Nomen

Win98se with Kex. I know the thread is about win-95, but I thought I'd put in my 2 cents about flash/youtube on win-98. I don't know how close we are at this point in having flash/youtube stop working on win-98, and I don't know if what works for win-98 will work for win-95.

http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/ tells me I have flash version 10.3.183.86. The "check-now" button at http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/ says this: ============ YOUR SYSTEM INFORMATION Your Flash Version flashversioninfo Your browser name browserInfo Your Operating System (OS) OSinfo ============ In other words, it doesn't seem to know. This is on FF 2.0.0.20 https://www.youtube.com/supported_browsers?next_url=%2F tells me: ========== Oops, your web browser is no longer supported. (...) This message is based on the the user agent string reported by your browser. Any extensions and plugins you have installed might modify the user agent string. We received: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.8.1.20) Gecko/20081217 Firefox/2.0.0.20,gzip(gfe) =========== I can nonetheless play any youtube video or visit the main youtube.com page and not see any nag or warning message.

Back in August I was working with RT7 to create an installation image of Win-7 SP1 Ultimate 32-bit but without any of the "bad" KB's. This is what I had determined at the time: Here's my list of 99 "Bad KB's" for Windows 7. 947821 2823324 2999226 3054464 3075853 3084905 3107998 3138615 949810 2840149 3012973 3058168 3078405 3086255 3112336 3139921 958559 2876229 3014460 3060746 3078667 3088195 3112343 3139923 971033 2882822 3015249 3064683 3080042 3090045 3118401 3139929 976932 2902907 3021917 3065987 3080149 3092627 3121260 3146449 2454826 2922324 3022345 3065988 3080800 3093983 3123862 3150513 2505438 2923545 3029606 3068707 3081437 3099834 3124280 3167679 2506928 2952664 3035583 3068708 3081454 3100956 3125574 3173040 2545698 2970228 3042058 3072318 3081954 3102429 3126030 2592687 2976978 3044374 3074677 3083324 3102810 3134815 2660075 2977759 3046480 3074683 3083325 3102812 3135445 2670838 2990214 3050265 3075249 3083710 3103696 3135449 2726535 2994023 3050267 3075851 3083711 3103699 3138612 The convenience rollup kb 3125574 (which I list as "bad") contains the following "bad KB's" that are in the above list: 2660075 2970228 3075249 3092627 2726535 2994023 3078667 3102429 2882822 2999226 3080149 3107998 2923545 3068708 3081954 3118401 If you start with a fresh install of Win-7 Ultimate 32-bit (this might apply to 64-bit as well) and do not choose KB3125574 but take everything else offered by WindowsUpdate, then the following KB's will be offered to you that are on my bad list: 976932 2726535 3042058 3092627 3167679 2506928 2923545 3068708 3102429 2545698 2952664 3078667 3118401 2592687 2970228 3080149 3124280 2660075 3021917 3086255 3138612 One other note: KB3161102 will irreversibly remove the "Windows Journal" feature/function from your system. I'm not calling this a "bad" kb because of the relative lack of use of that feature and it's well documented troubles as being exploitable by malware. If you use Windows Journal, then put 3161102 on your bad list. Bottom line: If you avoid the 99 KB's in my bad list, then there are a total of 278 "good" KB's that you might or should want to download (or roll into an install image). This includes 107 KB's in the convenience rollup, some of which may not be offered to you through a WU session but instead would have to be downloaded and installed manually. There is one exception: KB2670838. It's called an "Evil update" but it is one of a handful of necessary KB's you need to update the system to IE 9 or higher.

