ppgrainbow

USBAHCI.SYS ??? You mean USBASPI.SYS or ASPIEHCI.SYS ? Yes, I meant USBASPI.SYS not USBAHCI.SYS. Sorry for the typo.

You don't need to do anything special, because there's no risk of data corruption at all: the Transcend 2.5" PATA SLC Industrial SSDs do emulate IDE disks quite perfectly. That said, I personally think you should use MS-DOS 7.10 instead of 6.22, because then you can use FAT-32, though. But this has nothing to do with any data corruption. Thank you for the suggest. I'll be sticking with MS-DOS 6.22 for now.

Thank you! I found some success if I load USBAHCI.SYS and DI1000DD.SYS in the CONFIG.SYS. I will be asked to connect any USB devices that I have installed and it will go from there.

Hello! One of my sisters gave me their old notebook computer for my 40th birthday. It's a HP Pavilion ZT1135. It has no working built-in networking capabilities and recently, the old hard Toshiba 40 GB IDE hard drive was replaced with a Transcend 8 GB 2.5" PATA SLC Industrial SSD (model number TS8GSSD25-S) as I was previously unable to use it for over a year. Looking into the information from Navratil System Info, the Transcend 8 GB 2.5" PATA SLC Industrial SSD has a actual fixed disk capacity of 7.45 GB. This drive is limited to 300,000 writes per single level cell memory (512-byte sector) for a total of drive life of writing up to 2.13 PB of data. Here's what I have installed so far: 1. I managed to install Microsoft MS-DOS 6.22 using the USB 2.0 compatible floppy disk as well as Windows 3.1 without problems and I disabled the Windows swapfile. By disabling the Windows swapfile, you CANNOT install Win32s. I managed to install 4DOS without too much of a problem, but I managed to disable swapfile support also. The notebook has 256 MB of memory with 248 MB is usable, 8 MB is reserved for video memory. The notebook PC has a integrated S3 Twister 86C380 graphics chip with 7 MB of video memory. MS-DOS 6.22 can only recognise up to 64 MB of memory and only supports the 16-bit FAT file system which limits the size of the partition to 2 GB (up to 65,505 clusters at 32 KB per cluster and 64 sectors per cluster). Currently, I have the drive split up into four partitions: 2. Drive C: (primary partition): 1,474.47 MB with 49.63 MB (or 3.37%) of disk space used 3. The extended partition occupies a total of 6,141.09 MB. Drives D, E and F all have 2,047.03 MB with drive F using 40.25 MB (or 1.96%) of disk space. Drives D and E have not been used yet. Overall, out of the total 7,615.56 MB capacity, MS-DOS 6.22 is using only 89.88 MB or just 1.18% of the total disk space. This may sound too much and too good to be true for a tiny 21-year old operating system. However, MS-DOS 5 through 6.22 alone may not understand how a SSD functions and I have concerns over possible data corruption. Also, is it possible to use USB support and PCMCIA drivers under MS-DOS and Windows 3.1? The notebook has two PCMCIA slots that were made by ENE Technology Inc. Under Windows 3.1, the OS doesn't even detect the USB floppy drive at all. Windows File Manager displays drives C, D, E, F and X. Do you have any idea what can be done to reduce data corruption under MS-DOS when run on a SSD? Also, how can I get Windows 3.1 to detect the USB floppy drive when MS-DOS does?

Thank you for the suggestion! I'll look up on eBay to see what I can find. I found that MIMO-based monitors such as the Mimo TOUCH 2 have touchscreen support for Windows XP and later as well as 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows Vista and up.

I'm looking for a USB-powered touchscreen monitor that will fit within the $100 to $200 budget this Christmas so that I can use it as a second monitor. Can you try to find me a good product that will still provide driver support under Windows Vista 64-bit? I know that touchscreen support was not introduced until the release of Windows 7 in late 2009. However, a handful of vendors did provide touchscreen driver support for Windows XP and even Windows Vista. If I can't find one, I could end up sticking with a USB-powered monitor.

Thanks for telling me.

Thank you for the link. I don't know if the patched IO.SYS works in Windows 98 (original release), Windows 95 or even MS-DOS. As far as I know these OSes that I've mentioned haven't been tested it might not work at all. Since I'm running MS-DOS, I might want to play safe and back up the hard disk images just in case massive data corruption occurs.

It doesn't use the logical partition as a FAT partition. It adds the offsets of the partitions together to produce an entirely spurious partition. This bug is well known. I posted a fix on this forum for it years ago. Can I have a link to the fix on the forum that you posted a long time ago?

