Tommy

Tomasz, I downloaded your new HFSLIP compilation and around processing DirectX files, i get a page fault error blue screen. Any ideas what this happens?

Does this bad file exist in the latest UURollup versions? If it does, it should be replaced at once until the problem can be solved. I'm sticking with the 2013 version because of compatibility and since it does what I need it to, there is really no reason for my to change at this point in time.

I uploaded the file to this post, I'll try the other version you mentioned and see what happens. Edit: I downloaded version 5.0.2195.7365 and not only does printing work again, but I can also open word documents on the network share and not have the system crash. I haven't fully explored it yet...but I think this might be the big issue I've had for ages and ages and should very well be corrected, especially in newer versions of UURollup. srv.zip

It's version 5.0.2195.7369

Okay, I made it so the bluescreen doesn't automatically restart the computer upon showing itself. Here's what I got. STOP 0x0000001E KMODE_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED Address B7909DAB BASE @ B78FA000 srv.sys I haven't crashed it multiple times to see if it's consistent though,

This seemed to fall on deaf ears before, but now this is an annoying problem. I don't know about the newer KernelEx versions, but something is broken in the networking department. I'll have to wait until I trigger it again, but now I'm trying to share an LPT1 printer on my Windows 2000 machine...and when I try to print to it from another computer, the Windows 2000 machine bluescreens and restarts. This also happens when I try to access a network share and try to view files on it. I can copy without ill effects but if I say try to open a word document, bluescreen. I don't really want to upgrade KernelEx because it broke a few things that I use but can you test the networking of what I just described to see if there's a problem going on because it's really starting to tick me off.

Windows 95 was my very first OS on a computer that I owned. It wasn't bad, but I do prefer some of the advancements of Windows 98. Like it was said earlier, there were a lot of limitations to applications in Windows 95, especially with DirectX. But it was a great first OS but for some reason, I don't feel nostalgic on it like I do with 98.

So, my aunt has this very sickening argument when going out to dinner. She absolutely cannot stand it when they don't peel their potatoes. She chalks it up to people just being too lazy to peel them, although it never really seems to occur to her that people like eating the skins. So, that's what I want to know. Do you guys peel your potatoes, or are you just too lazy and eat them with the potato? lol I don't prefer it either way, it's just super annoying to hear this constantly because old people like to be very close-minded sometimes so I'm just really curious to know if people like eating skins or not.

I need to check my laptop in the basement that I only use for Skype. It too has Windows 7 on it and it's been bugging me over a month now that Windows 10 is ready to be installed. I was going to try it out until I found out what it was all about and I'm like...nah, I'll pass. Now that I know Skype can work on Windows 2000 with the unofficial version, I should just uninstall Windows 7 completely. While I understand that's not really possible for everyone...it just upsets and angers me that MS is doing this to people. To us techies, we know what's going on. But for the average user....oooh, free upgrade. Gimme gimme! Wasn't the old saying, "If something is free, it's probably too good to be true?" Doesn't that sound a bit like Windows 10? Who really knew it was going to be all this backdoor spying BS? It's unbelievable, but believeable, that they'd stoop to this level. We live in a non-privacy expected world now and any bit of data that companies and the internet can harvast from you, they'll take.

Even though the site is satire, it's actually correct. Websites today have to be fancy, they have to have flash ads up the rear, they need to have tablet like browsing capabilities to them...hell...they have to require fancy backgrounds at the very least. It's all a part of making old technology obsolute just so new computers can be sold to people who really don't even need them as much as they think. Look at the old Dell and HP websites, they were simple, to the point, and got the job done. Are they like that today? No! They have to have all these fancy doodads and graphical experiences that do nothing but bog your computer down and really doesn't impress others. Make something that works, not something that looks 'cool'. I'm the type who prefers functionality, not eye candy. Maybe that's why I don't care for Windows 7 *cough cough*.

Just tried this out, works PERFECTLY! No more nagging popup which really wasn't the worst thing in the universe, but it's nice that it's gone now.

