jaclaz

@98SE As said the difference is that your use of the ramdisk is correct , while the issue that Trevmun reported is the memory being hogged increasingly after hours of usage, this means that some programs (or service/whatever) hooks memory and does not release it when terminated, adding memory (be it ram or a ramdisk, or a swap file on the ramdisk in the inaccessible parts of the memory) would not solve the problem, only shift it to some time later. About Gavotte, while I am pretty sure that the program you use instead is "better", (BTW which one is it, out of curiosity?), the point I was trying to make that unlike your stated doubt (probably because at the time you tested an earlier version or with the "wrong" settings) , it does work nicely for the memory above 3.2 Gb without need of any patch to XP 32 bit, at least it does for both dencorso and myself, this is a reported fact (it is well possible that for *whatever* reasons it does not work properly on a specific motherboard, of course). jaclaz

Yep , I know, just asking if there was a specific "preferred" one, like "try 361, not 355.73". The "361 page" does not even list any 10xx series card: http://drivers.softpedia.com/get/GRAPHICS-BOARD/NVIDIA/NVIDIA-GeForce-iCafe-Graphics-Driver-36177-for-XP.shtml seemingly the only one with: is the 368.91 page you gave in your first post. Since Windows 2000 could not find any reference to those cards, it is likely that it is a mistake/a glitch in the matrix. jaclaz

Which older ones? (out of curiosity) Do you have a link to them (or a version number, etc.)? jaclaz

But you can get a full refund of the price paid anytime, no questions asked, though, an integral lifetime warranty for the money you invested in Gavotte's . Now, you may like (or not like) the fact that the good guy that wrote it is Chinese, and of course whine as much as you want about the lack of (choose one or more) source code, new versions, whatever, still it remains the best possible solution for an XP system with (too) much memory it is has been proved in years of daily use to be very, very stable. About the graphic professionals I know I will gladly pass to them your opinion about their utter incompetence in computing matters, I am pretty sure that the ones that built and use hackintoshes will be delighted by these news (the ones that use original Macs are actually a little "hip" anyway and probably deserve it). While you are at it, you could also tell me how Hasselblads are overrated as professional photo cameras and that there is much more value per buck in (say) Nikons, and I may even agree with you, still all the professional photographers I know use Hasselblads (and Macs) this is only a reported fact in my experience. @TrevMun What you describe (unlike what 98Se described, which is the use of excess memory to create a ramdisk, i.e. and exceptionally fast temporary storage, very useful for some heavy computing typical of graphic/video editing) seems more like "OS crust". You need to have enough memory for the *whatever* processes you need to run (peak usage) then the sheer moment the program(s) is/are terminated they MUST free ALL the memory. If your system starts swapping when you use "program A", then it is "peak usage" and you need more memory (and - if it is the case - an Operating System capable of managing that additional memory), if the system starts swapping after a day or two of use (and after "program A", "program B" and "program C" have been used without a need for swapping as a peak within the program) then it means that some processes are not releasing correctly memory after having been terminated (or have not been properly terminated). The rule of the thumb is as follows: 1) if you have 4 Gb and an OS that can manage only 3.25 or 3.5 GB and that 3.25/3.5 Gb are enough (peak usage) for you use of the computer, it's OK and you can make optionally a 0.5-0.75 Gb ramdisk for temporary storage 2) if you have 6 Gb you can enlarge this ramdisk to 2.5-2.75 Gb still remaining within the "plain" 32 bit OS 3) if you have 8 Gb it makes a lot of sense to switch to a 64 bit OS or try one of the patches to access more RAM But if the issue is with the programs in use (or the configuration, or whatever) that "builds up" RAM usage over time, adding more RAM is only a way to postpone a needed reboot. jaclaz

