triger49
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by triger49
-
-
@Duffy98 ....
Thanks, I found both versions over at MajorGeeks. There is a definite difference.
Rain v1.0 would falter on heavy system loads after 15 minutes or so. Rain v2.0
seems to have overcome this. it allows a slight increase of maybe 8 degrees or
so and then levels off. One variation, I let it auto detect and both versions seem
content with using the settings for a Pentium Pro. I have this Pentium III 933mhz
overclocked to 980......and heat seems to be it's sole weakness.!
Jake
0 -
@Duffy98...
I saw you mentioned "rain 2" Is there a version "'2" of rain?
I have been usig version 1.0 for years and was told a newer
version was never released....??
T.I.A.
Jake
0 -
Kudos from the peanut gallery...
Just took this for a test drive and was kind of amazed!
It successfully grabbed all my Firefox 3.xx add-ons and
offered to update as needed.
Did you manage to import the FF bookmarks?
Strange thing about that, i have been using an addon called Foxtabs
(similiar to Opera's Speed dial) ..it grabbed that addon...Viola..my
most used book marks where right there..I have not had time to play
with it any more...
Jake
0 -
Kudos from the peanut gallery...
Just took this for a test drive and was kind of amazed!
It successfully grabbed all my Firefox 3.xx add-ons and
offered to update as needed.
Brightened my day......
Thanks...
Jake
0 -
In Windows 98, install my Demo Patch, reboot, note the result and immediately uninstall and reboot.
In Windows ME, install my Demo Patch in Safe Mode, reboot, note the result and immediately uninstall and reboot.
Hi;
Thanks for taking the time to reply...
Under Windows ME, no apparent change...and Everest reported the usual 1024 meg installed...1023 meg System
Under 98se ....patch caused everything to report identical Windows ME including in Everest...(both system property
sheet and Msinfo32 reported 1024 meg)
Thanks
Jake
0 -
Ah, good old Raymond Chen!
I think the 2 MiB less effect kicks in, when you're above some threshold but I saw it higher than you. Whatever it is, it does exist, and may be hardware dependent.
BTW, What's the MaxFileCache value you used throughout your tests?
If you didn't set it then, set it now to 524288, reboot and tell me what happens.
Hi Den;
Settings I used during testing....
[vcache]
MinFileCache=32768
MaxFileCache=262144
ChunkSize=4096
Bumping MaxFileCache to 524288 had no apparent effect.
One oddity I happened upon....
If I use the setting MaxPhysPage=40000
On the next reboot, under msconfig>advanced
the setting for "Limit memory to 999 meg" is checked.
But the system still reports 1022 meg.
Under Windows Me, if that setting is checked, it reports 999 meg.
Makes me wonder if something is amiss or a corrupted DLL?
Jake
0 -
Also that's the only case where
Windows 98 system property sheet showed the Physical memory
instead of the System memory.(1022 meg).
How so? 1022 MiB *is* the System Memory, *and* Win 98 can use all of it without any patching.
Now, the Physical Memory must have been 1024 MiB, or you do have a really unusual memory stick!
Hi ;
first things first , thanks to you and rloew for taking the time to respond...
The name thing was just a way to differentiate between what went from my hand in to the computer,
and what Windows was actually reporting. The result was that Windows Me and 98se both saw the
same thing until somewhere between 768 meg and 1024 meg. I had to 2 sticks of 512 meg and 4 sticks
of 256meg which afforded me the luxury of several combinations, just in case one stick was a culprit...
Like I said from the start, this is strickly a matter of curiosity ...and it was fueled by this article on Raymond Chen's Blog.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2003/08/14/54640.aspx
Cheers
Jake
0 -
ok ....
Was doing some tinkering here...using Everest Ultimate.
It (Everest) shows two different ram reports...one they call
"System Memory" and the other "Physical Memory". System memory
always reflects accurately what is installed, both in Windows 98
and Windows ME.
I tryed 256 meg increments...(ie 256, 512, 768 and 1024)
In each case with both versions of windows,Physical Memory
showed 1 meg less than System memory till I reached 1024meg
where Windows 98 showed 2 meg less. Also that's the only case where
Windows 98 system property sheet showed the Physical memory
instead of the System memory.(1022 meg).
One thing that surprised me, booted to Dos and used the mem
command...it reports 1,048,2xx K....with somewhere around ~300k
in use. The last 2 digits are trunciated so I used the /debug
switch just see what it was reporting.
