cov3rt

i was wondering if anyone else has had the same / similar issues in trying to get vlc player to work on windows 95? for some reason, with some systems, i can't get vlc player to work on windows 95. it will install but then it won't be able to launch and will complain immediately that "this program has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down". the specific version of vlc i used on most systems was 0.8.6d, and usually would have worked and launched on "most" systems, albeit, i haven't tested too many recently, however, i also tried using slightly older versions at a time back then, and most wouldn't work, until eventually i found one that did work, but somewhat poorly still and faulty / buggy. i don't remember the exact issues. unfortunately i can't upload a picture of the full error, but the error consisted of an invalid instruction in module libvlc.dll. as backup, i added TCPMP mod into my archive to be used as an alternative to vlc player .8.6d, and it worked fine with a sample mp4 player, however, my intention is for vlc to be used as the main player, as it's possible it has better supported formats and / or added file association component that TCPMP mod doesn't have right away, where you have to do this linking thing that may not be as straightforward to some. i'm frustrated with this issue because i feel like it could be an easy fix and / or the issue is unreasonable. i still have windows 95 installed currently but i will be installing 98SE very shortly, so if someone can chime in and offer some quick assistance on why i have the vlc issue and possible solutions, that would be nice. i would hate to remove vlc entirely or use a version that is a lot older if i don't need to, as my intention of using specifically .8.6d was that it the right balance between broad range of support with hardware, as well as formats and performance level.

i was wondering if anyone has experience with using / working with rloew's ram or related patches for windows 95 and 98SE specifically. i was able to test his patchmem.exe patch, and i was able to boot windows 95 with 2 GB of ram, with usb tested working and a sample mp4 file with tcpmp mod. however, i noticed that there are other variables that could affect the operation of the system in relation to ram installed. but before going to that, for patchmem, i copied patchmem.exe and also split8mb.exe to the c:\windows folder, ran patchmem.exe. i also set minfilecache=86000, as well as maxfilecache=86000 before shutting off, installing more ram and rebooting. i use 86000 because it is at least 1/24 of 2048 MB of ram. the patch manual notes, doesn't say you have to remove the maxphyspage entry for windows 95, it only mentions for 98SE to remove it and only after installing unofficial service pack. i didn't have a maxphyspage setting from before the testing, so things worked out anyways. though for the 98SE section, it also mentions to remove maxfilecache, i'll have to see how i configure 98SE as i'll be testing in that OS in a bit. now the problem is, for the split8mb thing, i wanted to test this, but i wasn't sure if i configured it properly. it says add SPLIT8MB in your autoexec.bat, so that's exactly what i did, i added only the name of the file ( using sysedit ), saved settings, but then when trying to reboot, it caused the insufficient memory problem and would not boot into windows. after going into safe mode and removing the SPLIT8MB entry, it was able to reboot again with 2048 MB of ram installed. so my question is, did i configure the split8mb thing properly or did i do it wrong? and / or what could be the issue? it seems to me in one sense, that maybe this is only needed if the system doesn't boot initially with the increased ram, so it's only meant for very specific cases? also, i remember reading another patch being similar to patchmem, i think it was the nvidia 512 MB video card patch, which also corrected the large registry size issue, but it's unclear whether if this is a seperate update that ALSO needs to be installed along with the split8mb thing and / or if one or the other should be installed? i'm just trying to make this as straightforward as possible, so i can write in my docs on what to do, what to install, when to install it / how to install. i understand there are lots of other untested patches, but i'm just trying to focus on just the ram and nvidia related stuff, as those imo, are more important. i'm happy though that i was able to get at least PATCHMEM.exe to work by allowing up to 2 GB of ram on windows 95, even though rigorous testing or other systems were not tested with it.

like i said, it's an untested / unclear modification, but if you wan't to give it a shot yourself, i have uploaded the file below, you'll have to take care of the rest of the steps. USB.IN_

i was wondering if anyone has any information / tested the MULTCORE sdk to allow dual core usage in 98/SE/ME provided by rloew, i only was able to locate the demo version but not the full package. the readme does not mention windows 95, so i assume it's not supported unless someone has tested it?