I quickly tested it in XP, where the service is actually called PlugPlay or Plug and Play: sc query PlugPlay SERVICE_NAME: PlugPlay TYPE : 20 WIN32_SHARE_PROCESS STATE : 4 RUNNING (NOT_STOPPABLE,NOT_PAUSABLE,ACCEPTS_SHUTDOWN) WIN32_EXIT_CODE : 0 (0x0) SERVICE_EXIT_CODE : 0 (0x0) CHECKPOINT : 0x0 WAIT_HINT : 0x0 sc qc PlugPlay [SC] GetServiceConfig SUCCESS SERVICE_NAME: PlugPlay TYPE : 20 WIN32_SHARE_PROCESS START_TYPE : 2 AUTO_START ERROR_CONTROL : 1 NORMAL BINARY_PATH_NAME : C:\WINDOWS\system32\services.exe LOAD_ORDER_GROUP : PlugPlay TAG : 0 DISPLAY_NAME : Plug and Play DEPENDENCIES : SERVICE_START_NAME : LocalSystem is there really a "&" in Windows 10? It would break a good 99% of any existing batch file ... jaclaz

This might do (as a batch, not one liner): @ECHO OFF SETLOCAL ENABLEEXTENSIONS CALL :reset FOR /F "tokens=1,2 delims=:" %%A IN ('sc query state^= all ^|FIND "_NAME"') DO SET %%A=%%B&CALL :parse GOTO :EOF :parse IF NOT DEFINED DISPLAY_NAME GOTO :EOF FOR /F "tokens=3" %%C in ('sc qc %SERVICE_NAME% ^| FIND "START_TYPE"') do ECHO xxx %SERVICE_NAME% = %%C =%DISPLAY_NAME% :reset SET SERVICE_NAME= SET DISPLAY_NAME= GOTO :EOF The output is "ugly", due to the extremely different length of service names. jaclaz

Nahhh, now you have narrowed it to a small niche (video editing, and presumably professional level video editing) that of course represents a teeny-tiny amount of users worldwide. At least here in Italy the "issue" is not about prices (which are not all-in-all that mich higher than other countries) it is about uses. All the people I know that are - even slightly - connected with graphics at a professional or semi-professional level, be it design, photography or video will be using their stupidly expensive Mac systems or - more recently - Hackintoshes. jaclaz

Well, actually NOTHING written by MS was EVER actually clear (everywhere but particularly on MSDN), so that doesn't particularly qualify the thing as being "privacy violation" related. On the other hand these R<something>.clb files have been created on several Windows versions since at least 2003, so if they are actually conneceted wth "privacy violaton" as a one time exception the Windows 10 and the new MS management/policies are not to blame. jaclaz

@Heinoganda I am not sad with you, only sad for you as it seems like the thingy isn't going as you expected, but was perplexed about your statement (in the sense that it seems to me nothing changed, if not maybe some time that passed without progress). jaclaz

@98SE With all due respect why limiting the patch to 192 GB or 2 TB? Why not promoting the idea that every single device should have no less than 128 Petabyte of RAM? I mean, if you dream, dream big. In the real world, most machines have tops 4 Gb RAM, a few have 8 or 16 Gb, a handful have 32 or 64 GB, I have never seen in my life (and I have seen quite a few machines, rest assured) an actual machine with 128 Gb of RAM, most probably the people I know are not rich (or gullible) enough to spend the kind of money needed for 128 Gb of RAM (and for the accompanying top level hardware), maybe I should try to elevate the circle of my acquaintances. @Heionoganda Why this new statement? I thought you saw it coming early enough. jaclaz

As a side note, if you ever have a 2TB machine and Windows 10 makes a full memory dump (crashdump) I want to see its examination .... jaclaz

Wouldn't this be easily fixed by : CD /D %~dp0 jaclaz

Maybe you were using a counterfeited version? (maybe a cheap Chinese clone? or maybe a NSA hacked version?) jaclaz

You are wanting to install Windows 2000 from USB by simply creating a USB "dump" of the install .iso? That won't happen. The USB stick contents need to be adapted/modified to allow the install (or you can install copying files to hard disk, etc.), here: http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/157-install-windows-from-usb/ you will find a number of possible ways, most will be for XP or later OS, but there should be a couple ways/methods also tested for Win2k, the easiest would be: jaclaz

