jaclaz

Interesting stance for a professional , do you also refuse to work on pink laptops and on those that have a NRA sticker on it? You understand how your - let's say peculiar - attitude may lead the customer to buy a new machine, thus making EXACTLY what the manufacturers want? jaclaz

Ah well, then - maybe - NetGear is "only" and not necessarily "best" - within "latest" - that provides XP drivers. We are slowly moving from "apodictic on NetGear" to "apodictic on all the rest of the world", still within the realms of "vague and gratuitous". jaclaz

Well, you are describing more or less a NAS (Network Attached Storage) with either RAID 10 or (safer/better) RAID 5/6 + full offline replication (i.e. two identical RAID 5/6 NAS's synchronized periodically). It ain't normally gonna be cheap , but maybe you have some spare old (but not too old) PC's that you can use, or you can get for peanuts some Mini-ITX from e-bay or similar and add to it a basic (you won't need high performance) RAID card and a bunch of disks, but there are also lots of decommissioned (but perfectly fine) servers on sale. Which size of data are we talking about? A simple basic intro to RAID: https://www.adaptec.com/nr/rdonlyres/874d145e-f64f-4804-9e27-037bc5a9dce0/0/3994_raid_whichone_v112.pdf jaclaz

Well anecdotally I have a Linksys one WUSB54GC that I use for the rare cases I need to connect wirelessly that seems just fine on XP (SP2), of course I miss the multi-year testing and benchmarking experience on all wireless adapters on the market that allows you to state apodictically that "Net gear is best for xp .". Or maybe, just maybe, you wanted to state something more like "I happen to have a NetGear one, and it works fine with XP on my machine". jaclaz

But only for XP SP2 or SP3, maybe? jaclaz

@ABCDEFG Thanks , though it doesn't seem to be meaningful for or connected to the issue at hand. jaclaz

But the "Standard" or "Default" is normally a REG_SZ, also on NT/2K/XP etc. BUT a REG_SZ file can contain both a "string" and a "hex string" AFAIK, while remaining "REG_SZ". So either the Windows 98 is not REG_SZ (and the windows 95 is REG_SZ) or the issue is something else. With Registrar Lite (that should show the field type) are the "standard" different types in 95 when compared to 98? Mind you it is well possible that Windows 95 simply cannot "understand" those values, but the REG_SZ type should have had no changes from 95 to 98. jaclaz

No. If it was UEFI only, you would have not been able to boot XP on it, maybe it is one of those (stupid) UEFI that has a CSM that is automatically enabled when MBR devices are found. jaclaz

Maybe it is a limitation of the windows 9x Regedit program, another tool should be able to do that. try with an old version of Registrar Lite: https://web.archive.org/web/20050706043434/http://www.resplendence.com/downloads jaclaz

In your view/tool there is no indication if it is a REG_SZ, REG_SZ when you right click on the key should provide both "change value" and "change binary value" (have not a Win9x handy to check). jaclaz

https://social.technet.microsoft.com/wiki/contents/articles/6083.windows-xp-folders-and-locations-vs-windows-7-and-vista.aspx jaclaz

On other news: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/07/onedrive-has-stopped-working-on-non-ntfs-drives/ jaclaz

The issue may be with the "data type". The Registry is a database (actually more similar to a filesystem than anything else) and eache "entry" (or field) can be of one among many data types, you can as well imagine that it is a fileststem where files have a (meaningful) extension AND (like Windows is now by default) you look at it in Explorer without showing extension, 9x has a subset of these: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/bb773476(v=vs.85).aspx If the data type doesn't match, the value will be "gibberish" or not found by the program/whatever. jaclaz

No. When the new (Windows 95 or if you prefer NT 4.00) User Interface came out, it was VERY, VERY different from the previous Windows 3.1 or previous NT 3.1/3.5, with LOTS of changes. Almost everyone was HAPPY of the changes. With windows 8/8.1 and with 10 they made a lot of changes for the worse. Heck, we don't even anymore know easily which OS version is running, "Creators Update" sounds like "Director's Cut" added to a movie title for a new release. jaclaz

