LoneCrusader

I was just in the process of collecting those files in case I decide to experiment. I seem to have a later version of AUTOCHK.EXE, but earlier versions of all the others. (I'm using my own Win2K Pro Slipstreamed CD with SP1+SP2+SP3+SP4+UR1.)

Good choice with Win2K files IMO. Windows 2000 is "closer" to Win98 than XP or later, while the earlier NT4 files may not properly recognize/support the later versions of NTFS. Still interested.

I also find this icon replacement business very annoying. Use EXPLORER.EXE from inside NUSB and SHELL32.DLL from Q313829 to restore the original 98 Icons. You will also need to delete the "ShellIconCache" file from DOS or another OS after replacing these files.

+1

Ah, that's what I meant. As you said, not a lot in the way of naming variety though, heh. Given the fact that the "commercial" version is no longer available, and the current owners of it probably wish it had never existed and want it to disappear... I wonder how difficult it would be to achieve the same level of NTFS support...

Interesting. I was unaware of the third Avira utility, although I may have heard of it and forgotten. I was referring to Winternals "NTFS for Windows 98" rather than "NTFS4DOS" so I suppose technically there are four utilities. This being the case, I would think it should be possible to achieve an equivalent level of functionality if one could just figure out how to get those files loaded and working properly... Thanks for the info, jaclaz.

As far as I know, (someone correct me if I am wrong, I am not very familiar with this subject) both of the "utilities" for using NTFS on Windows 98 use files from later versions of Windows to actually access the NTFS drives. This being the case, the only "unknown" is how to get them loaded and working. Anyone up to trying to figure it out?

I've never used ME on a regular basis, only installed it a couple of times to play with it. But, I did do something useful with it. I visited Windows Update with a fresh vanilla install of Windows ME, made a list of the updates, and downloaded them not long before Windows Update went down. I have also collected several HotFixes to be slipstreamed when I have time to work on Windows ME. (98SE and 95C come first here, sorry ME lovers. ) @PROBLEMCHYLD I don't know what is in the ME Service Pack or what isn't, but if you find an update that you need and can't locate, let me know and I'll see if I have it archived. Or, if you get a complete list of the updates, I will see if I have anything else that is not on it.

No problem. We're all on the same side here. We just all have different ways of tackling problems, and different lists of priorities about what issues should receive attention & time invested for experiments.

Which WinME files are you referring to that are no better than 98 files? If you're referring to those in NUSB, lets break it down: Windows ME files from NUSB: No 98 equivalent: USBMPHLP.PDR USBNTMAP.INF USBSTOR.INF USBNTMAP.SYS USBSTOR.SYS USBAUTH.SYS Added to solve a specific bug in the 98 version: DISKTSD.VXD CDVSD.VXD Added to allow the use of XP USBCCGP.SYS: OPENHCI.SYS UHCD.SYS USBD.SYS USBHUB.SYS USB.INF (98SE + ME info edited in) Windows 2000 files in NUSB: No 98 equivalent: USB2.INF USBPORT.SYS USBEHCI.SYS USBHUB20.SYS Windows XP file in NUSB: No 98 equivalent; WinME version bugged; no Win2K equivalent: USBCCGP.SYS All of these files were added for a specific purpose, either to solve an existing bug, or to add previously unavailable functionality. Windows ME files ARE "better" and preferable to those from 2K/XP+ when/if they can be used to add something or solve something, simply because they are from the 9x codebase!

Which means, if the files don't work I will NOT add them. Self Explanatory We know that you wont add any problem files to the SP. I admire you for your efforts and willingness to experiment with all of these newer files. I share your desire to "improve Win98." But changing something just for the sake of changing it (i.e. a file is newer, but does nothing different) is not always an improvement, and in the case of transplanting driver files between two different OS architectures, not a good idea when there is nothing to be gained.

I don't think any of us are saying that. If there is some new or improved functionality to be gained by adding a Windows ME/2K/XP/Vista or whatever version file to Windows 98, then by all means add them. But there are other things to be considered if a newer file does not actually add functionality. The Windows 98/ME USB driver stack was written for Windows 9x and with the underlying DOS in mind. I would hazard a guess that the 2K/XP USB USB driver stacks do not know what to do with or do not recognize a USB Keyboard or Mouse during the DOS\9x startup process, so they never get loaded. If the 2K/XP USB driver stack provided some new functionality or improvement, such as the Win2K USB2 drivers, then we should use them. But if the 2K/XP USB1 stack doesn't do anything that the 98/ME stack already does, then we only take a risk that it will not work as well as the original because it was not designed for 9x to begin with. Windows ME is the only exception to this IMO, because it is actually a direct update to the 9x codebase. Windows ME is good for something - for updating 98SE.

