LoneCrusader

SOYO P4 I845PE ISA SOYO's website no longer exists, but these are excellent motherboards. I have several of them in my own machines. BCM BC875PLG 875PLG Manual This is probably the "newest" motherboard that has an ISA slot.

All of the USB 2.0 flash drives I have encountered are backward-compatible and will work with USB 1.1 hardware & speeds. I suppose some may exist that are not, but I'll have to leave that on the table for others more experienced with such things. What filesystem are you using on your flash drives? If they are NTFS, Windows 9x will not read them without other modifications. FAT32 or FAT16 either one should work fine however.

Unless you have Win98 drivers for your USB Flash drives, you will need to install NUSB to get them working. Windows 98 has native USB 1.1 support for the controllers, but not for storage devices. NUSB Thread NUSB 3.3 English (Not the last version, but the links to 3.5 are broken and 3.3 will be fine for your project.) Here's a link to a Spanish version of NUSB 3.3. EDIT: Added link to Spanish version. I don't know where my mind was.

I have no personal experience with Windows 95 RTM or 95 A. I'll have to refer this question to RLoew, who did some work with those systems during the work on v. 7.0 of the RAM Limitation Patch.

Of course he shall have his wish respected. I propose the updated version, if and when we arrive at that, should be named "NUWDMST". Why not "WDMSTUBX" for "WDMSTUB eXtended/eXtender?" I think the name should be as close to the original as possible while fulfilling Oney's wishes.

The EXPLORER.EXE inside NUSB has only 1 byte changed from the original to allow 256 color tray icons. It remains version "1700." I believe the version running around here that includes the ME Icons was renumbered "1710" and it was used in the uSP. That would explain why NUSB didn't replace the version you already had, because it had a higher version number.

Yes. You can use up to 512MB of RAM with unmodified Windows 95 B. Beyond 512MB, modifications are required. See this thread for a complete list of collected info regarding larger amounts of RAM. That Microsoft KB article (KB181594) is very misleading. Windows 9x cannot use that much RAM without RLoew's RAM Limitation Patch, which will allow you to use up to 4GB with Windows 9x.

Replacing them isn't the problem. It's simple using ResHacker or eXeScope. The problem is that on 95, the replacement banner MUST be gray, or it will look like the picture I posted. In 98, the banner is extended based on the color of the "top end" of the banner. - i.e, if the end of the banner is black, it will extend in black to the top of the menu. In 95, no matter what color the banner is, above it will always be gray. Either 98 auto-extends the 157 banner, or EXPLORER auto-extends the 157 banner. This does not happen for the 161 banner in 95. IMHO, there must be a "version check" somewhere in EXPLORER that chooses whether to use 157 or 161, based on the OS version.

While not related to the original "Duplicated Drives" issue this thread originated from, I thought this "question" would fit best in this thread, rather than hijack the 98SE SP3 thread. Some discussion was being made of replacing the Start Menu banner bitmaps contained in EXPLORER. Bitmap 157 is used for Windows 98, and Bitmap 161 is used for Windows 95. Quoted relevant posts below. FYI Bitmap 161 is ONLY used by Windows 95. Remember that the same version of EXPLORER is used on both 98 and 95 with the Desktop Update installed. If 161 is changed, then if that version of Explorer is loaded in 95 then the Start Menu will say 98. So Bitmap 161 should be a nice gray-to-black-to-gray Windows 95 banner. I found that gerislamico is correct in that Windows 98 will "auto fill" above the end of the banner bitmap (157) with the same color as the end of the bitmap. However, Windows 95 will not do so. Replacing Bitmap 161 will result in a "cutoff" at the end of the banner, and the rest of the menu sidebar will be gray. See below: (Screenshot is of Windows 95-Shell Explorer, but the result is the same in both) Does anyone know how to "correct" this behavior? Either by finding a way to change the color of the "autofill" from gray; forcing the autofill to be based on the bitmap; or changing whatever "version check" causes 161 to be used on 95 instead of 157 (then 157 could be edited to a 95 banner)??

If you prefer the original Icons (I agree with you about the Recycle Bin especially) then you can use the EXPLORER.EXE contained in NUSB (It has only one byte modified to allow 256-Color Icons in the System Tray), along with SHELL32.DLL from the Q313829 HotFix. EXPLORER.EXE contains the My Computer Icon, and SHELL32.DLL contains the Recycle Bin and Network Neighborhood icons. When you replace these files, you will have to manually delete the ShellIconCache file in your WINDOWS directory from DOS or another OS.