I connected the cloned drive back into the desktop PC used to perform the original cloning, no other drives were connected except CD-rom drive. I booted an MS win-7 CD and let it proceed to the GUI install screen so I could get the option to "repair your drive". That option is not available for some reason when you boot the same CD but press F8 during boot to get the text-screen options. Pressing the "repair your drive" button and I got the message that it was detecting a problem with the boot partition - or perhaps not knowing what was or where was the boot partition (D?) but it determined or indicated it knew how to fix the problem and my only choice was to perform the fix, which I did and which happened instantly, and I shut down the system and put the clone drive back into the netbook where it booted perfectly, no issues, no messages. The clone functioned exactly as the original.

I cloned a 160 gb drive to a 1 tb drive using Ghost 2003, but the clone won't boot. I get a text-screen telling me "Windows failed to start. A recent hardware or software chance might be the cause. To fix the problem..." Status: 0xc0000000E Info: The boot selection failed because a required device is inaccessible. I'm thinking that maybe the 100 mb recovery partition was resized on the clone (I know it was because I couldn't match the original size while resizing the data partition to the full size of the destination drive). Anyways, I have a bootable USB thumb drive with win-7 installation CD created by RT7 so I booted from it but was not able to get the recovery/repair option to show itself. All it wanted to do was to install win-7 on the target drive, gave me no option to repair the existing install. It knows there is an existing install because if I go one step into the install it tells me that it detects an existing install and it will move it to an alternate folder. The PC (a net-book) has no optical drive, so what-ever I'm going to have to do will have to be via thumb drive - or take the drive out and slave it to another (desktop) system (?) and perform the repair on it while in slave mode? Or can I make the drive the primary/only drive on the desktop system and boot from actual win-7 CD and will it perform the repair without needing to boot into windows? And why can't I get recovery/repair options when booting the RT7-prepared thumb drive?

Starting early this month, I installed the Personal Web Server that comes with win-98 on one of my home systems and forwarded port-80 from my router to the PC. As expected, there were a lot of requests from bots for files that don't exist. After a few days I created those missing files by taking a 60 mb porn video and replicating it as many times as necessary, creating various directory trees and placing these replicated files in the correct places so they'd be served up when requested. Examples of the most commonly-requested files are: config.php setup.php sitemap.xml testproxy.php (this is very common) stssys.htm robots.txt wp-login.php xmlrpc.php The default.asp page gets requested a lot, but I think it can't be a binary file because only a fraction of it ever gets uploaded and I think that corresponds with an EOF character being hit. Some of the more strange file-requests are: /muieblackcat /ncsi.txt /w00tw00t.at.ISC.SANS.DFind:) I've served up that 60 mb file about 85 times so far, totalling just over 5.15 gb. My upload speed is only about 70 k/sec so I figure I'm tying up those bots for at least 15 minutes each time they request these files. My internet plan is unlimited and this is the upload direction we're talking about so I'm probably going to substitute a 1 or 2 gb file at some point. Over at $dayjob my web server is seeing the same sort of hits for these files, but for a twist I'm performing an http re-direction on them to a 4 gb file being hosted by a remote server. I've tested the redirection to see if the bots follow it by pointing to the PWS on my home server and in most cases the redirection is followed. There doesn't seem to be a way to setup re-directions on win-98 PWS like there is on IIS4 running on NT4.

Arrrgh. The hosts file that I created for this system, taken from a few different sources, included "sourceforge.net" but not "www.sourceforge.net". Hence the ability for dns to resolve one and not the other.

I'm fooling around with my custom install of Win-7 with all kb's and drivers rolled in using RT7, and so far so good. I've installed FF 38.something ESR, and updated IE to version 10 with security rollup. Web-browsing is working, but for some reason both FF and IE can't bring up sourceforge.net. Typing www.sourceforge.net into the location bar directs to https sourceforge.net, but FF says "unable to connect" and IE says "this page can't be displayed". Funny how I can bring up sourceforge.net on my win-98 system using either opera 12 or FF2. I've checked nslookup sourceforge.net and the IP matches (win-98 and the win-7 machine) so this isin't a name-resolution problem. And now the FF on the win-7 system has updated itself (even though I didn't want it to) to v45.3 and still it can't bring up sourceforge.net. What's going on here?

