Tommy

I'm so glad I could help, Problemchyld! I regularly run your SP3 on my Windows 98 machines so I continue to hunt for problems. At first I really thought it was KernelEx, but now we know the root of the problem. Hopefully it can be fixed where there will be no issue with it at all.

Thanks for the replies! @Nomen: I just installed Office 2000 Premium last night and Outlook 2000 gives me the same error as Outlook 98 did.It will not let me create a PST file. I plan to use the IMAP feature on it. Could that be the issue at hand? I wouldn't think so because I started it up in Safe Mode which should have the internet disabled, and it still wouldn't let me create an account. Although, I didn't install SP3, but I will install it and give you suggestion a try. @farfigs11: I really haven't used Office XP very much in my home environment at all, although I did in an office environment. I do use Office 2003 on my main Windows 2000 machine and likewise, I use Outlook 2003 on a daily basis, which has given me no trouble at all since the day I started using it in 2008.

Hmm, I never actually thought of it that way. But it seems that it is more of a local problem than internet because I cannot even get to the point where I can create an account or personal folders file on the local machine. But I wonder if I disconnect from the internet as well...at least it is worth a try. I'm trying to connect Outlook up to gmail and really, I don't care which version I use, as long as I can get one of them to work.

Thanks for testing that out for me. But it still doesn't make sense. If all these versions of Outlook were originally compatible with Windows 98, why are they failing now? Anyone know the answer to that one? Do you have links to what you found for further reading?

I posted a thread a while back that nobody seemed to reply to, but this is very specific to Windows 98 and seems to apply to all compatibile versions of Microsoft Outlook. Outlook 97 won't let you create a new mail account. Outlook 98 lets you create a mail account, but can't create a new pst file. Outlook 2000, I can't remember what it does, and Outlook XP crashed with a message of sorry for the inconvenience but this program needs to close. So...I'm actually starting to point fingers at USP3. I have both it and KernelEx installed and as far as Outlook 98 is concerned, if I disable KernelEx or even boot into safe mode, I get an error about OUTLOOK caused an invalid page fault in module OUTLLIB.DLL at 017f:6e3f8365 when I try to create a pst file. Outlook 98 should be totally compatible with Windows 98 SE vanilla, so what else is really left? And just for the record, Thunderbird doesn't cut it for me and is slow, I much prefer Outlook as my email client. So...is this something anyone could look into for me? I don't really have the time to test it myself so if anyone has time and is willing, test it and see what happens. It'd be greatly appreciated!

This is actually not a topic of me looking for help, but possibly to help others if it's really relevant anymore. So, I was working on this machine and it was being EXTREMELY difficult. It would not finish booting no matter how often I cleared the CMOS/removed the battery, and even barebones it. It is fussy with the SL52R and I knew the processor was working but everytime I'd boot the machine it would either stop in random spots during post or complain about a goofy failure at random. So...after an hour of troubleshooting and thinking maybe the computer just went bad, I put the original 733MHz processor in it and it started up but not without a few quirks of its own now too. So after really examining the heatsink, I noticed a blot of some sort of heat compound from the factory which isn't actually centered so it didn't line up with the top of the processor but what's even more weird is at the one end of the heatsink, there is a little metal peg and when you put it on the way I think it was meant to, it touches a little metal piece on the motherboard. So when I did that and started up the computer, it started up like a charm! My theory is maybe it is some sort of sensor and if the heatsink isn't touching it, that it will do some crazy things. I do not think it was overheating because the processor wasn't that warm since it was still being covered by the heatsink. So I'm wondering if just that little strip of metal and the peg on the heatsink are what makes the machine work. Either way, doing it that way makes the machine boot perfectly. Just an interesting thing I found while trying to put it back into service today.

The internet needs to stay where it belongs, on computers. It does NOT need to be in cars or anything else. No wonder cars are so crappy today, they're so worried about software and whatnot to run their cars that they don't have time to actually focus on quality control or better yet, focus on what people actually want in cars, and what they don't want.

You are fricken awesome!! Your knowledge impresses me so... Thank you for this patch!

I wondered what in the heck was going on. It seemed to be working just fine and then all of a sudden, Flash was blocked and I knew it wasn't an old version. Thanks for the update.

