jaclaz

Check this one too: https://www.driverguide.com/driver/detail.php?driverid=1715165&action=filfo It does contain the "athwx.sys", it is seemingly a "just later version", 7.7 and it has a specific entry for "Atheros AR9285 Wireless Network Adapter" jaclaz

if you are OK with .Net (and its incredible amount of bloat): http://www.multidoc-converter.com/en/index.html Otherwise (still not exactly a "small" tool): https://pandoc.org/i https://gist.github.com/arthurattwell/ea6fa1764f989398f659ab619b654e1f Libreoffice however allows this, should be more or less: soffice -headless -convert-to doc -outdir docs/ *.html jaclaz

1. http://reboot.pro/topic/2384-alter-group-universal-ata-driver-for-windows-nt351nt42000xp/ driver_9x_39g1.rar 2. You are looking for either VBEMP or Scitech Display Doctor, see: http://www.bearwindows.boot-land.net/vbe9x.htm https://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=59559 3. you simply do NOT. [1] 4. As always. [2] jaclaz [1] The whole point is that setting up a 9x/Me system on modern hardware is EXTREMELY difficult, and prone to errors, if there is not a specific packet of files tested to be integrated/automagically installed on the specific hardware it won't simply work, you need ot install a "base" system and then later test all the changes/various drivers, etc.. For this ME is less suitable than 98 as you will need to have a DOS of sorts for many of these tests (of course a ME with the DOS enabler patch will do) [2] Which usually means that you don't. Since the dawn of time it has been custom for people that are in the knows (to make installs) to copy the files to hard disk and then install to hard disk, from hard disk (as this is usually faster, allows to easily make changes, and have the source available in case some component is needed later). So all you need is normally a boot floppy which can be made (as floppy emulation El-Torito) by *any* .iso making software or even manually created using a trick or two, references: http://reboot.pro/topic/9916-grub4dos-isohybrided/?p=86679 BUT nowadays you would more likely have NOT a .iso/CD/DVD, but rather a "plain" USB stick booting to a DOS of some kind.

Lot of people though cannot say on so-recent models, examples: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/125486-which-netbook-can-work-with-windows-98-properly/ http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/122401-asus-eee-pc-and-windows-9x/ The issues - generally speaking - are with drivers, the ICH7 and 945 chipset are still within the known to be working hardware, but with no "manufacturer drivers" see: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/107001-compatible-hardware-with-windows-9x/ the display, and a few other peripherals including USB ports may be tough to be made working fully, as well as the SATA, you will need most probably Uniata and a number of the patches by RLoew. jaclaz

Sure , last time my car didn't start in the morning I changed wheels and tires first thing and that did solve the issue of poor handling in tight curves, but - curiously enough - only after a mechanic replaced the battery and managed to start the car. @Feamane Some (historical only) info for you: jaclaz

Yep , I was highlighting your abillity in writing truisms in English. @Beau H. https://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/386085/windows_7_home_premium_vs_windows_7_professional/ And, for the record, most of what is "missing" in Professional can be obtained using third party tools, jaclaz

Care to expand on this? FAT32 limitatin is 2^32-1, aka 4,294,967,295 bytes. OP is talking of a limitation at around 2 Gb, possibly specific to the Windows 95 Explorer (he has no issues whatsoever with non-explorer up to 4 Gb). jaclaz

Good morning, Monsieur de La Palice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_de_La_Palice Op stated his/her needs as: Now, what do you recommend for those needs? jaclaz

It is possible that this is a yet different case, i.e. the "old" WD elements case is "locked" (by design) to a max 2Tb disk drive. If this is the case there is in it a translation of sorts, but instead of being a 512 -> 4 KB one it is a *larger size* > 2Tb size, and this "tricks" the XP into mounting/accessing the disk, but since this happens because of the translation in the case, *any* OS will see only 2 Tb, as that is the max amount allowed to pass through. @All - side note Anyone has an Asus motherboard and a large drive and is willing to experiment with the Asus unlocker? Maybe (just maybe) it is not strictly Asus specific, and will also work on similar motherboards with same chipsets https://event.asus.com/mb/2010/Disk_Unlocker/ jaclaz

