LoneCrusader

The problem with simply redirecting the installer to 127.0.0.1 or another site would be if the installer actually expects a certain response. It's worth trying, but I think that the installer would eventually run when the machine isn't connected to the Internet if it were that easy...

Hmmm... It must have a URL coded into it somewhere to check. You might be able to hex edit that, but if it waits for a response no matter what then I don't know how much good it would do. The trick would be giving it the response it expects - maybe the version check mechanism could be broken, but that's over my head. You might also try searching for command line switches for the installer, there's always a possibility that some existed. If you could get the package to install silently or even just extract itself it might be a step in the right direction...

If that is the first thing to appear, it suggests that the installer is automatically checking for updates. Have you tried running the installer while not connected to the Internet?

Still depends on the game. WarCraft III for example was designed to run on Windows 98, but can sometimes still get laggy with 2GB of RAM depending on the number of players, etc. You can never have "too much" RAM, provided you have the right patches to handle it.

Definitely a hardware issue. Probably the 512MB SDRAM module is somehow incompatible with the motherboard, or possibly the CPU. A look at the manual reveals that there are some potential issues. If the DIMM has more than 18 chips it is not supported. Assuming the 512MB DIMM is PC-100 or PC-133, then the CPU FSB must be either 100MHz or 133MHz also.

You should be able to use any generic USB Hub and it should be supported by default, or if not, it should work with a USB2 stack loaded. However what you're describing can be achieved with a couple of extension cables. I have used this method myself recently during a project I've been involved in that required extensive testing/connecting/disconnecting various USB devices.

I don't consider myself "expert" enough to answer your question with a definite "yes or no," I have not actually used more than one HDD for booting purposes in a multiboot setup. But I will point out another issue that you will need to make a decision about before you actually install OSes. Do you want each of these OSes to be able to access the other OSes' partitions? In other words, do you want to be able to access the Windows XP C: partition from Windows 98SE, or the 98SE C: partition from XP? - etc etc. I know I will catch flak for this from some of the other users participating in this thread , but I always hide each operating system from the others. If I want files to be accessible in multiple OSes I create "shared" partitions that are accessible to all the desired systems. I never allow 2K/XP in particular to see my Windows 9x partitions and infest them with NTLDR, etc. If some problem arises that requires the access of one OS partition in another OS, I can always go and make it visible for that particular occasion.

I use UltraEdit and UltraCompare. Any idea how those measure up?

Hmm.. really? For the record, I never stated or argued that MSCDEX was better. I simply refused to blindly accept the statement that SHSUCDX was better, as I have never had a problem with MSCDEX. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. Oh, the arrogance...

Offtopic: Even though I'm considered rather computer-abled for my age, my brain BSOD'd while reading the documentation for RFDISK So with the information that I've gathered from your post and the docs, I'm lead to understand that RFDISK can 'hide' partitions so that OSes can't see them. Is that true? I do multiboot setups on virtually all of my machines, and I personally use the "GUI" boot mangers System Commander 8 or BootIt NG to manage different operating systems. I do have a copy of RFDISK though, and have done some experimenting with it. Despite the well intentioned advice given here about GRUB4DOS, I would have to put in a vote against it. If you find RFDISK confusing, then GRUB4DOS will be as well. There are some good things to be said for GRUB4DOS, but I am not a fan of it.

Windows 98FE never gave me anything but trouble. It was never stable in any configuration that I have seen. IMO, 95 OSR 2.x is a better choice than 98FE. There is no reason to use 98FE over SE unless you have some specific attachment to FE. Being a 95 OSR2.x lover , even after using 98SE, I do understand if you have some attachment to 98FE, so I'm not bashing your choice, but just pointing out my experiences on the matter.

No. All of the various "tweaks" floating around for using more than 512MB of RAM under 9x are only good up to ~1.5GB of RAM, IF they even work on your system at all. None of those tweaks ever worked for me at all. Anything over 512MB resulted in a crash, without fail, until I purchased RLoew's patch. Windows 95 suffered from CPU Speed bugs at 350MHz and 2.1GHz. Windows 98FE only suffered from the 2.1GHz bug. (For the record, both errors actually affect Intel/AMD CPUs at slightly different speeds.) However both of these errors can be fixed and are therefore irrelevant. Q312108 for 98FE, FIX95CPU for Windows 95. Windows 98SE and ME are not affected. HyperThreading and/or multiple CPU cores are simply ignored by Windows 9x. Yes, that's a good choice. The drivers are still available for download. I have a stockpile of those built up for the future.

This motherboard seems to be perfectly "at the end of 9x support range." If there are 9x drivers for the Chipset, Audio, and LAN on the board, then there shouldn't be any problems whatsoever. Even without those, it should be possible to use it, but it would require the use of addon cards that do have 9x drivers to replace the Audio and LAN. (Note that this may require searching for these drivers in places other than the manufacturer's website if they are not provided there. First search similar boards at ECS, if you can't find suitable ones there, then search similar boards elsewhere.) It appears to have been originally a P4 board that had its capability extended to support later processors, and it uses an AGP slot and has IDE connectors. All of this indicates that it should be usable. If one doesn't mind purchasing RLoew's RAM patch, then there is the added benefit of being able to use more than 512MB of RAM, particularly useful in a multiboot setup with XP.

I'm seeing a bug related to the Personal Messenger. When a new reply is added to a conversation with two other participants, and I click on the Messenger button at the top of the forum, instead of showing the name and picture of the last person to reply, it shows the name and picture of the person who started the PM, along with the time of the last message added, regardless of who added it. Rather confusing and I do not recall it behaving this way before...