i wasn't able to find specific information on the dell inspiron 15r-5537, i'm thinking it's a 3rd generation intel? if so, and you're novice to the specific windows 2000 workarounds, then it may be anywhere from very difficult to somewhat straightforward in getting things to work. you'll have to browse the forum and do some extensive research, however, to cut it a little short for you, the things you generally would need are sata drivers slipstreamed with nlite, usb 3.0 drivers also possibly slipstreamed ( depending on bios or whether usb 2.0 ports can be used from early ), and possibly slipstreamed blackwingcat's extended core package / files ( this may be difficult to do, and i won't be able to guide you on this directly, and it can make it more difficult to configure the system due to having to install certain things in a very specific order / way ). there also appears to be a usb related issue that causes windows 2000 SP4 to not install / setup usb properly on certain newer systems, it's said to effect 2nd generation intel and newer, although appears to also effect some chipset(s) before 2010? i had made my own iso package that MIGHT fix the usb issue which is from a modified "USB.IN_" file, the modification was suggested by another member of this forum but it seems that it's untested so far, the slipstreamed package also contains intel and amd drivers up to most of the newer modern sata controllers, etc. the intel / amd drivers are blackwingcat's unofficial sata ahci / raid drivers.

is that a modified driver? reason why i ask is because in the custom readme, it that states that the ar52119.sys may get copied to windows/system32, possibly causing issues, but if copied / moved to windows/system, it would then work fine. maybe that could have explained why i couldn't get 4.1.2.71 working a while back if the reason was due what you mentioned, also, i have previously downloaded the same package, all is the same, except that the file names are in caps and no readme.

i was wondering if anyone has experience with using the ar5001x mini pci wireless adapter working on windows 98 / 98SE? the base hardware id is "PCI\VEN_168C&DEV_0013", although, the specific id with the card i tested a while back was "VEN_168C&DEV_0013&SUBSYS_04041468&REV_01". the rev part doesn't seem to matter much, but subsys part may. i remember getting driver version 3.30.0.150 working, but it only supported up to WEP, not WPA ( i tried WPA-AES specifically ) but it didn't work. i don't think i tested with odyssey client 4.56 back then, i think i only used wsc guard 4.0, however, i would assume it wouldn't be any different with the other application, since the driver is the limitation? there is also a 3.30.0.156 version, but i couldn't find a package with the AR52119.SYS, and looking at the user who was testing on a different OS, they said it only supported WEP. the only other versions i found just now ( unsure if i tested them before a while back ), but there is 2.4.2.33 which mentions that it added support for WPA for Windows 98SE, Me, 2000 and XP, however, it might only be the WPC55AG cardbus wireless adapter? another version is 4.1.2.71, which has more broad support, but i'm unable to find any reference to whether it supports WPA and / or whether driver itself would work. also in 4.2.2.33, it has 9x related sections, but i was not able to find a download package for it. here is some notes on driver version 2.4.2.33 below: Linksys, A Division of Cisco Systems, Inc. Product: WPC55AG Classification: Driver Release History Driver Date: 12/3/2003 Release Date: 1/30/2004 Last Driver Version: 2.4.2.33 __________________________________________________________________________ Driver Version 2.4.2.33 - Added WPA Support for Windows 98SE, Me, 2000 and XP - Updated Wireless Network Monitor to version 1.2 w/support for WPA - Wi-Fi Certified for 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g and WPA - Support for WPC55AG v1.1 and v1.0 Driver Version 2.3.2.4 - Cisco Compatible Extensions - Added mulitple SSID support - Added LEAP authentication support - Added multiple WEP key support - WHQL: Me, 2000, XP - Wi-Fi(TM) certified for 802.11b and 802.11a Driver Version 2.3.0.63 -Initial Release

which driver version did you use for your mobility radeon 7500? also do you know the full hardware id or partial? for "PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4C57&SUBSYS_B730156D", you can use driver version 4.13.9009. i don't remember the full hardware id of the gpu i used, but i did get the mobility radeon 7500 working on windows 95 using version 4.13.9009. it might be also possible to get the mobility radeon m6 gpu working ( PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4C59 ) if you were to install it with the 4.13.9009 driver that's for the mobility radeon 7500. reason why is because for some reason, on 98SE, the hardware id identifies as PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4C57, but on windows 95, it's PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4C59.

