justacruzr2

OK. Here's what I just got off of HP's support website: Onboard audio or audio card Integrated Intel High Definition (TM) audio (Azalia) Realtek ALC 882 CODEC Supports up to 8 audio channels Dolby Pro Logic IIx compatible So it is not a Realtek chip but an Intel chip? That would be good news regarding this: VEN_8086&DEV_27D8&SUBSYS_2A2B103C&REV_01 PCI bus 0, device 27, function 0 As you say VEN_8086 indicates an Intel device. However, I did peek into the cabinet and saw a chip with the ASUS name printed on it which I think Realtek is a division or TM of ASUS. According to the above from the HP website, Realtek only provides the CODECS. I guess that makes sense. What do you think? Also, HP website says the only jumpers are for clearing the CMOS or the BIOS password.

OK. Here are the problem devices listed in Device Manager under Other Devices. Under each catagory, first line is instance ID and second line is location information. * Multimedia Video Controller: (believe this is TV Tuner card) VEN_4444&DEV_0016&SUBSYS_88010070&REV_01 PCI bus 2, device 4, function 0 * PCI Device: (audio or LAN card?) VEN_8086&DEV_27D8&SUBSYS_2A2B103C&REV_01 PCI bus 0, device 27, function 0 * PCI Simple Communications Controller: (believe this is the modem card) VEN_14F1&DEV_2F20&SUBSYS_200C14F1&REV_00 PCI bus 2, device 5, function 0 * SM Bus Controller: (no idea but believe this has to do with the card reader) VEN_8086&DEV_27DA&SUBSYS_2A2B103C&REV_01 PCI bus 0, device 31, function 3 * Unknown Device: (audio or ? ACPI suggests something else) ACPI\AWY0001*AWY0001 no location information

Thanks for the advice. That's what I thought too. That if there was a problem with the sound chip itself, it would probably be very noticeable at startup. Either the BIOS or Windows wouldn't have liked that at all. Here's something I saw for the first time in XP. I inadvertently did something that Windows didn't like at all and it just snapped into reboot mode. When Windows started up again I had the Active Desktop Recovery screen, with the big rectangular Restore My Active Desktop button, just like 98 and ME. Didn't even know that was still being used in XP. One thing I tried but couldn't do was putting ME on another PATA drive in the computer I'm rebuilding for that exact same reason. About 10 seconds into the ME install I got the message that it couldn't continue because that computer uses SATA drives except for the CD ROM drives. So on that computer I have know way to tweak XP unless I installed something like Linux. Learn something new all the time.

Thanks. I'll go ahead and do that. There are about 5 devices with the exclamation point in the yellow triangle in Device Manager and I know one is the LAN card and one is the TV Tuner card. I thought the others might be the card reader but now I think not because there are 4 extra removeable drives listed in My Computer and that's the number of slots the card reader has. So I think the install handled them. BTW, I'm learning some knew stuff here as my other system (daily driver) was an overlay (upgrade) over WinME and this one is a clean install. I see now that the install handles those situations differently. That was unexpected. Also see that you have a triple boot system. So do I. The daily driver has Win98SE on one drive,WinME on another drive and WinXP on another drive. One of the nice things about that is when XP won't let me do something in it, I just boot over to ME and operate on the XP drive from there. Bet you do the same thing. Plus there's the advantage of playing older games that don't run well or at all on the newer systems. I'll let you know what happens about the VEN_10EC id if it's one of the instances listed in Device Manager under Problem Devices.

Yes. There are several devices I haven't yet loaded drivers for because they are not critical yet. Was trying to get the minimal stuff going first which is video and audio. I do have one unknown device but it's instance ID isn't HDAudio. I suppose that it might still be that one but I won't know until I can find the driver for the audio chip. Just out of curiosity, what if the sound chip was not working. Would the system still go ahead and load up or would it crash with an error at startup? Just covering all bases.

I did check the BIOS setup and audio was disabled so I enabled it but it made no difference. One thing I did see in my searches is that some of these boards implement the on board audio chip as a PCI device. Also found out that if it had been listed in Device Manager it should have had an instance that started out as HDAudio....etc.

Problem is it's not even listed in device manager under the audio category. According to the specs on this computer the sound chip is integrated which I take as to mean it's on the motherboard and not a sound card in a PCI slot.

