Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

  • Country


About Czerno

Profile Information

  • OS

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Czerno's Achievements



  1. I am fully aware of this. But as said in the initial post, apps which I don't want to have a taskbar "witness" are ones whose main window will be always on top, and never minimized anyway. For this kind of applications, a taskbar entry is not needed and is but a nuisance. This particular question is nothing to do with the tweaks that capture and send minimized windows to the notification. It is nothing to do with minimizing altogether ! I wish to have a particular app launched with its main window but altogether without a taskbar witness, or alternatively a means to have Windows remove the witness after its created. I promise I won't ever minimze the main window :=) O.K., you seem dubitative, so I'll provide the emblematic example which hopefully will make full sense : app is a desktop clock. I use the round "clock.exe" that Microsoft provided with Windows 95 to show off (then new) non-rectangular windows. With some transparency and always-on style added by a separate "tweaker" (excellent "winroll" freeware by Will Palma), this round clock which can run on 2000/XP is a superior substitute for the Vista/7 clock "gadget" here ! You wrote it should be - which I agree it must. Question is whether there exist tweakers to this end (or why not ?). Note : the mentionned "round clock" accessory was written by MS guys as a Win16 application, which may pose a specific problem as NTVDM is a very special and quirky beast...
  2. Hi ! Posted to the "Windows XP" forum section for lack of a better suited one, although really the question would possibly apply to other versions of the Windows (4, and later) GUI : Given a running Windows application, having its main window restored (non-minimized), can someone provide help, a tool or method, that either will remove the application's "witness" from the standard Windows "task bar" (without closing the owner app, of course) - or alternatively a tool or method to prevent Windows from even creating said "witness" the moment the app is launched ? I'm especially in want of such a tool or method which would work for "Win16" apps also (running in "NTVDM"). Now to make things absolutely clear, I'm not asking to hide or remove the task bar itself nor to close its owning "explorer" process/thread. Neither for the "witness" to just become "hidden and/or "inactive"! ! I want a specific window NOT TO have a respective taskbar witness at all ! How come neither Microsoft nor, it seems, authors of tweak-all-things type of desktop utilities seem to provide for this simple wish ?
  3. @HarryTri :«In my both Windows XP computers (desktop and laptop) I can't open Windows Explorer with administrator's rights if I am in a restricted user account. Is it normal and if yes what can I do to change it? » This would need to be in the Windows XP section, but briefly - Yes it is expected behaviour : you are in effect launching "explorer.exe" as your administrative account, but explorer has special coding that it immediately relaunches itself as the owner of the shell explorer process (that which "owns" the desktop window,i.e. you "restricted user" self). As you correctly noted, a workaround to this windows explorer "feature" had been to run "iexplore.exe" (ie6) instead of explorer, but the workaround does not work in IE7-IE8. You guess there are several ways to double-smart Microsoft. Simplest method, imho : runas /user:your_admin "explorer.exe /n,." HTH
  4. What about Pale Moon (specifically the older version, built from FF 3.6 code base) ? Will that run on 98 SE using Kernel ex ? If so, Is it worth going from FF 3.6.x to PM ? As in, will it be visibly faster/lighter than plain FF (Athlon XP, no SSE2). Any return of experience will be greatly appreciated...
  5. Sure, always be sure to keep good old netcat at hand's reach, aka the "Swiss army knife" of networking ! Application to quickly shuting down Tor : first create a text file named "StopTor.bat" containing : authenticate "" signal shutdown quit Then create one (lor more) shortcuts to the StopTor bat, on the Desktop or the Start menu (for convenience). Double-click shortcut whenever you need to shut down your server! The example assumed a blank Tor control password (not a vulnerability if the control port isn't open to the internet, which it is not by default, and local users of the computer are trusted). If you set a password though, insert it between the double quotes (authenticate line). Process monitor and other Sysinternals tools are what come to mind (now owned by Microsoft, download from MS).
  6. IIRC some resource leaks are known problems with Tor/Windows, not just win 9x. You might want to browse the Tor flyspray. Of course in addition, windows 98 is not known to be the best platform for supporting heavy-duty servers of any kind. How much Tor traffic are you routing ? If your goal were to run a Tor server stably for long periods unattended, Linux would be the obvious choice. Regarding ordered server shutdown, if that is the only reason you run a controller you might consider instead sending Tor the termination signal "manually", using netcat for instance. This is how I do it, KISS :=) You could shutdown even by just typing a Control-C in Tor's window, it's not the "clean" way but it works, too ... you don't shutdown often anyway (otherwise you wouldn't experience the resource leaks). Good luck with your Tor
