pointertovoid

And if the first solution doesn't help, you may try to copy Me's installation CD on the HDD, boot from a floppy and start the install from the HDD. But if your CD drive is on a Sata port, you may have to set the Bios to some Legacy mode instead of Ahci. Even with W2k, for which Intel gives no Ahci P45 driver, the Legacy mode is requested, and it slows down the P45 a lot. For W2k I could use thankfully BlackWingCat's adapted driver to use Ahci on P45.

For Nt4 and W2k: they see each hyperthreaded core as two sockets and can use them as such. "Not HT aware" only means that their licence counts them as 2 cores or sockets. No instability to expect. But depending on your number of cores and on your licence, disabling HT forces Nt4/2k to prefer physically distinct cores or sockets, which is more efficient than hyperthreading a single core and neglecting the others. I wouldn't believe a website which is already false on this point.

Hi everyone, just adding a confirmation from my side. DotNet 2.0sp2 installs on W2k sp4 rollup1 without complaining and seems to work, but I tested only with Paint.net shortly. Wikipedia also means that just the Rollup1 is needed. As a language pack, I used NetFx20SP1_x86fr.exe (replace fr by what you need) on 2.0sp2.

Thanks everybody! - NtRegOpt had brought very little reduction in size; - Yes I like W2k, but not only. I also have W95b which is good. Future will tell us about Seven. - A new user account? Nice idea! I didn't try because I expect this reduces only Ntuser, though my Software hive is big. Or does it? - ControlSet003: I had one too many, it saved some room. - I also used Nirsoft's tool and slashed a help file that was integrated in two languages in the registry, don't ask me why. Saved a bit as well. And then I had gained very few %, which means that the worry would reappear soon on this computer used by a granny who couldn't fix it. So I decided to revert to Ntldr and Ntdetect v5.0, alas.

Yes, I know that Windows brings a mouse driver and most people don't want another one. But I do. That is, I currently use a stone-age driver that was created by Aidem then (they changed their activity meanwhile) and shipped with Hp mice and some more but works with many models. Let's call it 4dmain.exe v1.0 after its main file. And I appreciate very much two of its features: - It scrolls the window it flies over without giving it the focus; - It can reprogram the central click, I use it to maximize a window. Doesn't look impressive? Well, I like it really. Imagine a small text editor window over a big two-pane Explorer: I can scroll both Explorer panes without losing the text editor in foreground. It also brings scrolling to W95 - but I can just keep 4dmain.exe for W95. Now, 4dmain.exe has growing drawbacks: - Only PS/2 versions exist. The newest seems to be a v5.0, without a Usb interface, and not as good as v1.0. - It doesn't scroll at all in Firefox nor Opera. To my surprise, 4dmain.exe still brings its benefits when using a Usb mouse with the corresponding W2k driver working, but the combination looks less than optimum. So: - Is there a driver with the same benefits but designed for Usb? I tried Intellipoint, Logitech mw980... They don't scroll without focus. Some give the focus when flying over (Windows can do this as well) which isn't what I want. - What are the methods to make 4dmain.exe work with Firefox? Thanks!

Did you try to launch the Task Manager before transferring data to this drive? With some luck you'll see a task eating Cpu as the system freezes and then you'll know more. I also got similar behaviours with P-Ata when data transmissions were corrupted, especially with CF cards on P-Ata adapters. Then the driver would revert down to Pio which grips all Cpu time and can't be interrupted, at least on my older Wins.

Notebook screens are nonstandard, so you need a screen from the same notebook model. Unaffordable and unavailable from the manufacturer, but look at eBay.de or eBay.com - either for a complete notebook, possibly sold as defective or "for pieces" or, with some luck, you'll find just a screen. Not necessarily cheaper than the complete notebook. I wrote .de or .com because other eBay are smaller or less tech-oriented. Don't forget to compare the price of a used Latitude with other used models. --- http://www.priceminister.com/offer/buy/548...C610-Ecran.html http://www.priceminister.com/offer/buy/266...r-portable.html --- http://support.euro.dell.com/support/downl...tid=&impid= I didn't look for a long time, they probably tell there if you can exceed 256MB. Upgrading from 750MHz to 850MHz would bring little. To improve an old computer, you may expand its hardware (especially the Hdd), but you may revert to older software as well. If your computer doesn't connect to the Web you can drop all security software and revert to Win Me and Office 97 Pro and so on, and then a 750MHz 256MB is fabulously fast, quick and swift. About 5$ and 40$ at eBay. W2k would also fit better in 256MB than Xp (or less badly, depending of additional software). Replacing the Hdd with one (...or two...) CF cards also improves a laptop a lot, but choosing the right CF cards is not easy. And P-Ata Ssd are supposedly all bad. --- Mamma mia, this is a 440bx chipset? Excellent speed BUT the worst ever for Ram compatibility. According to Intel, it can handle 256MB as a maximum total (2*128MB) though people succeeded using 512MB on it. But on a laptop, I wouldn't try. Too expensive, too random. Would be fantastic with WinMe, acceptable with a good Hdd and W2k if some security is needed.

