LoneCrusader

I'm an avid eBay watcher as well when it comes to these things, hopefully we don't end up bidding against one another sometime, haha. I have not attempted using a 512MB card myself, so I'm just relaying info that I have read elsewhere. Also, I remember a post by rloew, our resident RAM expert , where he was experimenting with a patch to support 512MB graphics cards in 98. I don't know if any further work has been done on it, and I don't have a 512MB card to experiment with. If you find a way to get it working, do let us know.

Welcome to MSFN The system you have built is quite similar in specs to a system I have under construction, and I have used ATi Radeon 9800 XT's in several of my systems for some time. 9800 XT's have 256MB of RAM, so having a 256MB card will not bother your Windows 98 system. 512MB cards apparently do have problems, but I do not have any experience with this. The ATi Catalyst 6.2 drivers are the last official ones for Windows 98. Although ATi's driver search for 98/ME will not lead you to it, this driver package contains drivers for the X800 series up to the X800 XT Platinum Edition. I have not used these myself, so I cannot vouch for their operability. However, I will be very anxious to see if you get them to work, because I will be using them soon with my new system. (Soyo P4I875P Dragon 2, P4 3.4 GHz EE Gallatin, 4GB Kingston HyperX DDR400 RAM, ATi Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition)

Wow.. I guess I should not be surprised, considering that it is Microsoft, but I can't believe that they would have removed the ability to use a floppy drive from a virtualization program. That is beyond ridiculous. IMO, Just another step in their campaign to erase all memory of DOS or DOS based Windows systems. Anyhow, welcome to MSFN and I'm glad my fix was of some help to you. I am actually working on another update to FIX95CPU.ZIP, using some suggestions and info given to me by rloew during the RAM patch testing discussed above. The new update will further minimize the required typing, and should eliminate one of the restarts for 95B and 95C users. And based on the information you have given me, I may include a bootable ISO that contains the patch. Thanks for the feedback!

Confirmed, no more annoying mouse-over popups! I'll second this.

Glad to hear it's working ok now.

Woohoo! For those who may be interested, we successfully tested up to 4GB of RAM with Windows 95 using RLoew's new patch. Here are a couple of screenshots from the testing.

I don't claim to know everything about maintaining a forum or website; in fact I know very little about it. I mean no insult of any kind, but I have a question that I think may sum up some of the feelings that a lot of us are having. Was this "change for the sake of change" or was there a specific set of problems that could only be addressed by this upgrade? What exactly does "IPB 3" improve? What new functionality is added? (And I'm talking functionality, not eye candy.) What does this new version have to offer to the average user that the previous one did not? If this newer version does not greatly expand the usefulness to the average user, then why change it? Especially if it decreases functionality to a portion of the user base? It would have been less work for you admins as well.

Thanks, but no thanks. I would use Linux before using an NT-based Windows. This is not the place for a discussion like this however.

Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 users can also use Internet Explorer 6 (different Service Pack levels). The newer browsers (Windows Internet Explorer 7 and Windows Internet Explorer 8) do not run very well with older computers that have 512 MB of RAM, so for those using a newer browser may be at too great a performance cost. The old forum functioned decently. This new forum does not work well.Reverting back to the old forum is preferred. Note: I use Internet Explorer 6 with SP1 on Windows 2000 Professional with Service Pack 4. You're using a nearly 10 year old browser that is not even close to standards compliant, doesn't properly display .png transparency. Wasn't even written to understand 90% of what is considered standard web design practices today. and we will not go back to 2.3 (old forum) version. One thing i can do about it is to map IE6 to lofi skin. I understand you guys are working on things, and that you need time to sort them out. But I can confirm that the forum behaves much slower in general than it did previously. I may be using an old OS, but my hardware is not lacking. Win98SE, FF 2.0.0.20 - P4 3.06GHz, 1.5GB RAM

Hmm, sounds like an interesting Addon. I will have to see if they still have versions that support Firefox 2. Seems to be fixed so far.

