Tommy

I think the only general problem I have without using the revolution pack is the ugly transparency issue. Is there a way to completely purge the system of the revolutionary pack without having to reinstall Windows?

Wow, you're smart to figure out I had Win2k RP installed. I uninstalled it but it didn't make a difference. Do you know which files are installed with it? I saw COMDLG32.DLL but then there's something else I see flash up but it overflows and I cannot read it. I don't have it installed on my laptop so I may give it a try on there and see what happens. Is COMDLG32.DLL the file that is modded to make your icons display in 32-bit color? Is it something you could add to a future release of KernelEx to make Win2k RP obsolete? Some icons, especially newer ones, just look like garbage without it. But at the same time, sometimes it can make explorer start to lag or crash for no reason which is also annoying.

I have a weird little issue that doesn't seem browser specific so I'm not sure if it is related to KernelEx or what the heck is going on. Both Firefox and New Moon crash on the same sites, but in different ways. Firefox crashed the tab whereas New Moon closed out completely with a critical error. It only happens on certain sites like our HR system for the company I work for but that cannot be tested because you need login credentials to get to that point but it also happens on inputting your password when you sign into Yahoo Mail and also when you try to view Google Maps, it produces this same error. I went ahead and put a PDF file with the information I got from Dependancy Walker. Perhaps someone can make sense out of this mishmash and figure out what is going on here? It's only happened after using my new HF_SLIP package and the latest Kernel update as my old Win2k installation didn't do this. profile.pdf

I do have Adblock Plus installed. I will test and see if disabling fixes the issue. But so many ads are extremely intrusive these days and I have video ads with a passion. It's hard to say what I'd set it to in your case. Is there a reason you don't have PAE enabled? I believe Windows XP is fully capable of using it. That way you'd have access to all 8GBs of RAM. If you had access to all 8GBs then I'd say go ahead and set it to 8, since Firefox crashes way less that way. When I didn't use multiprocess, it would crash quite often and I'd have to restart the browser to make it a bit more stable again.

Thread Pinned I have no idea why this wasn't done before. Quite honestly, it's one of the most helpful things that I've set up on my Windows 2000 machine. Firefox seems to get wonky after the memory limit hits around 1.3GBs, which really doesn't take long to do on the modern web, especially watching YouTube videos. Doing this fixes those issues. For dom.ipc.processCount, I set it to 8. I have 24GBs of RAM in my new computer with Physical Address Extension enabled so I prefer a much smoother browsing experience. I will list the benefits I have found by enabling multiprocess mode. -Facebook loads much smoother and quicker. The newsfeed is no longer a nightmare to go through and loads up a lot quicker than out of the box Firefox 52. -YouTube works better. Once Firefox hit that 1.3GB wall, video playback would start flickering black and sometimes just go all black depending on how long the browser has been open. Completely closing Firefox and relaunching it was the workaround for me when this happened. Now it doesn't seem to happen anymore. -Firefox doesn't lag as much when the browser was first opened. I noticed there was a considerable amount of lag when you opened the browser and started browsing the web, it's like it would become non-responsive for about a minute or so. Now if it does that, it's only about a few seconds. I'm thinking it's because it has its own processes now. -Tabs don't crash as often as they used to. Again, I'm thinking it is because it has more memory to play around with. If you've got 4+GBs of RAM, there's no reason not to use it to your advantage. The reason I set dom.ipc.processCount to 8 is that is what it is set to on my work computer which is running Windows 7 x64 and you can totally notice how snappy it is compared to the garbage IE11 that most of our applications only work on. As far as both Windows 2000 and Windows XP are concerned, if you have a multi-core/multi-thread processor and 4 or more gigabytes of RAM, I'd totally recommend enabling multiprocess mode.

I've done this just about a month ago, but it would probably be helpful if you could provide some screencaps of what is actually going on when you try doing this. It would help give us a visual. If you can get this done, I'd recommend wiping your drive and reinstalling Windows with it. With the convenience rollup, a good portion of the OS is updated and installed at setup, rather than as updates. I'm the biggest believer that Windows updates slow your system down over time. And since this is more of creating new media and not an unattended installation, I'm going to move this thread to the actual Windows 7 forum in hopes that it'll get more attention than it is here. Moved to Windows 7 forum

Update: So I've been using PAE on Windows 2000 for at least a week now and all is going well! Here's the catch, you cannot use Creative SoundBlaster X-Fi with it otherwise you'll have no sound and you'll run the risk of corrupting your whole system. That's what was going on with me. I don't know about other older SoundBlasters but I read online that X-Fi definitely doesn't work, not even with unofficial modded drivers. So far all I know that you can use is Realtek Onboard audio. I don't know if there are other pieces of sound hardware that can work with drivers for Windows 2000/XP or not. Anyone with different brands of cards that is willing to try PAE and report back on what happens, that would be awesome! I have also enabled this in Firefox and its performance has improved greatly: https://fossbytes.com/how-to-make-firefox-faster-by-enabling-multi-process-e10s-manually/ I set my processes to 6. I have 16GBs of RAM so I'm totally not shy of it using a lot of RAM for a smoother experience on the web.