No, it can be modified. I'm not opposed to making it look better. Just pointing out that it is only useful on 95. Also, I had considered changing it earlier myself, but I haven't managed to create a banner that I think looks very good. More Info: In 98, if the Start Menu grows longer (taller) than the bitmap banner, then the "space" above it will be auto-filled with the same blue color as in the original bitmap to prevent having it just "cut off." EDIT: gerislamico is right below, 98 will autofill based on the color of the top of the bitmap. In 95, this "auto fill" color is gray, not blue. So if the banner is changed from ending (at the top) with gray, then there will be a line wherever the banner ends and it will continue in gray to the top of the menu. So, the 98 banner must end at the top in the same blue color as the original, and the 95 banner must end at the top in the same gray color unless someone knows what to edit to change the autofill colors. EDIT: Struck out incorrect information. The problem seems to only affect Windows 95. There must be some sort of "version check" in EXPLORER that causes Bitmap 161 to be used on 95, and Bitmap 161 is not extended based on the bitmap color. :angrym:

FYI Bitmap 161 is ONLY used by Windows 95. Remember that the same version of EXPLORER is used on both 98 and 95 with the Desktop Update installed. If 161 is changed, then if that version of Explorer is loaded in 95 then the Start Menu will say 98. So Bitmap 161 should be a nice gray-to-black-to-gray Windows 95 banner.

I apologize for bumping this topic, but I have done some further experimenting that is relevant to this subject. First, I retract my previous statement: I have finally had the opportunity to run some tests with the 3rd party drivers listed by jaclaz, and found that this one seems to work perfectly for a standard PS2 Wheel Mouse. The other versions of the same driver listed seem to be buggy on a test system. This solution may be the "quickest and simplest" for getting a Wheel Mouse working on 95. While IntelliPoint 4.0 will do the job and add some other features, it requires that IE5 be installed before the installer will even run. I have tested the above driver on a 95C system WITHOUT IE4 or later installed, and it works perfectly. As with IntelliPoint however, the driver will load an EXE file on StartUp and it must be left running in the System Tray to have wheel functionality. Based on my experimentation using 98 INF's and downversioned 98 files, there doesn't seem to be a way to have the functionality without this.

This does indeed make (most of) the Chevrons reappear, however they are now like the ones in Windows XP Classic View rather than the original 98 style. This is much better than no Chevrons at all though. I can't believe I didn't discover that option when I tried it before... Thanks Drugwash

What do you mean with 'the original taskbar behaviour' ? Could you elaborate, plz? I installed RP9 on a test VM so I could take these screenshots. Here is the default Taskbar: Here is the RP9 Taskbar: HOWEVER when I Uninstalled RP9 on the test VM, the Taskbar reverted back to the original state, so I am baffled at jds's problem. I prefer the original Taskbar look, but apparently there's no way to have it with RP9 installed. I did verify the version of COMCTL32.DLL as suggested by Drugwash, mine matches his.

Unfortunately no Thanks Since we're on the subject of registry & shell "extensions" so to speak, does anyone know how to get EXPLORER to display the "Created" and "Accessed" file attributes along with "Modified" in Detail view?

This is not exactly what you're wanting, and may or may not work for the files you're working on... but I thought I would mention it. You can add a shortcut to the program you want to use in the Windows\SendTo folder, and then right-click on your file and choose "Send To" and click on the shortcut for the program. I always add a shortcut to Notepad in my SendTo folder for editing batch files or various other file types.

I'm glad someone brought this up. I like having the taskbar dividers, etc like they're supposed to be originally. This is my main gripe with RP and the main reason I don't use it. I don't want to change the look of my 98 system, but I know dencorso and others recommend installing it to improve resource management.

Huh? RLoew's PATCHMEM As long as you can make your payment from a bank account and not from a Credit or Debit Card there should be no problem.

No, Auto Insert Notification is checked in the Device Manager for that drive. I didn't think to check at that moment, so I will have to attempt to reproduce the error again. If I remember correctly from previous experience, the first instance of the drive does not function.

Really? I hate to argue about this but I never cease to be amazed at how many people complain about spending $21 bucks. It costs more than that to buy one meal for two at a sit-down restaurant, more than that to buy one tank of gas, more than that to buy one month of prepaid cell phone service... and the list goes on.

Well, I finally have a bit of documentary evidence to contribute to the Duplicate Drives issue. Today, while formatting & reinstalling 98SE on a system, I managed to get a screenshot of duplicated CD drives in EXPLORER. I had mentioned earlier that the issue only occurs when loading and unloading discs - I was wrong or I didn't remember correctly before. This time it occurred while I was installing Office 2000. I had opened EXPLORER and launched the Office SETUP from inside, and left it open while the install was taking place. When the installer finished, I got this screenshot: (image size reduced for the forum) I was using my own modified version of EXPLORER.EXE (v. 4.72.3612.1700 Sat Jan 30 1999 00:00:13) with one byte changed for the 256-Color Tray Icons patch and some icons updated (not the Recycle Bin ones that I hate ).

@dencorso I split my last post in the other thread and moved the content that was relevant to this thread to my first post here. It has Prozactive's original related post quoted, but we don't have the original post. This can be removed once everything is arranged.

Yes and along with the ones listed I already had my own modded version as well. If we're going to "standardize" this there should be two versions - one with "functionality" fixes only and one with "functionality + eye candy" for those who want it.

Checked back, and: The version of EXPLORER.EXE that is installed by NUSB is the EARLIER (January) timestamped 4.72.3612.1700 with ONE BYTE changed for the 256 Color Tray patch. The version number is not updated. Thanks But I thought only one byte needed to be changed for the 256 Color Patch? I had previously experimented some with this when I was digging into the NUSB business, but I didn't attempt to patch the later EXPLORER version at that time.