people will mention using HFSLIP + USP 5.1 + blackwingcat's sata drivers, however, i'm not of a fan of the unofficial SP 5.1 ( it's known to have bugs ) whether slipstreamed into nlite or not, and the HFSLIP thing, i don't know much on it. blackwingcat's sata drivers is the most straightforward, as it simply adds the option of installing on newer systems with sata controllers only and / or no IDE mode, however, this method might only work up till 1st gen intel, at least, 2nd and 3rd gen intel systems have a usb related issue that needs tinkering with usb related files to allow detection and proper installation in setup and thereafter ( i have modified the usb.in_ file as mentioned by someone else as a possible solution, but yet to test ). i'm not sure on amd builds, i was not able to get a 2011 amd a4-3300m system to get past the "Setup is starting windows 2000" part, unless i choose f5 standard pc option, but i didn't wan't to install with acpi disabled, besides the laptop not being mine. you also have the extended core option to slipstream, however, i haven't gotten a full answer of how to properly implement it. one way would be to slipstream the original executable package, another way apparently involves replacing all of the relevant .SY_ files / and .sys files, etc, from driver.cab / sp4.cab with what the extended core contains. this can be done with cabmaker 1.4. the issue is, it's unclear whether there is a "Best" combination of files and package that would work well for newer systems, ("forward compatible") and older systems, ( "backwards compatible" ). the usb fix probably shouldn't hurt, but it's speculative so far on whether it will actually provide the intended solution. the system i have to test unfortunately isn't intel 2nd / 3rd gen, it's only ich9m i think, so i won't able to confirm the solution, and i may or may not be implementing the other extended core related fixes, i'll have to see if i can get more information on what to do. i would say to work your way up, keep a backup folder of certain files or things yet tested and first go with what's absolutely needed at first which would most likely just be only the blackwingcat's sata drivers. use that first, if setup has issues, try working with bios settings, perhaps disable ps/2 port / floppy disk controllers, etc. if none of those work, and you still get hanging such as the "Setup is starting windows 2000", then either you'll need to figure out a way to modify the 2K installation files, slipstream extended core, and / or use the usb fix, and sometimes, the updated acpi fixes from extended core and other things may not be enough, and that's just a limitation of the motherboard / system, though f5 standard pc is still an option, but limited to single core / no acpi.

are you sure wbem 1.50.1164.0 works properly on windows 95 and 98SE? i mean for windows 95, i was just checking right now, and for 3 of the hotfix packages, "q289514", "q285895", and "q260710", they identify as 1.50.1085.59 in file versions, as if they are meant specifically for 1.50.1085.5x versions or older, but not for 1.50.1164.0? i do not have these specific hotfixes in 98SE, at least as separate updates, maybe they aren't for 98SE or maybe unofficial service pack might have it or something similar? i was trying to skim through my windows 95 archive, i came across ole32.dll version 4.71.3328.0 found in "Dc95inst.exe", is that version ok to be used with wbem 1.50.1164.0? i don't know if there are newer versions that get installed, but if there are, would there be any issues? reason why i ask, is because if i do implement this newer wbem version you suggested, i was thinking of implementing it right after install dc95inst. certainly, it would help if i had more information of the wbem package or file i need as to find out when i should install it. do you have a link of where i can get that the relevant wbem files. also i'm a bit confused on the instructions, for one, is wbem just the folder that contains a bunch of stuff or is wbem the actual executable file? also, i'm not sure if i can do the registering part or other parts, they seem a bit complex.