I've been searching for audio drivers for a computer I've been restoring. It's an HP Media Center m7480n. It has the Asus Motherboard P5LP-LE (Emery) which has the Realtek ALC 882 (integrated) chipset. Does anyone know of a place I can download these from. Keep in mind they must be for XP. Thanks

That driver I did find on the web but I haven't installed it yet. It wasn't a top priority since this is a stand alone desktop. I'm pretty sure that is one of the problem devices. Starting from scratch w/o the installation/restore disk takes a long time. Appreciate your reply.

Thanks for the replies. I'll try your ideas. BTW the memory card reader is HP P/N 5070-0842. The computer is the HP Media Center m7480n desktop. Should have put that in yesterday. I do believe the registry assigned device instance ID is in Device Manager. I looked when I first spotted the problem. Too bad I didn't get the HP Installation/Restore disk with the computer as it would have had all that on it. Now it becomes a chase it down thing. Thanks again.

I've been resurrecting an HP m7480n Media Center desktop I was given. It did not come with the original installation disk so I installed Win XP Pro. It originally came with the Win XP Media edition. When I finished the install and checked Device Manager to be sure everything installed correctly, there were 4 or 5 entries in the USB category that were "Unknown". I believe this is the memory card reader that supports the following cards: Compact Flash I, Compact Flash II, SmartMedia, Memory Stick, Memory Stick Pro, MultiMediaCard, Secure Digital (SD), Micro Drive and XD Picture Card. Does anyone know where I can get the driver(s) for this device. I don't know the MFG right now but could pull it out from the computer to get the name and model. Thanks.

Tried it last night but didn't do anything to fix the problem. But I think I may have found the reason why the "Web Document" tab is missing. Just out of curiosity I looked into \Program files\Internet Explorer and found that the version of Iexplore was 6 but the registry entries for Internet Explorer are version 8. Makes me wonder if Windows did that sneaky switch on me because I did put version 8 files into the \Program files\Internet Explorer directory. It's just a guess but maybe for .url files Explorer passes part of the job of displaying the properties page off to Internet Explorer and if the registry version is different than the file version Windows probably just ignores it and does nothing. I'm going to test that theory tonight. Thanks for your help.

Hey thanks. I'll give this a try and let you know what happens.

I just re-installed Win XP Pro (w/SP2) on a new drive after the old drive finally died. I then overlayed my backup from the Win XP Pro (w/SP2) that was on the drive that died to save time re-installing apps and re-doing all the personal settings. Everything is fine except that the "Web Document" tab is missing on the properties page of all files that are Internet shortcuts (.url files) and the icons associated with those files are not displayed either. The Win XP Pro in that backup did display the Internet shortcuts correctly including the "Web Document" tab. Since I have more than one OS on my system, I booted into Win ME and right clicked on one of those Internet shortcuts and selected properties and it is displayed correctly and the "Web Document" tab is there. This tells me that the .url files are not corrupted. So that is not the problem. I looked in the XP registry and the .url extension was not there in HKCR (Classes Root) so I entered it in but that didn't help. I have "Googled" this problem and see that others have had this same problem too, but the provided fix didn't help them or me either. If I'm not mistaken, Explorer is the app in charge of displaying file properties. I checked the file version of Explorer in both the new installation and the backup and the versions are the same...6.0.2900.2180. Seemed to me that this might be a problem with file associations so I looked at the "File Types" tab of "Folder Options". "Internet Shortcut" is listed near the top of the list but with no icon associated with it and no app associated with it when you click on the "Advanced" button (Open, Print, etc.). Also there is no .URL extension listed. I'm stumped. I guess I could try overlaying the XP backup registry hive again but I would like to see if any of you have had this problem and have a solution that works. Thanks.

Never mind. I'll figure it out myself.

Awhile back I had asked for help with a problem in getting sound out of DOOM95. I had to do a clean install of Windows 98SE retail and after applying all the updates, etc. I went through everything (all the programs on the START menu) to be sure everything was working. When I got to DOOM95 I noticed that there was no sound and no mouse support (only the keyboard). I searched the web for an answer to this and tried various suggestions but nothing worked. Just the other day it occurred to me that I should look at the Config.sys and Autoexec.bat files since DOOM95 is a DOS game. Config.sys is completely blank and Autoexec.bat has only a few system directives in it. I'm thinking this is the problem. With DOS based games shouldn't there be some "device = " entries that load a sound driver and a mouse driver? I think Win 95 and Win 98 FE & SE make no assumptions for DOS and I have to specify what is needed. When I installed the game on Win ME it worked perfect from the start without touching Config.sys or Autoexec.bat but then Win ME has DOS "sucked" into it and it probably does know what to load. The install program for DOOM95 makes no entries in those files for you. It might have been mentioned in the manual that came with the game but I don't have that manual. So, if this is the problem, what sound and mouse drivers should I be using for the "device =" entries? I did a "find files" in Explorer and it comes up with several sound and mouse drivers but which ones should I use....the ones with a ".drv" extension or the ones with a ".sys" extension? And I should probably also add HIGHMEM, UMB AND EMM386 to give it some memory to work with. Any thoughts?