Hello everybody! I had recently again the already known "C\Win\Sys32\Config\System missing or corrupt" error preventing W2k booting. This was solved by reverting Ntldr+Ntdetect from 5.1 to 5.0 and at the same time pasting a 2 week older System hive. But I'm looking for other solutions. - In a 2k-Xp dual-boot scheme, having Ntldr+Ntdetect v5.1 is much easier! http://www.msfn.org/board/please-help-w-du...ml&t=127900 - The same error is known to exist with Ntldr+Ntdetect v5.0 and even v4.0 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306038/en-us So I would like to reduce efficiently the size of the registry, which at first glance looks like a more elegant solution, and might accelerate Win startup as well. I used RegClean, RegCompact, NtRegOpt with disappointing results. Only the Software hive shrank by just 4%, with no effect on boot time. Hives now weigh: Software 20MB, System 6MB, my NtUser >3MB, others smaller So are there more efficient ways? Maybe, repair W2k using a more recently HfSlipped Cd? ----- Just for fun: this failure to boot appeared shortly after I installed a mouse driver - yes sir - that added 1700 files - yes sir again. I wanted to scroll windows without clicking in them (like my stone-old 4dmain v1.0 from Aidem does) but all this new driver brought to me were help files to use the Control Panel settings by Microsoft, and buttons to download an even newer version of this wonderful driver, all needing an added task. ----- Thanks!

I'd vote for the Athlon Xp - though I'd dislike a Via chipset. Seen a 1.8GHz Celeron4 run, it's nothing impressive! A 1.4GHz PIII Tualatin is more efficient and silent. As for Agp, you need the notch to be right or left on both the mobo and the video card. Notice many mobos and video cards accept both standards. Find the exact reference of the mobo and then its manual, that's the big trick. Then, either the Celeron or the Athlon will be quite acceptable with W2k-Xp and excellent with WinMe.

Does the Bios have any effect on the detection of the drive by Win7? And is there anything like EnableBigLba in Win7? http://www.48bitlba.com/index.htm

Windows seeing the ports and installing the driver doesn't prove the hardware is sound. Windows wouldn't detect a burnt output buffer for instance. Usb ports have fuses in the form of silicon circuitry that disconnects the power to the load if the loads tries to draw too much (=500mA with a normal port). No damage. The port automatically restarts when you disconnect the load or restart the computer. Did you have a look with UsbView? And yes, never throw away your old hard disk drives, use them for experimental installations! Or else, copy your Win installation Cd on them: faster than the Cd. You can have an Ms-Dos boot on the Hdd, then a volume or folder for W95b, for W98se, for WinMe, for the drivers, for urgent applications...

Raid through Xp... Do you mean the Raid feature offered by dynamic volumes? I don't recommend it! - W2k3 probably won't understand what Xp has done. Another Xp on another machine won't read your disks if this machine fails. - Unable to boot - Cpu load - If reinstalling Xp on this same machine, you lose all the volumes you defined - even the data volumes you separated from the OS ----- So Raid through W2k-Xp-2k3's dynamic volumes is rather a bad solution... The good one is to define the Raid array through the Raid host (=Lsi). After that, Win will see a single disk which you can partition as if it were a 72GB one. By the way... No idea if Xp has similar limitations, but W2k needs to have its Sp4 (slipstreamed if needed) to install properly on a Raid array. If not, it may work with some stripe sizes and not with other sizes... (Saw it by myself)

