Nomen

How exactly do I construct the autoexec and config.sys for DOS 7.1 booting on a system with 4 gb ram so that I don't get the message that there is "not enough XMS memory for Smartdrive" because what I normally have in those startup files isin't working. If I recall correctly, according to the mem command DOS isin't detecting or hasn't allocated any XMS memory. If this involves the use of any custom / modded himem.sys or emm386.exe, then naturally I'm going to need the details...

So just a bit of an update. I appear to be getting the irritating "0x80096004" message/error for both the Gmail IMAP and POP logon's each time that outlook performs a mail-check (not just the first time, but every time). Answering Yes or No to the question "Do you want to continue using this server?" seems to do nothing in terms of how it handles the next IMAP or POP login into Gmail. Searching around, I found that this registry setting: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Office\9.0\Outlook\Security Dword value SupressNameChecks = 1 In my case, the Security key did not exist - so I created it and then added the SupressNameChecks dword value and set it to 1. I also created the dword value Options and set it to 1. I also found references to a string value "RequiredCA" but don't know how to use it (or if it can be used) to prevent the offending security certificate issue. Also, for those running Office 2000 / Outlook 2000, you might get confused by the existance of this registry key path / tree: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Office\10.0\Outlook\ I have that key path, but I don't know why. Outlook 2000 (Office 2000) and below seems to store it's reg values in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE, but newer versions of outlook / office seem to use HKEY_CURRENT_USER. I still get the 0x80096004 message when Outlook performs the first mail-check on the Gmail IMAP and POP accounts, but adding SupressNameChecks = 1 to the registry seems to stop all subsequent message pop-ups while outlook is running, and the gmail accounts are indeed checked for new mail. It would be useful to know what the "Options" string registry value does, and also if there are other values in the outlook Security key that could further improve this situation. Also, I came across (and installed) a .CER file that didn't help - but I'm wondering if there might a .CER file out there somewhere (or if one can be constructed) that would satisfy Win-98/Outlook 2000 in the case of Gmail servers (imap.gmail.com and pop.gmail.com). I also noticed that many XP users had trouble in the past with the 0x80096004 error while using iTunes. Many questions were posted in several different blogs / forums - and the only answer seemed to be to upgrade from SP2 to SP3. Which raises the question - what is known about the security certificate handling of XP-SP2 that could only be fixed by upgrading to SP3? Knowing the answer to that question might tell us if the 0x80096004 certificate error can ever be fixed for win-98.

Ok, so here's what I did. In Outlook 2000, in order for me to see IMAP server options when creating new accounts, I need to do something that was called (I think) - "Reconfigure Outlook". I believe my outlook was operating in some sort of corporate workgroup mode, and this reconfiguration took me out of that mode. In order to complete the process, outlook was asking for "data1.msi" that is found on the Office 2000 Premium SR1 CD - which I had to look for. After that, I create a new outlook account, where it can access the test gmail account using IMAP. I then used some newer version of Firefox running on an XP machine to log into the gmail account and enable IMAP access and then I enabled access for the so-called "less secure" device (which it did not identify but was Outlook 2k running on win-98). After that, I report that I can indeed access the test gmail account using both pop and imap under Outlook 2000 running under win-98se. The only issue is that upon starting outlook and performing the first mail retrieval from all the various accounts, I get this message: --------------- The server you are connected to is using a security certificate that could not be verified. 0x80096004 Do you want to continue using this server? (yes)(no) ----------------- I say yes and I don't believe I get that error again while outlook is running. I don't know if the error is associated with the pop access to the gmail account, or the imap, or both. If there's a way to fix this certificate issue, or even some way to tell outlook to automatically ignore it (maybe a registry entry?) let me know.