A bunch of people here have... I can confirm this. Every time I visit MSFN I have to login again, even if I have checked the "Remember Me" box. Even if I logged in 5 minutes ago, if I close my browser and return, I have to login again. (Win98SE, FF 2.0.0.20)

Screen Cap: EDIT: Smaller Image.

Ok, now there's a new one. When you edit a post it gets moved to the bottom of the thread, out of order. EDIT: I guess not. I could have sworn my last post got moved down one when I edited it, I guess I must be too tired

If you keep the site up, I'll keep donating. Hopefully others will too. Yes, I decided to pitch in a bit as well. I'm not showing up orange though yet, haha.

Yes, mine are like that as well, except they have a little magnifying glass icon.

I suppose I'm talking about the same things 5eraph was talking about, the blue highlighted words that if you mouse over them they bring up a "Vibrant" popup. I was not seeing many of them when logged in before the update, but now they're everywhere. I understand about the cost of maintaining things though.

There seems to be a great proliferation of pop-up advertisements that were previously not showing up when logged in, not to mention the "Ad Bot" posts coming up in the threads. When some pages are loaded, a large black box opens momentarily at the top of the page and then disappears. (Windows 98 SE, Firefox 2.0.0.20, Flash Player 9.0.124) IMHO, a white background is hard on the eyes. I don't suppose it would do any good to say it was better before.

Yes I suppose I am a "happy bunny" now. And I must thank you again jaclaz for another very good program recommendation (ImgBurn). I just wish we had taken this route to begin with. Actually it may not be that difficult to reproduce, or maybe even to explain what was going on. This time I did pay attention to the filesystems settings during setup. The resulting DVD that worked had two filesystems - ISO9660 (Bootable) + UDF 1.02. I do not claim to understand all of these different CD filesystems, however, we made references to Joliet in the MKISOFS command syntax, and it seems that Joliet was not used/required, but UDF was instead. If any of you have questions about the resulting DVD, I'd be happy to try to answer them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- These will require further testing. When I get a chance, I will try to report back on these questions.

But it will, rest assured it will!.....I'll say that the reason for recommending quite strongly SHSUCDX is simply that it was written to be much more forgiving than MSCEDEX, so that it can read many optical media that are beyond MSCDEX strict format requirements. Even if you don't feel like testing it right now, do have a copy of it in your toolbox, because, sooner or later you'll find it quite handy.... When that day comes I will be perfectly willing to give SHSUCDX a try. I don't have a problem with any of the tools discussed in this thread except MKISOFS In fact, I've had some ideas about using GRUB4DOS for another project, but I must find a way to use it to make a bootable ISO without having to use mkisofs, haha. Anyhow, thanks for your help as well.

This has definitely been a learning experience. Yes, I took a few files out of my ISO_Root folder so that the ISO would be <4GB for FAT32, but I also noticed that ImgBurn has the ability to split the ISO into multiple files I have not tested that particular item yet however. Thanks for your help!

Since I was using graphical tools, I never paid attention to these settings. All I know is that they worked, without any bizarre errors. If this is the case, I believe (I may be wrong) the problem may have been the fact that Windows 98 automatically displays file names in lowercase except for the first letter. Whichever one is standard in 98SE. 7.0 I think. My input was specifically stated above. What was wrong with it? I do not have broken hardware in multiple machines. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- None taken. You are under no obligations, and I appreciate your help and suggestions. However, if you're going to make suggestions, I feel that you should be able to explain why you are recommending one thing over another. One can go anywhere on the internet and find an endless supply of opinions and suggestions, but if they cannot be backed up with good reasoning, they are worthless. I am not implying that you could not back up your recommendations if you so desired. I have no desire to argue about these things either, I simply asked for an explanation of why you consider one to be better than the other and why I should use one over the other. Yes. Why do I have a feeling this program might be a GUI for MKISOFS? Just Kidding BTW, it works now. No bizarre errors, long file names, short file names, all caps in DOS, MSCDEX functioning properly, JO.SYS booting properly, etc etc. MagicISO and Nero must have been the culprits, as both of them failed to produce a properly bootable DVD.

