Nomen

If you want to continue to experiment with different browsers for Win-98, you might want to try Netscape Navigator 9.0.0.6. I use that browser on websites that my default browser (Firefox 2.0.0.20) gives me problems. I don't use higher versions of Firefox because they cause thin white lines (1 pixel lines) to be drawn across bitmapped images when scrolling web pages up and down and other strange behavior with toolbar icons.

Is this the same reason why flash content on web pages show up as a big box with a > play symbol in the middle of the box and instead of playing or rendering automatically when the webpage is loaded you have to click on the > play symbol? (this is for opera 12.02). Speaking of opera (12.02), is it normal to not have browser control buttons like the back or forward button?

I can confirm that it works. I downloaded this file: http://download.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/licensing/win/install_flash_player_11_active_x.msi and set the Kex properties of the msi file to win-2k. Then ran the installer, which failed - but it put Flash32_11_8_800_175.ocx in my windows\system\macromedia\flash folder. I set the Kex properties of that file to Win-2k and then used regsvr32 from a command-line in that folder to register it. I tested it here using IE6 - http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/find-version-flash-player.html and the animation works, and it says I have flash version 11.8.800.175. I've also played some youtube videos and some online forex charts with controls that use flash, and they seem to work fine.

This 2003 thread discusses the "Mr. Enigma" key which apparently is not found on win-9x/me but is found on (Some? Many? Most?) win-XP systems. Someone claims to have found a reference to Mr.Enigma in HIVESFT.INF in the I386 folder of the XP install CD. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r6097142-Weird-entry-in-registry A letter from Microsoft seems to confirm that the MR.Enigma key is involved with the DVD drive somehow. ========= The key has to do with the built in DVD licensing scheme of Windows XP. Hope this addresses your concerns. Sincerely ... (in a follow-up, he continues:) Regarding the detailed information of this key, what I know is that it's uses are to protect DVD data that is fairly sophomoric at this point. I have searched both in our internal database and on the Internet. I'm afraid that there is no more detailed information so far. However, as far as I know, this issue has been reported to our proper department. It has been bugged and the key does not exist in Windows .Net Server. Should you have any concerns, please feel free to drop me a note. Vincent Jiang Microsoft Online Partner Support ========= That thread has a few comments about MRANENIA, but nothing useful. The keys Mr.Enigma and MRANENIA should appear one-after-the-other in the registry, but it seems they rarely do. Seems the transition point is between ME and XP. But it is interesting that both seem to have something to do with optical drives.

In my case, XXXX is I110. Under that key, I have a single binary value, the name of which is "1 ", which is 4 bytes in length, which are (in hex) 80, 00, 80, 80.

I have the DigitalProductID value at that location. It is a binary value, A3h bytes in length. Starting at byte 24h I have this string: "730-00847". Plugging that string into google turns up many hits to Windows 98 CD's being sold by various vendors - I am not sure how that number relates to win-98 - Microsoft product ID? Stock Number? Starting at byte 8 I have this string: "07604-oem-0002302-49210" - that also happens to be the string contained in the value "ProductId". I have renamed the key in my registry to "backupMRANENIA" - I expect that is equivalent to deleting it. We'll see what happens.PS: Under HKEY_Classes_root\CLSID\ I have key (guid?) with a value called "Windows Genuine Advantage Validation Tool" and under that a value called "AppID" with a value that looks like a guid. If I search for that guid I find a reg sting with a value "LegitCheckControl". I recall having to run a WGA program some time ago in order to download something from MS. Edit: With the MRANENIA registry key renamed to "backupMRANENIA" and rebooting, the system starts just fine, and I seem to be able to access a data CD from my DVD/RW drive with no problems. Checking the registry, the system did not restore the MRANENIA key after rebooting - and the renamed key remains intact. I'm able to run FF2 and post this edit.

I also have it on my win-98 system. Have a look at these:http://discussions.virtualdr.com/showthread.php?39343-Weird-registry-key http://www.freedomlist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4121 Using the built-in file-find looking for "MRANENIA" it shows up in system.dat and bbdbcade (no idea what that file is, but it's 15 mb). Manually loading IOS.vxd and CDVSD.vxd in wordpad also shows they contain "MRANENIA". Many or most questions about mranenia seem to pertain to win-98/ME and date to 2001-2004. There does not seem to be anything resembling a valid, coherent or authoritative answer to its function or reason for being in the registry. On my system, that key is a 128-byte binary value, most of which are zero. The first 5 values on my system are 20,03,41,43 and 47 (in hex). The last 83 bytes are zero.