This is outlook 2000's log file when connecting to gmail.com for pop-mail login with "Log on using Secure Password Authentication" enabled, port 995, with SSL: Connecting to 'pop.gmail.com' on port 995. srv_name = "pop.gmail.com" srv_addr = 173.194.196.109 Negotiating secure connection with 'Microsoft Unified Security Protocol Provider'. +OK Gpop ready for requests from (...) AUTH -ERR malformed command QUIT +OK Bye This is what happens when "Log on using Secure Password Authentication" is disabled: Connecting to 'pop.gmail.com' on port 995. srv_name = "pop.gmail.com" srv_addr = 209.85.145.108 Negotiating secure connection with 'Microsoft Unified Security Protocol Provider'. +OK Gpop ready for requests from (my IP) USER (someone)@gmail.com +OK send PASS PASS ******** -ERR [AUTH] Web login required: https://support.google.com/mail/answer/78754 Connection to '' closed. I then log into gmail using various browsers, using various forged user-agents to see what I can do. This explains the issue: =============== Someone just tried to sign in to your Google Account (what-ever) from an app that doesn't meet modern security standards. We strongly recommend that you use a secure app, like Gmail, to access your account. All apps made by Google meet these security standards. Using a less secure app, on the other hand, could leave your account vulnerable. Learn more. Google stopped this sign-in attempt, but you should review your recently used devices: REVIEW YOUR DEVICES NOW Allowing less secure apps to access your account Google may block sign in attempts from some apps or devices that do not use modern security standards. Since these apps and devices are easier to break into, blocking them helps keep your account safer. Some examples of apps that do not support the latest security standards include: The Mail app on your iPhone or iPad with iOS 6 or below The Mail app on your Windows phone preceding the 8.1 release Some Desktop mail clients like Microsoft Outlook and Mozilla Thunderbird ============== I don't know (yet) to what extent gmail will allow me to edit or change any settings to allow outlook to have pop3 access to the account. The various browsers I'm using (on win-98) won't allow me full accessibility to the gmail interface. I'm going to have to try it on a PC running a more modern browser. Note also that you need to enable POP access to your account in the first place in order to get this far.

> Hey Nomen, since you said you have Outlook 2000, I'm going to ask you. > Do you still actively use it Yes. It's the primary mail client on a few of my win-98 systems. > and if so, what email provider do you use? Outlook (on my home PC) connects to a few different accounts associated with my ISP (which is operated by Microsoft as a sort of hotmail account) which are just legacy accounts which get very little mail and also connects to the mail server at $dayjob (which is my primary email account). And this is pop3 for both of those - not IMAP. > 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. I could try to see if my outlook 2000 can connect using pop3 to gmail if you'd like me to try. I was just checking and I don't see any options to use IMAP under the outlook server settings.

> The reason for MS Outlook not working on my system is due to > this PATCH, MPR.DLL 4.10.1999 from SP3 > > Replace MPR.DLL 4.10.1999 from SP3 with the original Windows 98 version 4.10.1998 I can confirm that I have the original 4.10.1998 version of MPR.DLL (and hence do not have this problem with Outlook 2000). Since we're on the topic - has anyone tested the win-ME version of MPR.DLL (4.90.3000) on win-98? They have the extact same file-size...

If you're getting the page-fault caused by OUTLLIB.DLL while running Outlook 2000, for what it's worth my version of that file is 9.0.6627, with a file date of June 28 / 2002 and a size of 5,337,138. Also - if you can at least start Outlook 2000 and start the system info utility as I described above - or find msinfo32 and run it before you start doing things with outlook, turn on Dr. Watson from msinfo32 tools menu. The Dr. Watson icon should show up in the system tray. See if it creates any log files during the outlook crash.

I've been running Office 2k premium on many Win-98se machines for about a decade now. My specific version of Outlook is Outlook 2000 SP-3 (9.0.0.6627) Corporate or Workgroup - Security Update. One thing you have to watch for is to not let any .pst file get larger than 2 gb. There is a Microsoft System Information utility (which I didn't know existed until now) that might tell you something useful. You can start it from outlook (Help - About Microsoft Outlook - System Info). It starts msinfo32.exe - seems like an interesting program. Gives a list of a KB updates installed, a list of all running tasks, list of 16 and 32 bit modules, a list of all kernel mode, user mode and ms-dos drivers, and more.

