LoneCrusader

CONFIG.SYS has nothing to do with USB. The reason I feel the removal of the CONFIG.SYS references may be important is that since Windows ME does not use CONFIG.SYS, using the ME version of SYSDM.CPL may break the use of CONFIG.SYS on 98SE. This would need to be tested thoroughly.. I don't have any machines that use special CONFIG.SYS entries, but there may be many users who do, especially on older hardware.

@ Drugwash & PROBLEMCHYLD I have sent you a PM.

Microsoft made changes to the way USB devices are detected and enumerated between Windows 98SE and Windows ME. (Info taken from MS documentation.) I just want to be sure we're on the same page here... The USB devices will install without a "problem" with the 98SE SYSDM.CPL's. The only difference with the ME SYSDM.CPL is that it will automatically install a driver for a USB Storage device, without prompting the user. The 98SE versions will prompt the user to search for and select a driver, even when it has the driver in WINDOWS\INF already. (Unless the device VID&PID is in the INF, as I pointed out.) Assuming we are on the same page, it should be interesting to check out the USBSTOR.INF from WUPG98.

I have discovered another POTENTIAL solution to the problem this project was supposed to address. At the moment, it is buggy, requires further testing, and may be impractical to implement as part of a "project." The purpose of adding the Windows ME SYSDM.CPL was the fact that it will automatically install the drivers for USB & USB Storage devices WITHOUT prompting the user to select a driver. I have found a way to cause this auto-installation under 98SE, but it suffers from a strange bug. If the following conditions are met, then 98SE will automatically install the drivers for a USB Flash Drive: -USBSTOR.INF is placed in WINDOWS\INF -The SPECIFIC VID&PID of the Flash Drive is listed in USBSTOR.INF EDIT 6-20-2013 LATER FOUND THAT THIS BUG HAPPENS UNDER VIRTUAL MACHINES ONLY. Now, here's the problem. If a Flash Drive has been installed using this method during a Windows session, then any subsequent attempt to install another Flash Drive that does NOT have its VID&PID specified in the INF (and therefore uses the Generic INF lines) will cause a "You Must Restart" dialog along with a Yellow Exclamation Mark error on the "USB Mass Storage Device" entry in the Device Manager. Rebooting before attempting to install a "generic" Flash Drive will prevent this bug. EDIT 6-20-2013 So, theoretically it is possible to achieve the auto-installation without the ME SYSDM.CPL. However, it would require an enormous amount of work creating a comprehensive INF list of VID's & PID's that would need to be continually updated with new Device entries.

Windows 95 OSR2 supports, but does not install the TCP/IP protocol by default, so it does not know how to to obtain a DHCP address. You have to add the protocol to the Network options screen during the install. You should be able to add it manually in the Network Control Panel.

You can't always expect someone here to have a 100% definite answer to your questions. Everyone here will help you as they can, but it is ultimately up to YOU to experiment some. If you're not prepared to run the experiments, then don't complain that someone else hasn't done it already, or isn't doing it for you.

Here's a special version, with the red, just for you I think the Red-on-Blue doesn't look good in this situation, but everyone's got their own opinion. 4PC(text).bmp

One problem I see is that everyone else is trying to use the original banner and edit it. While this is possible, it is much harder to avoid distortion, and would require a lot of pixel-by-pixel touch up. I can create plain "gradient" banners to use as starting points if anyone wants this. You can add text to them, save, and then re-open them and reduce the color depth to 16 colors once you have it like you want it. This results in a much clearer image... Here's a couple of examples...

Normally I'm all about maintaining the original look when it comes to the Windows 9x UI. But this is one case where I have tried, and tried, and tried, and TRIED to reproduce the proper Font style, size, and spacing of the original. I have tried every possible variant of the Arial font family, and no matter what I do, It NEVER looks like the original. I finally gave up on Arial because I don't like how the "W" looks. In this case I used Tahoma.

Bitmap 161 is not used by Windows 98 at all. The Bitmap 157 is used in Safe Mode as well. Bitmap 161 is used by Windows 95 when it uses this same version of EXPLORER (IE 4 Desktop Shell). See here for my woes with this.

I decided to try my hand at this as well. I can't get the red color to look right though, it clashes/bleeds too much with the blue. It would look good on black though... Here's my attempt, without the red. DBLBDB98se.bmp

I can assure you that people like Hu$tle do not speak for me, or the greater part of this community. There's always going to be some immature id!ot who thinks you have nothing better to do than sit around and worry about what they want. For every one like him, I'll bet there are ten happy users out there who respect you and appreciate your work.

Even though I tried with Firefox 3.6.27 on XP, when I try to download that tool, my browser is blocked and demands an upgrade. I fixed it though. Changed the User Agent String to a set of less than complimentary expletives, and it let me in.

Is that in the system.ini file? Because I looked for MaxPhysPage/MaxFileCache entires in it after installing the pack and couldn't find any. Right now I just use a floppy to restore those 3 files (vmm, vcache, and esdi_506) after installing the pack. Is that sufficient or am I not fully restoring it? I'm fairly certain rloew is referring to the VCACHE.VXD v4.10.2223 that is installed by the uSP. It is an unofficial "workaround" version and would be incompatible with the RAM Limitation Patch. I would recommend you follow rloew's instructions for removing and reinstalling the RAM patch after the uSP rather than trying to restore it manually. The uSP updates VMM.VXD, which is a good thing, and it would need to be patched rather than the older VMM.VXD extracted from VMM32.VXD. Basically, if you plan to use the RAM Limitation Patch, you WANT the VMM.VXD installed by the uSP. You do NOT WANT the VCACHE.VXD installed by the uSP. I believe PROBLEMCHYLD removed the other RAM tweaks from the uSP.

