LoneCrusader

You can "slipstream" Rudy's SATA patch by placing a patched copy of EDSI_506.PDR and his SATA.INF file in the \WIN98 folder along with the CABs. Any time you need to include an "updated file" where an older version exists in the CABs, you can simply place it in the same folder as the CABs and SETUP will use the unpacked copy instead of extracting the one from the CABs. AFAIK you can also drop drivers into this folder (like SATA.INF) but I haven't tested it myself. Or, you can actually slipstream it, given that Rudy's 9x slipstreaming tools have been uploaded here. Some time back I spent a long time trying to fool with an Intel motherboard that had an AMD chipset that I had several of... a D102GGC2 to be precise. If the system you're referring to has the same or very similar hardware, do not waste your time. Not even Rudy could make it work on that board (I actually sent him one to try.) This chipset (or at least Intel's own implementation of it, with their garbage BIOS) is utterly useless for Windows 9x. I've also seen issues with SDD breaking Plug & Play, but in my case it was on Windows 95 OSR2.x. I never found a solution.. I'd have to find and look back over some old notes to see if I ever learned anything useful about it. IIRC, VBE9x can be used with DOS Boxes, provided you always run them in full screen mode.

The NForce 4 board was an anomaly for me, lol, I don't usually use AMD-based boards since back in the K6-2 days. Not had good luck with 9x on that board, or an earlier NForce 3 board either. device=c:\windows\himem.sys /machine:1 You might still try my suggestion at some point, but given that the problem seems to have gone away after you changed drives it may not be related. If you try that configuration again, use rloew's SATA patch first.

rloew's patches can be found here. As for the slow booting issue, I've seen a similar problem before. It may be a problem with Gate A20 line control when loading HIMEM.SYS during boot. I had the same issue on an NForce 4 board and found a solution with rloew's help. Add a line to your CONFIG.SYS file for HIMEM.SYS and use the "/MACHINE:1" setting and it may solve the problem. If you need further reference, look here.

+1 Unfortunately I ran into a problem. I know someone who works in a pharmacy, and I contacted them about ordering some of these masks. Apparently they're on backorder all over the United States, citing a "global shortage," and none of the medical supply companies they use are accepting orders for them or even providing an expected date when they will be resupplied. So at this point, unless one can find them online (and provided these online sellers still have adequate supplies themselves and don't put you on "backorder" as well) it looks like it's going to be hard to lay hands on them.

If your system was working before the BIOS flash, it may have been a factor. But if the problem appeared before you did so then it's unlikely to have had an effect. Have you enabled or disabled any of the controllers, potentially altering the order they're recognized in? After rereading your previous posts, I've seen another possible issue. Previously you had a HDD on the same cable with your CDROM, which, assuming you followed the standard configuration of not having a HDD as a slave on the same cable with an ODD as master, would have made the CDROM the slave on that cable. An issue exists by design with ESDI_506.PDR in Windows where CDROM drives appearing as the primary master on a PATA controller (common on mixed systems where the HDD's are SATA and PATA ODD's are used) are blocked and will not be recognized by Windows. IF any such check exists in OAKCDROM.SYS, it might cause problems here. (Pure speculation; no idea if OAKCDROM contains anything of the kind.) You would need to download GCDROM.SYS and add it to your boot floppy and load it in CONFIG.SYS using the existing OAKCDROM.SYS as an example. If you wish to be able to boot and run SETUP from a CD you would need to create a new CD, ripping a copy of yours to an ISO, ripping out the boot (floppy) image from the resulting ISO, editing it in the same way I described above, and then re-inject it into the ISO and burn a new CD. This is quite a project, and could be a major undertaking if you're not familiar with doing such things. I would suggest you try using a floppy first if you can, in order to be certain GCDROM solves your issue before going any further with the CD. - BTW, please do not link to sites redistributing copyrighted software, no matter how old it is. Link above removed.