@tomasz86 Hey bud, great to hear from you again after all this time! I did give your unofficial drivers a spin a long long time ago. But we have another discussion going on here which is what brought it up again starting here: So I just built a newer computer with newer hardware and I bought a Gigabyte GeForce GTX 650 and I was extremely disappointed when I saw that I couldn't get dualview to work with them properly with Blackwingcat drivers. So your unofficial drivers were brought up here and I just happened to have a copy on my external hdd to my surprise. I've tried working on Blackwingcat drivers but as you mentioned much earlier in this thread that the driver itself is broken and is not the registry. I think if we had the skills, we could add those missing things back in to bring dualview back and allow much newer cards to work with dualview. Right now I just received an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 video card and it works just fine with dualview so for now I'll be sticking with it but I still have the GTX 650 just sitting here. Tagging @win32 in case they'd like to chime in here.

Since you're using a cat for a picture, I'm surprised you didn't think of Purrfect. But that's just my two cents.

I'm sure it's not the MB, since it happened on two different ones. But for reference, both are Gigabyte boards. My current one is a GIGABYTE GA-Z68P-DS3 Rev 1.0, and the previous one which this also happened on was a Gigabyte GA-P43-ES3G Rev 1.4.

Here's my power supply right here: https://www.evga.com/products/product.aspx?pn=100-W1-0500-KR That might help give more information on whether or not it is sufficient or lacking in power. See, I don't necessarily *mind* buying a stronger one, but I don't want to buy a stronger one if it's not going to solve the problem. I actually lied when I said I don't have a more powerful supply, I have one of those Chiefmax ones in a Windows 98 machine I built years ago that I haven't powered on in years and I think it was rated at 650 watts but I was told you really don't trust them on that one since Chiefmax isn't really known for the best power supplies in the world.

Here's a hunch, try updating your root certificates. http://w2k.flxsrv.org/cgi-bin/dl.cgi?file=rootsupd201905.exe&displayLang=ja If it yells at hotlinking, just go here: http://w2k.flxsrv.org/wlu/wluen.htm Then under OS type, select Windows 2000. Then go down to the last two boxes you see on the bottom row, click in the first one and select 2019. Then hit the "search" button. You'll find the root certificate updates in the search results on the right.

So I'm not as much into hardware as I'm into software/operating systems, so maybe someone can shine some light in on this. It may seem obvious but I want to know for sure. I have a 500 watt EVGA power supply and a EVGA GeForce GTX275 that says the minimum power is 550 watts. It has two ports for six pin power connectors. Obviously, my power supply falls a bit short. But this is where it gets weird. When I first turn the computer on, it will reboot itself about 4 times before giving a beep code of 1 long and 3 short beeps and then it continues to POST, even though you can't see anything on the monitor. If I hit the reset button, the fan will go full speed for a second, slow back down, and then the display will come up. While in Windows, it shows it is running at a PCI-E x1 speed, the slowest possible speed. How important is that 50 watts and is there some fail safe that detects the wattage of a power supply and refuses to boot on initial power up and then it somehow falls back to x1? Or could this be a bad card? It's not the computer because it has happened on two different ones, very same behavior. I wasn't aware of this requirement when I bought the card and I don't have any stronger PSUs to test it with. I'm just wondering since I've run other video cards at under the minimum requirement back in my early computing days, or at least at the very minimum. I would think it would at least POST and throttle down if loads got to be too much on it, but then maybe this card is able to determine how much wattage it can pull from the PSU and it realizes that it falls a bit short of that.

Welcome Matthew! We're glad you have decided to become a part of our community! We hope you enjoy it here.

Yep, it is DEV_0FC6, I verified that this evening so it's in there and yet for whatever reason it still won't detect it. Being a Gigabyte shouldn't matter, especially since the hardware identifier is the same. Now...it WILL surprisingly detect the official 306.81 driver if I mod the INF file as needed but if I replace the two files that tomasz86 mentions, I get a "parameters are incorrect" and it will cease to install. I'm almost curious as to what would've happened if I just went ahead and placed the official (but modded) INF file that I made into the package that tomasz86 has made, if that would've made a difference. It's not hard to switch cards out so I can always try that too.

