azagahl

Is XPize MCE intended for regular Windows XP 32- and 64- bit? Or is it for Media Center Edition only? Thanks.

The october refresh is what MS recommends. Whoever said that is wrong. Installing only the DX 9.0c Oct 2005 won't give you the ability to run all release DirectX 9.0c apps. As with .NET Framework 2.0, installing the latest won't give you the ability to run apps dependent on earlier versions. I don't know why Microsoft has chosen to do this. If you want the ability to run all release DX 9.0c apps, you should install DX 9.0c Oct 2005 SDK redistributable followed by the all-in-one I mentioned, or do it the long way: install the DX9.0c Feb 2005, Apr 2005, Jun 2005, and Oct 2005 SDK redistributables. This will ensure that d3dx9_24.dll, d3dx9_25.dll, d3dx9_26.dll, and d3dx9_27.dll are installed in your c:\Windows\system32 or equivalent directory. http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...&displaylang=en http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...&displaylang=en http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...&displaylang=en http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...&displaylang=en

There are multiple versions of DX 9.0c. Try installing the "All in One" download from here http://www.toymaker.info/Games/html/d3dx_dlls.html on top of your existing DX9.0c installation and you will effectively have support for all versions. Please let us know if this fixes things.

You could use FileMon and RegMon to watch what a process is doing. I'm not sure how well these will work with the Sony's rootkit spyware installer.

Version 5.1 Standard Edition - will contain all of the above + NETFX11 + DX9 + MDAC27SP1 refresh (and all hotfixes for those of course) ... I hope you include both .NET 1.1 and .NET 2.0, note that .NET 2.0 is NOT backward compatible with .NET 1.1. Also, I hope you include d3dx9_24.dll, d3dx9_25.dll, d3dx9_26.dll, and d3dx9_27.dll. These 4 DLL's are installed by the five most recent bimonthly releases of the DX 9.0c SDK redistributable. Essentially, you need to run at least four of these DX redistributables to be able to get all 4 DLL's and be able to run all DX 9.0 apps. There may be other legal ways of distributing the 4 DLL's that allow you to package them more compactly. See here for more details on this issue: http://inky.50megs.com/blogs/2005/10/direc...l-revisited.htm http://www.toymaker.info/Games/html/d3dx_dlls.html

I just find it mildly amusing Amusing? To have to call up and ask for permission to use something you already own? To have to type 50 digits in like a monkey? Do you think people with hearing impairments find this task amusing?

Own partition - no. That glib answer is wrong, Zxian. Having a fixed swap file on its own partiton on a disk on an alternate IDE channel, when other partitions on that disk are seldom used, can certainly increase performance over having the OS and swapfile installed on a single hard disk. I recommend using a partition because it's the best way to control the filesystem overhead, size and location of the pagefile. FAT16 should be adequate as long filenames and NTFS overhead isn't required. FAT16 with 4 KB or larger clusters is best. The pagefile should ideally be located at the beginning (perimeter) of the disk.

> I think they're not upgrades (OLDDOS.EXE contains only some old DOS programs like QBASIC). If can find links, please let me know. MDGx lists SUP622.EXE, MSBACK.EXE, and OLDDOS.EXE: &&* Microsoft MS-DOS 6.22 Supplemental Disk includes MS DOSShell (DOSSHELL.EXE) files: http://support.microsoft.com/ support/ kb/ articles/ q117/ 6/00.asp Direct download [762 KB, free]: ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/ softlib/ mslfiles/ SUP622.EXE MS-DOS 6.22 required. To use ONLY MS DOSShell, MS-DOS 5.00 - 6.22 or MS Windows 9x [MS-DOS 7.xx] required. See "MS DOSSHELL Tips" in DOSTIPS.TXT (included in "W95-11D.ZIP") for details. &&* Microsoft Old MS-DOS 6.xx Backup Tool (MSBACKUP.EXE), also included with MS-DOS 6.00 - 6.22 [558 KB, free]: ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/ softlib/ mslfiles/ MSBACK.EXE MS-DOS 6.00 - 6.22 or MS Windows 9x [MS-DOS 7.xx] required. &&* Microsoft Old MS-DOS 6.22 Utilities for Windows 95/98 users (includes UNDELETE.EXE) [836 KB, free]: ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/ softlib/ mslfiles/ OLDDOS.EXE MS-DOS 6.22 or MS Windows 9x [MS-DOS 7.xx] required. >>Mandatory deletion of nasty PDR file that causes hard disk destruction. >Could you please explain that? I mean, it would be nice if your SP deleted the defective ESDI506.PDR which is known to destroy data on hard disks larger than 128 GiB. I don't need an optimized hard disk controller driver if its main effect is to destroy my data faster than anything else. Also, many ppl install Intel Application Accelerator or VIA Hyperion drivers which provide the optimization without the enormous risk of having this file.

