LoneCrusader

Of course NUSB is not for Windows ME, because Windows ME already has a native USB Storage driver! The SAME USB Storage driver that is used, by NUSB, to provide the functionality under 98SE! Yes, it uses a different method of access than IDE. But the fact that a 32GB USB Stick was not available then does NOT mean that it or anything larger will not work. Then somewhere, you have a hardware problem. Or user error. Yes. Because Windows 98 does not have a "native" USB storage driver. Hence the reason for the creation of NUSB, which borrows that driver from Windows ME. Can't comment directly on most of this. Maybe there were adapters that could overcome BIOS limits, but I'd like to see some examples of these. I'm not aware of any "adapters" that have drivers. A drive connected to a SATA adapter would appear as an IDE (PATA) drive; which is the point of the adapter to begin with. Now if you are referring to an add-on Controller Card, then this might make sense. A limit on a RAID controller would fall into the same category as a BIOS limit. This has nothing to do with the OS. There is no such limit in the FAT32 filesystem, or in Windows 9x at this size. AFAIK, once you patch for the 137GB barrier and 48-bit LBA, you're clear up to 1TB. --- There are many long-established threads here that deal with these issues. They have been hashed and rehashed by all of the "experts." Please do read them, and inform yourself, before making assumptions and posting bad information.

Then, I'm sorry to say, you insist upon remaining willfully ignorant of past events. I wasted several hours of my day digging up these old links. I know they won't change your mind, but here they are for the record. Almost all of these were linked in the previous thread for this project, so there's no reason you shouldn't be aware of them. ---------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Tobin heaping praise on those who spread disparaging FUD against Windows XP: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=13060 NOTE - I was banned from their forum for daring to disagree here. I was later reinstated by Moonchild, but he still refused to answer most of my arguments. Good riddance; I never went back. Directly plotting to sabotage code against XP & whining about "us": https://freenode.logbot.info/binaryoutcast/20190223#c2019477 https://freenode.logbot.info/binaryoutcast/20190223#c2019486 Threatening to withdraw his code repo with the intent to "hinder" us XP-users: https://freenode.logbot.info/binaryoutcast/20190225#c2024612 https://freenode.logbot.info/binaryoutcast/20190225#c2024789 Trashing XP/users: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=16241&start=240#p167582 Targetting Fedor2 and his "friends": https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=169823#p169823 Trashing Vista/users: https://github.com/MoonchildProductions/UXP/issues/817#issuecomment-433252852 Acting like an a$$hole to BSD developers (those he refers to as "poor a$$ Linux developers"): https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86 ---------------------------------------------------------- I will waste no more of my time debating with anyone who simply chooses to ignore anything negative that has been said before, just because "nice things" are happening now. The passage of time does not erase past wrongs, or make them any "less wrong." Sometimes it is possible to make peace, and there's nothing wrong with that. But making peace with someone does not imply that they are suddenly to become a "friend" that you wish to deal with or work with. I suppose I see this as an issue of "principle." Sure, some will not see it as "concrete." I'm very glad that Mr. Tobin seems to be developing a better attitude. I'm impressed by the fact that he's now willing to make some small contribution to the project. However, I find it distasteful that someone who has gone so far to cause trouble in the past is now going to "make choices" for something to do with this project that he has previously disparaged at every opportunity. He trashed the project and its users over and over, his behavior was ridiculous (see links above and the previous thread), and now you guys want to let him be the one to put a face on it? Really? After all roytam1's hard work and time spent, after all the criticism he faced, and now that same person is to be the one who names and brands the project? What an insult. Has anyone taken into consideration that roytam1 does not need, and may not want, Mr. Tobin's help? By pushing for these changes you are effectively railroading him toward a "peace settlement," and placing him in a position where he's being expected to "collaborate" with someone who has been a constant thorn in his side for however long now. I could only speak for myself, and it's irrelevant here because it's not my project, but if I were in roy's shoes, my answer would be a resounding and unequivocal NO.