> If you have a newer Motherboard with Native Mode SATA, it's likely there is no 9x driver for it. Again I ask just how far you can go running win-9x on a motherboard made after 2006 or 2007? If we are talking single-boot OS, running win-9x natively on any system, why would you want to struggle with many drivers missing, ethernet, sound, video, usb - when there are many older boards available on ebay for almost nothing and you can build a system with pre-2007 hardware. If we are talking dual-boot OS (say, win-7 / win-9x) then you run 9x in a VM and no need to bother about driver issues (but you will have poor performance, possibly poor video resolution, but you obviously have some dire reason to run 9x so you have little choice here). > If you want to buy an Add-on Card for it, you can. But they are more expensive, take up vauable PCI slot space, > and waste the Motherboard Controllers. Many boards have many PCI slots. PCI slots are not "valuable" the way I see it. Any motherboard that has on-board SATA controller that you can't find 9x drivers for will be a motherboard that will be an absolute pain to run 9x on and certainly not worth the effort when you will almost certainly not have drivers for many other important motherboard sub-systems. > I heard the same kinds of arguments about my High Capacity Disk Patch and RAM Limitation Patch. Again, win-9x is very happy to run with 512 mb ram, and you can push that to 1024 mb very easily almost all the time without needing special patches. I don't know what the high capacity disk patch is or why someone would need it, but sata hard drives between 160 gb to 1 tb are very common, cheap, and most likely would meet the needs of 99.999% of people running win-9x today. > My customers clearly do not agree with you. I'm a win-98 "power user" and I certainly can get by very easily without any of your patches. Anyone investigating the use of win-9x should be aware of what their options are, and some of those options involve setting up systems that don't need your patches.

> > quick question but can windows 95 also use sata drives like > > ide devices the same way that you would do in windows 98 > > if you simply select the ide compatibility / legacy mode > > option in the bios? So let's consider this question. Is this person running win-95 "natively" - directly on the hardware in question and not in a VM? The answer would have to be yes, since we're talking about storage devices visible through hardware drivers to win-95. So what sort of hardware would someone running win-95 have? Must be old, probably does not have SATA controller on-board. But there are many motherboards made between 2002 and 2006 that have full win-9x/me support and have on-board sata controllers with 9x drivers. So if the OP has a motherboard that does not have SATA controller, then OP is using add-on PCI card. PCI cards, we believe, do not seem to have bios user interface that allows selection of Legacy IDE vs Sata (AHCI) mode operation. But many PCI cards use SIL SATA-1 controller chip for which 9x drivers are readily available. So someone running win-95 with PCI sata card will not be able to select IDE controller mode (but SATA drives will be accessible in DOS and will work in DOS compatibility mode when running win-9x) or SIL drivers can be found that allow proper Native/SATA/AHCI mode operation under 9x. > If you can select Legacy Mode rather than Native Mode > for your SATA Drives, Windows 95 will not know they > are SATA Drives and will work fine. If he has PCI SATA card, he most likely will not have the option to set working mode. But he will most likely be able to find 9x drivers for the card, and be able to use the SATA interface just fine with any hard drives up to at least 1 tb. If he has onboard integrated SATA controller, then again we presume that the OP is satisfied with the motherboard in terms of 9x driver availability, which again would mean that 9x drivers are almost certainly available for the SATA controller. > If not, you will need my SATA Patch. After typing all my various explanations above, I fail to see any reason why someone running 9x would need your SATA patch, because I can't see a use-case where OEM-supplied SATA drivers would not be available to them given the hardware that they *probably* have.