Nothing really new, it dates back at the very least to ancient Greeks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra when computer experts (or self proclaimed ones) discuss about Trojan Horses often do not realize how the original one was a known known and not an unknown unknown. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns jaclaz

Sure. I was making a quick joke on the "You can't run" read as if it was addressing specifically user 98SE instead of the "impersonal you" jaclaz

Have you looked for it? Go here: http://w2k.flxsrv.org/wlu/wluen.htm On the left click on "Manual Update", then select OS=Windows 2000 and "kind"=drivers, language English. Look for Intel Gigabit Network LAN Driver(v3) should link to: http://w2k.flxsrv.org/cgi-bin/dl.cgi?file=PRO2Kv3.zip&lang=en (but you need to get there from the main page). jaclaz

As a side note and just for the record, while that statement most probably applies to user 98SE. it is not entirely accurate, it is possible to run Windows 98 from a CD, using the (long gone) Qualystem Rescue setup, that makes use of a registry redirector and of the Franck Uberto's Ramdisk or other methods (also long forgotten). Whether this is a "smart" or "practical" thing to do is another thing, but definitely is possible, and a similar approach can be replicated using freely available software, though AFAICR there were only attempts for a minimal PE-like 98 Os and noone fully replicated the original Qualystem behaviour for a "full" OS. jaclaz

I a not particularly interested in what you will use it for, I was only pointing out how grub4dos is NOT Grub (nor Grub2) and you asked specifically for "a better tutorial for DOS 6.22/9X/ME/2K/XP with Grub4DOS", now you have it, do with it whatever you see fit. Of course not, I never test the tools or the booting methods that I (sometimes, and just a little) contribute to develop. The Gavotte's Ramdisk (AFAIK) is not a bootable Ramdisk (unlike Winvblock or Firadisk), and is - I believe - the only one actually "hooking" the past 3.x Gb ram for use as Ramdrive, not much choice here. jaclaz

Well, it's a different approach, if you want something more recent, but similar to sequoiaview, try: https://windirstat.net/ the kind of visualization with areas proportional to size is very intuitive, and (IMHO) graphically better looking than this view: http://www.jam-software.com/treesize_free/tree_map.shtml jaclaz

But possibly slower than a NT 4.0 in Ramdisk and around the same speed of a 2K in Ramdisk .... jaclaz

How exactly do you see your "profile" size? The usual (good ol') recommendation is to use a software like SequoiaView: http://www.win.tue.nl/sequoiaview/ Get it from here (seemingly the original download isnot working right now): https://matt.ucc.asn.au/mirror/ or from one of the other mirrors: http://www.filewatcher.com/m/Sequoia1_3XPInstall.exe.567003-0.html And have a look at what takes what space where. jaclaz

Naah, 72-73° is HOT in itself, but not as hot as it will be needed to damage the chip or - as in this case - the tin balls soldering, and most probably around what you can expect from one of those GO 7200/7400 cards. Notwithstanding what (hear-hear) Nvidia says about their GPU's being heat resistant up to 105°: http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2752/~/nvidia-gpu-maximum-operating-temperature-and-overheating I would say that until you go over 85-90° it is fine, though the issue on the specific card, from what I could understand (and that I can remember) was about "prolonged" times at high temperatures, there is nothing to tell us whether the heat that is "sucked or blown away" from the cooler (top) doesn't somehow remain in the underside of the chip (please read as the stupid BGA) that couold even be at a higher temperature, simply because extracting heat from under the chip is more difficult . jaclaz

I believe that all you get is "New Simple Volume". jaclaz

Well you cannot make proper questions while making assumptions. Your question is VOID for not one, but TWO reasons : 1) there is NO such thing as an "active" partition on GPT 2) ALL partitions on GPT are "primary" ones [1] jaclaz [1] this is not actually 100% correct, as there is a "special" kind of partition (with an embedded MBR) that may in theory behave in a very similar way to an Extended partition, but in practice noone uses that particular GUI/format and I know of no OS that supports it.