NUSB 3.3 is not the last version, but the newer NUSB 3.5 doesn't really include anything useful unless you intend to use USB Composite devices (that require USBCCGP.SYS). IIRC, NUSB 3.5 does also include SYSDM.CPL from Windows ME, which will allow USB storage drives to be "autoinstalled" without prompting like on later systems rather than prompting for you to search for a driver, but has the side effect of displaying "Windows Me" in the System Properties rather than Windows 98 and causes an icon bug in the Device Manager. To make the "sizes of new external drives" bit much more simple: Do not exceed 2TB. 1TB and below is even better. Exceeding these limits requires more patches. There is no such thing as a 32GB limit under Windows Me. And the same Windows Me USB storage driver is used for 98 in NUSB, so therefore there's no such limit there either. Where did you get that? (There's an old MSKB article out there with rubbish about 32GB partitions under 95 OSR2, but that's not true either.) Your system will be LBA48 compatible, don't worry. This was only a concern on older systems. I did see that your motherboard has SATA ports; if you want to use them with Windows 9x you should probably use rloew's line of patches (PATCHATA, PTCHSATA) on ESDI_506.PDR rather than BHDD31. This would allow you to use all of the PATA (IDE) and SATA controllers at once if desired. You do not "need" USP3 or KEX, unless you plan to run something that requires them. USP3 provides various updates, official and unofficial. Some of these may be useful. KernelEx allows you to run some newer programs that were written for Windows 2K/XP and don't work on 98 out of the box. It really depends on what you want to use this 98 machine for. If you're using it for retro gaming, etc. and don't plan on trying to use it online or for "experimenting" then you don't need much beyond vanilla + BHDD31. If you're going to use it for "experiments," then you may want some of these unofficial packages. But be aware that the unofficial packages are not always intercompatible. An IDE to SATA adapter will not overcome a BIOS limitation, but it isn't a concern here anyway. You mention another arbitrary limit of 470GB.. I don't remember there being any such limit. rloew offered a patch that's needed at 1TB, but AFAIK there's no limit below that when it comes to the actual filesystem. I vaguely remember a limit related to SCANDISK.. but as long as you don't run SCANDISK on or attempt to defragment a partition larger than ~470GB, then there shouldn't be anything to worry about.

I doubt this post will be very popular, but it needs to be said, for better or worse. It appears to me at this point that everyone is jumping on the renaming bandwagon, despite the fact that it doesn't seem to be an issue of any concern for roytam1, whose project this is, and who does virtually* all the work (*props to those who report bugs and help track issues). I'd like to remind everyone that roytam1 started this as an individual project for his own use, and was kind enough to share it with the rest of us. He has continued to provide "New Moon" along with various other additional utilities, including regular updates and fixes for each, on his own time and with no personal gain from it. He probably never thought it would become this popular, and probably never had any intention of creating an entirely separate "project," especially since he's doing it all by himself in his spare time. And now what do we have.. everyone pushing for things to be changed, just to make nice with the selfsame people who have been so critical of his project and have done their best to cause trouble in the past? Wow, talk about peer pressure. I noted once before, quoting someone else, that those who keep pushing for the changes were in effect doing the work of those who sought to cause trouble. Honestly, I'm still inclined to see it that way. How does a name change actually benefit any single one of you (meaning actual users of the project) who's pushing for it? (Rhetorical question, I don't really expect answers.) I will never understand the "peace at any price" mentality, no matter how many times I encounter it. But now it appears there will be "Peace in our time!" So be it.

I've seen them in action. But this does logically flow to another subject, one of my "pet peeves" if you will. Pale Moon faces this type of denigration itself, yet it's developers continue the cycle and pass this same denigration down to XP (or other legacy systems) users, who only wish to be left alone, and not have things broken "on purpose." As I said it would be long ago, now we're all in the same boat here, whether we agree with one another or not. We all need this same platform. It would be nice to stop arguing about it incessantly. I know you only speak for yourself, but maybe it's a start. If the rest of the Pale Moon crowd would lay off the condescending attitude, then maybe something constructive could come of all this. Personally, I'm mostly indifferent to the name changes. I tend to favor keeping them as-is, but in the end it doesn't matter. I'm just firmly opposed to changing it based on threats, intimidation, or just to appease someone who's being a pain. If those things do indeed come to an end, then maybe it should be considered. I'm not advocating in favor of it; the decision lies solely with roytam1, and I will continue to support him whatever he decides.

