cov3rt

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?

i've never tested amn refrigerator ( any version ) on 9x, but there are at least two other cpu usage viewing software you can test. i currently bookmarked the pages for now. as for cpu temperature monitoring, i have used hwmonitor 1.15 ( windows 98 version ) and / or speedfan 4.28 for 98SE. other choices you have for 98SE is DTemp 1.0.0.34 for checking storage device temperature only ( also works on windows 95 ). there is also Hmonitor 4.1.4.5 (October 2004) for possibly checking cpu temp or other system temps, tested working on both windows 95 and 98SE, then there is aida32 3.94.2 ( both windows 95 and 98SE tested working ) which is mostly for checking system information but might also show storage device temperature, then there is HDD Health (S.M.A.R.T. monitor) v. 2.1 beta, build 159 - for checking hdd temperatures and other info ( windows 95 and 98SE tested working ).

sorry, i got you confused with the other guys post saying they got camstudio 2.0 (not 2.7 ) working fine. as for whether or not it would work on windows me, i'd say most likely it would, as it mentions support for it, at least from a indirect source or two i found. but yeh, if you haven't already done so, you should give hypercam 2.13.01 and / or camstudio 2.0 a try on windows 9x / ME, i was hoping camstudio 2.0 would work "Better" as i actually removed hypercam 2.13.01 from my archived packages, since it has the watermark issue for one. the pentium m's shouldn't be too slow for camstudio 1.5 / 2.0 recording, so i was wondering if maybe the gpu and / or ram was the issue? do you remember which gpu's you tested and how much ram you had installed?

do you know what cpu and / or gpu / ram amount your using for camstudio 2.0? it would help to know, because i'm planning on removing hypercam 2.13.01 and replacing it with camstudio 2.0 for windows 95, 98SE, and NT4, because it seems that hypercam 2.13.01 ( being free, but unregistered ) shows a watermark for recorded videos, but camstudio 2.0 doesn't? although i have not confirmed if camstudio 2.0 does this or not, but hypercam 2.13.01 i believe does, as it mentioned it would show a watermark. though the focus on this thread was for windows 98, i'd like to add that hypercam 2.29 worldwide free version may or may not have the watermark issue ( it didn't give me the message after installing it ), and it should work on windows 2000 and newer, but probably will not install on non kernelex 98SE or older OS. i have only tested it on windows 7 briefly just to install it.

you can try hypercam 2.13.01, it works on windows 95 and should also work on windows 98. i noticed people mentioning camstudio 2.0 ( i have yet to test this on windows 9x ), however, one would think hypercam 2.13.01 may be better as it was released in May 20, 2006, where as camstudio 2.0 has a release history of April 6, 2004. one would have to look at change logs and see what exact differences are with each other and / or simply test them both. i don't like keeping two of the same programs usually, even if they are relatively small in size, unless there is something camstudio 2.0 can do better or functions better in some ways that hypercam 2.13.01 doesn't, then i'd rather just use hypercam 2.13.01 if it can do everything camstudio 2.0 can, however, after checking camstudio 2.0 really quick right now, i've decided to keep it too.

assuming the original thermal pad in the previous laptop i worked with was 1.5mm, using that reference and jaclaz's points, and factoring in thermal paste in between the chips and heatsink, it would roughly put it around 1.3mm or so which is within the specifications that jaclaz also mentioned, which likely would allow adequate functioning. the reason why i went with the copper shims vs thermal pads was because i couldn't find a good deal for any of thermal pads and / or felt that the padding in general would be less durable or more inferior than the shims. i got (20) 15mm x 15mm x 1.2mm copper shims from amazon for $8.54 shipped, though from amazon free prime trial offered the free 2-3 day shipping or else it would have been almost $13 with very slow shipping. the trial is only 1 week so i need to make sure to cancel it before that time ends.

anyone know the last official version of intel inf update for windows 2000? when i was checking my files, and even wayback machine when it was the last time it showed the older OS menus on intel's site, showing windows 2000, although i couldn't select it through waybackmachine, i was able to check what was already given for all OS by default, and it showed version 9.2.0.1030" as the newest i believe. however, just today i noticed blackwingcat mentioning in his blog of a version "9.3.0.1019" being official i believe, which i went and downloaded ( yet to test ), and now i also found even a newer package which mentions windows 2000 in the readme, it is version "9.4.0.1027". my problem isn't so much on whether they will work, it's more that i would like to know what exactly is the last official version or not. being that i would wan't to install blackwingcat's latest intel ahci / raid package via setup AFTER applying all previous intel inf updates to ensure proper updating of the system.

if i forget to mention, clearance issues makes thermal paste alone is not a option, as there would be a gap and would cause overheating. that's why i was asking what would be the better of the two, the copper shims + high quality thermal paste or thermal pad, and specifically factoring in for universal usage, thickness, etc.