I ordered six of those things just the other day so this'll be fun to get them! One is totally covering the XP sticker on my main computer. Thanks for the clarification!

Awesome! How long did it take to get the badge from order to delivered? How in the world do you even pay for it. It gives you no option and says it's a pre-paid system. I don't get how that works. But I ordered the one with Windows 2000/NT 4.0/98. Might as well really go all out! LOL Either way, this is a pretty awesome thing you got going on here. Keep us Windows 2000 users updated.

So, it's time for me to join in on the fun! But there's one big question I have before I start. Where in the world did you order a Windows 2000/Windows 98 case badge from? I'd be sooo interested in getting one/some myself! What I usually do even if it's a moot point by now, when it comes to installing Windows 2000 on my machine, since I have a copy of XP lying around I just pop that in and wait for things to load up, and then I'll use the format tool with it and once it finishes formating and goes to checking the disk, I quickly pop the disk out and eventually it'll complain about the disk being missing and if you can't put it back in then you just hit F3 to reboot. It's a lot quicker than having to move your hard drive to another machine. Of course if you don't have an XP disk to do this with, then I guess you really can't do that. I have Windows Media Player 11 working with Windows 2000, although very slightly broken. As long as you don't care about burning music CDs with it and having just a slightly broken library format (it won't show information when you enter the album), otherwise it works very well! You still see the album covers and names of the album from the main page so at least you know what you're playing. I also compliment it with K-Lite 7.1 codec package which even with trying to fool the newer ones, this is the last one that I can get installed on 2000, but it plays everything I need it to, so you're covered there. I've personally never like VLC unless it was absolutely necessary. As for PDF, I still use FoxIt Reader and the newest version works but may be a bit buggy at times but it's not enough to bring your entire system down if it starts. I also use FastStone image viewer to view pictures because if set correctly, it'll operate a lot like Windows Image Viewer. I tried porting it over before but I couldn't get it to work properly. FireFox 39 works just fine with Windows 2000 and I have it paired with Palemoon 25. Wireless can be slightly iffy but I've used wireless on this main computer for years without much effort. I bought a Netgear WN111 off ebay and it works great. It's only N speed but I've never had much issues with it and it works out of the box on Windows 2000, no mods needed. Anyway, I really don't see Pentium 4 being that legacy. I love this project but as far as legacy goes, I think Pentium 4 still have MANY great uses even up to this day. Just because it probably won't play HD very well or the newest and most graphics intense games...doesn't mean that it's useless. If I didn't do video recording and editing, Pentium 4 would more than serve my needs of today.

Just thought I would update this thread. I ordered a different Gigabyte board like I mentioned earlier although Intel based. I went to assemble the computer with the new board and I ran into an "almost" dead situation as well. It was really weird! After troubleshooting, I found the piece of RAM I had used to test was bad. Would this be a problem with testing my other board? Yes, it would, because it was the same piece I used to test the 'bad' board. However, sadly, using a definite good piece didn't help the board come to life either. So I do think it has gone to MB Heaven. I just thought though I would report this back to make sure we exhausted anything we can.

Just another reason why I call them crApps. What ever happened to 'programs' that basically had the same mumbo jumbo that everyone just bypassed and never read. At least we didn't have to worry about data mining and the like back in those days.

Thanks for the helpful hints. The reset switch was right when you said it was, but it was just the two pins so I had to find my own jumper to clear the CMOS, but unfortunately it didn't make any bit of difference. With the battery removed and the clear jumper on, it still is dead as a doornail. I'm really starting to believe there is no hope for this board. But I truly appreciate everyone's attempted to help me out with it.

Would taking out the battery and leaving it out be consider resetting it? I'm not sure how to do this one jumper wise as I haven't seen a jumper on here for doing that. I did have a few days before that where the computer just completely locked up for no reason at all and I restarted it but it was fine afterwards so that could be one of those shutdowns you're talking about.

The board making beeps for errors is not at all standard. Some do, some don't. Some can have it disabled in the BIOS, etc. In my experience, all Intel boards will have the beep codes, but I certainly have come across others that don't beep ever. I can't remember if this board beeped before or not but I had put in another known good piece of RAM and the board didn't boot either. I took the heatsinks off the north/southbridge chipsets and noticed the northbridge had some compound on it but most of it was as hard as a rock and the other part that needed it didn't really have hardly any at all so I'm wondering if the northbridge could've overheated and failed.