The issue is that there is no actual "good for all" solution, these reports are (the ones I have seen) confused/confusional and/or use this or that specific driver/tool/whatever, like - say - Seagate DiscWizard, or Asus Disk Unlocker, or newer Interl RST drivers, it is a mess, and part of it may be connected actually to the actual motherboard BIOS. In your case the problem seems that the disk needs to be "seen" by the motherboard, depending on a number of factors it may be seen as a 746 Gb disk. You can try doing a "blind" partitioning with grub4dos as we did with Tripredacus, around here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/176480-2-tib-limit-size-in-mbr-hard-drives/?do=findComment&comment=1142954 but the disk needs to be *somehow* seen by BIOS (and thus by grub4dos). jaclaz EDIT: @Asp I see now you solved the issue another way, ignore the above

There is an extensive and detailed thead about the matter. XP is limited not by the MBR, but rather from other system files, on Windows 7 it works fine. (although the partitions need to be created manually): jaclaz

... view from the left side ... jaclaz

@Budws The "gullible" and "high income" was referring to your: I don' t think that after you saved three weeks wages to buy an iPhone you would - on a whim - buy an Apple TV or an Apple Watch. jaclaz

Sure. , particularly (gullible and) high income Apple customers . It didn't happen to me, but if I had gone to an Apple shop and paid US$ 79 for replacing the crappy battery they put inside their crappy iPhone (after already having gone to the same Apple shop to be told that the battery was within specs and thus replacement was not under warranty by their own "genuis" after the device was tested with their own crappy testing software), now that my friend gets the same battery replaced for US$ 29, while happy for the deal he got, I would be a tad bit upset with Apple. https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/28/16827248/apple-iphone-battery-replacement-price-slow-down-apology ... and it's not like - given the outageous price of the hardware they sell - they couldn't afford to replace them for free. Just for the record, I once replaced the battery of an Iphone 3g (obviously out of warranty and of market value near to 0) and - though I am used to repair small electronic and mechanical devices, it was the first time in my life that i actually *needed* to look for a disassembly and re-assembly guide, I still remember the experience as a nightmare, and I presume that at each later release - for one reason or the other - they made the disassmembling and reassembling more difficult. jaclaz

The whole point being, if it works, it works, if it doesn't it doesn't. It is not like forking an awful lot of money for hardware gives you any assurance of it working, surely better built *whatever* has more probabilities to last longer or perform beter, but remaining in Apple's territory, the recent iPhone battery issue should tell you something. And now, back to the crap, some news on MS patches for Windows 10 on AMD processors: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/08/microsofts_spectre_fixer_bricks_some_amd_powered_pcs/ At the end of the day, both Meltdown and Spectre risks are just vulnerabilities, that have very, very low probabilities of being taken avantage of on your local machine, whilst the Microsoft patch is almost surely going to brick it. (and the way out is to re-install the whole d@mn thing and keep it it not updated, i.e. having it as exposed to these vulnerabilities as before). jaclaz

Hmmm, if you are OK without the (mostly senseless) fancy stuff QTWeb works just fine, even if last release is a few years old: http://www.qtweb.net/ If someone actually wants to continue the development, it is OpenSource: https://github.com/magist3r/QtWeb jaclaz

So you can use bootpart just fine, see here for usage: In a nutshell: BOOTPART WIN98 C:\BOOTSECT.DOS jaclaz

Just in case, and probably unneeded: jaclaz

*all* or *most* DOSes tend to be very restrictive about which device they will boot from, essentially they must be on first, active, primary, partition of first hard disk, that has drive letter C: assigned (also drive 128 or drive 0x80). This is where grub4dos (and its capability of exchanging/remapping disks) would become useful. If you boot from USB a "hard disk like device" (i.e. a partitioned device) that will be first disk and th einternal one will become 2nd disk (and DOS won't ever "install" to a non-drive128 or non-C: volume). A floppy (or emulated floppy such as an image or an El-Torito emulation floppy from CD) will work because it will get letter A:. BTW, the FreeDos installer is notoriously an unneeded piece of crap that creates historically lots of issues. Till now, nothing indicates that the particular patch (or a similar one) is needed, I still believe that re-mapping the disks with grub4dos will work a threat (of course provided that grub4dos "sees" the IDE disk when booted from USB). jaclaz