Have a look at this thread. Especially my Post #4.

That's what I already use. Works great for flash sticks, but it doesn't seem to work for USB hard drives. Well, at least not correctly; it installs a USB Mass Storage Port, but the drive doesn't appear. Thanks for the thought, though, and for the info on how to modify it for unrecognised flash sticks. Might come in handy in the future. sorry man, but those usb flash drivers for Win95 osr2x don't work with other usb mass storage devices like usb card readers and usb hard drives. and many USB HDDs require USB 2.0 support; both hardware [the usb2 ports] and software [the usb2 drivers for hi-speed 480mbps data transfers]. so far, there are no usb 2.0 drivers out there that will make your usb hard drive work under 95 [only w98 and above can try out usb 2.0]. and you only get USB 1.x support on Win95 sr2x with those usb flash drivers. tough luck, dude! USB hard drives are usually at least USB 2.0 based devices and don't function well or not at all if connected to USB 1.x ports. take it from experience. you're better off using usb flash drives instead. Wrong again. You mentioned PassingBy's NUSB for 98 FE, but you forgot that he also did a USB package for Windows 95, which you were also critical of at the time. I have used it with a variety of USB 2.0 Flash drives, and it has worked with every single drive I've thrown at it. It does have a bug, but this appears to be a failure in the driver files themselves, (which, for the record, are the SAME files as in the "cruzerwin95" package, just renamed internally and externally) not in PassingBy's work. The bug is this: only ONE USB device can be connected ONE time per Windows session. Reconnecting a device after it has been unplugged, or trying to plug in a second device after one has been used does not work. Oh, and the drivers used by Nathan Lineback and by PassingBy originally come from a USB CompactFlash reader device. Doesn't work with card readers, eh? (I am currently trying to find a better solution for this. I have found another 95-compatible driver stack {also from a USB Card reader, imagine that? } that works perfectly for some USB HDD's and Flash Drives, but behaves strangely with others for no apparent reason. Work continues.)

Not exactly. There is a 98 FE version. Maybe not. But I doubt there's a whole lot of difference in what would need to be changed. Instructions for patching it are somewhere in the NUSB thread. Nonetheless, it's good to have any contribution to Windows 9x these days.

This has already been addressed in NUSB for quite some time...

WinImage MagicISO

It can be done, but you would need to extract the Bootable Floppy Image from your .ISO, then open it with, say, WinImage, and then edit the files inside. It will contain AUTOEXEC.BAT, CONFIG.SYS, etc. When you're done editing, re-insert the image back into the .ISO. I did something similar to this with my FIX95CPU project. The .ISO inside is bootable, and auto-boots into the FIX95CPU script.

Naturally. Just pointing it out for clarification here, as this is a Windows 9x forum, and since you specifically named DOS and Win 3.x as being unable to read it, it gives the impression that Windows 95 would be able to read it. Do we have any Wikipedia editors present that would care to fix it there?

Technically that page should differentiate versions of Windows 9x. Windows 95 does NOT natively support UDF. Thanks to rloew, UDF 1.02 support is now available for Windows 95, but before this would have required third-party reader/writer software.

What 98SE updates, if any, do you have installed? Maybe unrelated to your specific problem, but you might have a look at this update: (which is no doubt included in the Unofficial Service Pack if you want to go that route ) http://support.microsoft.com/?id=239887 http://download.microsoft.com/download/d/d/8/dd8e4f2d-3b66-41d7-8a4a-cefefd8deb2c/4756US8.EXE

I think this is what you're looking for.

Don't know whether it will be useful or not, but I saw this thread and remembered that some of the motherboards I have collected to build Windows 9x systems have manuals that specifically state that only one floppy drive is supported. This despite the fact that the same boards support IDE RAID, and have SATA ports, so theoretically could support 8 or more "other" drives.

When you get ready to tackle Windows 95 let me know. Just kidding

Yes - the OP disregarded your recommendation. I thought that was directed at me. Sorry!