I really didn't think of that, I could try it. I had AVG and Malware Bytes installed and I generally run them fairly often. The board is protected by DualBIOS to help protect against attacks, which I'm not sure would help much but hey, anything is worth a try.

I'll give it a look over. It's really no biggie as I have another board on order, but it's Intel based since I have an E8500 that can go in it which is much better anyway. But I'll check out the board and I'll report back if I find anything on it. It lasted me three years and was used anyway so I had a decent run with it.

I left no RAM in it at all, I thought at the very least I'd get the beep code for no RAM. However, I'm using the very same RAM from that computer in this Dell I brought out of storage as a temporary replacement and it all works just fine.

I decided to really go the long side, and even though the system is in a cool basement. I turned the machine on for about 7 seconds without any sort of heatsink on it (Just the fan so I knew the machine was on), after about 7 seconds I killed the power and the CPU was still somewhat cold. Does this sound bad?

I took a look at the board again this afternoon. I don't see anything else out of the ordinary. The caps do seem good. I breadboarded it and still got nothing, not even beeps by hooking up my external speaker to it. There are these black little squares around the CPU. I don't know what they are or what they do so I'm not sure if they could've done something or not. The fact that this computer is actually a bit better (Intel E7500 vs AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+), YouTube videos start right up immediately, but it seemed like my other one was starting to struggle with that as time went on, sometimes I'd have to hit refresh a few times before it would even start playing. It just seemed like it was starting to degrade over time. So I dunno if that has anything to do with it or not.

So, this computer has been quite reliable for years and while I was using it, the monitors sort of just faded out until they went into sleep mode and the fans started going full speed. The on/off switch was useless too, I actually had to pull the power cord. So...troubleshooting beings. I basically removed everything but the board and power supply, it would not boot again, no beeps either. I tried a different power supply I knew worked, no difference. I reseated the board in the case, no difference. For s's and giggles, I swapped the CPU, no difference. the only thing I haven't done was breadboarded the motherboard yet since I have little time right now. So, the question I ask is, do you think the board is just shot or something could be shorting it out? I looked it over carefully and didn't see any bulged or blown capacitors, nothing went bang or started on fire. It just refuses to do anything but turn the fans on high speed and do nothing else. I'm a little saddened because I liked this board but in the midst of this, I broke the CPU cooler tab as well and said a bad word after doing it. But even right now, it doesn't seem to matter much since it just sorta died as I was using it. It's almost like my Dell Optiplex GX270 all over again.

Hi. At first You should not set ezvid1.002b03.exe but ezvid1.002b03.tmp with fcwin XP mode. And You can install it easy from ezvid_package.exe I traced it L79241B98: SUB_L791B077A: SUB_L793EA4AF: SUB_L793935A5: SUB_L79391286: May be 7939163A ? (0x80040154) call SUB_L793B4C5C It seems to fail CoGetClassObject {48967118-C4C9-435C-94D8-001247B9A52A} BytescoutScreenCapturing.Capturer C:\WINNT\system32\BytescoutScreenCapturing.dll It seems not to install on Win2000. I try to copy the following files. BytescoutScreenCapturingFilter.dll BytescoutVideoMixerFilter.dll BytescoutScreenCapturing.dll and register COM with regsvr32. At later it seems to run with DirectX problem (because it may be virtual machine.). Thanks for the suggestion, sadly I still get stuck by a MS error reporting message and the program will not launch at all, I don't even get a dx error so I don't know what's going on with it.

blackwingcat, maybe you can figure this out. I found something that looks to be similar to the D3DGear application I brought up a few weeks ago. It's located here: http://www.ezvid.com/ It requires a minimum of Windows XP SP3, so I do think there could be potential in this. The installer doesn't seem to work, even if I try tricking it with the kdw compatibility tool. However, since it works with XP, then that must mean it doesn't need DirectX 10 even. Is this something that might be able to work on 2000? I installed it on a copy of 7 and transferred the program itself to my 2000 computer but it crashes with an MS error. However, it might just be because it wasn't physically installed on this machine. I think this program might be the best solution to my needs for video recording while also recording from a webcam at the same time.