Nomen

I clicked on the speaker in the tray and brought up the audio control panel (or what-ever it is) and looked to see if there was another available audio device - and there didn't seem to be. But I think there's supposed to be a service in the bluetooth device properties for me to select, except the service list was empty.

I picked up a cheap bluetooth speaker recently (Memorex MW212 Bluetooth speaker) for $20. Details can be found here: http://support.memorex.com/category/121/0/10/Home-Audio/Models%3A-MW-xxxx/MW212/ My intention is to use it with a Windoze 7 netbook (which I still have to buy a bluetooth dongle for) but for now, just to test it, I thought I'd try a more accessible XP system. I have an AIRcable Host XR2 USB Bluetooth Dongle (a long-range bluetooth adapter about the size of a deck of cards). After connecting the dongle, Under Device Manager I have Generic Bluetooth radio and Microsoft Bluetooth Enumerator, and a Bluetooth icon in the tray, which (after pairing with the Memorex speaker) that it sees the MW212 - with passkey enabled. If I bring up the Memorex MW212 Properties: General tab: Type of device: Headset (audio device) Address: (bunch of hex values) Last connected: (a few minutes ago) Connection: Passkey enabled) ------------- Services tab: (flashlight is searching for a few seconds) This Bluetooth device offers the following services. To use a service, select the check box. ------------- Except there is nothing that appears in the window below the above instructions. What do I need, or what am I missing, to give XP the ability to actually use these speakers beyond simply being able to pair with them? Does XP have the same problem with bluetooth devices that Win-98 did with USB thumb drives before Maxim Decim USB thingy? Does XP (and every other version of windoze) require device-specific drivers for common classes of bluetooth devices (such as speakers) ? Or would win-7 have some special, magical ability to play audio through these speakers (but XP doesn't) ? Would any of this be a function of the bluetooth stack - and maybe fishing around for a different stack would enable XP to use these speakers?

Please explain how I am able to attach 1 and 2 TB SATA drives to my win-98 systems and have the entire drives functional under win-98 - without the rloew patch?One cannot. One can use up to 500 GB PATA HDDs (I believe no larger IDE drives were ever released) by using LLXX's patch. I'm not talking about PATA drives. Everything I can find on the subject indicates that SATA-3 drives are backwards compatible with SATA-1 controllers. Some SATA-2/3 drives might have jumpers to set them to SATA-1 speed, but by all accounts if they don't then they should work when connected to SATA-1 controllers. vfat.vxd does not exist (as a file) on my system. Do you actually run Windows 98 - on bare metal (not in a VM)? With large SATA hard drives with win-9x controller drivers? This is what chkdsk tells me for one of my SATA drives: =============== 1,464,780,864 kilobytes total disk space 685,154,336 kilobytes free 32,768 bytes in each allocation unit 45,774,402 total allocation units on disk 21,411,073 available allocation units on disk ================ So I don't know if you are still trying to say that under _no_ circumstance can Win-98 have full access to SATA drives between 137 gb to 2 TB without using Rloew's patch. I'm trying to tell you that I have exactly that. I do have full access to any such drive that I connect to any of my win-98 systems with SATA-1 controllers - just by using the appropriate win-9x driver (SI3112r.mpd + SIISUPP.VXD). If I am somehow wrong about this, if I should not be able to do this, then I invite Rloew to explain the situation.

The OP claimed to have used such a large drive in the past with that board. I've had plenty of Slot-1 boards with BX chipsets and AGP slots, and I've never encountered an 8 gb hard drive limit with those - but then again I've never used anything other than Large-mode bios drive setting. Please explain how I am able to attach 1 and 2 TB SATA drives to my win-98 systems and have the entire drives functional under win-98 - without the rloew patch?Please explain why you will not include the caveat that it is totally possible to use large sata hard drives exceeding 137 gb under win-98 if there are win-98 SATA controller drivers for the hardware in question. Since I have no direct experience with win-95 (since I stopped using it in 1999) I'm asking if the use of available win-95 32-bit SATA controller drivers will also allow 95 to exceed the 137 gb drive-size limitation the same way it does for win-98.