@Nikitastepanov Rather than posting a whole series of new threads, please learn to use the search function of this forum and spend some time reading through the many informative threads that already exist. (See "Important/Sticikified Topics") These will answer most of your questions. Don't expect people to do all of your work for you. These two specific questions are both answered by updates created by rloew, who recently passed away. You can find links to his software here.

If you updated the BIOS version from what you were running before when everything worked, it might have changed something in the coding for the HDD controllers. In my experience some "mixed" systems using PATA + SATA still require the use of a SATA CDROM driver (GCDROM.SYS) instead of OAKCDROM.SYS, even on PATA-connected drives. I started to mention this earlier, but since you said everything was working fine before with OAKCDROM.SYS, I figured this wasn't relevant...

PM notifications by email are Russian roulette here. Sometimes you get one, sometimes you don't.

While thinking on this one at some point I somehow ended up with the kludge "RoyTamFoxMoon," which does evoke some degree of humor... it's the RTFM browser! lol (please, no one take this as a serious attempt at a name! I'll address RoyFox further down) Thanks for the support guys. It's nice to know I've not been the only voice in the wilderness. I don't think RoyFox is necessarily a bad idea, but I believe there could be better options. I did love the icon that was first suggested for RoyFox, but even though it's nice Mr. Tobin may have a small point when he says it's too close to the original Firefox logo. Wasn't Moebius a name also used by MCP and company? I've lost track... Agree here re: the "for XP" language, while it seems clear and convenient it makes the name unnecessarily longer and omits the fact that the builds work on Vista as well. Let's not start judging people based on when they joined or how many posts they have. A very bad precedent to get started. However it does seem that things have cooled down to a much more acceptable mode of discourse now. Let's try to keep it that way, with no one pushing this way or that beyond reason. This is the only way this issue will ever be settled in an acceptable manner. It may take some time, but this is the right way.

That's the DOS PATH variable being set; it's necessary and it probably takes a fraction of a second. Something else may be slowing down the bootup process, but that's not the cause. If you have installed a network card, and it is set to use DHCP to obtain an IP address, and you do not have an Ethernet cable connected (to a working DHCP server obviously) then Windows 9x will sit and spend a long time waiting for a DHCP response that never comes before booting. But when this is happening the LOGO screen is usually displayed, not the DOS screen. Check for this; but it may not be your issue.

You're welcome. Glad you got everything working!