For those that have absolutely zero interest in playing games, I still want to know: Does going beyond the typical GeForce 6200 / 256 mb AGP card give you better video playback for hi-res movies? How much of divx or MPG decoding is done on the card vs done by the cpu?

Today I took my base install image (which is a virgin Win-7 SP1 technet image with drivers for an old Dell Latitude rolled in) and added 958559 with RT7. That's it. Burned the resulting image on a thumb drive, took it over to the Dell and went through yet another install cycle (always format the drive first). Bingo - right off the bat, no Libraries, can't create any libraries, can't create or rename any folders without getting "Item not found" message. Connected the machine to the internet, did a windoze-update check. It wanted to download something first (which I expected) before it could _really_ check for updates. So it does the download, but then is just wasting my time after that trying to check again. I reboot. It does some re-configuration before shutdown and again after booting back up. I tell it to check again. It's checking. I'm waiting. I go and open explorer - and the Libraries are back! I can create new libraries too. But still get "Item not found" when trying to create new folders. Update list finally comes up. I think about 150+ important and over 100 optional updates. I'm going to go through that list and see how many of these are rolled into 3125574. Bottom line- there is something wrong with 958559. Don't think I'll ever need it though, not for the systems that are going to end up getting the Win-7 install image I'm perfecting. (or maybe 958559 can't be integrated properly into an install image using RT7 ?)

I've created about 20 install sources using RT7, starting with a vanilla MSDN ISO of Win-7 SP1 32-bit and incrementally adding sets of KB's downloaded by whdownloader. I got to the point where an image, with 525 installed updates, works fine with regard to the issues I mentioned above (Libraries issues and "Item not found" when creating new folders). Taking that image as the next starting point for RT7, and integrating kb958559, immediately gives a system that has the issues when the new install is performed. Now whether this issue is caused by 958559 in conjunction with one (or more) of the other 525 KB's, I don't know. On a slight tangent, I notice that one source has the number of KB's rolled into the 3125574 Convenience Rollup Package as 123. When I scan that list against my list of "bad" KB's to avoid, there are 15 matches: 2660075 2726535 2882822 2923545 2970228 2994023 2999226 3068708 3075249 3078667 3080149 3081954 3092627 3102429 3118401 My "good/working" Win-7 install image with 525 integrated kb's does not have any of the above 15 updates rolled into it. Conversely, of the 108 KB's rolled into 3125574 that are "good", I only have 39 of them integrated into my good/working install image. Now I don't know if the list of 123 KB's in 3125574 is the count for the 64-bit version, so maybe the number is different for the 32-bit version.

RT7 is working for me again today. Maybe it helped when I added 2 gb of ram to the system I'm using RT7 on to bring it from 2 gb to 4 gb of ram... In any case, I have determined which KB, when integrated into a Win-7 Ultimate 32-bit installation package created by RT7, will result in the system (a) not showing (not having) any Libraries, (b) not being able to create new libraries, and (c) giving an "Item not found" message when creating new folders or renaming existing ones. The KB responsible for that behavior is 958559.

Yes I know about ei.cfg but I don't "mess" with it when I work with RT7. I assume that RT7 knows about ei.cfg too and can easily choose to disregard it or follow it (or modify it or re-create it) as it builds the image that you want it to build. When you go through an RT7 use-cycle, where you start it, point it to a set of source files, answer the basic first-question "which version?" and then perform what-ever integration (drivers and/or KB's), and then get to the create-ISO/Boot point (where I "burn" the resulting image to a bootable thumb drive), I then exit RT7 because it really doesn't allow you to do anything else at that point except maybe burn another ISO. So when you exit RT7, your source files are now modified. Permanently. So I make a copy of the entire source directory and I point RT7 to the copy, perform integration, perform USB burn, take thumb drive to target machine and perform installation by booting thumb drive (always formatting target drive first). If I like the install, but want to do more to it, I copy the install files to a new directory, point RT7 to the new directory and continue. I did this about a dozen times over the past week. Each time I documented which KB's I was adding to each image, and which KB's were being reported as installed by wmic after installation (the numbers don't always jive). I was close to finding out which KB, when integrated by RT7, gave me an installation of Win-7 that, when trying to create a new folder in explorer, gave me the "Item not found" error. But yesterday, RT7 wasn't loading any of my previous images. I was being stonewalled by the "Please select a valid Windows 7 operating system" message.

