads/nfodiz_setup.exe 3) downloaded .exe files I drag onto the desktop icon of MiTeC EXE Explorer. If the .exe file is supposed to be old software, but has a much more recent timestamp, the .exe is most likely infected. These 3 steps identify about 60% of the infected files. About 50% of the files identified in these 3 steps are not flagged by Kaspersky, although eventually Kaspersky will identify many as infected, with subsequent signature updates. This is not a critique of Kaspersky, there are just too many new malware programs.

For the moment, Avast 4.8 is still the best complete solution, IMHO.Hi jds,I beg to disagree. Avast, in contrast to KAV6, generates a lot of false positives, and quite a few of my downloads were erroneously flagged by Avast as infected. Kaspersky Anti-Virus 6 generates rarely false positives. I have used Avast in 2010, and rejected it because of the false positives. To me, a false positive is more annoying than an infected file not flagged. I have not experienced a stability issue with KAV6 under Win98, but I use KAV6 only as an on-demand scanner. During the last 6 months, however, KAV6 does occasionally crash upon loading, but only under WinXP SP2 (not under Win98SE), and only on my 11-year-old Inspiron laptop (512MB RAM), not on my dual core desktop (2GB RAM). WinXP seems to work Ok after such a crash, but I do reboot then. Decreased signature count I have just updated the signatures of Kaspersky Anti-Virus 6, the signature count on 6-Sep-2012 was 7.772.298. The last time I ran the signature update from the Kaspersky server (under Win98, of course), was on 18-Jul-2012 with a signature count of 8.585.549 signatures. No idea why the signatures decreased by 800.000 over the last 6 weeks. I hope this decreased signature count is not a sign of a possibly approaching end-of-updates for v6.0.2.621, perhaps on 1-Oct-2012. Kaspersky Anti-Virus v6.0.2.621 after it reaches its end-of-updates I am archiving the Kaspersky Update folder after each successful signature update. In this way Kaspersky Anti-Virus v6.0.2.621 can be re-installed with a reasonable signature count: After adding a license key with an expiration date after the last update, KAV6 can be updated from the Kaspersky Update folder. Without a signature update, KAV6 would be useless, only about 500.000 signatures, of Dec-2007, are installed after a fresh installation. The size of the rared-up Kaspersky Update folder is currently about 250MB. I am very eager to see whether the signatures of Kaspersky Anti-Virus v6.0.2.621 can be updated after 1-Oct-2012.

Hi krebizfan, Welcome to the Win98 forum and thanks for the link. Eventually I intend to do some more testing of 1.2MB floppy disks in various LS-120 drives. Some initial comments, about 1.2MB 3.5" floppies in LS-120 drives under WinXP, are in postings #68-69

Thanks rloew. Perhaps this plug adapter in the shrink-wrapped box was included by mistake, by people packing the boxes at Digital Research. Digital Research was also selling regular 1.44MB floppy drives http://web.archive.org/web/19981206130558/http://www.dr-tech.com/products.html . Or Digital Research had purchased power adapter plus plug adapter together, as pictured in Jaclaz's link http://www.rrdatatelecom.com/cgi-bin/rrdata/L1065 and hadn't bothered to take out the plug adapter. The Digital Research box also came with a Molex to small connector power adapter, as shown in the picture there. BTW, I have tried to put an SDHC card into the connector of an old 5.25" floppy drive cable, as pictured in http://www.scienceprog.com/sd-mmc-card-fits-in-floppy-connector/ but the SDHC card was too thick and didn't fit. I haven't tried it yet with an SD card.