One point; the point of which is not to argue, but for the record: When you make statements like these about a project, who in that project would really want to take you seriously? Why would they want to take your advice? HOWEVER- Finally, some small bit of respect. Maybe there is hope.

No problem. I just couldn't see if it was connected. Since one appears to be loose looks it looks like the power supply provides double 4 pin connectors which are required on higher-end motherboards like the X79/X99/X299 and probably others.

Given Mr. Tobin's past statements, behavior, and attitude, I don't blame roytam1 for ignoring him. Why deal with someone who has gone to such lengths to be a general pain in the arse? I see no incentive whatsoever to take him seriously. What happens the next time he "gets angry" and decides all of this is beneath him? What guarantee does roytam1 or any of us have that this "olive branch" will not simply be jerked away again on a whim? What guarantee does roytam1 or any of the rest of us have that Mr. Tobin will not decide to do something that will cause problems in the future? I judge people based on what they do, not what they say. So far Mr. Tobin hasn't shown much of anything but contempt for this project and its users. Maybe he will change.. but methinks some of you all are far too trusting, too soon. ---------------------------------------- Most of what I would say at this point I stated above... I will state once again that I think your claim of this project damaging yours in some way is one hundred percent rubbish. In this, your disdain for this project still shines through. And that reason alone is enough for me not to take your "offer" with more than a grain of salt. But in the end the decision is roytam1's. And I will probably reserve further comment until this is "decided" one way or another.

I would think the system would throw an error beep or some type of notification if it's not connected; but - is the 4-pin CPU power connector to the upper left of the CPU connected? I can't make it out clearly in the picture.

Here we go again... so much for the offer to be "friendly and helpful." Just like last time it doesn't appear to be very sincere. And the idea that roytam1 is somehow "damaging" you is ridiculous on its face. Whether you like it or not, he's generating more users for the projects you're involved in. He just happens to make these projects work for platforms you have abandoned, thereby proving your decision to abandon them was arbitrary and unnecessary.

If the installation went OK, and you're seeing no other issues, then yes, just verify that you install the update before attempting to add more data to the HDD. As noted USP3 may have already provided the fix (I don't use USP3, so I'm not familiar with all its contents). The point jumper makes is also true; however I doubt that a board this "new" would suffer from a lack of 48-bit LBA support.

Once again: There's nothing special about Catalyst 4.11. The only thing significant about it was the fact that it added BETA support for some Xxxx series cards. "BETA CATALYST 4.11 release for RADEON X300, RADEON X600, and RADEON X800 AGP Series" This support remained in the later non-Beta releases, no doubt with improvements!

You don't have to limit RAM to boot into DOS. rloew's RAM patch runs from DOS... Run 98 or ME SETUP; when the system asks to reboot the first time you want to stop it here and reboot to a DOS prompt rather than letting it continue to the second phase. Run the WININIT command to pack VMM32.VXD. Then run PATCHMEM. Then reboot as normal and let SETUP complete. Google GCDROM.SYS. Add to your bootable disk. For AHCI-only controllers you will need rloew's AHCICD package. Maybe possible, but IMO it's best to develop a more universal method as I've described above. Building your own customized installation CD (and method) would alleviate many of the annoyances of manual installation. I've never tried this myself, but IIRC, when Windows loads the USB driver stack it loses communication with itself (because the former "HDD" it was using as mapped by the BIOS disappears) and can't recover. This can be fixed by disabling the specific USB controller where the drive is attached in the Device Manager, but this requires trial and error with Safe Mode to find the right controller. The laptop BIOS may not properly handle bootable USB devices. Have you been able to boot with other USB drives? Different hardware can produce different results here. I've created flash drives that should have been bootable before but only worked on certain hardware, while others created differently worked everywhere.

That's all well and good, but how is this helpful to the OP? And, that being said, many ME VXD's ARE compatible, but they must be patched (downversioned) in order to load under 98. And, once again that being said, there's no reason to start trying to transplant a bunch of ME VXD's to 98 just to be doing so or just because they have a newer version number. If it's not broken, don't fix it. How does 98 handle files larger than 4GB on the NTFS drive? Adding NTFS support to 9x unfortunately does NOT break the 4GB barrier. Unless someone has some good testing results to the contrary, this sounds like a situation ripe for causing data corruption. Why would you create all this unnecessary work for yourself? Why do you need KEX to watch a DVD?