Same here.

Rubbish.

Hmmm... What about using an IDE male-to-male converter/cable to plug the adapter into, instead of plugging it into the board? Then you could connect the master or slave connector of the IDE cable to the other connector/end of the converter/cable. Anyone ever tried this?

You will have to get the RAM to 512MB or less, or take your pick between: - "tweaks" (which will get you to ~1.2GB if they work; I personally have never been able to get them working) or - rloew's RAM Limitation Patch (which is not free, but worth the price, as it enables using up to 4GB without any other modifications). It doesn't matter if your HDD is IDE if it is connected to a SATA port. The motherboard interface is what matters. You will either have to: - set the SATA controllers to "Legacy" or "IDE" mode in the BIOS or - invest in another of rloew's patches. If your HDD is larger than 137GB, then you will also need a patch for that. Once you know the "must haves" for setting up a 98 system, it's not hard, but you have to know and understand the things you must do first, or you will have nothing but headache.

I don't think WDMSTUB is needed under ME. The Win2K USBSTOR.SYS has no missing functions with WDMCHECK under ME, but further testing may be needed. There's also no known advantage to using the Win2K USBSTOR.SYS... There are no problems with the ME version. The only rationale for using the 2K version is that "newer files must be better" - which is questionable, especially since the ME version was written for 9x, while the 2K version was written for NT. I have reverted to the ME version on all my systems.

Some "deep" investigation revealed that Microsoft made changes to how USB devices are enumerated at a point between 98SE and ME. "Files from that period" might possibly be usable, but would be purely experimental, still suffer from the removed CONFIG.SYS content that I mentioned, and would not have any of the fixes applied by later HotFixes. Personally I've written this off unless someone can figure out what Microsoft changed about the enumeration of USB devices and apply it to the proper 98SE HotFix version.

This is a USB 1.1 Controller. I think the "misunderstanding" here may be deeper than we originally thought.

Ok, we've still got some miscommunication/misconception going on here. USB20DRV.EXE does NOT provide external USB storage device support by itself. It was only intended to be an update/tweak of settings/files already applied by NUSB. MDGx probably should not have it listed for ME. Many of the files contained in NUSB already exist in Windows ME. They are addons and upgrades to 98SE, but several of the files require modifications to run under 98SE. These modifications are NOT needed under ME, and adding the modified versions may break the original ME versions under ME. Under ME, you will need ONLY the files I listed to achieve what you want. Any other files should be removed or reverted back to the ME originals. The USBSTOR.SYS you have is a Win2K file from one of the packages. Remove it and extract the original ME version from your Windows ME CDROM. It should be v4.90.3000. There is no 98SE version of USBSTOR.SYS. USB2.INF and USBSTOR.SYS are unrelated. -USB2.INF is for USB2 Hub & Port support ONLY and controls the 3 .SYS files I listed previously. -USBSTOR.SYS is used ONLY by USBSTOR.INF which controls external device support. As far as NUSB 3.5 vs 3.6 : there is nothing of any importance for Windows ME changed in 3.6 except the addition of a Digital Camera to USBSTOR.INF. This also requires another .SYS file. Unless you need that specific camera supported, then don't worry about it, and all of the other files I mentioned are the same in either version. Be sure to use the VIA .SYS files since you have a VIA chipset. Had you previously connected any of your storage devices to the machine before you tried to enable USB2 support? If so, entries for them may still exist in other places in the Device Manager. These entries would have to be removed before the devices can be recognized again. Check for entries related to your storage devices under "Disk Drives" and "Storage Devices" as well as the "Universal Serial Bus Controllers."

Welcome to MSFN! I know you asked specifically about Opera, but since you asked about "modern browsers" for 9x I'll add this. Firefox 2.0.0.20 can be run on all Windows 9x without KernelEx, etc. It's not quite as "new" as the last builds of Opera that supported 9x, but it's miles ahead of IE6. (Running FF2 under 95 requires manual deletion of 2 files before running Firefox, if you need to know more about that, I will elaborate, instructions elsewhere are confusing and take many unnecessary steps.) I don't use Opera and I'm not a fan of it, so I can't help you on that specifically.

No. Java 6u7 works without Kex.

What steps, if any, have you already taken? This is critical to know how to advise you. When you read about many of these packages, keep in mind that most are designed for Windows 98 SE, NOT Windows ME. Most can be adapted to ME once you know what you're doing though. My first advice is to FORGET USB20DRV.EXE, as it was designed for 98SE rather than ME, and has documented issues. If you want to enable strictly USB2.0 Hardware support (Hubs & Ports) NOT external devices, then you should extract these files from NUSB 3.5: USB2.INF USBEHCI.SYS USBHUB20.SYS USBPORT.SYS And place USB2.INF in the WINDOWS\INF folder, and the .SYS files in \WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS. IF you have a VIA Chipset based motherboard, get those 3 .SYS files from THIS package instead of NUSB. (Keep NUSB USB2.INF.) If you want to expand external device support, back up you current USBSTOR.INF and replace it with USBSTOR.INF from NUSB 3.5. Do NOT use USBSTOR.SYS from any of these packages! KEEP the ME version!