My setting for dom.max_script_run_time was 5 - I changed it to 10. Looking at the error console, here's an example of what I see (if anything can be done about them...) Under "Errors" =============== Error: _.pf is not a function Source File: https:// apis.google.com/_/scs/apps-static/_/js/k=oz.gapi.en_(etc) Error: iframes is not defined Source File: https:// apis.google.com/se/0/_/+1/fastbutton?usegapi=1&_moz-userdefined=(etc) Error: window.googleapis has no properties Source File: https:// apis.google.com/_/scs/apps-static/_/js/k=oz.plusone.en_(etc) Error: a has no properties Source File: https:// apis.google.com/js/plusone.js Line: 43 ============== Under "Warnings": ============= Warning: Error in parsing value for property 'display'. Declaration dropped. Source File: http:// www.msfn.org/board/public/style_css/css_20/ipb_print.css The following all reference Source File: http:// www.msfn.org/board/topic/173990-firefox-2-and-unresponsive-scripts-what-purpose-do-they-serve/ Warning: Error in parsing value for property 'display'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Unknown property 'box-sizing'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Unknown property '-webkit-box-sizing'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Unknown property '-webkit-font-smoothing'. Declaration dropped. The following all reference Source File: https:// apis.google.com/se/0/_/+1/fastbutton?usegapi=1&_moz-userdefined (etc) Warning: Unrecognized at-rule or error parsing at-rule '@font-face'. Warning: Error in parsing value for property 'display'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Expected end of value for property but found 'rgba'. Error in parsing value for property 'border'. Warning: Unknown property 'border-radius'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Unknown property '-moz-box-shadow'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Unknown property 'box-shadow'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Unknown property 'box-sizing'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Unknown property 'transition'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Unknown property 'animation'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Unknown property '-moz-transform-origin'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Error in parsing value for property 'border-color'. Declaration dropped. ============== Under "Messages" : ============== Security Error: Content at https://apis.google.com/_/scs/apps-static/_/js/k=oz.gapi.en_(etc)may not load data from http:// www.msfn.org/board/topic/173990-firefox-2-and-unresponsive-scripts-what-purpose-do-they-serve/. Security Error: Content at https:// apis.google.com/_/scs/apps-static/_/js/k=oz.gapi.en_(etc) may not load data from http:// www.msfn.org/board/topic/173990-firefox-2-and-unresponsive-scripts-what-purpose-do-they-serve/. Security Error: Content at https:// apis.google.com/js/plusone.js may not load data from http:// www.msfn.org/board/topic/173990-firefox-2-and-unresponsive-scripts-what-purpose-do-they-serve/. No chrome package registered for chrome://navigator/locale/navigator.properties . No chrome package registered for chrome://navigator-region/locale/region.properties . No chrome package registered for chrome://communicator-region/locale/region.properties . =============== I don't know if any of the above are js related. ? Would be nice to have an add-on that can scan web content and re-write code items that don't conform to FF2 (such as the above) so that they either work correctly or are not executed if they can't be made to work.

My hosts file started with a version from MVPS some years ago and instead of updating it I've just been adding custom entries - probably hundreds - ever since. I'm also running something called the "Abyss" web server - it serves up (https only) any files that my hosts file would ordinarily block so long as I've gone out and gotten a local copy of said files and stored them within the Abyss web-server directory (c:\Inetpub\wwwroot). I note that the vast majority of these are .js files. I mention all the above in case it relates to the following: I have the firefox addon "yes script" (not "no script") which is a list of sites or hosts that are not allowed to run javascript. Yet I encounter, on a daily basis, brief browsing pauses followed by the message that "a script on this page is not responding". I cancel the script and the site or page continues to load - it is not apparent what is missing or what functionality is lost because the script did not run. So I'm asking here - what is the usual function of these nuisance scripts? What did I not experience because I blocked a script with "yes script" or I cancelled a "non-responding" script? Is Firefox-2 capable of running *ANY* java scripts that are found on a typical website today? Or is FF2 running *MANY* such scripts correctly and silently - I just don't know it - and these are scripts that are necessary and / or make the browsing experience with FF2 tolerable today? In other words, if I were to totally turn off javascript functionality for all sites on my FF2 browser, would I notice anything different other than not seeing any more "unresponsive script" messages?

I said earlier that I tried this 3.8.0.188 version on two different PC's (but each having the same make/model motherboard) and got the same results for both of them (skype complaining about having no audio device). Turns out the two systems (while they look identical) are slight varients of each other - one has AGP slot, the other had no AGP slot (but it has on-board video). Both based on same 845 chipset. However - the one with AGP has C-Media 8738 audio chip, whereas the other system has (in exactly the same place, same chip package) a Realtek ALC655 chip. I can select that as an audio device in Skype (Realtek AC97 Audio) but still get the same result (PROBLEM WITH PLAYBACK DEVICE) when trying to make a call. And with both systems, when skype starts and logs in, the traditional skype startup sound is not played (or - I don't hear it).