I know, I know...but just had to satisfy my curiosity
Jake
0 -
I don't have an explanation for it, but mine does the same thing. I have 1GB RAM, 100MB of which is used for a ramdrive, loaded via autoexec.bat. The property sheet on mine reports 922MB. I never paid any real attention to this so I've no idea how long it's been displaying a low value or if it always has.
Phew, thank you, Kind sir for the confirmation. The whole time
I was typing the original post, the thought kept coming to me,
"Nobody is gonna believe this"....
Jake
0 -
Hi;
This is not a matter of any great consequence, just trying assuage my curiosity.
Happened upon a couple sticks 512 meg ram for my DFI Ca64-en mothboard.
Bumped it to 1 gig ...which it happily acknowledged without complaint. I dual boot
98se and Win ME, this is the weird part. Bios, SIW, Everest ultimate and Windows ME
all report 1GIG ....WIndows 98se reports 1022k., both on the property sheet for My Computer
and Msinfo32. ...Any body offer a clue?
Jake
0 -
Hi;
Opera 11.50 working here with no apparent problems (including printing)
The only problem I've encountered at all is with an occassional FLV video
fighting wth my SB100 card and hanging the system...have not been able
to pin done the culprit yet....just a loud sqwak from the speakers and it goes
unersponsive....
Thanks for the great work...
Jake
0 -
MDGx ...thanks for sharing this....
0 -
Just for my own peace of mind.....
Tryed all 3 versions of the dsclient install on my 98se system
with ie6sp1....all 3 produced the same "export" version of Secur32.dll.
Next stop was grab the high encryption pack and checked the included
Dll's against what was resident on my system, The only thing missing
of 3 jaclaz pointed out was sch128c. dll. So I copied that into the Windows
System directory , ended with same results.
Next stop is to find out if that DLL needs to be registered, also going to
roll back my registry to a pretest state and try again.....
any other suggestions would be welcome???
Jake
0 -
@Jaclaz
Good find! That PDF only mentions checking IE 4 /5 for 128 bit
encryption as the parameter for deciding which level Secur32.dll
get's installed.
I am curious now, if that is the sole factor or if it checks other things?
Interesting stuff......
Jake
0 -
@triger49: in what regards Win 9x/ME files, curb your marvel, because, by now, almost anything already is tough to track, and it'll get worse...
LOL, aren't you just a ray of sunshine.....seriously tho, look at the big picture.
Right here on msfn, we have MDGX running a virtual Windows National Archive
We have Jaclaz who will earn a place on Wikipedia for his Bookmarks library.
Yourself, you have probably forgotten more than most of us will know about 9x.
Xeno, Tihiy, Rloew literaly reinventing the wheel and showing us what MS$ could
have done. The List goes on and on, erpdude, LLXX, Gape, Maximus-Decim.
The point is, as a rule of thumb somebody around here has "been there, done that"
How this silly little DLL slipped under everybody's radar just amazed me.
Jake
0 -
@triger49
Seemingly the file at:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q267972/
http://download.microsoft.com/download/win98/update/9766/w98/en-us/266772usa8.exe
contains two different versions of the "Export" version also, renamed as secur32.98g and secur32.98s
jaclaz
Hi Jaclaz;
I saw that, which is why I put in quotes "suppose" to be. I marvel that
a DLL as widely used as this one appears to be is so tough to track
down concrete information on.
Jake
0 -
hi;
Not in the ie6sp1 install, but here is what is "suppose" to be
the none export version 4.10.2228.....
Instant Messaging Client Authentication From Separate Domain
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q267972/
HTH
Jake
0 -
Hi
Try this...it applies to Server 2003 and they changed some things but
if memory serves it is the Dsclient software you need....been awhile
since I dealt with this...
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555038
HTH
Jake
Edit; scratch this idea...it's the old version....I was told Microsoft updated it.....grrgh
0 -
I'm not sure but maybe you can do it with Avidemux (2.5.3) but in that case you need to install KernelEx.
Thanks for the suggestion, but 2.5.3 reports a page fault and 2.5.4 reports one of those "something-or-other is missing in Page Export whatever ..." messages - so no luck. But thanks.
I've tried VLC streaming - but that doesn't work either. Weird.
At least for me, VLC is cranky with certain VOB files (Ver 0.86i)
The way I got around it, was to play it VLC while saving the stream
to a Microsoft .asf format. That has worked everytime. Then I use
Oxelon Media converter to get where I wanna go.
http://www.oxelon.com/media_converter.html
Kinda like going around your elbow to get to your thumb,
but it works and produces good clean files.