Hi! - It's normal that the Mobo's Bios doesn't show your Scsi disks if the Scsi host has its own Bios. - With some Raid host Bios (Promise), you have to define a Raid array containing a single disk in order to access this disk. And for sure, you need to have some actions at the Raid host's Bios - to the very least, let it recognize the disks. The Raid Host's manual should help you. - I would definitely use first an F6 floppy, and only later try to slipstream the driver in the install Cd. W2k (and I guess Xp and 2k3) allows to take the F6 driver from a Cd if you don't have a floppy drive - but adding a drive would be a better idea. - Xp has its own behaviour with uncertified drivers (I know W2k better, and Xp is more touchy here). Could it, during a Win installation, reject the driver without asking for instructions, and hence not see the disks, just because of a lack of certification? Hope other people can tell it better. - Having to use Raid... The less easy part of your install is configure the Raid host and introduce the driver. Raid-0 isn't more complicated then. As a pair of 36GB Scsi is born for Raid-0, use them that way! They should be much faster than modern S-Ata 7200rpm drives. - Do you discover Raid and try to install Win on it at the same time? This is the most difficult (~impossible) way! I strongly recommend that you first install Win and boot on some P-Ata (or S-Ata) disk and build your Raid-0 array separately, install the driver, and play with the array. At least, a running Win will give you detailed answers if it doesn't swallow a driver. And you can quickly experiment the effect of varied Raid options. Then install Win on the Raid with an F6 floppy. Later, you may slipstream the driver.

What's the interface of this external drive? If it's eSata, hot-plugging it requires Ahci-capable drivers and host. In Usb, W2k has some small weaknesses from time to time, but Xp shouldn't fail the same way, as Xp's Usb software stack is re-engineered and has little to do with W2k. I've also seen unexpected behaviours with W2ksp4 (and Nt4sp6a and Xpsp2, but not Nt4sp0) when connecting on a P-Ata port a CF card declared as removable that had several volumes. No idea if a Usb disk would be treated the same way. Also, about WinMe, I don't believe it has any Lba limitation to 28 bits. All Lba are coded on 32 bits there as far as I know, allowing it to access disks >128GiB provided the Bios is capable of it. Anyway, an Lba28 limit shouldn't let the OS hang, would it?

Well, I've made the boot time measurements I wanted, in artificial but fair conditions (new clean naked install), and: - Raid-0 is slower than a single 7200.12; - An X25E Ssd is thaaaaaaaaat much faster than a 7200.12; - At least with W2k, my PIII+7k160 boots a bit faster than my C2D+7200.12 does... Booooooo! Could it be that the 7k1000b's faster platter improves on the 7k160's good arm, making the combination much faster than a 7200.12? Having an Ssd, I won't make more trials. - Xp boots faster than W2k when Ahci or Raid is available (available to both). An effect of Prefetch I guess. I plan to give detailed measurements, but probably at hardware.de (same username).

Clearer explanation about AGP aperture there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerated_G...ntages_over_PCI That is, AGP aperture is taken from the main memory (not from the graphics card memory) to store textures that the graphics card can access directly.

I would begin with testing the disk. Provided you don't ask for write tests nor complete zero overwrite, this will let information on the drive untouched, and will give you a clear diagnostic between hardware failure and badly written partition record. Good disk test software runs outside Windows of course. Seatool makes basic tests for all brands: http://www.seagate.com/support/seatools but knowing the brand of your disk, you'd better choose the manufacturer's own programme.

I didn't expect any relationship between a hard disk, an Rs232 (=serial port) link, nor a Cr2032 coin battery. In which kind of configuration or use do they meet? And by TTL, do you mean Transistor-Transistor-Logic?

I got Mmc v1.2 too, from MS (more languages available): http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...;displaylang=en and it's officially for W95-98-Me-Nt4. I could use it on W95b (had ie5.50sp2 and Dcom95 then). It's just a general Gui for varied administration programmes which are very common beginning with W2k and very uncommon on W95-98-Me-Nt4. Such programmes have a .msc extension as far as I know, and the only one I found at W95b is CertMgr.msc - this strongly limits the usefulness of Mmc on W95b. ----- Never believe any download site (OK, Majorgeeks is less false) about software compatibility with older Windows. They never try. ----- I don't really understand why you look for another Defrag since your WinMe has the best one. [Edit] Oops, you have W98se, bad luck. Pasting WinMe's Defrag there would infringe copyrights.