For compressing, use 7-zip. LZMA is the best compressed format in general. For decompressing... 1st place - WinRAR. Because its the only one with a working "Freshen files" option. 2nd place - TUGZip (it's free) 3rd place - IZarc (it's also free)

>But it doesn't contain any exciting features. Do you have any idea? -Add some official DOS 7 upgrades from MS. I think they are called DOSSUP.exe, OLDDOS.exe, and MSBACKUP.EXE. I can get more info if you are interested. -These add a lot of bloat and might be hard to distribute. But they'd be cool: DX9.0c IE 6 SP 1, with hacked BROWSEUI.DLL and BROWSELC.DLL MDAC updates .NET Framework 1.1 SP1 .NET Framework 2.0 WMP10 -Also could 7z compression (e.g. using NSIS installer) decrease service pack size? -Mandatory deletion of nasty PDR file that causes hard disk destruction.

Key word - may. I've been running XPize on my computer without any problems whatsoever Sorry, I had a lot of explorer.exe crashes with it. I didn't realize there were ppl who could use it without problems.

XPize causes known crashes in Windows Explorer (explrorer.exe) among other software. See the "Support" section of the webpage. Why would anyone want to install something like this??

Where can someone obtain the ME cab files Ideally, from a Windows ME disc.

I've been noticing these compatibility problems after a full install of .NET framework 2.0 redistributable. (I'm not nliting a hotfix.) The programs complain .NET isn't installed; then I Install .NET 1.1 and the programs work fine. FYI, it may be that the actual applications might run fine with .NET 2.0, but the installers are checking for .NET 1.1 and aborting when it's not found. Either way, you still need .NET 1.1 to use install and use such programs successfully. I suspect there are similar compatibility problems with MSXML 2.4/2.5 and all the MDAC and JET versions (I forget the version numbers). Also the last several bimonthly releases of DirectX 9.0c SDK cause games using D3DX to depend on a DLL's whose name keeps changing; most people with DX 9.0c do not have all of these DLL's. (I have a d3dx9_24.dll and d3dx9_27.dll but nothing in between, for example.) Games will either have to install the DLL's at installation time, or the games will fail due to absence of the needed DLL. It would be nice to have all of these DLL's and not have games install the DX9.0c redistributable over and over. I wish Microsoft made these issues more clear. Installing just .NET 2.0 is NOT adequate. Also, I am not sure whether 1.1 is an adequate substitute for programs explicitly checking for 1.0. I also wish that update packages like AutoPatcher and the planned Win2K USP Extreme, etc.. paid more attention to these issues.

I thought 32-bit XP only supported 2 GB for userland apps, while it reserves 2 GB of address space for the kernel. There is also a mode where it gives you 3 GB for apps, but reserves only 1 GB for the kernel. I forget how to enable this mode exactly. Also, it sounds like it could slow your PC down potentially (e.g. arbitrary limit of 1 GB address space on swap file / disk cache when it could use up to all memory with 64-bit XP).

90% of the programs Ive' tried that are built for .NET Framework 1.1 do not work with .NET Framework 2.0. One example is Microsoft's own free Time Zone utility (TimeZone.msi). I think another is Microsoft's USB Flash Drive manager. There are countless others. So you still need to install 1.1... Anyone else notice this?