Jake
0 -
Does anyone know how to remove the floppy icon in windows explorer, the reason being i don't have a floppy drive so I don't need it.
With TweakUI (v1.33, for Win98, digitally signed 29-Aug-2000 by MS, no idea where to get it now) you can prevent any drive letter from being displayed in My Computer, but not in Windows Explorer.
Since WinBoost (I just checked with old v4.6 of 2-Sep-2003, v4.9 is the current version at http://www.magellass.com/index.html ) can hide selected drives in both Windows Explorer and My Computer, there must be a way to hide the floppy drive letter with a registry patch. WinBoost requires a reboot after hiding/unhiding drive letters, TweakUI doesn't.
Hey Multibooter, how you doing?
Have had no experience with Winboost, but using Tweakui to
hide drives causes parts of the right click context menu
on the start button to be grayed out....
http://www.helpwithwindows.com/windows98/troub-05.html
Also causes shutdown / reboot to hang in some cases, but
I did not write in my notes where I learned that from. But
I just tryed it here and it still does it...
Winboost may circumvent all that...
Jake
0 -
Adding printing too but that did not help. I pulled out an old Netgear 614 router and used an unencrypted wireless connection and met with no success.
Just a passing thought, disable the router firewall.
If all else fails, try and find a cat5 crossover cable
and see if you can get working that way first.
Edit; just read in your post where you cannot see
yourself in network neighborhood....
http://www.duxcw.com/digest/Howto/network/net2pc/intro.htm
Jake
0 -
Instead of starting a new topic I just dug up an old one because it suits my question.
Does anyone know how to remove the floppy icon in windows explorer,
the reason being i don't have a floppy drive so I don't need it. Thanks
Yes, this would be of interest.
The cheap and dirty way is simply to go into device manager,
find the floppy drive controller, bring up it's property sheet
and put a check mark beside "Disable in this profile". Of course
that leaves an ugly red 'X' in your device manager window. But it
works....
Jake
0 -
dencorso,
I have an update.
I copied EMM386.EXE and HIMEM.SYS over from my Win98 tower to the 3.11 PC (I renamed the old files in case I need to bring them back), and rebooted.
Rebooting went fine, which was a relief. Then I tried to run the installation program for IE5 -- and I got the same message as before about not running on less than 4 megabytes.
For good measure, I then also tried to install IE4, and I got a different but related error: "There is not enough memory to start the specified application. Quit one or more applications, and then try again." (I didn't have any other programs running.)
What can we do next? Maybe I'll try the EMM386.EXE for DOS 6.22 that triger49 suggested. Anything else?
--JorgeA
No. Keep the files from 98. You problem lies elsewhere. And, as I was already suspecting, it's related to *too much* memory. See MS KB239550 for the workaround. This should allow you to install IE5.01... Afterwards, do let me know whether it worked or not.
Cheers to both you and Jake!
Good find.....
Jake
0 -
Jake,
Maybe I should try this idea (to get the emm386 for DOS 6.22) next. Grafting the two Windows 98 files onto the 3.11 system didn't crash it, but they didn't help with the installation of IE5 (or IE4), either. Unless there's some other tweak to try first.
I repeat once more how delighted I am with this forum, where folks pitch in to help with the most esoteric and obscure problems that people run into!
--JorgeA
Hi...
Somewhere in Win 3.1x itself is a mem command, I would be interested
to know how much memory Windows thinks it has?
Also, there are a truckload of switches for emm386 which use to be
a source of consternation for everybody. I think MDGX has them
documented on his website...I'll see if I can find them and post back.
Cheers
Jake
0
Windows 98SE - Pentium 3 Question
in Windows 9x/ME
Posted
LOL, gotta love it....
A: Yes I did, with an ancient utility I had for Windows 95 ....showed 5 lines of code different
B: Did I bother to reverse engineer it ...No
C: Quote from MajorGeeks Page on Ver 2.0 "Version 1.0 is also available online as some have found 2.0 to be unstable."
D: This stuff is over 12 yrs old....did it really go that long and nobody else noticed till now? Possible...???
E: Did I dream the numbers I was seeing with Via harware monitor...no!
One other plausible explanation ....the install of ver1.0 is corrupted....
but I ain't gonna worry about fix'n something that ain't broke....
Peace!
Jake