jaclaz

What format command do you run? What happens when you run it? Are you sure that the drive is 360 Kb? (and not 1.2 Mb)? Usually the /4 switch to format.com is needed to format 360Kb floppies, I believe that most BIOSes don't really support "real" 360 Kb floppy drives. If the motherboard supports 1 Gb it would be unusual that its BIOS has a actually a 360 Kb floppy setting. There are however several third party tools usually capable of dealing with those ancient floppy drives. A number of them have been cited here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/136856-how-to-archive-old-floppies-for-access-under-win98/ namely dcopy can also format with various formats: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/136856-how-to-archive-old-floppies-for-access-under-win98/?do=findComment&comment=880320 but it has to be seen if the issue is with the way the BIOS (or the OS actually "sees" the device). jaclaz

It has been I believe an on-and-off situation, there are a number of "clean" downloads around, but anyway, I believe it has always been "opt-in" (of course assuming that people read before clicking on OK, which doesn' t happen very often). Anyway get a portable version: http://www.softpedia.com/get/PORTABLE-SOFTWARE/CD-DVD-Tools/Windows-Portable-Applications-Portable-ImgBurn.shtml and just extract contents in a suitable folder with 7-zip, that one is "clean". jaclaz

Sure they use the .iso format, which is not really-really a file format, BTW, it is just a normal "raw" 1:1 copy of the CD, if you prefer, it is the simplest format possible, an image, unlike the (mostly senseless) proprietary formats of the old days. As a side note, IMGBURN is compatible with Win9x/Me, so it is the "natural companion" to any of those virtual cd drivers: http://www.imgburn.com/ jaclaz

See if this old thingy fits the bill: http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/cpu_stability_test.html jaclaz

Just to give you some benchmark references/scale: 1) compiled AND tested AND working=good [1] 2) compiled NOT tested=meaningless 3) compiled AND tested AND NOT working=bad jaclaz [1] at an improbability level of two to the power of two hundred and seventy-six thousand to one against

I was asking if your compiled VKrnlEx.sys actually worked on XP like the VKrnlEx.vxd does on 9x. jaclaz

Doesn't Virtual Clone Drive work just fine? http://www.oldapps.com/virtual_clone_drive.php?system=Windows_98 And (less known) WinArchiver Virtual Drive: http://www.winarchiver.com/virtual-drive.htm which can also mount archives. jaclaz

Very good , and what does the output VKrnEx,sys do? Apart taking a little bit of disk space, that is... jaclaz

Which is fine , since you actually didn't make it , it was split from another thread where you started your off topic (there) quest ... jaclaz

And of course you are not going to tell us WHERE you found it or HOW you found it ... jaclaz

But here again Copyright is another thing from a license. The Copyright is a protection intended to protect from unauthorized redistribution and/or misrepresentation of the Author(s) of original work. It doesn't actually allow MS to do anything but protect their Intellectual Property. The Windows XP OS has actually been distributed (legally) by MS in a number of ways and - starting with SP3 I believe - a fresh install allows to run it without entering a product key for a limited time. It is the EULA (End User License Agreement) that allows them - in theory - to do something. A PE (build from legally obtained sources or not) has no validation mechanism, but - again - to be used legally it should not be used without a valid license (for the same particular PC) and NOT simultaneously with the original licensed install. As an example, if you build a PE from an original CD/DVD tied to a license on computer A, you cannot in theory use it to boot (say for an emergency repair) computer B, unless the computer B has also a valid license, and - still in theory - you cannot test the just built PE in a VM running on the original license PC because that constitute simultaneous use. Of course, it's not like anybody expects a kind of Spanish Inquisition ... jaclaz

Interesting. You could really spend a few words (on the site) explaining how it works (not really how it works, but how one can create a self extracting archive with that). Is the roscmd "needed" or it is only in the case one want to workaround command execution policies? Or if you prefer, which of the zillion files in the example are actually *needed*? Maybe - besides the example - you could provide an "empty", "bare minimum" template? Any way to ONLY open a command prompt? Or, if you prefer, to drop to command line once the batch has been executed OR interrupted and then need to type EXIT to close the command window? I mean without directly invoking %~dp0\roscmd.exe? (like an internal .ini file with a setting *like* DropToDos=1) Also there is an issue. In the roscmd.exe window the ALT+code seemingly does not work , which plainly means that on an Italian keyboard (but I suspect on many other ones) I cannot input the tilde ~ on command line (that is ALT+0126), Yes, I know I can run %comspec% /? and that I can do SET Mydir=%comspec:\roscmd.exe=% and cd /d %mydir%, but it is a big limitation, as I see it. By the same token of the "DropToDos", it would be nice to have in the (hypothetical) .ini settings file the option to choose whether to run in the directory where the .exe is (i.e. %SFXPATH%) or in the directory where the sfx is temporarily extracted (i.e. %~dp0), In any case pushd %mydir% and popd work just fine . jaclaz