> rt7 offers 2 things > > 1. changes to WHOLE source (all images) or > 2. change to single edition > > so beware what you choose After you point RT7 to your source files, the first question it always seems to ask is what version you are interested in (it throws up a menu window). Sometimes I get the whole list (home, home premium, ultimate, etc) and sometimes I just get a single choice (Ultimate). So I don't understand what governs that, or its implications. And yes, there is the radio-button choice to "Build current image" or "build all images". I've always chosen "Build current image" because, after all, since it asked you to choose an image at the very start, wouldn't that make the "build all images" option redundant or stupid? But at this point, as I mentioned in the other thread, I'm now getting the "Please choose a valid Windows 7 Installation" message after I point RT7 to my installation files and select my choice of Ultimate when the choice box pops up (a box that gives Ultimate as the single choice). Even a virgin set of unaltered win-7 sp1 ultimate from technet is giving the same message.

RT7 is now giving me the "Please select a valid Windows 7 operating system" error after I point it to several of my various install images. Even a "virgin" set of technet installation files. There is pretty much nothing on the net I can find about why RT7 puts up that message or how to fix it.

The sysinfo command says "Hotfix(s): 540 Hotfix(s) Installed" which matches the number I get with wmic. However, sysinfo starts to list the hotfixes by kb number, and gets to [242] which it partially prints out the kb number, and then ends the KB list output and then gives the network card info. Does the sysinfo command have a limit when printing the kb list? One other strange thing between the 2 install images: Image-1 has 525 KB's, Image-2 has 540. That's a difference of 15. But in reality, there are 3 KB's in Image-1 that are not present in Image-2. So of the 28 KB's that I added to Image-1 to create Image-2, 18 of them are showing up when Image-2 is installed. 525 + 18 - 3 = 540.

I'm comparing 2 installation images of Win-7 Ultimate SP1 x86 prepared by RT7. The difference between them should be 28 KB's (I integrated 28 KB's into the first image to create the second image). After performing trial installs using both images, I ran the wmic command to get a list of installed kb's for both images. None of the 28 kb's that were integrated into the second image were listed as being present in the first image according to wmic. But the second image, once it was installed and running, was showing only 15 additional kb's, not 28. So either: Win-7 has some ability to "de-install" or cancel some KB's at run-time that it determines it shouldn't have or has been superceeded by another KB that it has, or RT7 has some ability to know during kb integration which KB's should or shouldn't be integrated, or wmic does not show all installed KB's. The wmic command that I ran was wmic qfe list brief /format:texttablewsys > c:\updates.txt And I'm not dealing with the conveinence roll-up during these tests.