I can't believe this but I actually had that package saved on my hard drive. However, when I put in my Gigabyte GeForce GTX 650, those drivers will not detect it. In fact add/remove hardware comes up blank, even when you try to "force" find the driver. If you do the regular search, it doesn't find it where you tell it to look either. So I'm still at square one there. I have a feeling the replaced nv4disp/nv4mini files had something to do with that, maybe.

Glad you knew about them, I never did! I was just poking around tonight and found them. Now I hope anyone who needs them can benefit them now. Good thinking on finding those drivers. I hate their catalogue search. I'd rather just pick what I want and go with it, not having it treat me like an id*** and act like I don't know what I'm downloading. I've been using Forceware 182.50 for at least two years or better because I didn't even know about these. Like you, I had no idea NVIDIA support spanned that far into time. So even a bit beyond the EOL cutoff date. Forceware 261.19 is Quadro only which I could use but since I bid and won on a GeForce GTX 260, I'd rather keep it open for GeForce instead of closing the window to it and making it Quadro only.

Thank you for bringing this up! This always irked me too. I always ended up disabling the display driver helper service after setting up dual monitors. Edit: You WILL need to brute force the INF file in order to work as Blackwingcat does, otherwise it will tell you there is no file that contains any information on your hardware, so it pretends not to see it However, last official drivers? Which drivers are you using? I'm just curious. As I was poking around tonight, I discovered a gem, a very interesting gem that even Blackwingcat doesn't have on his blog. While he may have unofficial drivers on his site, I found a very recent (um, 9 years ago recent lol ) NVIDIA driver that actually DOES officially support Windows 2000. https://www.nvidia.com/object/winxp-257.21-whql-driver.html https://www.nvidia.com/object/winxp-258.96-whql-driver.html (Discovered after posting this, true last official NVIDIA Windows 2000 release) Really? An official 2xx.xx driver from NVIDIA? Why, yes it is! How many people know about this? If you have a Quadro, you're in even better position for a newer driver! https://www.nvidia.com/download/driverResults.aspx/25619/en-us Whaaaaaa????? An OFFICIALLY LISTED Windows 2000 driver!!!! However, it only lists Quadros as supported and NOT GeForce. The files are a bit smaller in this release as well but it leaves me wondering if we can break into these drivers and mod them to support newer things. I think I'm a lot more impressed by the GeForce/Quadro release. And no, there is no need for unofficial kernels either, it works on vanilla Win2k.These gems are hard to find because of the way the driver search works, it really doesn't want you to find these older drivers, nor are they even on the older archive page. So I'd really suggest grabbing it while you can before it so happens to disappear. The best card these drivers can support are a GTX 480 which I don't think is anything at all to sneeze at. And yes, it supports dual monitors out of the box too. Release 260.89 seems to be the first Windows XP exclusive driver, but interestingly enough keeps the win2kdualview in its driver file, so *it* may still work with a little bit of brute force. Edit: The INF file will not work without modding it like Blackwingcat does. Add/remove hardware complains there's no file that contains information on your hardware, like it pretends it doesn't exist. If I wasn't so happy with my current installation, I'd totally try it out. Maybe someone else with a sandbox wants to try it out? Heck, it's so close and supports all the same hardware, you could probably just copy the INF file from 258.96 and edit the header information for the 260.89 release and it would possibly still work? Although it seems to be the first driver pack that has the "new" layout in files/folders. No joke, no mods, straight off NVIDIA's website.

So I recently came back into Windows 2000 testing again and decided to finally make a new install medium containing the latest HFSLIP version and noticed a few things. Aside from the unofficial updates not being integrated into the install (unless I imagine, you put them there), it doesn't appear SP5.1 is included anymore either. I'm wondering why this is. Is it because many files, or all files, are superseded by those other updates in the package? Also, I'm wondering, would it ever be possible to ever include the DirectX 10 stub from Blackwingcat or would this be one of those things that unless the unofficial packages were integrated, then it wouldn't work properly because of the missing dependencies? I made a few changes to his packages. Like the one released only for the Japanese language of extended core (16d), that contained a small fix for dual monitor support that the latest English version (16a) did not. There was a glitch in videoprt.sys that prevented dual monitors from working at all and all you could do is replace videoprt.sys manually or remove the extended core entirely, I think 14b was the last package that worked correctly and 14c and 16a both had the bad file in it. My new batch based on 16a includes the newer 16d videoprt.sys since it is language neutral and doesn't require any translating. I also eliminated the WDM Windows XP audio driver files because I don't like that the audio doesn't work after you install new drivers after these were installed and so you'd have to reinstall extended core to have audio start working again. I'm going to continue peeking into these files and seeing what I can change around and have work better with each other. I'm remember winsta.dll caused issues with the Intel Pro Set wireless client because when you'd restart the computer, you'd have to do a "reinstall" of the client software for it to pick up your wireless adapter and to reconnect to your network, so I'm going to replace that with a vanilla SP4 version and see what happens with it.

