jaclaz

I am not sure to understand what the problem is. No (or very few) sites use SPDY anymore, and it has been largey replaced by HTTP/2 according to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPDY The technology is essentially (though not really-really) similar to a compression format, for the sake of reasoning you can think of it as one obscure/not anymore used compression format. So you have NO (say) .sit (Stuffit) compressed files, you have all .zip, .rar and .7z files instead. Your compression utility/tool supports .rar, .zip, .7z and .sit, but every file you can find is any among .rar, .zip, .7z, so the .sit decompression functionality is never used. Or you (your friend) are testing a site that surely uses SPDY but the specific Opera 12.10 installation (provided that it can actually access the site, as there are other reasons why it may not work, namely HTTPS and/or elliptical curve encryption) doesn't work in SPDY mode? It is also possibel that (for whatever reason) the SPDY indicator is not working. You can try opening DaragonFly and check for the added headers: https://dev.opera.com/articles/opera-spdy-build/ But it is easier/better to go here: https://spdycheck.org/ and test any given site with the tool. You can find some sites to test here: https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ce-spdy/all/all Examples: https://spdycheck.org/#Ensonhaber.com https://spdycheck.org/#Academia.edu The first uses SPDY BUT it cannot be actually used in most cases The second uses it AND it can actually be used. jaclaz

Just a word of warning for those not familiar with the site, it is currently down due to a SQL error, there was a server move announced some time ago, so probably this is the reason and it will (hopefully) be back in a few (latin) hours or days. jaclaz

Yep, somehow we were cross-posting. jaclaz

The clear remark (hopefully) is that I cannot understand what you mean, this can be due either to my limited understanding of the English language or by your convoluted and unclear way of writing it. It is not about you writing nonsense, it is about you writing something that - since it cannot be understood (by me) - may appear like nonsense. I am pretty sure that you know what you want to say, and most probably it represents an interesting point of view , but unless somehow we find a way to understand each other a conversation is simply not possible . jaclaz

It's also exactly the same I just paid for dinner (actually 30 Eur, but I also left some tip) and also double your post number, what gives? jaclaz

I suppose this can be tagged as Humpty Dumpty Syndrome: @kdg Seriously, it is difficult to understand what you mean, you are perfectly free to continue of course but if you could try to write in a simpler way, we would have better chances to understand each other: What is "That"? What is "This"? jaclaz

Besides there are probably tens of topics where the idea that the best OS ever has been 2K (followed by XP) has been debated ad nauseam, maybe a pointer to a couple of them would show to the OP that there is not any particular *need* to start a new one? http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/173322-windows-2000-one-of-the-forgotten-best-ms-os/ http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/175265-windows-xp-is-still-king/ Also, some of the celebrations of 2K or Xp are in the threads reated to the new (crappy) OSes, like (again examples): http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/155290-windows-8-deeper-impressions/ http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/174208-windows-10-deeper-impressions/ Shameless plug , but OP may appreciate : jaclaz

Sure. https://www.startech.com/eu/Cards-Adapters/Slot-Extension/PCI-Express-to-PCI-Adapter-Card~PEX1PCI1 http://www.ably.com.tw/main.htm http://amfeltec.com/products/flexible-x1-pci-express-to-pci-adapter/ ...2^4+2 jaclaz

Yep, and this would virtually put non-Microsoft Software (such as "IBM PC-DOS, DR-DOS and possibly FreeDOS") under the Microsoft Software category, As said everyone has his/her own way to classify and organize info, and - again as said - I find yours particularly interesting, though you cannot put periods in "DOS" (this would be an actual mistake). jaclaz

Then is it the subforum of what? Everyone has his/her own idea about catalogs and indexing, but check the top left here: http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/8-windows-9xme/ Can you see?: Home>Microsoft Software Products>Windows 9x/ME That is similar to a DOS\Windows path. Can you translate your proposal in that notation? Is it: Home>Microsoft Software Products>DOS - Disk Operating System as it seemed, or is it something else? jaclaz

Oww, come on , let's say that reproducibility and success rates appear to be below average . jaclaz

So, under "[Microsoft Software Products]" we should put IBM PC-DOS, DR-DOS and possibly FreeDOS? Interesting classification proposal. just in case I do miss a CP/M section, but particularly an OS/2 section, you could also say without OS/2 there wouldn't be Windows. jaclaz

Seriously. Check this: https://web.archive.org/web/20090804025245/http://support.microsoft.com:80/kb/140365 against this: https://web.archive.org/web/20090904210210/http://support.microsoft.com:80/kb/140365 Clearly in August 2009 the good MS guys added retroactively FAT32 support to Windows NT 3.51 and to NT 4.00, but in this latter OS limiting cluster size to 16 Kb , (both OS can anyway use FAT32 filesystems smaller than 32 Mb , but no less than 16 Mb). Also, you cannot have FAT32 on drives smaller than 512 Mb; https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/192322/description-of-default-cluster-sizes-for-fat32-file-system jaclaz