  7. Tor itself - server and client[ - is and always has been running perfectly in Windows 98 (no kernelX needed). My own installation of Tor runs indifferently in Windows XP, 2000 or 98SE - executables and data files being shared between the 3 OSes. (I also ran Tor under Linux with much success) If you met problems, they must be traceable exclusively to the FF Browser, Vidalia controller and/or other cr@p, I mean additional components, included in the so-called "bundles" (which are nothing but a trial at a Tor-made-easy-for-dummies) I've never felt the need to run a "bundle", netiher do /you/ need or want one IMNSHO. And yes I've been running (teeny) servers / relays, off and on for many, many years, without ever using more than basic Tor and ini files customised "by hand". Tor runs correctly out of the box in Win 98, although for good operation of a relay, or a bridge, some tweaking of the TCP/IP stack params in the Windows registry is recommended (as explained on the Tor wiki.) Such tweaking in not even necessary if you only run Tor as a client. In no case is KernelX required for running Tor. Good luck and HTH. -- Czerno
  8. Makes sense now. The MS init module checks sector size inside the PBR and marks the partition invalid if other than 512 bytes. How many pigs did Gates have to hire to produce that kind of code ? Thanks for this and the other heads-up (or should it be heads-ups ?). I'll make limited efforts, while I hope to persuade the FreeDOS types to get their kernel right. Can you (anyone) tell if DR/Open DOS -especially versions which recognise FAT32 - can cope with 4K sectors ?
  9. With all due respect, this assertion makes little sense. The MS driver does use the bytes per sector value from the BPB copy made at sysinit time (part of what some DOS leaked source code calls BDSs). I believe unpatched MS-DOS will access and mount an internal disk (anything that doesn't require a special Config.sys driver) w/ big sectors properly.. Does it not in your experience ? While you were developing your TB+ pack, did your tests include a (real or simulated) internal fixed HD with 4k sectors ? OTOH a drive that requires a (Config.sys or later) driver, there is a (small) problem with unpatched MS-DOS, because the max_bytes_per_sec_of_any_block_device is fixed before config.sys is executed. Is this what you had in mind above and what your patch addresses ? I'm not considering booting at this stage of the little project, only the mount of an external (USB) disk using as little supplementary code as possible...
  10. Ah, you meant Windows, not DOS. This would be your VFAT.VXD mod, right ? Are we back to DOS ? Are you referring to the standard driver in IO.SYS / MSDOS.SYS ? ISTM the standard dos disk driver utilises whatever sector size is specified in the BPB, unit per unit. My computer BIOSes won't do that either, unsurprisingly ... Thought you said you had. Well, the USBASPI.SYS version I use handles 4k sectors properly through the USB (using SCSI commands of course). I'll now try to modify - or rewrite - the block device (DIDD1000.SYS) as soon as I'm fully confident that DOS 7.10 kernel does work properly with 4 kibyte sectors. On another note, there may be renewed efforts by the FreeDOS team to make large sectors "happen" there too... I'll keep you all updated. -- Czerno
  11. Dear RLoew, are you saying that the MS-DOS kernel (without those patches of yours) doesn't work properly with a max_sector_size (in list-of-lists) of 4 Kibytes ? Would you care to explain where the problem is, exactly ? I tried and ran with max_sector_size increased up to 4096, both MSDOS 6.22 and 7.10, work buffer as well as regular buffers in HMA were indeed 4k and, behold, the system seemed to work properly - at least I coumdn't crash it in an admittedly short test session. How is one supposed to expose the bug, assuming there is a bug in the kernel which manifests itself with 4k sectors (this is what you've been telling us, right?) - I'm not talking of the utilities, format, defrag and the rest.... Regards -- Czerno
  12. accidental double post, text deleted. Sorry!
  13. Wish list ? First thing, a happy and peaceful year for everybody ! As for Windows 9x (and DOS) enhancements : support for hard disks with 4 kilobyte native sectors, whether ATA, SATA, USB or otherwise connected. I have got such a USB disk appliance - that I can't use in our beloved "older" OS I am aware of Mr Loew's commercial patches - do they include support for USB attached 4k-sectored disks (or cooperate with third party USB mass storage support ?) But - this is wish time isn' it - can't we work towards a free/libre solution ? And why not hope R. Loew could generously release his big sector patches - or otherwise contribute his knowledge of undocumented DOS 7 / Windows 9x disk structures.
  14. GrofLuigi & Jaclaz : thanks! Merry Christmas you all !

  • Create New...