I don't know about OS/2 but the others do recognize more than one Primary Partition. Microsoft even published a specific sequence they use for enumerating them as follows: 1. Active Primary Partition on each Drive. 2. All Logical Partitions in an Extended Partition on each Drive in succession. 3. All Inactive Primary Partitions on each Drive in succession. I read up on this FAQ regarding XOSL as the boot manager: http://www2.arnes.si/~fkomar/xosl.org/faqhow/faq.html 1. MS-DOS 3.3 to 6.22 canoot be installed nor run on a logical partition and cannot use more than one primary partition. 2. Caldera DR-DOS 7.03 can use more than one primary partition and can be installed on a logical partition, but cannot boot from it. 3. Other operating systems such as Windows 95, 98 and ME can boot from a logical partition, but cannot directly run from a logical partition without having to use a bootloader to tell where Windows 9x/Me is installed. 4. Windows NT 4.0, which does not support hard disks larger than 8,025 MB on the primary IDE hard drive, cannot be directly installed on the logical partition. The same applies for Windows 2000. However, Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 both can run from a logical partition and use more than one primary partition. The downside is that MS-DOS, OS/2 and Windows 9x/Me have a bug where, if the last logical partition in the extended partition is not a recognised file system type and multiple visible primary FAT-formatted partitions exist, it will use the last logical partition as a FAT-formatted one in place of the next primary partition. These OSes will think that the size of the partition is that of the primary partition and consequently, data corruption will occur! Therefore, I got MS-DOS 6.22, OS/2 Warp 4, Windows 95B, FreeDOS FAT32 maintenance partition to install Puppy Linux as well as disk images that are used for GRUB4DOS and **** Small Linux in a multi-boot GRUB4DOS configuration successfully without any major problems. With the ONTRACKD.SYS BDO in the CONFIG.SYS, MS-DOS can recongise the first three FAT-formatted logical partitions where OS/2 is installed.

Presumably. It is part of the Patches that I have made to IO.SYS for my TeraByte Plus Package.It is intended for use with my RFDISK Multi-Boot Partiting Tool. You don't need more than one Extended Partition to have an unlimited number of Logical Partitions. I don't know which Partitioning tools would even allow more than one. Partitioning tools that will allow more than one primary partition would be BootIT NG, DFSee and GParted to name a few. As for the patches for the IO.SYS, it's not free, I don't think. According to this forum thread, hard disks can have up to four primary partitions, or three partitions and one extended partition. Certain OSes such as MS-DOS, Windows 9x/Me and OS/2 do not recognise more than one primary partition.

That's good to hear that. Although ONTRACKD.SYS is a Block Device Driver (BDD) or better known as a BIOS Overlay Driver that supports Extended INT 13 calls overcoming the 8,025 MB limit: http://www.bandwidthco.com/whitepapers/datarecovery/hdd/barriers/Breaking%20the%208.4%20GB%20Barrier.pdf EZ-Drive would be little use, because it doesn't support hard disk and other media beyond the 8,025 MB (1,023 cylinder) barrier. If there is a patch that will allow DOS to see more than one Extended Partition, can it be done using the DEBUG tool?

That's what I've been thinking. However, Internet Explorer 6 is not totally unusable. There are still other websites that users can visit. It seems that Microsoft made a poor choice when it released IE6 on 2001. I think that the main reason why so many websites fail to load is also the removal of RC4 support. This is not an issue under Firefox or Seamonkey and it's even partially an issue under older versions of Netscape and Opera.

Despite the fact that Ontrack wrote its Dynamic Drive Overlay utility, it was the only utility that overcame the 8,025 MB limit under standalone MS-DOS. I was lucky to use the ONTRACKD.SYS driver to load in the CONFIG.SYS, rather than taking the risk of making the entire drive unreadable unless it was booted though it. EZ-Drive is a utility that actually overcame the 504 MB limit in BIOSes from the early 1990s. And in regards to creating anymore logical drives, I don't think that I will be able to create anymore partitions inside in the hard disk. Partitioning utilities limit to no more than four partitions (one primary partition and three logical drives per disk). If I wanted to create a fourth logical drive or a second primary partition, a Extended Master Boot Record (EMBR or Extended MBR) would need to be created.

Another option would be to use the Ontrack DDO utilities. Unfortunately, both of these DDO partitioning utilities will require destructive reformatting which is something that I wouldn't want to go through. Oh wait. A better solution was to load the Ontrack Disk Manager 9.50 ONTRACKD.SYS driver in the CONFIG.SYS! This will correctly recognise hard disk partitions over 8,025 MB. The maximum size that the Ontrack Disk Manager utility will accept is 32,768 MB! That is enough for MS-DOS 5.0 to 6.22 to recognise logical hard disk partitions up to drive R. ONTRACKD.SYS uses only 3.2 KB of base memory. Have a look: Has anyone tested the creation of hard disks by splitting in to 2 GB logical drives on a 32 GB hard disk image using the ONTRACKD.SYS driver loaded? I'm pretty sure that Microsoft imposed the 8,025 MB limit as hard disks and other media this large were not available at the time when MS-DOS 5.0 through 6.22 came out between the 1991 to 1994 period. Overcoming the 8,025 MB limit under these stand alone versions of MS-DOS would require architectural changes that will never be supported.