Same here. Strange things seem to be happening.

No, LoneCrusader said: I knew that IE 5.5 SP2 was available from other sources, and I already have some of those archived, but thanks for the links anyway.

Nice find, thanks for the info. I wonder if IE 5.5 SP2 is still floating out there on some MS server... EDIT: IEAK6.EXE can also be found using the above links. Possibly other related files. What we really need is a complete list of the files that should be in a full IE 6 package, if such a thing exists.

Not that I am aware of, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. VMM32.VXD usually contains many of the same VXD's, but it can still be unique to each machine. WININIT.INI is used to build it during SETUP, but this INI file is used for more things on the second round of SETUP, and only ONE backup version is maintained. Each time a new INI is generated, the oldest backup is lost. So theoretically you could lose the original INI that built VMM32 on the second boot to Desktop unless you physically make a backup copy of it and rename it to something that will not be overwritten.

Yes, for the files listed. It depends completely on the file. Some VXD's still go in \SYSTEM (including NDIS.VXD) or SYSTEM\IOSUBSYS (including CDFS.VXD) rather than SYSTEM\VMM32. The HotFixes should place them in the proper locations. If in doubt, you can always examine COPY.INF inside your target 9x CAB files. Find the file in question and it will have an entry, for example: CDFS.VXD=12 NDIS.VXD=11 UDF.VXD=22 The numbers after the file are "LDID's" - Logical Directory Identifaction Numbers (I think that's the right term). These LDID's are explained in this section common to HotFixes: [DestinationDirs] ; 10=Windows, 11=SYSTEM, 12=IOSUBSYS, 13=COMMAND, 14=Control Panel, 15=Printers, 16=Workgroup ; 17=INF, 18=Help, 19=Administration, 20=Fonts, 21=Viewers, 22=VMM32, 23=Color, 25=Shared ; 26=Winboot, 27=Machine, 28=Host Winboot, 30=Boot drv root, 31=Root of Boot drv Host ; 00=Null (new) LDID, 01=Source drv:\path, 02=Temp Setup, 03=Uninstall, 04=Backup Some VXD's are compressed into VMM32.VXD when Windows 9x is installed. This does not mean that 9x is using a "generic driver" as described above. It simply means that all of those individual files such as NTKERN.VXD, UDF.VXD, VFAT.VXD, etc etc have all been combined into a single executable driver. Think of VMM32.VXD as a "ZIP archive" of VXD's. All of the original code exists, just no longer as individual files. When applying HotFixes that place a newer version of a file such as NTKERN.VXD, the new file is added to the \VMM32 folder, where it will automatically override the older version that was packed into VMM32.VXD. This is why it is preferable to slipstream files or add them to the \WIN9x SETUP folder prior to installation, so that the newer files will be picked up and be packed into VMM32.VXD during SETUP rather than the older versions. This saves space by eliminating the older unused code and preventing the need for a newer HotFix file to exist separately. It also can make the system perform faster if the VXD's are packed into VMM32.VXD rather than loaded individually (this was Microsoft's original intent). Note that VMM.VXD is an exception to all the rules above. VMM.VXD does not exist as an independent file on a 9x system unless it has been added by a HotFix. VMM.VXD is already packed into VMM32.VXD inside the original CABs and the newer HotFix VMM.VXD's cannot be packed into VMM32.VXD. If VMM.VXD is present during the original VMM32.VXD compression, the compression will fail.

Is this accurate? If you look at Microsoft hotfixes that has some of the files above, it only updates files in windows\system\vmm32 and not windows\system. This means users will have different file versions in different folders. No. The statement is not accurate, and files only need to be updated in one folder. (and should only exist in one folder, not both).

Same. It was down here with a SQL Server error from at least 11PM last night to around 4AM US EST(EDT).

Hmmm... Looks like I've got my work cut out for me. And a crash course in subjects I've not delved into before. Thanks for the help... I'll get there eventually, but it's probably going to take a while before I can have enough time to devote to the project.

I knew I would still need the IMAP connection to Yahoo. What I didn't know is, do I have to actually set up a separate machine as a Web Server on my local network in order (for the sole purpose of) to run/access SquirrelMail and use it to connect to an "outside" network? Your reply indicates that I do. I was hoping that since I don't want to use it to access an "internal/local" network(mail server) that I might be able to somehow run it directly on/from the client machine for accessing the "external" Yahoo mail servers. Ugh that probably doesn't make sense either.. lol

To make a long story short, I am profoundly annoyed by Yahoo's recent decision to discontinue Yahoo! Mail Classic and force users to use their new garbage interface. I have been using Yahoo Mail for approximately 14 years and always found it superior to any of the other "free" services, but no longer. The only "alternatives" that users are given are 1) use IMAP to access mail with another program, and, 2) delete your account. Unfortunately I do need/want to keep my Yahoo address along with the years of correspondence, etc etc that I have stored there, or else I would do the latter. So, to the point: Is it possible to install and run a browser WebMail client such as Squirrel Mail on a single computer? And, if so, can I use it + IMAP to access Yahoo? I visited the Squirrel Mail site, but most of the documentation all pertains to using it on Web Servers, or within internal organization networks, so I don't know if it is possible to use it how I want to.

All true, I'm not "disagreeing" with you. I simply regard WinImage as the most "user friendly" tool for the job, and the best "GUI tool" for the job, especially if the operation is to be performed on an NT-based OS. If I were attempting this, I would only perform the operation on a 9x/DOS system to begin with.