i was wondering if there would be any issues / conflicts if slipstreaming both update rollup 1 and extended core package for windows 2000 sp4 in nlite? my intention of doing this is for two reasons, one is that apparently it was said that 2nd gen or 3rd gen intel processors may have issues related to usb installation and functionality if using only sp4, and that apparently ( from what i understood in the thread ), it would be remedied by using either update rollup 1 or usp 5.1. now for the extended core, it seems to be necessary on certain systems that are finicky in relation to acpi or uefi related, and so the extended core, somehow fixes this issue by allowing the system to acquire the right files or use a newer acpi.sys? now i don't know which acpi.sys version gets installed from default after standard windows 2000 sp4 installations. an issue with the extended core is unclear or limited information on it for slipstreaming. some are saying that it's not possible to slipstream, however, one guy showed me recently in a picture of uploading it to the hotfixes / add on section of nlite. i did not have the correct package up to this point, and the latest one apparently that can be put into nlite, has some flaws, which is why i haven't rushed in yet to experiment with it. i don't want to make the custom installation image too modified if it's gonna cause issues. so far, the sata ahci and raid drivers of intel and amd from blackwingcat is the bare minimum of what i would use, however, i am trying to find a way to get the newer acpi.sys fix ( ending in 6921 for version number ), and videoprt.sys 6833 possibly? the rest of the files are not as important, however, i was hoping i can add 6 more files that seem to be needed, but it's unclear whether this will be more harmful or good. i have backup of all these files, and other versions of videoprt.sys too, 6834, 6838. it would be nice if we could just think that newer means better, more functional in everyway, ( for both forwards and backwards compatibility ), however, in computer technology, this doesn't hold true, as many times, newer files or newer updates cause issues where it's possible they may support something newer, but then cause issues with older hardware. being that these are also unofficial fixes / updates, with very limited support venues, makes it very frustrating to find solutions and know what to do. an example is with file version updates, but no practical way of finding out which exact version should be used or is "Better", this is the case in particular with videoprt.sys, having versions 6833, 6834, 6835, and 6838, where you could different experiences, one thread showed 6838 being problematic and 6833 fixing the issue, another source mentions the usage of 6838, nothing for 6834, and 6833, not much either probably. i noticed when i tried to add update rollup 1, as well as change certain .SY_ files, that it reduced the entire iso image by a few MB, but i don't know how that's possible if the sizes of all the files are larger? not to mention adding the intel and amd drivers. now the changing .SY_ files part was my own idea, it wasn't something specifically mentioned as a solution, however, i read the source in the below link ( acpi fix for xp ) and thought, hmmm...., maybe perhaps i could just follow the same method given in that solution, and hopefully it would work for windows 2000 nlite / slipstreaming, however, i couldn't tell what changes were done. the main purpose was to replace the "ACPI.SY_" from the extracted i386 package with a newer one i made from cab maker 1.4. i thought that if i did this, somehow it would have fixed the issue with hanging on setup is loading windows 2000, which is part right before it loads the partition size menu, however, it still hanged on that area for a long time. maybe these files are only supposed to be for updating the system after os installation, or before acpi detection from early on in setup? unfortunately, even if this is true, i do not have a system to test this yet, and i don't necessarily want to do that, just to find out if that's true, since it's not important for what's after os install per say, it's the acpi part that's important, and i couldn't get past that without selecting standard pc from f5 option ( so i can get to the partition size screen ). f7 also didn't make a difference. i noticed from one post where someone was able to manually select blackwingcat's modified acpi driver from f5 route which apparently was done through slipstreaming one of the extended core packages, but i think they weren't able to get the system to function properly / install properly. i also made a thread just before this as to see if there is a way to modify one of blackwingcat's already created packages that apparently can be slipstreamed, modify some files, replacing them with stable / newer versions, and then slipstreaming the updated package. acpi fix for xp - https://retrosystemsrevival.blogspot.com/2019/10/updated-windows-xp-acpisys.html

i was wondering if there are any programs that allow replacing files from a win32 cabinet self-extractor package so that it installs using the newer replaced files, rather than what it originally uses. i'm trying to slipstream the package in nlite, but it contains some buggy files, and i wanted to replace those so that it can work the way it originally does but with the right files.