I've tried this skype 3.8.0.188 on two different win-98 systems. They both are running on the same type of motherboard - based on Intel 845 chipset with C-Media 8738 audio chip. Skype installs fine, is able to log in, is able to search for, find, and connect to other users, is able to have live text chats with other users. But Skype is unable to see or use the audio hardware on both systems. A google search using 8738 and skype turn up many instances of people reporting audio problems with skype. Some of these are in english forums where the problem mostly seems to involve various forums of linux / ubunto, while others are in russian or polish forums where the OS used is not clear. In some cases this specific version of skype is mentioned. Let me ask you this: Are you able to change the default Skype user picture to a custom image? As I've described above, I'm not able to do that, and I can't see how that could be related to my audio problem.

> SP3.x is not needed to run skype Then explain WHAT version is needed to be compatible with skype's current user database server. Because the version I was previously using (3.5.0.239) is not. (never mind - I just realized that "SP3.x" is not Skype 3.x). > Here is proof the sound is working in skype, I did this just for you Nomen: > You're welcome!!!!! Of what use to me is your proof? Have we not exchanged PM's - where I showed you that there is evidence that the sound chip on my motherboard (C-Media CMI-8738) is or might be incompatible with this particular version (3.8.0.188) of skype?

I have JRE 1.6_7 but I think the Jdownloader v2 installer includes and is trying to use JRE v8 based on what I see in the temp directory. I end up getting an error (after a long time-out) that the installer can't start the Java VM.

For what it's worth, skype version 3.8.0.188 appears to be the most popular download at oldversion.com, with over 1.2 million downloads. Other top downloads are Yahoo Messenger, Bearshare Lite, MSN Messenger, Winamp, LimeWire and IE 6.

> Thank you very much for the contribution. You don't actually say that you've tried it - and it works...

> Probably I never had sound with version 3.8 and also 3.6 and 3.7 > (PROBLEM WITH PLAYBACK DEVICE) So until or unless someone else running Win-98 natively (ie - not in a VM) can run this 3.8.0.18 version of skype with proper audio functionality, it should be considered non-functional for its stated purpose.

Would the fact that I have this in my registry: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion - Version = Windows NT - VersionNumber = 5.0 - Win XP version number = 5.1.2600 HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion - CurrentVersion = 5.0 - Version=Windows NT - VersionNumber = 5.0 be causing problems with skype 3.8.0.188 not seeing my audio hardware? Or causing this problem: If I try to set a picture for my skype profile, and I point skype to, say, the root of E drive and select a .jpg file located there, I get this: ----------- Cannot create file "E:\profile\pictures\some-picture.jpg" The system cannot find the path specified. ----------- If I create the directory "E:\profile" in explorer and then go into that directory, the file "shared.lck" is mysteriously already there - with the current date and timestamp. I then create the sub-directory "pictures" and go back to skype and repeat the profile-picture selection process. I select the same picture (located in e:\) and the picture shows up in the Skype Picture Library (its the only picture there besides the default picture). The new picture is selected, and I press the "apply" button. The skype profile window closes, and an error-window pops up with this message: -------------- Error Skype encountered an error accessing stored data. You have been logged out for protect integrity of your data. [ok] -------------- Skype interface reverts to login screen, showing "welcome to skype" and under that is "! Failed to mount skype database. Possibly another instance of Skype is using it" - but there is no other such instance running as far as I can tell. So I exit and restart skype, and it does an auto-logon and I get the green circle with the checkmark in it in the system tray (indicating that I have a working skype connection) and my profile picture is still the default picture.

When I installed this modified version of skype (3.8.0.188) I chose to install it to c:\program files \skype2\ because I wanted to keep the existing installation (version 3.5.0.239) which was located in c:\program files\skype\. I just ran the older 3.5.0 version, and it gets hung up trying to login. I can cancel the login but the application comes up and I get the green circle with the checkmark in the system tray. I *can* make a skype test call, and the audio works fine! And in the audio settings, there is no play arrow. In the Sound settings, there is a small play arrow, and I can play any of the selected sounds. So I closed the old version and ran the modified version directly from the directory where it's installed in (\skype2\.App\). It behaves differently vs when it's launched from the desktop shortcut (SKYPEL.BAT). It logs into my old user-name - and it seems to do that smoothly / automatically. But if I try to "View Account", I get a screen showing a padlock and the message "Loading (old account name)" and then it says "unable to launch web browser". I still get "problem with playback device" when trying to make a test call. I've set the Kex properties for skype.exe to "disable kernelex extensions" but that does nothing. Still get "problem with playback device". If I start this modified skype with the desktop shortcut (SKYPEL.BAT) it logs in with the new skype username, but when I try "view account" I still get "unable to launch web browser" and making a test call still gives "problem with playback device". What is known about this modified version of skype (3.8.0.188) and installing it in a non-default directory location, and installing it when a previous version of skype (with all it's settings stored somewhere) still exists?