Have you tried the bios LARGE mode for the hard drive setting? rloew said: > Windows 95 is NOT limited to 32GB. I am running it with 2TiB with my Hard Disk Patch. Otherwise it is limited to 137GB. Is win-95 not similar to win-98 in that if you are using a sata controller with 32-bit 9x driver (and thus not using ESDI_506.pdr) then the 137 gb issue goes away?

You said that you set the drive to LBA in the bios. According to this EP-BX3 manual: http://www.elhvb.com/mobokive/archive/Epox/manuals/bx300010.pdf On page 4-25 it states that LBA mode works with drives up to 8.4 gb. It also gives an example of Large mode - which doesn't make sense - or I can't figure out how Large mode exceeds the size of LBA mode or what the upper end of Large mode is. I recommend that you connect the drive to some other, more recent motherboard (made after 2002) with IDE controller and boot that board with a DOS floppy with win-98 DOS-7 fdisk and format (and chkdsk) and partition and format the drive on that board. Check the resulting partitions with chkdsk.

I was searching the web for any info regarding Diamond Xtreme Sound 5.1 (XS51) PCI audio card and whether or not there are win-98 drivers for it. During that search I came across this web page: http://www.flaterco.com/kb/audio/PCI/ I did a google search for "flaterco.com" on site msfn.com and found only 2 hits - both of them pointing to this: http://www.flaterco.com/kb/W98.html (Installing Windows 98 SE on a P4 PC) So I figured that flaterco.com must not be well known as a win-98 resource, and particularly the audio/pci page, so I'm leaving it here in case anyone can use it.

So what are we looking at at this point? Boards based on AMD FM2+ and/or AM3+ ? Some (or many? most? all?) of those boards seem to have XP drivers.

> See if this topic helps any. It mentions IvyBridge boards where USB3 works fine. Dencorso wrote (in that thread): > The i7 4820K / X79 is the most recent Processor/Chipset combination reported > to be fully functional with XP x86, AFAIK. Yea - but does that include USB-3 ports? Tested to be working in USB-3 mode (not USB-2) ? In that other thread, esecallum says he installed XP on a board with Haswell chipset, and got a bunch of (!) in device manager - which was expected - including onboard audio (yet he claims his audio was working?) and also onboard video (yet he claims video was also working)? So it's still not clear to me that onboard USB-3 ports work properly in USB-3 mode on Ivy Point (or Haswell) chipsets. But if XP can run on Haswell - regardless of state of onboard USB3 or onboard video or audio - do all PCI / PCIe slots function fully under XP on Haswell board? What about Sata ports?

I thought it might be a good time to pick up some motherboards with XP drivers before they become unavailable. Something beyond socket 775, such as LGA 1150 or 1155 (or 1156?). What I've found (and what I'm thinking most here already know) is that the candidates is going to be limited to LGA 1155 boards with either series 6 or series 7 chipsets (aka Cougar or Panther point aka Ivy Bridge). And why so many of these boards are micro-ATX form factor, I don't know. I would want regular ATX size. When it comes to USB-3, there doesn't seem to be any 6-series (Couger) chipsets that have it, despite reading reports that came out in Q1 2011 that Intel was going to have USB-3 in some Couger point (6-series) chips (did that ever happen?). So now the candidates for "the last, best" motherboard for XP seems to be 7-series (Panther point). But wait! I then come across questions as to whether or not there are USB-3 drivers for XP for 7-series chipsets. The answer seems to be - no! ? So now I ask: Are there any motherboards with on-board USB-3 controllers that have working XP drivers for all motherboard devices - including USB-3 ports? Even if the USB-3 controller is a third-party chip (ie a separate chip, not part of intel chipset)? Something else I learned is that except for some Xeon's, all Intel CPU's after socket 775 have integrated graphics controller (?!) Why did they do that? Doesn't that add additional cost (and heat) to the CPU that could be totally unnecessary if the CPU is used on a board with separate graphics card? Just how good is the performance of these integrated graphics processors compared to, say, a $50 or $100 PCIe video card? Final question: What is the current state of porting Windows 7 or Vista LGA115x chipset drivers to XP?