a while back, i used to use windows management instrumentation 1.5.1085.5 ( wmi9x ) on my windows 95 / 98SE builds, however, due to certain issues, causing hanging of the computer or complete freezing and general slowness, i had to stop using it in the builds ( couldn't simply uninstall it ) and it was said by others apparently from at least one other source or two of it being buggy, however, i was just researching it through coincidence yesterday and thought that perhaps it come in handy, at least from what i researched, it seems to add some sort of functionality in the OS by allowing some kind of better connection of the bios with the operating system or allowing certain things to be monitored / shown that may not be shown if windows management instrumental isn't installed, such as specific temperatures ( gpu, hdd, etc ). the thing is, i have not done much testing to see if these temperature readings are a limitation of the motherboard / chipset, or if it's more of a software limitation, where that a program such as wmi9x, would allow for monitoring these things, when in other words, if it weren't to be installed, then these readings wouldn't appear. for example, you run speedfan 4.28 without wmi9x installed, and it only shows the cpu temperature, but with wmi9x installed, it may show other temperatures, helping you identify any possible issues such as overheating. so basically there are two questions in particular, whether or not it's absolutely necessary for the programs i use such as hwmonitor on 98SE, or speedfan on both windows 95 / 98SE, or hmonitor ( 2004 version ), so that these programs can detect other devices and show their temperatures, where as if not having wmi9x installed, then they wouldn't. but other than that, i was wondering what other uses it would have? i did read that it serves as some kind of way of remote connecting, etc, and for me, i'm not interested in those kind of stuff, i'm just interested in the program simply allowing certain programs to work better or add functionality for offline / general usage. up to this point, without wmi9x ( 1.5.1085.5 ), speedfan on 95 or 98SE usually would just show cpu temperature and / or just hdd, but rarely the gpu or other temps. and for hwmonitor, it was usually only the cpu for 98SE, hmonitor, i haven't tested it much, but i think it only showed cpu temp? another question is if wmi9x is buggy and there isn't anything to do about this or any unofficial fixes, etc, then is there any version perhaps older that isn't buggy, but runs fairly stable and can be used instead? it seems that windows 95 does not come shipped or installed with any version of windows management instrumentation at all, however, 98SE seems to ship with wmi version 1.10 from a source i read, however, it's unclear if this automatically gets installed or not, it seems that you may need to manually install through control panel to install. now the question is for one, is this 1.10 version stable? does it provide any benefit whatsoever to programs such as speedfan, etc ( not factoring in remote network connections ), also can this version be used on windows 95? if yes, where can i download this version? is there any other version in between 1.10 and 1.5 that may better? here are some relevant posts btw, the 1st one below mentions some additional steps for wmi9x, but it's unclear why this needs to be done? - https://msfn.org/board/topic/67282-wmi9xexe/ how to enable remote connections for wmi9x ( not required for personal or home user pc's ): http://www.wtcs.org/snmp4tpc/wmi.htm#WMI Downloads wmi may be needed / used by some temperature monitoring software - https://www.manageengine.com/network-monitoring/cpu-temperature-monitoring.html

i'm in desperate need of a solution for trying to edit a executable package so that i can replace some buggy files in it with stable files. unfortunately, the person or people who were trying to assist me in using the package have not responded for several days, and other forum members don't provide any proper help, ( they don't factor in everything i wrote for the questions i ask for one ). so basically, there is an nlite add on and apparently some kind of executable package ( at least what i presume ) that you can integrate in nlite, but i don't have this exe version. all i was given was a zipped package of files, however, this can't be integrated into nlite, so now i just hit a brick wall on what to do. the thread is below where the user posted a picture of nlite integration of extended kernel v16a, but i was not able to do this and i do not know which version was being used! - there is also another package, specifically the unofficial service pack 3.64 for windows 98SE, which i need a lighter version, however, being that people are busy apparently, it's unclear when i'll get a response from the guy who made the package as i sent him a message a few days ago. he was nice enough to make me a "light" version of his own a while back, however, it was different from what i was looking for, because there were things removed that weren't supposed to me ( despite mentioning what exactly what i wanted out of it ), and the structure of the package was different so it ended up being useless and i never used it. i messaged him a few days ago to see if i can get a redo or w.e, but it's unclear when i'll get a response and whether he could actually provide the solution i'm looking for exactly the way as needed.

when you say the unofficial nvidia drivers do work on 95, are you talking about the 82.69 version? and does geforce 7 series also work on windows 95? i noticed that rloew's patch supports nvidia 82.69 on windows 95 for allowing 512 MB cards to be supported and work properly, but i was thinking that it would only apply for geforce 6 series that had 512 MB of video memory, but not for 7 series with 512 MB of video memory? the control panel not working is probably trivial imo, so as long as the driver of the gpu works.