LOL, TELVM. You have a good point, but I was just throwing that out as a standard fill in question. I know how to research some of that stuff but many times I just search for what others are putting into their machines and one was actually about a Dell Dimension 1100 which I really don't think it's necessary to go into full detail about it, but it's really not a bad machine from what I've researched on it and many on this one forum were basically saying just throw it away. It's a step up from the 2400 which I think works decently given the proper modifications to it. People can totally have opinions about things, but if someone asks you a question, don't give them your opinion, give them the answer. If it's impossible to do what you want with it, just say so. But don't tell them to throw it out just because your standards are so high that it's garbage to you. It'd be like saying throw out that old cassette player because it doesn't have a CD player in it, or by today's standards, an iPod dock. If it can still be used for what you need it to, then I believe it's perfectly fine to keep it until it dies. But actually, if you use the latest BIOS revision with the Dell Dimension 2400, it can support Hyper Threading. uxwbill just posted a video on it the other day in fact and it proves to be working.

Reallly? I guess that until 64 bit systems came out the world servers must have been very short of memory. HInts (supported RAM in 32 bit Windows 2000): Windows 2000 Advanced Server 8 GB of physical RAM Windows 2000 Datacenter Server 32 GB of physical RAM jaclaz I was gonna say that the more advanced server editions of Windows 2000 could handle a lot more than just 4GBs of RAM. So that is very true indeed. And they were not 64-bit operating systems either. Did Windows even have a 64-bit edition before XP?

That would be your best bet I think! Windows NT 4.0 can handle 4GBs of RAM, but the problem is that not much runs on it because it's extremely limited on DirectX (only goes unofficially to 5), although IE6 and Office XP will install if you have SP6a installed. (Probably lower, but I'd never use NT4 without it). The only think I love though is NT4 is solid as a rock, I've never had it crash on me. But there are no unofficial updates for it to my knowledge so you're basically limited to what runs on it from the time SP6a was released. Windows 2000...you'll love it. It looks and feels exactly like 98 but with the inner workings of NT.

Since I don't really know where else to post this, I'm going to discuss it here! I just 'love' going around to other sites, looking for advice on upgrading older computers. It seems a lot of other people are asking the same questions on what the can put into their machines to give them a little extra boost to them, and the responses all seem the same....trash it and buy a new one. Okay, I'll be blunt there, I'd like to slap those people upside the head. Just because the machine is from 2002 or 2004, doesn't mean it's garbage. Will it run as great as say a new i7? No, of course not. But as long as it performs the tasks you need it to do, why is it garbage? I see people driving cars from the 60s and 70s, heck, sometimes even 40s! Are those cars garbage because they're old and don't have all the new bells and whistles that todays have? Of course not! They're classics, and that's just what some of these machines are, classics. Now maybe something as common as a Dell Dimension from the early to mid 2000s is not necessarily classic, but everyone that I knew had one. They were pretty good for their time. But apparently because it can't watch HD YouTube videos or play these really extravagent games where you basically shoot people up like they did in the 90s...they're no good. So I guess what I'm saying is, unless someone is looking to do the impossible with the computer that they're trying to upgrade, don't tell that person it's trash. Answer their freakin question. If I ask, what is the fastest Pentium 4 process I can put in a Dell Dimension 2400, answer it! Don't tell me to throw it away because it's no good and that you can't run Windows 10 on it with the latest security updates, because that's irrelevant to me. People today in my opinion are spoiled, because they aren't happy with what they have, they have to have the newest and greatest things no matter what the cost is. Anyway, does any of our enthusiests of old machines or operating systems feel this way or had similar experiences? This is exactly why I love MSFN, because you're not given stupid answers like that, you're given answers to the questions you seek.

It seems that there's another little issue going on, whether it's actually related to Outlook or not, but I've noticed that at times Outlook 2002 will hang when it's trying to retrieve mail and in conjunction with RP9, if I do a CTRL+ALT+DEL, it'll say that there's only 1% or sometimes 0% resources left and even the desktop will be black saying the machine is dangerously low on resources. If I kill Outlook....it returns to normal. Then if I open it up again, all seems fine.