I was trying to bring this website up using IE6 (win-98): https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/viewMyClient.html and was getting the standard message you get if you try to access a non-existant domain: The page cannot be displayed The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings. I also get the above message when I try to bring up https://www.msfn.org/ with IE6. Trying that URL with FF2, after dismissing a couple of certificate messages I get redirected to https://www.msfn.org/cgi-sys/defaultwebpage.cgi. On IE6, trying https://www.google.com gets redirected to https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl but otherwise the page seems to function just fine. So what's happening with https sites and IE6? Do some sites test for user-agent and give an immediate null response to https requests? Setting my FF2 user-agent to replicate IE6 like this: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1) Doesn't seem to matter or interfere with connecting to https sites (like ssllabs.com). Although a check of my IE6 shows that it's identifiying itself as: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; Avant Browser) Which now has me wondering how to untangle or remove the "Avant Browser" thing from it. ?

The previous version of skype that I had (that used to work a year ago before Skype changed something with their contact server) was 3.5.0.239. Also, I'm blocking ui.skype.com in my Hosts file (I read somewhere that it would help get skype working again). Should I unblock it? According to this screen capture: http://forums.logitech.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/8659i30B1770A931883BB/image-size/original?v=mpbl-1&px=-1 I'm supposed to have a small green "Play" arrow beside the Speaker setting drop-down box. I have no such arrow.

I downloaded and installed the skype package created by Oerg866, and it is working on my win-98 system with kex. I was able to create a new skype account and send a contact request to someone and it was accepted and I can conduct a skype chat session with them. However, regardless if I try a call to the contact or to the skype test account, I get a message (in big red letters) PROBLEM WITH PLAYBACK DEVICE. Under Tools - Options - Audio Settings, for each of Microphone, Speakers and Ringing, a dropdown box for each of those has 2 choices - Windows default device and C-Media Wave device. Regardless which one I choose - this Playback Device problem exists. I have all inputs in my taskbar speaker/volume control selector un-muted. I do not currently have a microphone plugged in - but I wouldn't expect that would cause this problem. ? Under Tools - Options - Sounds, the "play this sound" function does not result in any audible sound. Does the actual program file (skype.exe) require any specific kernelEx setting? Does the .bat file that invokes skype (or any of the custom .cmd files that are present) require modification to restore audio functions?

Would the program "HD Sentinel" (hdsdos.exe) found here: http://www.hdsentinel.com/hard_disk_sentinel_dos.phpbe of any use in exploring these AHCI issues? I ran it on my system and for my sata drives it reported both drives as: Interface: S-ATA II ATA Information ATA Revision: 7 Maximum UDMA Mode: 150 MB/s (6) Active UDMA Mode: 150 MB/s (6) ATA Control Byte: Valid Serial ATA Features S-ATA Compliance: Yes S-ATA I Signaling Speed (1.5 Gps): Supported S-ATA II Signaling Speed (3 Gps): Supported There is nothing in the lengthy report indicating AHCI status (unless it goes by another name) so I don't know if that can be determined by anything in the report generated by this program. The SATA controller on this win-98 system appears in Device Manager under the heading "SCSI Controllers" as Silicon Image Sil 3512 SATARaid controller. There's nothing obvious in the properties of that object, nor for the properties of the SATA disk drives themselves, that indicates AHCI status. I have a "Silicon Image SATA Controllers" control panel applet, which again says nothing about AHCI status - but it does tell me that the current transfer mode is "Ultra DMA mode 6" and the ATA version is "ATA/ATAPI-8". The BIOS on the SATA PCI card (accessible by pressing control-S or F4 during boot) only seems to give the ability to configure RAID sets, with no option to set operating mode (IDE/legacy/native etc).