OK, I've stopped removing IDE hard drives from a running system as everyone suggests. FYI, my PSU didn't seem to mind - I could put drives back in and continue accessing them as if nothing happened. My PSU is 550 W so perhaps its powerful enough to not notice? Strangely, there was a loud pop noise yesterday from inside my PC and Windows bluescreened and powered down almost instantly. There was no hot spot / smoke / odor / flash of light, so I am not sure what happened. Fortunately, there haven't been any problems since. Also, the hard disks look OK after thoroughly scanning. Edit: hmm... the pop may have just been a loose PSU power output (4-pin connector) which touched the metal case; I've seen these spark before. I have a lot of loose 4-pin power outputs and fans in my case blowing and vibrating. I should probably tape them down

> Poor network and TCP stack. Actually, there are in fact cases where 9x networking is vastly superior to 2K and XP. For example, I always install a HOSTS file; my current HOSTS blocks 110,000+ malware, spyware, advertising, and porn sites. In 98 SE and Linux, this HOSTS file incurs no noticable burden; but on a fully patched 2K and XP, the unbelievably inefficient DNS service (hardly an optional service) consumes 100% CPU resources for over 10 minutes (on a 3+ GHz processor) to process this HOSTS file. The processing occurs invariably occurs at boot time (preventing log on for 10 minutes) as well as whenever the HOSTS file changes (interrrupting network access and consuming CPU resources) or when the DNS service is restarted. Also, in many core XP executables such as SVCHOST.EXE frequently and inexplicably "phone home". I believe that XP meets the definitions of spyware and malware (capable of self-destructing your PC). This certainly makes firewall configuration trickier. IMHO the incessant security center complaints and inherent vulnerability of having such a bloated OS make networking an unpleasant experience. A further advantage to 9x networking is that you can access the Internet and download files from text mode (real mode DOS 7.1), without loading the GUI, using a number of free software programs such as LSPPP and Arachne. I am not aware of anything similar in 2K or XP.

Just use nLite on XP Pro SP2 I don't recommend this. First of all, nLite only exists as release candidate form. Look at the nLite page and you will see all the bugs people are having trying to pull pieces out from under this bloated OS. Furthermore, with XP you are playing Russian Roulette because you are installing self-destruct mechanism (WPA) that could be triggered by Microsoft or viruses at any time in the future. XP means you are installing spyware that transmits your CD key over the Internet for hackers to intercept and steal, plus baggage such as Genuine Checks. Maybe you'll stoop to anything, but I refuse to phone Microsoft and type a 50-digit numbers in like a monkey just because I changed some hardware around. This is a difficult task for the hearing impaired and Microsoft should be sued for discriminating against disabled people.

My question is, why 98? Why not just move up to Windows 2000? Interesting question - one I've pondered before. Comparing 2K SP 4 w/ USP 5 SR 1 vs. 98 SE w/ USP 2.02... -2K isn't compatible with old DOS programs. This is the primary reason for sticking with 98 SE. FYI, most DOS emulation programs are unacceptably slow. -2K isn't as well supported by an enthusiast community -2K's NTFS format is complex, meaning worse data recovery options -2K has higher memory usage, though nLite can mitigate this -2K seems to have worse USB support -Stability is about the same - for example, alt-tabbing out of full screen games in 2K can easily screw things up. -I can't prove it, but I suspect 2K has worse security. 2K is a ticking time bomb with MS killing off SP5 and new security fixes drying out. 98 SE is a simpler OS to begin with and simply has fewer attack points for hackers to exploit. BTW, I don't understand why the previous poster goes on and on about XP. This thread is regarding 98 and 2K. Please don't pollute this thread.

I have some hard drive enclosures that let me pull IDE hard disks in and out easily while my PC is running. When is it safe to do this? XP doesn't seem to complain but it is a bit scary. Is there some kind of "stop using hard disk" choice like for USB drives?

Thanks, WinRAR works!

The pagefile is something that is usually does not experience continuous I/O, and the disk read/write head moves back and forth between it and other files quite often. But it's in its own partition (which it nearly fills, causing the low disk space warnings), and I rarely access any other partitions on the disk. So I rarely access other files on that disk. Quite simply, it's a "tweak" that's just wrong....If you have more than one hard drive - Place one pagefile on the first partition of each drive that is on a separate IDE channel. This is essentially the tweak I've applied. BTW, I have multiple IDE channels.

In theory.. it may be faster It's faster in my case. I rarely access any other partitions on the swap drive. No point in arguing when you know you are wrong.

Moving your swap file to a seperate partition does not give you any performance gain. You're wrong. I placed it at the beginning of one of my hard disks. Now Windows can use the page file as efficiently as possible, without interfering with other disks.