ya but do you know why "retrozilla-suite-tls12-20200131" is only 7.51 MB vs ""retrozilla 2.2 tls 1.2 (20190223)" is 12.4 MB? it would seem that the bigger sized package has stuff that the smaller package doesn't that may be crucial for compatibility and functionality. at least in supporting this viewpoint, i noticed that the older kmeleon browsers i had tested ( 1.6 or older ) in comparison to retrozilla were not as functional and / or seemed more buggy, and i noticed their package sizes were smaller too, where i didn't seem to have these barriers / compatibility issues with retrozilla 2.2 tls 1.2 version, as a result, i scrapped the kmeleon ones and never used them again. i also prefer the executable ( installs in program files way ) of retrozilla, so hopefully later down the road, a more updated package can be made and i can use that for windows 95 and possibly for 98SE, although for 98SE, i have some things i left off without experimenting in relation to web browsers for one, firefox 9.01 and it's font issues, since i'd think it would be better than retrozilla if i can implement the font fix. people have mentioned up to kmeleon 74 for windows 98SE, i remember experimenting and getting it to work, at least partially, but there was some issues related to kernelex that causes buggy system functioning or corruption in some way, due to using newer than kernelex 4.5.2, and solutions mentioned on the forum were just all over the place and so i never managed to find a feasible or viable solution for that area, and instead, just opted for up to 4.5.2 of kernelex using maximum retrozilla and / or firefox 9.01 ( not fully tested ).

i was wondering, for the "retrozilla-suite-tls12-20200131" package, can we just replace use it as a standalone and remove / uninstall the older version as to save space? "retrozilla-suite-tls12-20200131" runs without any retrozilla version manually installed from before, making "retrozilla 2.2 tls 1.2 (20190223)" obsolete and / or not needed, the only reasons to be concerned is of any bugs / instability, due to it being a "unofficial" build. i would like to use the newer version as it's smaller in size (7.51 MB) vs (12.4 MB of "retrozilla 2.2 tls 1.2 (20190223)") on windows 95. is there anything i'm missing here. why is it that the newer build is a lot less space than the older one i currently have which uses the executable way to install? also, i noticed mentioning of the kmeleon package, what's the story with that? can that be run without any previous versions installed, and how does it compare to "retrozilla-suite-tls12-20200131" or "retrozilla 2.2 tls 1.2 (20190223)"? it is only 5.4 MB.

for any of you that are interested in NT 4.0, i have uploaded a large package that can be downloaded from the below link, it contains many files, updates, programs, etc. it will only be available for up to 29 days, so it will be gone after that. i'm doing this as a final thing in case there may be something that people need, as i'm choosing to not to work on / use NT 4.0 operating system anymore, and need to make room for other stuff in my files, and want to focus on other operating systems. https://easyupload.io/x92sqh

i don't remember the exact reasons, it's a bit of a long story, but from my research, vlc 0.8.6d was the last "fully" working version with support for processors as old as pentium mmx, or ones that didn't support sse, but newer versions, i'm not sure which ones to be exact somehow broke this and wouldn't work on older processors. again, i don't remember which exact version caused these incompatibilities, but from many ends, 0.8.6d was said to be the last "Better" and more compatible version for windows 9x family in particular, and so that's what i ended up using up to this point. do you know yourself what differences are in 0.8.6i vs 0.8.6d? because like i said, i don't remember 100 percent the exact details to why i keep the 0.8.6d version, other than from what i understood at the time, from my personal experience of testing it, it was Best in terms of functioning and compatibility, in other words, any version newer, it caused errors or wasn't as functional. i understand 98SE with kernelex can use newer versions, however, even though i do install kernelex on 98SE, i felt it was unnecessary to use newer than vlc 0.8.6d, so that using 0.8.6d as the latest was better for compatibility and stability.