It is actually quite difficult, but it's not impossible for at least 600MBs of RAM to be filled with just your internet browsing. I personally don't think the web has evolved into anything that's fantastic enough to warrant such extreme use on your computer's memory. In fact a Pentium III 1GHz coppermine still isn't that bad unless you put it on the internet. Local programs itself work pretty good, but the internet is what drags it right down, and this is even with 512MBs of RAM, which is the max for most machines of that era.

Your biggest problem is going to be graphics cards. I believe that in Windows 98, GeForce support goes up to either 6 series but possibly 7, but that's as far as it will go. ATI Radeon support goes up to the X600 I believe, but I'm not sure on that as well. Let me make a suggestion, if you have the $22 to spare, buy RLoew's RAM patch if you're going with 9x. ($20 for the patch and $2 handling) I use his RAM patch and it works great. I'm using it on this very machine and I'm running the max 2GBs that it'll support. As for hard drive space, use an 80GB hard drive in the 98 machine and network with your other machines in the house. I can access my external hard drive on my main computer from my 98 machine so I don't have to worry about disk space or other issues arising from going over 137GBs. Although, for the first machine, I'd totally go with Windows 2000. With unofficial updates, it's very useable in today's world and on the internet. I use it as my main operating system and it hasn't let me down yet. The graphics card will be supported but Windows 2000 Professional will only see 3.1GBs of RAM unless you put the /PAE extension at the end of the bootloader which I don't recommend because it was unstable for me.

So I decided to pick the board up again for kicks, I had the CMOS battery out of it since I last played with it which was a few months ago I believe. Hooking up a hard drive to it and powering it up, the drive will not spin up at all. If I take the IDE cable off and have it just hooked up to the power, it spins up just fine, but if the IDE connection is left on, then the drive will not spin up at all. Is it safe to say the board is just screwed at this point and not worth investigating any further?

Success! I finally have Outlook 2002 working just fine on Windows 98 and Gmail/IMAP. I ended up having to do a repair install on Office which completely reset my settings and deleted my old PST and account information. I did have one update headers failure during the middle of a download, but then it seemed like closing and reopening Outlook finally made it finish so now all my email is there as it should be and I'm able to send and receive just fine. I just sent an email and another one came in just fine on its own. So now I believe the problem is pretty much solved. It does what I need it to do on what I want to use for the most part, so I'm good!

This just really begs the question, is technology, computers, and ultimately the internet, worth all this hassle? I know, there are many many arguments to that. But let's face it, we're all battling a losing game. No matter how iron clad you make something, there will always be something to break into it with little effort. That's why when people go for all these new 'smart' appliances, I shake my head and start up my good ol' manual washing machine from 1995. The only way you can hack into that is by coming to my house, breaking in, and playing with the dial. Now...who'd go through that effort? Now if it's connected to the internet and someone finds their way in...how are you honestly going to fix it without unplugging it from the wall and waiting for a software update, or at least disconnect it from the internet. Completely beats the purpose of it truthfully. Computers will always be fun and useful, but it seems the world is starting to rely on it too much and we should not be living in a world where everything is on the internet. It's just begging to have something go completely wrong.

That's the certificate error I got too. But I'll give what you said a try. I'll check out POP Peeper. I mean Outlook is my preference, I don't like Thunderbird, but it doesn't mean I'm not open to new software. So once I get some time, I'll check it out.

That's a lot to ingest at the moment, but I will say I definitely have those enabled because I'm using Outlook 2003 on my Windows 2000 machine to access Gmail via pop and it works just fine. But I want IMAP on Windows 98 simply because I don't want the PST file going over its limits so pop isn't a good option for me there.

That would be awesome if you could try it out. I tried pop3 but it still didn't want to work out. But when I come home permanently I'll try it out again.

Hey Nomen, since you said you have Outlook 2000, I'm going to ask you. Do you still actively use it and if so, what email provider do you use? I'm using Gmail and I have Office 2000 upgraded all the way up to service pack 3 and it doesn't seem to want to connect to Gmail, it seems to complain about a server certificate and when you do a send/receive using imap, it seems to just hang. I've double and triple checked my settings and it never seems to work out like it is suppose to.