So I decided to give the latest version a try. Bricked my install twice with it. The one time I tried the repair and it worked, sort of. But it seems installing that driver causes issues by corrupting the system part of the registry. I have no idea why. But after installing it and then reinstalling the Extended Core because of the XP version of wdmaud.drv and wdmaud.sys causes drivers installed afterwards to just not play. I went and replaced them with regular Windows 2000 files but I really don't want to do a reinstall again just to see if it'll make a difference. I wish it was easier to make a backup of the system hive. Maybe if I just go ahead and boot into recovery console and do it from there....

Good try, buddy! But unfortunately, nope. That was what I was using and they still don't work correctly. I think our best bet is Blackwingcat, if he's willing to take on such a task. Depends on whether he knows how to do it or whether he wants to. But for now, I'm gonna make it to the 20th anniversary. Let's keep this thread going though, I like this discussion and I think we should try bringing up any other shortcomings that we can think of when trying to run Windows 2000 on modern hardware. Edit: That's a different one than I grabbed, I think. I'm going to compare the files in this pack and see how they match up to the pack that I tried out. I'm almost scared to try it out because I don't want to mess up my installation that's going so well. lol

I am totally using a modified installation, which also made me wonder why these files even existed because obviously they'd be completely ahead of their time for vanilla Windows 2000. Unless they benefit *somebody* out there, they should be removed from archives in my opinion. If Windows 2000 detects and sees these products in your system and installs the drivers as usual yet driver functionality isn't working, what good are they to begin with? Let's just say that I'm using Tomasz86's latest HFSLIP packages, which interestingly enough no longer contain SP5.1 but perhaps everything that's in it supersedes it so there is no longer a need to include it. But regardless, both packages I've used have these DOA drivers included with it, this newest package and the November 2012 update that I still have floating around on my own system. Going about installing the correct drivers was a breeze, even though inconvenient since you have to use all keyboard shortcuts to achieve this. @LoneCrusader This thread was originally my goodbye to Windows 2000 thread until these two bright individuals led me on the correct path. I really thought this system would not be able to run it and that I'd have to jump ship to Windows XP x64. I still have it installed on another drive but with Windows 2000 literally working perfectly at this point, despite using Realtek Onboard audio which isn't as bad as I thought it would be, I'm able to use everything I need and still use Physical Address Extension. Now, the question I'd like to bring up since part of a modern motherboard now includes much more than 4GBs of RAM. Is it possible to modify existing drivers, particularly ones like sound cards and Creative's SoundBlaster drivers to access or at least work with PAE and greater amounts of RAM? This is where I really become dumb so I'm just going throw this out. How much different are x64 bit drivers to 32bit drivers? I understand there's an algorithm that goes with 32/64 bits and that's why more RAM is able to be used natively in 64bit operating systems, but is there a reason we can't use that technology to our benefit?

I'll have to research into that. But I ended up having to reinstall because "something" corrupted my last Win2000 install so badly that I couldn't even get the recovery console to find it. So I dunno what happened. But I decided to not install the X-Fi card drivers this time and just go ahead and install the Realtek drivers. This is what I ended up with. I left the whole thing in because I do have my dual monitors working and I'm also playing audio right now via WMP11. It IS working. I am going to look for Server sound card software. I never thought about Server/Consumer grade versions of Windows and support for >4GBs. That's some great thinking! Now some more interesting follies. I stayed away from some of the later versions of Extended Core because videoprt.sys was flawed and would not allow for dual monitors to work, this was especially true in version 16a. For fun, I downloaded version 16d, which Blackwingcat only released in Japanese for some reason, and opened it up to poke in the files. I took notice that videoprt.sys was slightly newer in this release and language neutral. So I replaced the file included in 16a with the one in 16d and reinstalled the 16a package. Low and behold, dual monitors work. It was that single flawed file that actually was updated but not for an English release that prevents dual monitors from working. Then again, how many others but me here use dual monitors on Windows 2000?

Well, yes and no. Things are working quite well and I once again tried PAE. It detects all memory but again, the sound card only makes a tick sound in place of actual sound. If I try to play a music file, it sort of sounds like a jack hammer. lol The card is actually a Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Professional Series sound card. I wonder why Realtek would work with PAE but not the Sound Blaster. This is interesting, however: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/93761/how-can-i-enable-physical-address-extensionpae-feature-in-vista/?p=531767

I went ahead and tried out your guide and I can verify that it works, perfectly. In fact my USB items started instantly. I also tried different drivers for my network adapter and that too works perfectly!! Amazing! But now if only I could utilize all 16GBs of RAM because PAE plays havoc with my sound card. If that worked, I'd be back on 2000 in a heartbeat.