I sounds a lot like a good example of Chesterton's Fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton's_fence jaclaz

No, it doesn't "block" MS-DOS, come on . Describe what happens. Very likely there is (as said these thin clients are pesky, and as well these tiny DOMs may behave "queerly") an issue with the geometry of the device, usually (but not always) FreeDOS is more tolerant, whilst DOS (also the exact version might be relevant) is more strict. If you have a booting FreeDOS image, add to it: grub.exe <- get it from here: http://dl.grub4dos.chenall.net/grub4dos-0.4.5c-2016-01-18.7z and: IO.SYS MSDOS.SYS COMMAND.COM from the DOS you are using. Boot to FreeDos, and from it run grub.exe. At the prompt, find out the geometry of the device (as seen when booted) with: geometry (hd0) then try booting DOS: find --set-root /io.sys chainloader /io.sys boot and report what happens. jaclaz

Which has (rightly or wrongly) a number of checks/limitations (that gdisk hasn't AFAICT). Some make sense, some not-so-much, particularly it seems dumb to exclude the conversion of non-system disks and to limit the conversion to partitions that are recognized by windows, jaclaz

And what is the issue? Making the image? Try using any among dsfok, Clonedisk, DMDE. http://members.ozemail.com.au/~nulifetv/freezip/freeware/index.html https://labalec.fr/erwan/?page_id=42 https://dmde.com/ or *any* dd port. Or re-deploy it to the physical device? (this may give you some of the usual issues with access in *any* Vista and later OS, you will probably need to put it offline). Forget about DosBox, use Qemu instead as a VM. Reasons: 1) it uses "standard", "legacy" virtual hardware 2) can uses RAW images natively About the guy, you referred to, he is a nice guy that collects good ol' terminal clients, in the specific case he did no kernel patch for booting, he had to make one (on an earlier version of the kernel) to have Linux run (which is another thing). The issue (and it is not the first terminal client that behaves the same) might be that a given bootloader/bootmanager (in this or that version) may not work with them, due to some "queer" BIOS behaviour, either from the USB or from the internal (IDE) CF card only to give you an example (and not necessarily your specific case) I have one of these that: 1) boots from some versions of grub4dos ONLY 2) boots NOT from "legacy" GRUB 3) boots NOT from Syslinux (at least the versions I tried) 4) boots just fine with Win2K/XP NTLDR 5) boots just fine with plain DOS 6) boots just fine with PLoP BUT with it uses a "queer" geometry As long as you don't have an exceedingly large USB stick, it is still worth the effort to do a few experiments to boot from it. Personally I would try a USB stick with a "normal" MBR and DOS, with grub.exe so that you can use its internal dd to create or deploy the image. Please note how the grub4dos dd is "as slow as molasses", but since you have to make or deploy only 64 Mb that should not be an issue. jaclaz

Sure, this is perfectly normal. The BIOS/MBR partitioning scheme has a limit in 2^32-1 sectors, i.e. roughly 2.2 TiB if sectors are 512 bytes in size. At least starting from Windows 7, it is possible to access (as a separate volume) the 726 Gb nonetheless, again using a trick or two, bit MS won't allow to create such an "out of faked specs" setup, JFYI (start from around here): But the non-bootability probably comes from another issue, the BIOS/MBR booting sequence is normally: BIOS->MBR->PBR of active partition->BOOTMGR->\boot\BCD->WINLOAD.EXE the UEFI/GPT is completely different: UEFI->EFI bootloader on EFI "reserved" partition (possibly BOOTX64.EFI or BOOTIA32.EFI or anything else registered in the NVRAM)->\efi\microsoft\boot\BCD->WINLOAD.EFI jaclaz

I am putting it down as a generic misunderstanding, I don't see where the terminology by the OP (IAmJefferson) is wrong, these definitions are pretty much tolerant: http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/definition/video-RAM https://techterms.com/definition/vram While actual "VRAM" is only a specific subset: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_RAM_(dual-ported_DRAM) But VRAM AFAICR has never been meaning "virtual ram". jaclaz