> a video card that cost $45.00 is going to be a low performance video card, > relative to other more expensive video cards.. At some point, what-ever card was the last high-end, expensive card that had XP drivers will become a cheap card. I believe that these Geforce 210 cards cost a few hundred dollars back when they came out. I have to assume that all video cards that have come out for at least the past 2 years can't be used under XP because of no drivers. If this is not the case - then let me know which Nvidia or ATI cards that are less than 2 years old have XP drivers. I had previous asked here if the Radeon R5 220 had XP drivers - and the answer was no. So I'm assuming that the last card made by ATI/AMD with XP drivers has been made - some time ago. What-ever that card was - I don't know. Maybe you know. Does the last card = the best card? I don't know. If it's true that the last video card with XP drivers, made by anyone, using any chipset, has already been made, then the universe of all possible cards that can run under XP is complete, and I want to know what was the "best" of all those cards in that universe. And again, I'm more focused on HD video playback and Cad/Cam desktop work. I don't know if being a good gaming video card equates to having good HD (mpeg, divx, blueray, mkv, etc) video playback capability.

There are some MSI and PNY GeForce 210 PCIe video cards I can buy locally for about $45. I believe these have 1 gb DDR3 ram and have DirectX-10 support. XP is listed as a compatible OS on one of the boxes, so I'm assuming that both have full XP driver support. Where would these cards rank in terms of performance when it comes to the best cards that have ever been made with full XP (32-bit) driver support? Performance in this context is CAD/CAM and/or HD video playback (no game playing).

Occasionally I see strange fonts or characters on web pages rendered by Opera 12.02. Like in this example. Is there a fix?

Is that file a screen-saver, featuring the "crow' character that might have been based on a comic-book (or movie featuring Brandon Lee, and later turned into a TV series )? I am finding "crow.exe" in many links that mirror /tucows/themes.tucows.com/filessavers/ or /tucows/themes/filessavers/. I have downloaded one of them from here: ftp://ftp.games.skynet.be/spool1/mirror1/tucows.skynet.be/themes/filessavers/crow.exe Ok, ignore that (unless you are looking for a Crow character screen saver). I think this is what you want: https://web.archive.org/web/20060509060520/http://download.microsoft.com/download/encarta2000ref/enc2k/1.0/WIN98/EN-US/crow.exe MS has made the original link non-functional. See also: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/microsoft.public.encarta/jCVxFEutuT0

This is a PCIe video card. Radeon R5 220, 1 gb DDR3. Are there XP drivers available for this card?

I just downloaded Windows2000-KB973507-x86-ENU.EXE from Microsoft. It contains ATL.DLL with this file information: Version: 3.00.9794 Description: ATL Module for Windows (ANSI) Product Version: 6.00.9794 File Size: 90,164 bytes Date: Aug 5 / 2009 Is this the same file that is mentioned in the changelog for Unofficial Win98 FE SP version 2.58 as 3.0.3794.0 (KB973507 for Win2k - it's an ANSI version) ?

The file ATL.DLL (3.0.3794.0 - KB973507 for Win2k - it's an ANSI version) was mentioned in the changelog section of post #1 of this thread. I am currently using version 3.00.8449 (73,785 bytes, Aug 29/2002) on my win98se system. Interestingly, I have another ATL.DLL also claiming to be 3.00.8449 (58,938 bytes, Feb 5 / 2002) that seems to be on the distribution CD of Norton System Works 2002. I also have another version (3.00.9782, 90,169 bytes, Feb 16 / 2004) - not sure where I got it. How do any of these files compare with ATL.DLL version 3.0.3794.0 contained within Unofficial Win98 FE SP version 2.58?

This is where I'm finding it:https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc301756.aspx

I don't know if the info displayed by Norton System Information is what is being sought here, but this is what I see. Under Memory General Information tells me I have 81% free 16-bit User and 93% free 16-bit GDI: If I expand 16-bit system applications, I have only 2 of those (mmtask and msgsrv32). If I fully expand msgsrv32, this is what I get: If I expand the 16-bit libraries, there are many entries. If I expand the first one (avicap) I get this: If I expand 16-bit applications, I have 3 items. If I fully expand the first one, I get: If I expand 16-bit system libraries, there are about 2-dozen of them. If I expand the first one (comm) I get this: I assume that it's the 16-bit items that cause GDI resource issues for win-98. ?