If any or all of my assumptions are wrong, then feel free to correct me. I have said this before and have stood corrected by you before. Just be specific and explain WHY they are wrong. You still did not answer the question that I asked. You are leading the discussion, because you are trying to persuade me to use MKISOFS, GRUB4DOS, and SHSUCDX, without giving me an answer as to whether I can use a standard Win98 Boot Disk and standard El Torito emulation to do this. I do not want to use ANY of these things if this project can be accomplished without them. I seem to remember another thread where I asked you to recommend a specific program to do something, and you refused to do so. But now, you act as if MKISOFS, GRUB4DOS, and SHSUCDX are the only way to achieve this. If they ARE the ONLY way to do this, then explain WHY? MSCDEX has NEVER ONCE failed to work for reading ANY OPTICAL DISC that I have wanted to use. I see no reason to change it simply based on someone saying "SHSUCDX is better." If I followed this principle then I would be using Windows 7 because some id*** says that "It's better." If it isn't broke, don't fix it. When it fails me under normal conditions then I will concede that you are correct. However, based on my experiences here, I do not consider anything created by MKISOFS to be "normal." I might also add, that the first DVD that I created with MagicISO using the standard emulation CAN BE READ PERFECTLY with MSCDEX using a Boot Floppy to access it. It fails to Boot, but otherwise is PERFECT.

Well, I did say those things, just not ALL in one post, or one sentence. But you're dealing with a TOS Romulan, not one of those bastardized TNG Romulans, so I have some honor. I very much appreciate your help and your expertise jaclaz, I think there's been a lot of miscommunication in this thread. I'm going to go back to the basics on this one, and start by asking what should be a simple enough question to be able to get a definite Yes or No answer to, and should be able to verify with a simple experiment. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Is it possible to use a standard Windows 98 Boot Disk with standard El Torito Floppy Emulation to create a bootable DVD? If the answer is Yes, I would greatly appreciate it if someone could actually test this for me and give me a detailed report on the process used, software/hardware/media used, and the results, as all of my tests have been unsuccessful. I would prefer to use this method, as it was my original intent. If I can get a standard floppy working this way, then I can work on finding out if my custom one works or not. If the answer is No, then we can move on to discussion of MKISOFS and GRUB4DOS. ------------------------------------------------------------------ I know what standard DOS filenames are. What is puzzling to me about this, is that I have created DVD's before using mixed case and length file names (of course the DOS files were only accessed in DOS and vice versa) and never encountered a problem like this. It seems that MKISOFS and/or the -iso-level 4 option translated ALL of my DOS filenames within the ISO to lowercase, even though they showed up as uppercase before under normal DOS conditions. This is idiotic. I assume -iso-level 3 will not do this? Or will it translate all of the lowercase names to uppercase? This must be a "bug" (from DOS/Windows standpoint) somehow left over from MKISOFS being a Linux command, as Linux is case sensitive. I stand by what I said earlier, MKISOFS belongs in the trash bin. You say it is possible to use standard floppy emulation on a DVD. I'm very glad to hear that, (per my question above) could you please give a more detailed report on how it is done? I read the CD that I had successfully created earlier using my custom floppy image and standard El Torito emulation to an ISO. Then tried burning it to a DVDRW on a different machine. Nero refused to burn it, ejected my DVDRW and requested a CD or CDRW. MagicISO burned it to the DVDRW and reported success, but the disc was unreadable on any system I put it in.

It sounds as if you may have multiple problems with this computer. The "MODIFICATION BEGIN" probably indicates that some program or script is running when the computer starts up that may be causing problems. First, is there anything listed in the Start Menu\Programs\StartUp folder? If so, what? Second, click Start, Run, and type MSCONFIG and click OK. Post the contents of the "Startup" tab, and maybe myself or someone else can give you some assistance.

Ugh, now I have to log in again every time I visit MSFN. Even if I just logged on in the past few minutes, and check "Remember Me," if I close my browser (Firefox 2.0.0.20), I have to login again.