Let's try to keep the discussion here on topic and relevant to Windows 9x. This is not the place to be discussing anything and everything from XP to Windows 10, especially things which will never remotely be compatible or useful to a 9x system. These newer operating systems have their own forums. I realize many users (including myself) create multi-boot systems, but discussion of the other OS'es should go in their respective forums.

KernelEx and WDMEX have completely different targets; KernelEx is for programs and WDMEX is for drivers, which are totally different beasts. I'm not certain it makes much sense to attempt to combine them (but I'm no programmer, so maybe I'm missing something). Now if you mean DLLHOOK, or the lesser-known "UNICOWS WRAPPERS" package, then it makes much more sense. I had hopes that with the "WRAPPERS" package that we might even be able to get roytam1's PaleMoon 26.5 build for Windows 2000 to run under 98, but I never seem to have time to work on making the attempt.

Why would you install Windows 98 to a FAT16 partition to begin with? (I assume this based on you saying you "converted" to FAT32...) You should start with FAT32 to begin with... You can enable 48-bit LBA from the beginning if you create your own install CD or copy the contents of the \WIN98 folder on the CD to a folder on your hard drive and run SETUP from there (i.e. C:\WIN98CD)...; simply extract ESDI_506.PDR from BHDD31.ZIP (or patch your own ESDI_506.PDR with rloew's patch) and drop a copy of it into the \WIN98 folder of your new CD or into the folder on your HDD where you copied the SETUP files. SETUP will then use this ESDI_506.PDR instead of the older unpatched copy inside the .CAB files. This would allow you to combine the first 5 steps... Install using the command "setup /p i" (note the spaces) from your 98 CD or from the folder on your HDD. This will force 98 to use the older APM standard rather than ACPI (ACPI causes many issues on newer systems not designed with Windows 9x in mind). Running automated setup from the CD just runs "setup" without the switches, and thus leaves ACPI enabled. Always install any official updates and packages and drivers BEFORE adding unofficial ones, especially KernelEx.. Usually I install DirectX right after SETUP has completed, and before I start installing drivers.

The Code 10 error in the Device Manager is common on WDM drivers that are missing a function.

2GB of RAM may be a problem here; try using rloew's RAM Limitation Patch instead. The various ram limiting "tweaks" never worked for me. I can't make out the picture very well; I assume it's just a black screen? IIRC this happens to my X600 laptop when I try to load the drivers under 95. Never found a solution for 95, but at least 98 worked in my case. What resolution was attempted/did you try to set for your desktop? It's possible the Mobility X700 or your laptop's LCD panel may not properly support some resolutions. Custom resolutions can be added to the INF file as well (adapt for your card's INF file/section and desired resolution obviously); it may be best to add one for the default resolution chosen by the drivers working under XP and reported in the DXDIAG you posted. Beyond this I'm not sure what to try next. SciTech Display Doctor might be of some use.. It worked on my X600 laptop under 95 but broke Plug & Play in the process. What do you possibly hope to achieve by loading an XP driver INF into the registry? First of all, as I've already pointed out, 2K/XP/Vista/etc display drivers DO NOT WORK under 9x. As far as I know, despite the fact that other devices can use WDM (.SYS) drivers, display drivers under 9x MUST be .VXD drivers. I can't remember the source of that, but I read it somewhere years ago, and I have yet to see any evidence to contradict it. Dependency Walker is for user-mode programs, not drivers, which are an entirely different beast. The proper way to check a 2K/XP WDM driver for 9x compatibility is to use WDMCHECK by Walter Oney or DISPPE32 by rloew on the file while running under 9x. Aside from all that; even IF it were possible to load a .SYS display driver under 9x, the NT-style INFs do not have the correct sections and registry entries to properly load such a device driver under 9x.