Just to add one more thing - I've dropped the 11.8 version DLL into \Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\plugins (calling the file NPSWF32.dll and then renaming to NPSWF32_11_8_800_94.dll) and FF just seems to ignore it, and instead is using the DLL located in \macromed\flash directory.

I obtained the file NPSWF32.zip as described in that link, and placed the file npswf32.dll in my program_files\opera\program\plugins folder. Prior to doing that, the only files in that folder was readme.txt and npqtplugin.dll.I then ran opera (12.02) and went to the flash version page: http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/find-version-flash-player.html What I saw next is typical (for me) when viewing flash content using Opera -> it displays a big play ">" button where the flash content should be on any page I visit. Clicking that button starts the flash player and the content / object is rendered. In this case, the movie plays just fine. Further down on that page, I click the other play button and the flash version is displayed (11.8.800.94). So Opera has no problems with this version of flash and just dropping the DLL into it's plugins folder. I did a binary compare of this flash DLL and it matches the file that I've been trying to drop into the /macromed/flash folder. The only thing I haven't done (yet) is drop this DLL into the firefox plugin folder...

My directx version is 9.0c (4.09.000.0904). There is no [DINPUT8.dll] section in my kstub822.ini file. I did not run the msi file. I downloaded this file: Flash_Portable_11.8.800.94_32-64_Plugin.exe and unpacked it manually, where I found NPSWF32.dll (version 11.8.800.94). I did not look at the link (yet) that you posted. But as I said - I had flash 11.6 and simply dropped the 11.8 version DLL into the windows/system/macromed/flash directory, renaming the old file to avoid conflict. What is gained (or - what is different) when the msi file is run? I apparently have npswf32.dll version 11.3.300.265 in program_files\mozilla_firefox\plugins. Is it important/necessary to coordinate the flash DLL's between that location and system/macromed/flash? I'm assuming that flash 11.8 will work with FF 2.0.0.20... So basically I need to know if running the msi file is absolutely required, and if so is any preparation required (like uninstalling old version and / or manually removing registry entries).

So I should add this to Kstub822.ini?[DINPUT8.dll] DirectInput8Create= Using ImportPatcher.37, I get this:========== [Parameters] Test by loading=Y Walk dependencies=N Link to copies=N Unbind broken bindings=N OS Subsystem Version Ceiling=4.10 [DLL replacements] [KERNEL32.dll] VerifyVersionInfoW= VerSetConditionMask= [Patches needed] npswf32_11_8_800_94.dll.new=Subsystem, Functions ============ And if it means anything, kstub822.log is full of these: = Kernel32.dll:GetUserGeoID=t1 = (mostly this one, many of them) = Kernel32.dll:InitializeSListHead=f1 = (about twp-dozen of these) = Secur32.dll:InitSecurityInterfaceW=z0 = (a handful of these) I have version 3.00.8449 of atl.dll in my windows\system folder, 73 kb, file-date Aug 29/2002.

Did you try this: http://aps2.toshiba-tro.de/bluetooth/?page=download ?Or maybe here: http://aps.toshiba-tro.de/bluetooth/?page=download-toshiba For example: http://support1.toshiba-tro.de/tools/bluetooth/20303-eng.zip?Submit=Download

I'm still not getting the new(est) versions of Flash to run. I've Added this to Kstub822.ini: [Gdi32.dll] GdiAlphaBlend=z11 I have tried with and without the "z11" part (rebooting between tries) and it makes no difference. When I visit this URL with Firefox 2.0.0.20: http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/find-version-flash-player.html With the flash DLL named as npswf32_11_8_800_94.dll I get a small box with light-blue background where animation movie should be, and larger box also with light-blue background further down where flash version should be printed. No error messages, but also no movie. With the flash DLL renamed as npswf32.dll, I get this error: "The plug-in performed an illegal operation. You are strongly advised to restart firefox." The test URL does not run the movie or display the flash version, and there are no light-blue boxes. Regardless how I have the DLL file named, nothing changes when I change the Kex compatibility mode between Default and Windows 2000/sp4. Reverting back to the previous flash dll (named as npswf32.dll, version 11.6.602.171) the movie plays fine, the flash version is displayed. With the older version (11.6) present as NPSWF32.dll, and the newer (11.8) version present as npswf32_11_8_800_94.dll in the MACROMED/FLASH directory, both set to win2k compatibility, I get the "illegal operation" error message. And if it matters - I have many ocurrances of different versions of GDIPLUS.DLL all over my C drive (but none in the Kex directory) and specifically I have version 5.1.3097.0 (xpclient.010817-1148) in my windows/system folder. I have 6 different versions of dbghelp.dll located in 6 different /program files/ folders. Does the new version(s) of flash require a matching or compatible flashplayer.xpt file to be present in the \Flash directory?