Hi jaclaz, This link "SD MMC card fits in floppy connector" is an interesting find, to connect SD or MMC cards to an old 5.25" floppy cable (to the floppy drive controller? or to a different controller?), after doing "some rewiring of cable". The questions are: 1) does the bottom side of the plug adapter shown in posting #103 represent some re-wiring? 2) could a re-wiring of the pins convert this Mitsubishi LS-120 drive functionally into a regular floppy drive? BTW, the excellent "Installation And User's Guide" of the Digital Research Technologies drive (=Mitsubushi drive) states on p.1: "The LS-120 is designed to read, write and format 720-kilobyte, 1.2-megabyte, 1.44-megabyte, and 120-megabyte disks". I do not recall having seen the 1.2MB capacity mentioned in the documentation of LS-120 drives by Matsus***a/Panasonic. Maybe this 1.2MB capacity, usually associated with 5.25" floppy disks drives, is relevant for finding out the purpose of the included plug adapter, whose top side looks like the connector of a 5.25" floppy drive.

mistaken posting - will be updated

I was just looking for an explanation for why a company would possibly re-start the production of an old motherboard, not make it available at major dealers in North America, but still advertise it as "NEW" at their website. Maybe it was just an erroneous posting at their website. Any other ideas?Maybe a less vulnerable OS, like OpenBDS, does not fulfil certain requirements. In the case of IraX, for example, the right-to-left writing system may be a difficulty, also the wide-spread use of Windows software. A change from one OS family to another would pose a major challenge to any organization, so a change for certain departments only could be imaginable. Such a response could be imagined after the StuYnet attack. The recent Shamoon virus supposedly also works under Win9x http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/331033 One could also imagine demand by Western government agencies for Win9x motherboards for developing Win9x-compatible malware.

The Mitsubishi LS-120 drive, which came with the plug adapter, does not have a 2nd 34-pin connector, only a 40-pin IDE connector. I checked some old 5.25" floppy drives. The connectors on these 5.25" floppy drives have on the back side metal strips for all 17 uneven pins 1 to 33. The plug adapter, in contrast, has on the back side only metal strips for pins 1 and 33, there are no metal strips for uneven pins 3 to 31 (see middle picture in posting #103 above). I am not sure whether this difference is relevant since all uneven pins 1 to 33 for standard floppy disk drive connectors are Ground. In any case, with this plug adapter, of the ground pins only pin 1 has a connection to the 40-pin IDE connector, and pin 33 connects to pin 1. Did the plug adapters you have seen have 17 metal strips on each side, or was their back side like the plug adapter here, with only 2 metal strips?

Hi rloew, This plug adapter has been sitting in a box for over a year, and I haven't dared to try it out, yet. My gut feeling says there is a 50% chance that I would get a burnt out motherboard, a damaged LS-120 drive and a burnt out plug adapter. The irreplaceable component would be the burnt out plug adapter, I haven't seen such a plug adapter before. There must have been a reason why this plug adapter was included in the box with the LS-120 drive. Any ideas about how to connect the plug adapter, at my risk, is appreciated. I would speculate that this plug adapter could perhaps make this specific LS-120 drive model function like a normal 720KB/1.2MB/1.44MB floppy drive, without the ability of reading/writing/formatting 120MB diskettes. I would further speculate that this plug adapter works only with the LS-120 drives by Mitsubishi, and not with the drives by Matsus***a/Panasonic.

There is a red "NEW" marking for this motherboard at http://www.asrock.com/mb/index.aspBut Frys doesn't list it, and Newegg.com lists it as "Out of stock" http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&N=-1&isNodeId=1&Description=ASRock+775i65G&x=0&y=0 On the last capture by the web archive on 18-Jul-2011 http://web.archive.org/web/20110718022752/http://www.asrock.com/mb/index.asp this motherboard is not listed, so this Win98-compatible motherboard seems to have been added since then, i.e. it may indeed be a new addition to the products offered by ASRock. Newegg and Amazon don't seem to offer this motherboard as a new product even if they are listed among the dealers of ASRock http://www.asrock.com/general/buy.asp?cat=American. I would speculate that some government agencies in non-Western countries are purchasing these Win98 motherboards, to be less vulnerable to Western malware attacks. If this is true, one could speculate further that eventually new malware for the Win9x platform will be developed by Western agencies.