As if I need your "credibility" - ha! From my perspective, the BSD issue appears as just another incarnation of yourself and Moonchild whining about an "unsanctioned" build for an "unsanctioned" platform. You can't control them, so you try to intimidate them. You might be surprised the difference making a request in a reasonable manner makes versus dropping in and making demands. Machinations.. LMAO.. wow. The sad part here is that none of that was even directed at you at this point. Those links were simply directed at TechnoRelic, who has, time and again, refused to understand what was going on. And almost all of them, including the BSD one, were in the previous thread already. We've had our debates, and said our piece. Probably never going to like each other, or agree about very much. But provided you continue with this "better attitude," cease you threats, treat roytam1, his project, and its users with respect and common courtesy, then I'm mostly content to sit back and watch. I wondered how long it would take for someone to accuse me of some "past bias" against Mr. Tobin. Frankly I resent that. Sure, I don't like the guy. But everything I have said here in relation to this issue has been strictly based on the events at hand, and strictly in response to Mr. Tobin's behavior toward roytam1 and his project. I have been perfectly willing to have "civil discourse" with Mr. Tobin, provided that he cease his attacks and threats and behave like a reasonable person. If peace can be made with Mr. Tobin, that's fine too, with a couple of caveats: 1) That this "peace" not be based on giving in to threats or intimidation; and 2) That this "peace" not be based on everyone pressuring roytam1 to accept a change to his project that he clearly does not see as a priority. In fact, I had pretty much said everything that needed to be said, and even stated that I was mostly indifferent to the name changes, and stated that I would stand by roytam1 whatever HE decided. And then everyone here started jumping on the bandwagon and pressuring roytam1 to accept. Let's let roy make this decision himself, it's his project after all. He does the work. I'm interested in what HIS view is, not what is "popular." Fine, put me on that list. Not that many here seem to care what I have to say though anyway. IMO re-using Microsoft code names that are completely unrelated seems to be going off on a weird tangent. Not to mention that Microsoft has now abandoned XP and is in the process of "disappearing it" from history. As noted by others, let's have more original names, preferably with some degree of relation to (or being derived from) the parent programs... Ah, den. I thought you, of all people here, would understand where I've been coming from. If you don't at this point, I'm not sure how I could make it any clearer... And what you say is not even wholly correct. I'm not entirely opposed to the renaming. I'm opposed to it under certain conditions. The first of which is being opposed to renaming to appease people making threats. Fine, that one seems to be behind us for now. The second of which, however, you yourself contributed to by jumping on the bandwagon pushing for this. roytam1 doesn't see it as a priority, and it's his project. But now everyone but myself is pressuring him to accept this.. and for what? Like I asked before, what benefit do we gain from changing a name and a graphic? How is this "positive" pressure really any different from the "negative" pressure when roy, unlike the rest of you, doesn't see this issue as some kind of crisis? When and if roytam1 chooses, on his own, without influence from either side, to make changes to his project name or branding, I will be perfectly willing to accept it. Possibly. However, does no one but me see the intricacies of the irony in the situation? How can I phrase it... Does no one but me have a problem with the fact that roy is being pressured to allow Mr. Tobin, the very person who has been a thorn in his side for however long now, to essentially place his chosen names and his chosen graphics on roy's projects? Should roy, who has continually worked on his project and succeeded through all the criticism and nastiness, allow his ("former?") enemies to put their stamp on his work, which just recently they were trashing? Should roy, every time he builds or uses his project, have to look at a name or a graphic chosen by those who did their best to harass him and cause him any trouble they could? Should Mr. Tobin be allowed to "make his mark" (and a very visible and prominent mark) on a project he has, in the past, done his level best to destroy? I don't understand how these issues aren't striking a chord with anyone... It's not that Mr. Tobin lacks the ability. It's not that he hasn't been making a seemingly genuine and sincere effort. It's simply the sum of the situation itself. I'm not interested in "popular." I'm quite used to being in the minority, you should know this by now. Everyone here should know this, from or OS choices if nothing else. This is roy's project, not a group project. Occasionally some members are able to help, but essentially without roy this project would cease to exist. So I'm interested in what HE thinks and decides. I don't care for how everyone is "pushing" him, and you are the one who started that by pointing out roy's ignoring of Tobin's message. roy has every right to ignore Tobin if he so chooses. What has Tobin previously contributed to this project? Nothing. What had Tobin previously done to "sabotage" roy's projects? Most everything he could. So why is roy expected to "sit up and take notice" when Tobin posts? It's not as if Tobin were offering any real help with actual functionality of the project... Once again, this is not wholly correct. I am NOT trying to "derail any compromise." I have even stated that I am NOT completely opposed to changing the names. I do favor keeping them as is (say 60/40), but it's not that important. The situation is the issue. Aside from the points I've already made clarifying my standpoint I am simply disgusted with all this "bandwagonism." I may be the only one speaking now, but several others have spoken in favor of keeping the current naming convention in the previous thread. (I know, I re-read it yesterday while looking for links.) "Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain

fixed

You should install the unofficial NUSB package you will find referenced here. Version 3.3 will be fine; a 3.5 exists but is better left for specific cases. NUSB provides a USB 2.0 driver AND a USB Storage driver. Note that if you attempt to remove USB2 controllers from the Device Manager in Normal Mode, you will get a BSOD. These should be removed in Safe Mode when necessary. Now, if you are using the Unofficial Service Pack, it may provide these USB drivers as well. I am not familiar with what it includes as compared to NUSB.

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.