Does anyone have a more recent version of flash 11.6.602.171 running on their win-98/me system? I've been trying to swap npswf32.dll for a more recent version (11.7 or 11.8) with no luck. I've been reading that the file flashplayer.xpt might also be needed, but I can't find a download package containing that file (or at least an 11.7 or 11.8 package containing that file). I've renamed my existing .xpt file and my current flash version works just fine, so I don't know what role the xpt file plays. My current version of the DLL file is set to Win-2000 compatibility mode in Kex, if that matters.

Just throwing this out there: What is the version of PCI slots that your motherboard has, and is it fully compatible with your SATA card?

If you are in the USA, you can go to any CompUSA store and you should be able to buy this: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/PNY+-+2-Channel+SATA+II+RAID+PCI+Card/8552327.p?id=1188562133392&skuId=8552327#tab=specifications PNY - 2-Channel SATA II RAID PCI Card (Model: P-DSA150-PCI-RF) - Cost is $20. This card uses SII3112 controller. Driver file can be downloaded from here: http://www3.pny.com/support/media/Files%5C0ee7791f-c567-442b-8dd6-b99d459578b2/Sata%20Raid_v1.zip That file contains SATAraid drivers for Windows 98. Tigerdirect.com is showing this card for $15: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4662523&CatId=1455 That's a 4-port SATA pci card - it even lists win-98 compatibility.

You should be able to boot into DOS from a SATA drive with DOS installed on it when the drive is set to native/SATA or SATA/RAID mode in the bios. I usually start a fresh win-98 install by connecting a new SATA drive to a new system, setting the BIOS to native/SATA mode, and boot DOS from a floppy and then run fdisk and format on the C drive and run SYS to transfer DOS and make it bootable. I will then check and make sure I can boot into DOS from the SATA drive. I will then remove the drive from the new system and slave it to another system where I will copy a win-98 install CD to the new drive, then take the new drive and re-install it back to the new system and then boot the system into DOS, where I will then launch the win-98 install from the drive. Unlike an NT-based OS, Win-98 will use bios/compatibility mode to access the drive during installation and beyond until the SATA driver is installed. The 648FX7MF-S board has SiS 648FX+964 chipset. I have searched the web for a win-98 SATA driver and I don't think there is one. I've downloaded these files: motherboard_driver_sis_964sata.exe motherboard_driver_raid_sis_964.exe SIS SATA Raid user manual.doc motherboard_driver_raid_sis964.exe motherboard_driver_raid_sis_964_xp64.exe SiS_RAID301.zip Unless I'm mistaken, I don't see anything in those files that could be a win-98 SATA driver for the 964 chipset. In doing this search, I keep coming across references to this: (Gigabyte SiS 964 SATA Beta Driver v 3.04C) - which claims to be for various versions of windows (including 98) but when I download it, the only win-98 component seems to be an IDE raid driver. I've also poked around here:ftp://ftp.albacomp.hu/DOWNLOAD/DRIVERS/ALAPLAPOK/Foxconn/ Specifically here:ftp://ftp.albacomp.hu/DOWNLOAD/DRIVERS/ALAPLAPOK/Foxconn/SIS661M04-MX-6L/ChipDrv/SISRaid And also here:http://217.6.37.131/treiber/PC/Archiv_Mainboard/Gigabyte_GA-8S661FXM-775/ But again I didn't see anything that could be a win-98 SATA driver. The OP is advised to disable the SATA interface on that board (if possible) through the BIOS setup and obtain an SiL3112 dual-port SATA PCI card and use that to connect to his SATA drives.

Now if only there was malware circulating on the internet that actually runs on win-98 without crashing - there would actually be something you need protection from!

I'm having a bit of trouble following this thread. Is the OP trying to get SATA drives working in native sata mode on a 848P Neo2-V motherboard running win-98? If so - I don't see what the problem is, or why he would need custom drivers. The board has Intel 848P/ICH5 Chipset and MSI is listing drivers available for win-98.

Can someone tell me if this "lanman" thing is the root issue here? http://www.troubleshooters.com/linux/win9x_samba.htm ---------- Samba version 3.2.0 turned off lanman support by default, both on the client (client lanman auth=) and the server (lanman auth=). 3.2.0 also turned off the default for client plaintext auth=. Before 3.2.0 all three were turned on by default. Windows 9x can only work with lanman support, so unless a corresponding modification of smb.conf is done before the first login, there will be Win9x access failures. ---------- This (and other stuff I find on the web) talks about win-98 and SMB in the context of a client - not a server. I'd like to find something that talks about SMB/Samba in the context of win-98 being the server, and android being the client. And android is just another form of linux - yes?