Very possibly, but I don't know of any software that offers that. Still, if the actual problem is to change a few keys/values the REGEDIT command line use is all that is needed, if one can "bear" the use of (temporary) .reg files. jaclaz

Interesting approach, easy and practical. jaclaz

Still you want the 3.89, not the beta 2.0: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://paullee.ru/download/regv389.zip OR the 4.2 version: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://paullee.ru/download/regv.zip OR the 4.1 version: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://paullee.ru/download/regv41.zip jaclaz

It worked a few days ago, it happens. You managed to link to a very old version of the site, here is a recent one; http://web.archive.org/web/20170101220931/http://paullee.ru:80/regstry.html the latest real mode one is 3.89, not the 2.0b in the link you provided. Good for you that you never needed to "regedit in DOS", now - should it be needed - you know that REGEDIT can run in "pure DOS" command line also. jaclaz

And the General Paul Lee Registry Viewer is EXACTLY a Registry Editor running from DOS. As well, why don't you READ the given article? https://web.archive.org/web/20100529085012/http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-1032874.html What is the difficult part in the (already quoted): that is DOS, "Pure DOS", and NOT "inside Windows 9x", being related to a procedure to repair a Registry when you CANNOT boot to the Windows 9x, but I will quote another snippet: jaclaz

I really cannot understand what you actually *want*, really. If you are running a 9x/Me (or DOS) the easiest is to use REGEDIT on command line. https://web.archive.org/web/20100529085012/http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-1032874.html If you are running NT derived OS, you can use the MS offline library (and optionally the existing tools making use of it). Maybe you want a (of course free, and open source, working on DOS, Windows 9x/me and NT/2K/XP and later) clone of Ghregedit? https://support.symantec.com/en_US/article.HOWTO10410.html There are none that I know of. jaclaz

Checked, it was the good Opera guys that mislabeled a number of files: http://arc.opera.com/snapshot/windows/ jaclaz

12.50 doesn't exist AFAIK, the reference is likely to a 12.05 alpha version (most probably a typo by Schwups or a mis-labeling by the good Opera guys): that reportedly works with KernelEx AND KernelEx Extensions. This is probably the last detailed info on 12.x versions, there are later a 12.17 and a later 12.18 "special fix": http://www.opera.com/docs/history/presto/ https://web.archive.org/web/20130602024631/http://www.opera.com:80/docs/history/#o12 The above given post is dated June 27,2012, so around the time the 12.0x version were around and before the 12.10b. This thread is about 98/Me, NOT about XP! jaclaz

Corrected, thanks. jaclaz

As far as I know, I go here: and READ. While I can understand the limitation of NOT using a Commercial patch (which costs BTW only a few bucks and reportedly is the most stable solution available) I cannot understand the artificial limitation you just introduced about avoiding the tweaking of this (or that) file, but I am also not at all interested in the reasons why you introduced it. jaclaz

And there is the dedicated thread about browsers working or not working that was just given to you. Requires KernelEx! (Windows 98/ME only!) Opera 12.02 Firefox 3.6.28 Requires KernelEx extensions ... Opera 12.5 build [before] 1513 No reports of newer Firefox working with KernelEx extensions. jaclaz

No, it clears - at the most - my personal experience (or lack thereof) on the specific matter, not my knowledge. jaclaz

It would bother me if it comes out that Opera 12.15 doesn't run on Windows 98 at all, or if you managed to run it and didn't tell anyone how you did it. Reportedly: Last version of Opera working on 98/ME is 10.63. Last version of Opera working in 98/Me with KerneEx 12.02. Last version of Opera working in 98/Me with KernelEx extensions 12.5 (before build 1513) And same applies to Firefox v43.0.4, can you run it in 98? jaclaz