Removing System Restore: I do it on each WinMe for I imagine it speeds up booting. But I didn't make a with/without comparison. As for stability, WinMe is decently stable without System Restore - and with it supposedly as well. DOS, or rather console I guess: I would refrain from swapping it from W98, as it works a very different way on WMe. Not really native here. And as you may observe, the startup files meant for the console are gone at WMe - which partly explains its faster bootup. Many people believe and allege Me sucks BUT so fewer people actually tried it... I had W95a-95b-98fe-98se-Me and, if you have the necessary hardware, Me is definitely the best among them, for speed, stability, and of course for being younger; on even smaller hardware, W95b is better; and W98fe-se is just the worst Win I've ever had, by far. But maybe the bugged Via chipsets hit me as I had W98 and hit other people as they got WMe. So yes, try WMe, it's definitely worth it if your hardware is from that era.

Maybe someone could host the entire site from Erpman? Even with zero update, that would be very useful!

What, Erpman closing his site? Mamma mia, how shall we survive this? Yes, there are already several sites for W9x but more are welcome. My personal interests: - W95b, the various upgrades that fit on it, and the applications - Non-English W95b! Information is scarce then, and though really needed! Horrible example: Msaa on non-English W95... And yes, this is a nice forum here, but a website fits different needs. One is interactive, the other saves time by concentrating information and downloads+links. Mdgx, Erpman and others gave me fabulous information I'd never have found on a forum, just because nobody would have asked for. Just to illustrate that a handful people have real interest: yesterday, I burnt my first Cd with integrated floppy image to boot +W95b +all upgrades I know +all drivers for my 2 machines +all urgent applications.

With 1+2GB, will you have dual-channel? Dual-channel over 1+1GB? (I'd prefer that) Or Single channel at the last GB of memory addresses? Or single-channel over 3GB? I expect it to be fairly important, especially if you achieve to use several cores at a time (I mostly don't), and especially since such Amd processors achieve to use dual-channel efficiently for having no Fsb bottleneck.

Hi Ceez, it's me again... I hesitated between the 7k1000b (faster arm) and the 7200.12 (more platter throughput), but not the WD for having had dead disks from them (too few to make statistics however). I bought the 7200.12 but not the 7k1000b so I can't compare experimentally. I chose because I have an Ssd for the OS, so access time was less important for my mechanical drive. If not, I would have kept the more agile 7k1000.b because my older 7k160 are just better than the others I own or have measured, and are quite silent as well. I own half a dozen of Hitachi and Excelstor equivalent, lost none of them - but a WD yes. And Hitachi is rather known for excellent reliability, though this is linked with model and batch. The 7200.12 is very silent and I measured 134MB/s platter throughput, the best among 7200rpm disks. Fast capacities are multiples of 250GB here. Random access time, measured over the whole disks, is 1-2ms worse than the good Hitachi (some there are slow as well). But switch the Aam on at Hitachi, and you get the silence and access time of the 7200.12... Fast capacities for the 7k1000b are 160GB and multiples of 320GB. ----- 16MB or 32MB are a buffer capacity that is never used as a cache and makes no speed difference. Disk manufacturers don't find small Ram chips any more (16MB chips made 128MB modules). Also, customers need something simple to compare. ----- I expect Raid-0 to boot slower than a single disk with current 7200rpm technology. Look: - Windows files may weigh 200kB now (100kB with W95b, 150kB with W2k), so reading at 2*120MB/s takes 833µs fly time instead of 1667µs, gaining 833µs there; - But rotational latency increases from 1/2 to 2/3 of a turn (7200rpm=120Hz=8,33ms), which loses 1389µs. - This means that, in a single-queue-depth context, the user would choose a stripe size of 256kB or 512kB nowadays, and typical Windows files would be picked from a single disk. - But after booting, your uncompressed 15MPixels pictures do load much faster, that's experimentally true. Already at the 7k80 platter speed (60MB/s, arm as agile as now) I observed it with W2k. Though, real life is more complicated, especially since Xp and its prefetch, which produces parallel requests to the disks. As I have two empty 7200.12 - and the right drivers for W2k and Xp - I plan to try and observe, so I'll tell you how much slower they are than my X25-E.

Hi! Sorry not to have the answer you hope. I just want to testify that my ST3500418AS - that is, exactly the same reference - works properly on my Ga-ep45-ud3r (P45 ich10r) with Bios F4 to F11, varied drivers and modes. Did you already try another port, other cables, another host (from another chipset and computer for instance)? And more important: what do Seatools tell? http://www.seagate.com/support/seatools