I have enabled a directory to be shared on my win-98 system with full-access and no password. I have a Polaroid tablet running android 4.0.4 and I have absolutely no problems using ES file browser to locate the win-98 machine and browse the directory structure of the shared folder. Image files (like album cover-art jpg files) are rendered perfectly. I can copy, cut and paste files between the two devices. But I can't play/stream any content from the win-98 shared folder!!! I've installed about 1/2 dozen different audio players on the tablet, and from ES file-explorer when I click on any given file on the share, I am prompted to choose a player, and when I do, the player seems to try to play the file (and I can hear a brief burst of hard-drive activity on the win-98 machine) but the operation fails - either by telling me that it's trying to connect to "127.0.0.1" or that the file-type is somehow incompatible. I've been able to stream media files from an XP machine to the tablet, so I know this _can_ work. Any idea why it doesn't work on win-98? Is there a difference in the SMB that win-98 implements vs XP? Edit: I believe (and I need to check this) that ES File Explorer can't or doesn't discover the win-98 machine on it's own during a search - I have to enter the IP address of the win-98 PC and then it persistently shows up in ES-fe from that point onwards as an IP address (not as machine-name or host-name, etc). I don't know how to remove it from ES-fe and see if I can replicate this.

Any or all PCI sata cards will come with SATA/Raid drivers for win-9x/me. The card will most likely be based on SiL3112 and be a 2-port card. You install the SATA drivers for Win-98 and connect SATA drives and use them as native/Sata mode (not IDE or legacy mode). Any store selling computer parts will have these PCI-sata cards for sale, should cost under $20 USD or equivalent. Buy the 2-port SATA card - the 4-port cards might not work properly (no DMA). You will not need any special or third-party software to get this to work. I currently have a 750 gb and 1.5 tb drive connected to my win-98 system - they are each formatted as single partition. My 750 gb drive has run out of space many times, and I have transfered stuff over the the 1.5 tb drive to compensate. I have been downloading many 500 mb and 1gb files lately...

I am not insisting that RLoew's "Yes/No" answers are wrong.I'm trying to get more detailed answers than Yes/No, otherwise I can't put forward an argument (in another forum) to counter those claims. Not looking for pages and pages of explanations - a few sentences would do it. It looks like I won't get those answer here.

Most of these questions and issues seems to hint at win-9x/me being little different than win-3.x in terms of what role DOS plays in the structural configuration, operation or functionality once windows has booted and is up and running. I'd like to explore the following points and get answers as to: - DOS, as it exists during the boot process in system RAM, is not cleared away during the transition of the CPU from real to protected mode. What significance this has to the dependency of Win-9x/me on DOS is not clear. - As has been mentioned before, some say that the 9x/me kernel is nothing more than a DPMI-based DOS extender with a preeptive task scheduler. From a technical POV, why is this not true? What would be the basis of claiming that: - for a large percentage (> 50%) of CPU time, the CPU is running in real-mode, and that this applies (equally?) to win-3.x/9x/me. Under 9x/me, can/does the CPU really switch between protected and real mode? Why would it need to do that? - Some say that Win 3.1/3.11/9x/me offered direct 32-bit access for a limited subset of I/O operations (filesystem/swapping), but practically ALL of the other I/O operations were still happening via DOS-style real mode access and legacy bios calls. There was no protected mode abstraction layer for the underlying hardware, and the virtual device drivers were all hooks into the underlying DOS and it's interface with the system BIOS. I find this hard to believe, especially in conjunction with device I/O such as video, network, audio, USB, etc. If the above is not true when it comes to 9x/me, then how would you explain 9x/me relationship with (or use of) 32-bit I/O operations vs 16-bit operations (and relying on DOS for those operations)?

Would it be correct (or incorrect) to say that the win-9x/me kernel is a DPMI-based DOS extender - with the addition of a pre-emptive task scheduler? Is it true (or false) that most device I/O that happens in 9x/me does so using real-mode via the "underlying" DOS? Is it true (or false) that 60% (or some similar large percentage) of all code execution in 9x/me is done in real mode? Does KernelEx make use of ring-3 in order to emulate or allow NT-based code to run (if so, is the use of ring-3 necessary for KernelEx to do it's job?)