At the time I started this thread, I did not realize that RT7 made permanent changes to the 2 wim files that are, basically, the entirety of a win-7 distribution / install package. I thought that when you pointed RT7 to your source files (either the source directory or an ISO of your win-7 original CD) that it performed an integration of various items and allowed you to save your work in a config file but that it did not alter your source image. Hence my confusion as to why I was seeing wim's of different sizes. When I thought I was "going back" to my original win-7 CD image it turns out it was far from it. So I've made successive copies of various trials using RT7 to integrate various kb's in stages, starting with what I know to be an original MS distribution of Win-7 ultimate SP1 32-bit. What I have now is an image with 525 kb updates rolled in, and I am not seeing the "item not found" error when creating new folders, and the "Library" thing is fully populated with the 4 items (music, video, etc). (I would like to create a win-7 install image where libraries and control panel are totally removed from file explorer. God I hate Windoze 7.) I was using whdownloader and the pre-made lists available for it to download the kb files, and it turns out that there are at least 60 kb's that the current lists include that are *not* present or flagged by MS-update as available. So for anyone trying to use RT7 and Whdownloader to create an up-to-date win-7 install image (and bypass the "Conveinence" update which includes some "bad" kb's) then I believe there is a problem with the inventory of kb's that the whdownloader people would have you obtain and integrate into your image. My image contains all the dot-net 3.x and lower patches, plus the dot.net 4.61 distribution and all available patches for it. It also contains IE-10 offline install (I'm holding off integrating IE-11 into this image for the moment). So at this point my image, when installed and when it performs the first Update-check, comes back with this as being available: Important Updates: 3120388 security update 3075226 security update 3086255 security update (this is on the "bad" list) 3167679 security update 3138612 just "Update" for win-7 (this is on the "bad" list) optional updates: 2506928 (bad) 2545698 (bad) 2592687 (bad) 2660075 (bad) 2830477 (don't know) 2923545 (bad) 2952664 (bad) 2970228 (bad) 3021917 (bad) 3068708 (bad) 3075249 (bad) 3078667 (bad) 3080149 (bad) 3092627 (bad) 3102429 (bad) 3118401 (bad) 3140245 (too new / don't know) 3161102 (too new / don't know) 3172605 (too new / don't know)

So I've been comparing various win-7 SP1 ISO's and CD's that I have, and it does seem to be the case that they are identical except for ei.cfg. Except for a couple of files - install.wim and setup.wim. They're always different. So that puts the lie to the often-told story that Win-7 distribution media is essentially identical except for ei.cfg. I've been looking into this because I've been struggling with RT7 Lite and it's generating installation images that always leaves me with a system that (a) has no "Libraries" and (b) gives me an "item not found" message when creating new folders or renaming folders. I've now used a different source for the base win-7 SP1 image and have managed to use RT7 to generate an install image that *works* and does not have those issues. The only difference in the source images is these .wim files. I'm going to use reg shot and see if I can find a difference in the registry between the installs. Otherwise I'd like to know more about the reasons why these .wim files are different.

The reader is one of those multi-card readers that slides into a 3.5" drive-bay. It connects to the motherboard USB port via 10-pin header. It uses 2 motherboard USB ports - 1 for the card reader and 1 is a usb pass-through to a front panel USB port. In file explorer the reader shows up as 3 or 4 extra drives even if there are no cards plugged in. When clicking on the correct drive-icon associated with the SD-card slot, I get the "drive not formatted" message. There's nothing wrong with the card because (as I said) the files on it appear correctly on a win-7 laptop with integrated SD port. And let me say that this is *still* a real pain in the butt that I can find no way to render pretty much anything.microsoft.com on any browswer that I can run under win-98. Not even Opera 2.12 can render this page: https://support.microsoft.com/en-ca/kb/970685 Complete blank. But that is a description of this problem with SD card.

I've got an XP-SP3 system with the POS2009 hack and an SD-card reader that I know is compatible with SD cards at least up to 64 gb. Currently, XP doesn't recognize an SD card that it recently did recognize. It puts up a message saying the card is not formatted and asks if I want to format (I say no). I can bring the card to a laptop running win-7 with built-in card reader and it can read the files ok, and I run scandisk on the card on the laptop and it says it's fine. There seems to have been one or more XP hotfixes for SD cards (311182 and 333278) and I've obtained both of those (311182_ENU_i386_zip.exe and 333278_ENU_i386_zip.exe) from MS but they won't install - I don't remember the exact wording but I believe they thought they were incompatible with the OS, and I'm thinking that maybe the POS2009 hack might be the cause. I *believe* that the root issue is the file sdbus.sys, but I don't understand the hotfix installer well enough to create or build all the _p files in the hotfix into the actual files. Anyone seen (and solved) this issue before?