i actually had a fully updated windows 2000 system with that update rollup v11 version i mentioned to check the acpi and videoprt.sys files and it shows the videoprt.sys as slightly newer at version "5.0.2195.6835", where as the one in the extended kernel v16a package was "5.0.2195.6833". now the question is whether the newer one i use is buggy. as for the acpi.sys version, the system with rollup v11 without extended kernel v16a shows as "5.0.2195.6920", where as the one in extended kernel v16a is "5.0.2195.6921". it's important to mention that the update rollup v11 i use gets installed late in the update process for the builds i work with as i have it specifically set up this way in the order of updates, tinkering with this may cause changes that are unfeasible to manage, since i have to find when or where exactly there are any breaks or errors and what to do about them which usually is caused by installing something too early or too late.

the instructions help, but the problem is, i don't even use the extended kernel v16a in my builds. i use the update rollup v11 with filename "Windows2000-UURollup-v11-d20141130-x86-ENU.7z". another issue is any complications that would occur by integrating these after os install, such as when updating the chipset through intel inf update or some amd / ati chipset package. and i was wondering if it's possible to just integrated only the acpi and videoprt.sys stuff as to not cause any other complications, i guess the same way or similar way to that xp reference i made earlier, or is that even more complicated or irrelevant?

as ragnargd mentioned, you have a q43 chipset which belongs to the ich10 family and if i'm not wrong, there should be working unofficial chipset drivers for them. i actually have the unofficial package but i never tested them myself, it includes ich10 in the inf, though requires a slipstream process. luckily at least you have a desktop motherboard, so assuming the chipset part gets taken care of, you should also have support for a decent video card through pci slot or vbemp basic display for the integrated gpu. i was gonna upload it here in case you wanted to test, but the package is about 45 KB zipped, and i can only upload max 10 KB. lonecrusader has a link for it to download though here "http://lonecrusader.x10host.com/files/INTELINF_9.4.0.1017_98SE.ZIP"

i was wondering if anyone knows if it's possible to substitute a thermal pad with a copper shim for gpu cooling if the thermal pad was used as the original part? since the shim would not compress, it would seem that i would need one considerably thinner than the thermal pad, but there are other issues. for one, a lot of manufacturers don't list the specs of the exact thickness of the thermal pads they use for the gpu or chipset, another thing that is unclear is whether or not i could use a copper shim if the heatsink already has copper surfacing for the gpu and / or chipset portions. what i mean by this is, would it be ok if i used thermal paste between gpu and chipset die, placed shims on top of them, and then thermal paste on top of the existing copper surface, or would this be an issue? the only experience i've had with using copper shims was on the dell latitude d630 where i replaced the thermal pads with shims for the gpu and chipset portions with thermal paste, and it ran a lot cooler, but the heatsink's surfaces weren't copper plated, just normal. the copper shims i used were 1.2mm in thickness. also, i was wondering if it's ok if the either the thermal padding or copper shims are larger than the die itself for the gpu or chipset? i mean, it would be impractical to have to buy separate sized shims or pads, just so they can fit only in the die portion. the reason why i would wan't to use the bigger ones is better universal compatibility and if possible, by using a shim or thermal pad that is a little bigger than the original ones, could possibly provide slightly better cooling on smaller dies, especially in the case of poorly designed systems that makes it harder to achieve decent temperatures. but to not forget, the 1.2mm shim may not work on let's say a system that originally used a 1mm thermal pad ( and i don't have a measure to check the thickness in millimetres ). i was wondering, with the thermal pads squishing, how much thinner does this make it? like if i were to buy a 1.5mm thermal pad, how much thinner can it get when bolted down by heatsink? because if i can get a more rough set measurement estimate, it may be possible to get a more "universal" copper shim with use of thermal paste, instead of thermal padding ( which i'd assume would be better than just using thermal pads ). so if originally the thermal pads were 1.5mm, and i buy the 1mm copper shims, then they should be fine, or would 1.2mm be a better "universal" size?

yeh, but what exactly do i do in detailed instructions with nlite and the acpi related stuff? the only thing i found through my own experience and understanding was a page listing a updated windows xp acpi.sys file, in which you would convert it to "acpi_sy_" file, then replace the old "acpi_sy_" file in the extracted directory ( to which you would use to inject into nlite ) with the new "acpi_sy_" file. so i was thinking i could simply replicate this but for a windows 2000 build and use that acpi.sys in that extended kernel v16a package you referenced to. but you also mentioned videoprt.sys, does it mean i should also convert that file to "videoprt_sy_", and replace the old one with it? you know, a lot of these things are confusing to me and it doesn't help that a lot of my questions often get unanswered, leaving me with no other choice but finding a way that works, but even if i manage to, i may not know why. as for the sata part, i was able to install with achi enabled in the laptop i was working with, i simply had the extracted windows 2000 sp4 operating system and integrated in nlite, then put both blackwingcat's amd sb600,700, and 800 chipset drivers in the multiple driver folder option after selecting the driver option, as well as the intel drivers, and made sure to select all and selected the textmode driver option, and also the bootable iso option from before. though i was browsing the forums and it appears that the driver i was using for amd was a little older than the newer one and may not be the most stable, so now i need to recompile with the newer ones and remove the older ones. but i also don't know what to do with the acpi related fixes and like i said, unanswered questions doesn't help and provide me with a practical and feasible solution. btw, below is the page for that windows xp updated acpi fix solution - https://retrosystemsrevival.blogspot.com/2019/10/updated-windows-xp-acpisys.html