Interrupting a trend just for the fun of it ... 6 jaclaz

Have you tried NTFS4DOS? http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/Hard-Disk-Utils/Avira-NTFS4DOS-Personal.shtml it shoudl work normally in a DOS box in the GUI 9x. For Read Only access, your best option is IMNSHO the Diskinternals NTFS Reader: https://www.diskinternals.com/ntfs-reader/ There is a dedicated thread: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/110814-ntfs-support-in-win-98seme/ where users of Paragon's driver reported successful usage on much larger disks, however, so (surprisingly) it is your machine/setup that has the 8.4 Gb limit. jaclaz

I don' t know, but clearly the installation didn't go through correctly, the UNIATA replaces the VIA RAID controiller, it is not a "child" of it. There is no need to move the .inf, only you need to select the "right" one. But you can try installing differently. Try following this (seemingly completely unrelated) and remame the uniata driver: [redacted] Or remove the VIA driver, force the install of the plain MS one (I presume it is compatible anyway) and start again from there. jaclaz

WHICH folder? There is a folder \XP\ containing readme_xp.txt, uata_xp.inf, uata_xph.inf in my copy. Check device manager. Devices By Connection view. jaclaz

As a matter of fact I tend to stay clear of each and every "ISO Editor" (except in very particular cases it is IMHO much better to extract contents and recreate the .iso from the content) but CDMAGE is a nice tool, not exactly an "easy", "good for everyone", "drag and drop" tool, but still a very nice tool, particularly very apt to converting images between various formats and to extract data from faulty CD's (besides the other more "normal" features). jaclaz

Yes , correct. I meant "raw" in the sense of "dd like", without anything added (no header, no footer, no fancy offsets, no separate index files, etc.). And this BTW brings us to good ol' CDMAGE (which is 9x/Me compatible): https://web.archive.org/web/20080914233949/http://cdmage.orconhosting.net.nz:80/main.html http://www.softpedia.com/get/CD-DVD-Tools/CD-DVD-Images-Utils/CD-Mage.shtml jaclaz

Well, this tells me nothing. Which drivers? Which BIOS? Etc. ..., it's not like I have handy the specs of a Intel D2700MUD (whatever it is) and certainly know nothing about how yours is set up. You can actually (if you can[1] of course) try installing the UNIATA: http://alter.org.ua/soft/win/uni_ata/ as dencorso suggested, that explicitly supports larger disks. jaclaz [1] meaning without disrupting your XP system or accepting that installing the UNIATA driver may corrupt it beyond repair (it shouldn't, but you never know).

Sure, and that (attempting to break them limits) is the right attitude! jaclaz

Sure and I would call you a very advanced user, doing very advanced things on your 9x systems , so it still doesn't seem to me irrational to say that 10 or 16 are "good enough" for *everyone* and 64 is already overkill. Just saying that there are maybe higher priority issues in maintaining/updating 9x/Me .... jaclaz

Well, the 512 to 4Kb conversion is another thing, a good example is here: http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php/687139-3TB-External-hard-drive-works-under-Windows-XP-out-of-the-box What we are working on is exclusively to debunk the 2.2Tb MBR addressing limit myth (which is more like almost 4.4 Tb) and till now we have it demostrated on Windows 7. There are as said n reports of people runnning XP on a 2.2 Tb partition on 3 Tb disks, in these cases the last part of the disk (the famous 746 Gb) are not partitioned/not partitionable, but the first 2.2 Tb can be partitioned just fine, exactly what happened to Tripredacus under Windows 7 and to the user on the referenced overclockers thread. Please take note how 349.31*8=2794,48 and 4096/512=8 jaclaz

Sure , but it is better to avoid introducing "third party" drivers in the experiment, a "normal" XP machine should normally work with 3 tb disks with the manufacturers' (or Microsoft's "standard") drivers. It is possible that 3 Tb support was added to the OS on some update/hotfix, but I doubt it. a plain SP3 should be fine, we have many reports of 3 Tb disks (512 bytes sectored) working just fine in XP (limited to a first parttion of 2.2 Tb or however up to the 2.2 Tb limit) and the internet is choking full of reports of both XP and 7 showing the 746 Gb issue, but with no real "fix" if not "try this other driver version, and reportedly the standard Microsoft drivers work. Tripredacus' machine may be "peculiar" (for one reason or the other). jaclaz

Sorry, but I have to ask. What is the actual *need* to ever open more than one, two, maybe three, at the very most four DOS Boxes on a 9x system? I mean, if the hardcoded limit was - instead of 64 - 10 or 16, would anyone (outside of intentionally testing the limits of the OS) ever had noticed it in real life use of the OS? jaclaz