I seem to recall with Win-9x and maybe even XP that you needed to have specific install CD's or ISO's to validate with a matching product key (OEM, retail, system-builder, etc). I've got technet keys for Win-7 and I'm wondering if I need to find a matching technet downloadable ISO image - or is there just a generic ISO image for each of the various flavors of 7 that Microsoft has made available for download usable for all the various classes of keys (corporate, OEM, retail, technet, etc) that exist?

Can the indexing service (specifically, the choice to not even install this service) be playing a role here? Also, regarding the reg file being discussed above (Explorer\\FolderDescriptions\etc) yes, those registry entries are present on the system I'm working on, and manually deleting them *does nothing* to make the "item not found" error go away. Those registry entries pertain to the sub-folders in the Libraries thing, so again I don't know why there is a connection between messing with the Libraries thing and new-folder-creation or folder-renaming.

Um, yea. I've already found those reg-remove entries from other sources. Sometimes they come with other instructions, like this one: ftp://interplay.avid.com/Patches/OSHotfixes/Issue-Could_not_find_this_item.txt "Install KB980408 normally" There were reports back in June 2010 that KB980408 prevented the ability to rename folders on 64-bit Win-7. Something I'm wondering (and maybe someone can confirm) is if the problem registry entries mentioned in .reg file are specific to 64-bit Win-7 or if they apply equally to 32-bit. The Win-7 Ultimate SP1 32 bit install that I'm working with reports having 577 Security updates, regular updates and hotfixes. None of them are KB980408. Is that a pre-SP1 kb? Is that a KB that might be rolled into SP1?

I've just re-formatted and re-installed the win-7 32-bit image that I made with RT7 Lite and I'm still getting the "file not found" message when creating new or renaming existing folders. I've got over 550 updates rolled into this image, and the first time I run Windows Update (which takes only a couple minutes) I get only 2 or 3 important updates (which are on my do-not-install list). I've installed no other software on this latest install, not even any updates to IE. So this issue is coming from a kb update. Edit: I've found a reference to this issue which dates back to 2010: http://www.sevenforums.com/general-discussion/82704-item-not-found-when-moving-renaming.html According to that, the problem is the interaction with an unknown KB update and registry entries designed to remove the stupid "libraries" thing from explorer. That thread indicates that the issue was solved, but it's not clear how. Was it the application (or re-application?) of remove-libraries.reg, or was it the removal of those entries? I've just tried applying that reg file and re-starting my system, and although the libraries thing is indeed gone from explorer, I still have the folder create/rename issue. Edit: The registry entries mentioned on this page: http://web.archive.org/web/20100612015409/http://www.techjawa.com/2010/05/01/guide-fix-windows-folder-renaming-could-not-find-this-item which was mentioned on this page: http://www.sevenforums.com/software/99614-explorer-error-could-not-find-item.html and for which most people in that thread claim that it *did* fix the problem, does *not* fix the problem on my system. Someone in that thread said this: "So now I'm thinking it might be a combination of having Libraries disabled and the KB2286198 hotfix together that caused it. " edit: More references to this issue here: http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-files/renaming-folders-causes-item-not-found-error-in/e2cf38c7-9e77-4256-89de-6308df53d5f9?auth=1 http://www.overclock.net/t/721973/msupdate-kb980408-warning-to-all-win7-x64-users/10 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r24158662-New-MS-Updates-today-4-27-2010 and a list of registry entries to delete. And a mention that KB980408 is involved. The date that this issue seems to have started is on (or before) April 28, 2010. I created a reg-delete file containing the suspect entries, restarted, and the issue remains. Haven't done anything yet about uninstalling / re-installing any kb's.