I don't think it is Windows 10 specific, it should be a (very old) issue (possibly triggered by the upgrade specifically) connected with CRM logging (whatever it is): http://www.techsupportforum.com/forums/f8/r0000000000e3-clb-what-is-this-58550.html#post298277 Check if there is some tracing enabled, this might be obsolete, but should give you a start anyway: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/907490/how-to-enable-tracing-in-microsoft-dynamics-crm Or check the whole stuff here : https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms680326(v=vs.85).aspx it answers at least what the heck CRM is, Compensation Resource Manager, which obviously "provides a quick and easy way to integrate application resources with Microsoft Distributed Transaction Coordinator (DTC) transactions. Using the CRM is an alternative to developing a full Microsoft Transaction Services (MTS) resource manager." jaclaz

That may be due only to the Major/Minor OS version settings in the PE executable, a lot of executables (thanks Microsoft for having set compiler defaults to a higher OS version at each release of Visual Studio) are - accidentally - set to a higher version that what is really needed by the actual source code, I cannot count the exe's that work on XP just fine once the OS is set correctly. (not necessarily this is the case here) jaclaz

I think you should put it under "News", that message is only 9 years old (and of course it is a little, innocent joke), JFYI: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=446704 jaclaz

I see now there isn't even a string for any Pascal graphics card in the .inf file=there aren't any strings for either GTX 1060/1070 or 1080 jaclaz

Well, isn't yours a GTX 1050Ti (whatever that means)? From the page: So, not entirely unexpected. jaclaz

NOT what you asked, but maybe (and with all due respect ), you are going the "wrong" way. In the good ol'times (when floppies were floppy and Cd-Roms were 1x and making all kind of noises when attempting to load files) people " in the know" copied the installation files to hard disk from cd-rom and then ran the installation from hard disk (this had two advantages, it was faster overall and left the installation files on the hard disk, so that when/if a file was needed you didn't have to find the cd-rom and insert it in the drive). And it seems like this good ol' method works fine for Virtualbox as well: http://thecuriousgeek.org/2012/03/installing-windows-95-in-virtualbox/ In the old times you needed to have SMARTDRV enabled, but I believe that since everything is virtual you won't have the same long times as with "real" hardware (of the time): http://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/itn107mb/installing_windows_95.htm jaclaz

Pictures were most probably hosted here and there and they are not available anymore, expired hosting or whatever . But you can still read the READ ME FIRST and the FGA's (that never had images) and download the PDF (with images) of the guide by CarterinCanada: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/143880-seagate-barracuda-720011-read_me_first/ http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/147532-fga-for-the-seagate-720011-drives/ http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/133387-debricking-the-seagate-drives/ http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=38656 And don't worry, as long as your issue is one of the two we have some experience with, BSY or LBA0, it is not that difficult, and even if you find any difficulties, someone will try and help you with them. jaclaz

You'll need to use the framemenu url: http://web.archive.org/web/20160310165539/http://flyakite.msfn.org:80/framemenu.htm to navigate the site- jaclaz

Let's say that it is unusual to have a Facebook page for an OS in development, it must be a sign of the time . jaclaz

Vivard and Hdat2 should be at a "lower" level than scandisk, maybe the disk (physically) is fine, and the filesystem (as seen by Windows 98) has some issues. How big is the partition you are trying to install to? (I seem to remember some scandisk issues with largish partitions in 9x, but cannot remember exactly, and submix8c's reference to 20 Gb original disks may have some relevance). Which filesystem does it use? Another test would be to make a small FAT16 partition (max 1 Gb in size) on the SCSI disk and trying installing the Windows 9x to it. About the PS/2 mouse, really, you should get one, USB on Windows 9x is not (IMHO) reliable enough to have a primary interaction device connected to it. Submix8c stated that that model has no USB port? Are you using an add-on card or maybe there is some confusion with the model at hand? jaclaz

Semi - random considerations/questions/doubts: 1) use a PS/2 mouse, not an USB one. 2) if scandisk finds issues on the disk/volume there may be a reason for them, which programs of the UBCD did you use to test the drive? 3) a test setup on a IDE disk drive would be only temporary to exclude a poissible issues with the SCSI BIOS extension and/or driver (this may be connected to #2 above) 4) the DVD drive is an iDE unit, right? jaclaz