Jumper wrote: > archive.org redirects to https archive.org and is working (at present) for me on FF2. > archive.org/details/AllAmeri1936 redirects to https archive.org/details/AllAmeri1936 and the looks fine with FF2. > details.archive.org/AllAmeri1936 redirects to http archive.org/AllAmeri1936 but page is blank except for "Page not found We’re sorry, the page you have requested is not available." which is what you are getting. > Twitter is the same. twitter.com redirects to https twitter.com and works for FF2. > details.archive.org/movies is interesting. that one redirects to https archive.org/details/movies but at this point with FF2 all I'm getting is "page reset by peer" errors with any of these various archive.org URL's. I try clearing FF2/network/cache, I try changing my IP, I try changing the user-agent. Still get peer reset error. I close FF2 and restart it, and all archive.org URL's are working again, including https archive.org/details/movies. > In summary, not working in FF2 for me! Try clearing the cache (tools-options-network).

archive.org is working today for both netscape 9 and ff 2. I swear it wasn't working yesterday (as described in my first post). However, I believe I've found a website that is exhibiting the same problem: http://webserve.com/ In netscape and FF I get: Your browser is not accepting header redirects. Please click here (http://www.webserve.com/) It would seem that has nothing to do with ssl, but if you google that message you get stuff like this: Problem with SSL redirects: http://www.silverstripe.org/community/forums/customising-the-cms/show/8835 Looking at what wget does with webserve.com, I can't see any indication that a redirection is intended.

archive.org (or www.archive.org) seems to perform an immediate redirection to "https://:/". Opera 12.02 also does a redirect to "https://www.archive.org/"but the page comes back as "302 Found / nginx/1.4.6 (Ubuntu)"

You probably should have posted your experience with HP 6000 Pro SFF in the win-98 motherboard thread. If all your drives are SATA, and you have working Sata 32-bit driver for win-98, then why do you need to mess with IDE / ESDI_506.pdr? You don't even need to have that file on your system if all your drives are sata and are operating in native sata mode with working win-98 driver. Your HP 6000 has Intel Q43 Express chipset. It appears to have integrated GMA X4500 graphics. Does your HP have on-board graphics, and are there win-98 drivers for it? Can you explain what your driver files are for USB and SATA for win-98? Are you sure you are operating in 32-bit mode for hard-drive access, or is it DOS compatibility mode? You will not find HD-audio driver files for win-98. No motherboard with on-board HD-audio (regardless what chipset it has) has ever seen working win-98 drivers for HD audio component.

Norton Utilities System Information (the one I have is SI32.EXE version 15.03.0.36 from Norton System Works 2002) will show some information about GDI resources currently in use.

The security / anti-virus software company Kaspersky has made some presentations receitly at security conferences regarding an organized class of malware, the authorship for which they are calling "The Equation Group". It is almost a given that this group is the NSA. I believe that this document will suffice to give sufficient background: http://securelist.com/files/2015/02/Equation_group_questions_and_answers.pdf Kaspersky attempts to lay out a road map or history of development of various system-infection and communication tools dating back to 2001, and part of their explanation is that some of this was specifically developed to work under win-9x/me - specifically a software class that Kaspersky is calling "Equation Drug". From the above document: ---------- EquationDrug’s core modules, designed for hooking deep into the OS, do not contain a trusted digital signature and cannot be run directly on modern operating systems. The code checks whether the OS version predates Windows XP/2003. Some of the plugins were designed originally for use on Windows 95/98/ME. ----------- There is scant information as to just how operable these malware modules were against remote control of win-9x/me prior to 2003, and I think we can assume that if they were discovered back then that they might have been incorporated into Anti-virus definitions without knowing who the authors really were. What is more uncomfortable to know is that this document describes the existance of hard-drive firmware-based malware storage, and there seems to be no AV product in existance that can check for this. Also mentioned is malware storage in the registry itself. I've always been critical of AV/AM software's seeming lack of ability to scan the registry files contained on hard drives that are slaved to known good/working systems. I don't believe that it's possible to perform a competent scan on drive that a windows system has booted from (especially if the windows is some version of NT). For maybe only a few years now, I've sort of resigned myself to the fact that at some point before the year 2020 I'm going to rebuild my various home computers with XP (even if it's XP running under FAT32 - because I simply don't trust NTFS). It's articles and discoveries like this one from Kaspersky that makes me stop and wonder if running XP will ever or could ever be as secure and care-free as it has been these many years with win-98.