You might remember my remarkable post regarding testing MS-DOS limitations from almost three years ago and now I'm realising it. Okay, I'm currently running MS-DOS 6.22 triple booting with OS/2 Warp 4 and Windows 95B under GRUB4DOS 0.4.6a 2015-09-15. I'm running Virtual PC 2007 with three 16 GB hard disk images and 256 MB of system memory and have split three of the drives into four partitions. Looking at the Disk Management utility: 1. The areas where it is shaded in dark blue are primary partitions. MS-DOS 6.22 is occupying the first 2 GB on each drive with drive letters C, D and E. 2. The areas where it has a dark green border are extended partitions. 14 GB of disk space on each of the three drives are used as a extended partition. 3. The extended partition on each of the three drives are split into three logical drives. The logical drives are shaded in blue. 4. My OS/2 Warp 4 installation has three 2 GB FAT formatted drives (drives F, I and K mapped as C, D and E) and one 8 GB HPFS formatted partition (drive M mapped as drive F). 5. My Windows 95B installation has three 4 GB FAT32 formatted drive (drives G, J and L mapped as C, D and E). 6. Drive H is a hidden FAT32 formatted drive that will be used as storage. The other 8 GB partition below it will be a Linux formatted partition as I'm going to install DSL 4.4.10 soon. The only problem is that MS-DOS 6.22 lacks INT 13h support which means that it cannot support hard disks larger than 8,025 MB (1,023 cylinders, 255 heads and 63 sectors per track) which means that if the size of the extended partition is over 5,977 MB, MS-DOS will not be able to access any of the three logical drives on each disk at all. Are there any hacks or wokrarounds to overcome the 8,025 MB limit without having to mess-up the GRUB4DOS bootloader?

Good idea. If you have found which DLL that provided SSL v3 support and caused websites to not function, please let me know. I'm also wondering if debugging will help identify which DLL has been providing SSL v3 support with no proper way to disable it.

That's what I've been seeing. With so many websites removing SSL v3 support, IE6 could soon be rendered unusable. I'm wondering if there is a way to disable SSL v3 support in the registry or not...

That's what I've been thinking. The POODLE vulnerability caused servers to block SSL v3.0. Internet Explorer 6 uses SSL v3.0. I'm guessing that there could also be a problem with the security certificates. Simply unchecking SSL v3.0 didn't do any good to access the Google webpage at all. I've heard that killing SSL v3.0 support broke support for most webpages running under Internet Explorer 6. Is there a way to possibly to make IE6 use only SSL v2.0 to get around the website blockage issue running when under Windows NT 4.0 SP6, Windows 98, Windows Millennium, Windows 2000 and Windows XP?

According to the Qualys SSL Labs, I found that neither Internet Explorer 6 nor Internet Explorer 8 on Windows XP are capable off supporting TLS 1.2, SNI, Forward Secrecy, Stapling and Session Tickets...that means no SSL-related User Agent capabilities. Ironically, if I set the User Agent on the SeaMonkey browser to Internet Explorer 6, both the Google and Wikipedia are accessible. Under NT 4.0 SP6 running IE6 SP1, I could neither access howsmyssl.com nor ssllabs.com at all. Sounds to be that something could be totally wrong with the SSL capabilities under Windows NT 4.0.

Hello! I apologise if I might have posted in the wrong forum, but I have a problem here. For some reason, when attempting to access the Google homepage on Internet Explorer 6 SP1 under Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000, I get a page not found error: On a Windows 95 machine running Internet Explorer 5.5 SP2, I can access Google just fine: By the way, can anyone also try to access the Wikipedia webpage under IE5 or IE6 when running under Windows 9x, ME, Windows NT 4.0 or Windows 2000? This was tested using the Windows 95 and Windows NT 4.0 virtual machines running under Microsoft Virtual PC 2007. What can be done to access Google and Wikipedia under IE6 and other old browsers, btw?

I haven't posted here in the MSFN forums for a while, but I have a problem here. I updated to VMware Player 6.0.7 on my Windows Vista host machine and for some reason, I can't get the sound to work on any of my guest OSes (Windows NT 3.51, Windows 95 and Windows 2000) that requires the legacy Sound Blaster 16 emulated sound card. For example, I've been running Windows NT 3.51 SP5 as a guest OS and although, the OS installs the Sound Blaster 16 emulated card, it doesn't work at all! Edit: Nevermind! I solved the problem. I had to uninstall r277 of the Realtek High Definition Audio drivers and revert to the audio drivers that came with my ASUS motherboard. The end result is that the sound in VMware now works! Incase, I ever decide to update VMware Player or reinstall it, I may have to reinstall the audio drivers again.

I'm running the Windows 95 Virtual PC VM right now. I opened up Microsoft Paint and I'm currently running Process Explorer v9.25. Here's are the following processes for MS-Paint (thanks to VPC Additions): As for failing to open or save, that's what I'm talking about. Now as for dependencies and hooks that are required to run the Windows 95 version of Microsoft Paint, do you have any idea what is missing in Windows NT 3.51? I'll edit this if I finally found something.

One update to mention here. I never got around updating the Readme.txt file in regards to this guide on installing and updating Win2K Professional. Once I got it done, I'll place all of the contents in a ISO file. I may have to update the components in any event that Microsoft ed-commissions the Windows Update website in the foreseeable future.

Thanks Thank you so much for the information. I'm gonna be looking into the WinSxS hardlinked files. So far, I moved my games onto the second hard drive and they all run well without any major problems.