What's the Manufacturer/Model and specs of the laptop you're using? This will help us figure out if there may be other issues contributing to the problem. Most likely you will need to first install Windows 98SE with ACPI disabled (SETUP /P I) if you have not already done so. When I tried with ACPI enabled on my laptop I got an unrecoverable series of crashes. It's been several months, and I don't have the machine readily accessible at the moment, but from what I can remember you should only need to uncheck one option box to disable PCI steering. Other changes may produce different results and these may vary yet again according to the hardware in use. Your changes to C8_30314.INF should have been sufficient; you don't really need to change anything else but you will have to point the Update Driver wizard to the 9X_INF folder manually rather than depending on Catalyst Setup. I would just use one line and truncate the entry to just ""ATI MOBILITY RADEON X700 Series" = RV410_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_5652" eliminating the REV, SUBSYS, and CC codes, as these get really super device-specific for no reason as they all point to the same section. Now, C9_30314.INF does NOT have all of the required sections to install a RV410_ENU device. This may be the reason for the crashes if you were using this INF at this point rather than your C8_30314.INF, which does have all of the required sections. Simply reverting to your C8_30314.INF may work; if not, or if you experience crashes/instability, start over using 98SE with ACPI disabled as above.

IMO, you've mixed too many parts together for starters. If you're using rloew's RAM patch you should not need HIMEMX, and unless you have some specific reason for using it, you most definitely don't need EMM386. Nor do you need to limit MaxPhysPage... (what is burnmem.sys? ) When using PATCHMEM, you can forget about all of the "tweaks and workarounds" used by those without it. re: Slow Boot due to unrecognized Machine Type... I've seen this problem once on an AMD machine. Newer systems don't handle Gate A20 in a 9x-friendly way. Setting /MACHINE:1 on HIMEM.SYS in CONFIG.SYS may solve the issue. I've not used rloew's AHCI driver yet, so I can't address that part specifically... If you have the option on that board to use Native SATA mode (may be labeled as "IDE") then it should work with his SATA patch, but I doubt that option is still present. Maybe someone who has used the AHCI driver can comment on this. Newer motherboard manufacturers no longer care about optimizing their BIOS code for x86 operating systems. They assume everyone will be using x64, so they don't bother to optimize the MMIO RAM allocation to make the most memory available to x86. I had an X99 system where only 1873MB of RAM was available to a 32-bit system when 4GB was installed; this later increased to 2910MB after a BIOS update but I never could manage to get their tech support to understand the problem. A good BIOS modder might be able to help with this, but they're hard to find in my experience. Newer video cards usually use a "memory banking" method to avoid tying up all of the 32-bit RAM.. since your 780GTX is XP compatible it should do this, but who knows what the onboard Intel HD Graphics will do. I've had 9x up and running on my X79 and X99 systems. I have an X299 system that has yet to see any experimentation with any OS... I detest onboard graphics to begin with, and the fact they're no longer supporting XP rules chipsets using them out completely. The "X" series boards and processors may cost more, but it at least rules out one set of legacy compatibility problems.

This problem (Mobility X600 in my case) drove me nuts for a long time on a laptop I was trying to get up and running with 9x. Despite scattered reports of people getting Mobility X600/X700 chips working under 9x, no matter how many times I tried or how many different Catalyst versions I tried, nothing ever changed. Forget Catalyst 4.11, use the last 9x compatible package. 2K/XP WDM (non-.VXD) Display drivers do not work under 9x, so they won't get you anywhere either. If you're having the same problem I did, then this should cure it. Disable PCI Steering on the PCI Bus under Device Manager. The reinstall the ATI Catalyst package if necessary. Manually choose an X700 device from the list, or add your specific VEN&DEV to the INF if you wish.

Try here.

I've had to use MTP a handful of times with a smartphone and XP and myself found it to be profoundly annoying.. so much simpler to have the media mounted as a drive rather than a device. Not to mention pure USB Mass Storage Mode allows for much greater backward compatibility with OS'es. Just my opinion though.

This particular subject is of interest to me as well... several times I've considered getting a smartphone and every time I always choose not to because of this or that reason. Apparently now I may be forced to because they claim my network is changing and my old flip phone will no longer work. This particular issue is one of my major peeves. I believe it is still possible to achieve "USB Mass Storage Mode," but from what I understand it requires using a rootkit on the phone/taking root control of the Android OS. I've tried to read up on that process, but what small amount of info there is is not conducive to those who are new to the subject. It doesn't help that now it seems those who want to use this mode are beginning to be "looked down on"; i.e. more people are wasting their time asking "why do you want to do this" rather than actually providing any useful information or solutions. Also, it appears one just has to blindly "trust" whatever tools are available for the rootkit operation.