thanks for the info. i don't think i'll be implementing the streaming thing in my files as it requires too many things to do. i thought it was just copy pasting the web url in the program and that's it. it seems that vlc 0.8.6d should be fine for both 95 and 98SE, although, TCPMP might be a functional substitute in 9x for playing media in general ( if for some reason, vlc player either stalls, freezes or doesn't work properly on the system ), as in my case, that's why i mentioned that for some systems, it had these issues on windows 95 ( not 98SE ), and the issues were specifically with illegal operation or page faults, but i'm just hoping that it wasn't because of a problem with vlc 0.8.6d or not having enough system updates, but rather from running unofficial drivers that somehow conflicted with the program. one system for example i was using some kind of geforce 2 gpu on a laptop, 4.13.01.3150 was the driver version, and i think it was only designed for 98 first edition or newer. it kind of worked, in that i was able to set resolution to 1024x768, but i didn't test it much aside from that. my reasons for not using TCPMP is extra space on the archive packages. for 95, i have some space to spare, but for 98SE, it's already reached the limits so adding like another 1-2 MB is not an option, that's why right now i'm in the process again of trying to get a light version of 98SE unofficial service pack from problemchyld so i can add other stuff, although he made me one before, but it was structurally different from the original full version of usp 3.64. i need it to work exactly like the original usp 3.64, except with a few things removed. hopefully he can make me the package i'm looking for. but i may not even need the TCPMP on 98SE, as the main reason i'd be adding it to 95 is because of the problematic issues i explained where it may require using a different media player, but for 98SE, i don't think i ever had these types of issues, and if i did, it probably had to do with some kind of buggy / faulty / unofficial driver support. i much prefer vlc 0.8.6d for all purposes anyways, because it automatically links files in the system to play without having to manually select the files and open them with a specified program. i did research k-lite codec packages and divx, and it seems that they probably would do more harm than good, so i'm just avoiding them completely. for example, one source mentioned an issue where if you had divx installed and tried to run vlc player and didn't close it "correctly", then it would corrupt the file or cause some kind of corruption that manually needed you to fix it everytime. you know, weird issues like that. and k-lite just seems unnecessary and perhaps can be problematic too if you already use vlc player and / or that TCPMP program, so i just decided to not implement neither k-lite or divx. as for flash player, the safety issue is one thing, but i don't know, aren't there still some offline programs that can use it? also, i guess hypothetically, some online programs could use it, but it seems that there may be more harm than good. i have flash 11 for unofficial support on 98SE, but i get persuaded on and off whether or not i should keep it or not, and i just don't want to remove it. and i feel like manually install flash 7.0 on windows 95 could still be useful. does anyone know which programs require flash 7.0 to be installed to run?

thanks, the kapton tape seems to be exactly what i would need. it's surprising that from the many forum topics i came across when specifically searching for electrical tape for use on chipsets, that no one had mentioned kapton tape.

i was wondering, is basic electrical tape, such as the one listed below, will it be safe and provide the insulation for gpu chipsets / cpu or any other chipset that has exposed capacitors / resistors on the package so that it can protect it against any conductive thermal paste that may get smeared onto the area by accident? i noticed some electrical tapes mention up to 105 degrees celsius for operating temperatures, but some only list up to 80 degrees. i'm not sure if this is true, but doesn't the package area ( not the die ) run lower in temperature than the die? if so, i don't think they would get higher than 80 degrees celsius, but obviously, the 105 degrees celsius one is safer. https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B001EM4EHI/ref=dp_olp_new_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=new also, here is a picture below of the types of chipsets i'd use the electrical tape on ( as you can see, there is exposed metal on the package ). https://i.stack.imgur.com/DaBq5.jpg

when you say the modified setupreg.hiv also enables biglba in the txt setup part, does that mean that it can allow manually creating partitions larger than 137 GB in setup, or does it just mean that after installing the operating system, the partition then shows up as more than 137 GB if the drive itself is larger than what the setup wizard can create or detect? because if it's only for option 2, then the manual method which i mentioned in "https://web.archive.org/web/20110904131427/http://www.48bitlba.com/enablebiglba.htm" would be more straightforward imo, at least, i haven't been able to find clear and straightforward step by step instructions on how to implement the setupreg.hiv method. although there are some unanswered stuff / unclear things, for now, i'm just gonna go with the manual method for allowing proper operation of lba 48 on windows 2000 sp4 after installation, as i did come across several threads many many years back where the simple manual method allowed their drives to be detected properly, i think the oldest reference was someone using a 2002 amd motherboard and was able to have their 300 GB hard drive have it's full capacity shown after using the manual method of enablebiglba.

so i've tried to research sources of people trying to get lba 48 working properly on windows 2000, specifically when trying to install with sp4, and i haven't been able to find out what exactly needs to be done and for what purpose. i do not wan't to include or integrated / slipstream unnecessary or excess things, i already have to test blackwingcat's unofficial acpi fix which is part of some package that a user here referenced to, but it's unclear whether this would fix that issue and what other things would need to be done afterwards, as it's something i see have to see after fully updating my system, since not everyone updates their system in the same exact way, i have to take this into account, which is why i mentioned the issue with integrating / slipstreaming stuff may cause conflicting problems and / or may cause me to have to find a workaround that may not be feasible. as for the lba 48 issue, some questions involved are getting the setup to detect and create a partition higher than 137 GB ( if possible ), and / or whether the partition can be expanded AFTER installing, and if so, how would this be done. OR be limited to 137 GB partition and call it a day BUT at least have proper working lba 48 for data protection, so that even if the real capacity of the HDD is higher than 137 GB, lets say 160 GB, it still wouldn't have any chance of data corruption, because a specified patch / setting would allow for lba 48 to work "properly" except with limiting the amount of usage space. really, i'm more concerned about a functional system, rather than having a higher capacity drive. one solution that was mentioned which is unclear whether it's the only thing that would require for proper lba 48 functioning is simply enabling / setting a registry key in the registry AFTER installing windows 2000 sp4, but what exactly this would do, i haven't gotten a clear understanding of. the link below has a dowload link for the program that checks whether or not you would need to set the key, and if it say's failed, you would click set enablebiglba, but other than this, what else would need to be done, is it as simple as that? manual method after installing windows 2000 sp4 - https://web.archive.org/web/20110904131427/http://www.48bitlba.com/enablebiglba.htm automatic method after installing windows 2000 sp4 - https://web.archive.org/web/20110903033314/http://www.48bitlba.com/enablebiglbatool.htm there is also another thread which indicates loading of some syssetup file or slipstreaming it perhaps? and another method which indicates the usp 5.1 having the fix, which then would allow for greater than 137 GB formatting during setup? however, this of course would conflict with what i mentioned earlier of using excess / unecessary packages. it seems like adding one file such as the sysetup part would be sufficient, but i haven't found an exact step by step source of how to do so and whether that would be solution for everything, so that the enablebiglba option wouldn't need to be done either? here is what i already am including or include in my windows 2000 sp4 installations: -slipstreamed blackwingcat's amd and intel drivers -extended core v16a package ( yet to be tested, but hopefully it doesn't require any changes AFTER os install, and if it does, very minor ), i only came across like two files that are different towards my fully updated systems, and that is the acpi and videoprt.sys i believe, which are modified and / or different after installing one of the other types of unofficial update rollup packages, ( i downloaded from sdfox's files, or whatever that guy's name is ).

ok so i have several questions related to software functionality and usage, specifically for use on windows 95 mainly. 1. are there any benefits that vlc player 0.8.6d player has over roytam's "TCPMP 0.72RC1 Mod 6" media player, or the other way around, what can roytam's media player do that vlc player 0.8.6d can't? for example, does vlc player 0.8.6d also support youtube video streaming or does it not? 2. are there any issues with roytam's media player build? 3. what would explain illegal operation related errors when using vlc player 0.8.6d on windows 95 with the inability for files to load and play on certain computer builds ( which don't seem to occur on 98SE )? 4. how exactly does one install the DivX codec packages and / or which version is the last compatible version for windows 95, as well as for 98SE? 5. does installing DivX codec package cause any problems in overall system functioning or conflict with files / software? for example, if someone were to install a divx codec package, as well as use vlc player 0.8.6d, would this cause problems with running the program itself or running files from it? 6. does installing DivX codecs help the system in any way directly or indirectly? for example, if installing Divx codec and running vlc player 0.8.6d, it would allow for slightly better support and functioning of files and videos? 7. is it necessary to install DivX codecs at all? if so, for what reason? does one need to install it when using vlc player or roytam's media player? 8. is flash player 7.0, specifically "flashplayer7r73_win", used in any way by vlc player or roytam's build? would it better to install it or would it cause more issues if installing it?