@ Commodore/Jumper/Drugwash/sdfox7 Thanks for your replies and thanks to you guys that found the original article. I wrote the following before I came here today and saw your replies and I'm going to leave it unchanged (mostly because I don't have time to rewrite it as I have to leave for work soon). Also, I was using the update from the AutoPatcher so I think it probably is the original one which included 98/ME. *********** I believe I found that on a website that had an archived Microsoft webpage for kb892211. However, I am having trouble finding that page right now. Here is one website that still lists the original target OS's for this update: http://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/software-update-for-web-folders.63562/ At the bottom of that page it includes a link to the original MS webpage for kb892211: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;892211 But now that link goes to: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/892211 which might mean that the original page was modified/changed probably after support for Win98/ME was ended Here is another website that lists this update for win 98SE: http://kbupdate.info/windows-98-second-edition-se-d.php Further, if you look at "The Complete List of Hotfixes, Updates, and Addons for Windows 98 Second Edition" on this site, you will see kb892211 listed. It's also in the AutoPatcher. And I believe that if this update was not for 98SE, it would have aborted the install with a "This update is not intended for your operating system" message. Anyway, this is no big deal. I was just trying to find out why the update doesn't include pkmres.dll or where it's supposed to come from.

@ Nomen Thanks for your reply. Same here. Never been a pkmres.dll on my system either. Not even in the setup cabs. This update is intended for 98/ME/XP. The following comes from the same KB article webpage at MS: System Requirements 1) Supported Operating Systems: Windows 2000, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows ME, Windows Server 2003, Windows XP 2) Microsoft Windows Installer version 2.0 or later. File information The update contains files with the versions that are listed in the following table. Date Time Version Size File name ------------------------------------------------------------- 25-Mar-2003 05:52 4.0.2.7523 618,605 Fp4autl.dll 19-Nov-2000 10:28 4.0.2.4715 450,669 Fp4awec.dll 28-Oct-2004 22:03 11.0.6715.15 843,472 Msdaipp.dll 18-Jul-2003 18:05 11.0.5510.0 160,320 Msdapml.dll 28-Oct-2004 21:50 11.0.6715.15 1,293,008 Msonsext.dll 18-Jul-2003 18:05 11.0.5510.0 80,448 Pkmws.dll @ submixc Know what your talking about or do some research before you comment.

After running this update I ran Norton WinDoctor to check the registry and it found 16 incorrect entries all related to the same thing....missing file pkmres.dll. I checked with the Microsoft support page for this kb article and it lists the following files which are included in the update: The update contains files with the versions that are listed in the following table. Date Time Version Size File name ------------------------------------------------------------- 25-Mar-2003 05:52 4.0.2.7523 618,605 Fp4autl.dll 19-Nov-2000 10:28 4.0.2.4715 450,669 Fp4awec.dll 28-Oct-2004 22:03 11.0.6715.15 843,472 Msdaipp.dll 18-Jul-2003 18:05 11.0.5510.0 160,320 Msdapml.dll 28-Oct-2004 21:50 11.0.6715.15 1,293,008 Msonsext.dll 18-Jul-2003 18:05 11.0.5510.0 80,448 Pkmws.dll That's also exactly what is in the update package I have. So, where is pkmres.dll supposed to come from? Is it already supposed to exist or are those registry entries (created by the update) a mistake that should be deleted?

@ jaclaz, dencorso, Drugwash et al Thanks for your suggestions. It's funny because just after I replied to jaclaz's post I remembered that I do have a ftp program and it's the one that dencorso mentioned. I have WS_ftp LE 6 installed on all 3 of my systems. I used it to transfer files back and forth between my mainframe PDS and my PC. I had forgotten that I had it because I haven't used it for a couple of years now. And it never occurred to me to use it for ftp sites with my PC. Also have QWS3270 which emulates an IBM 3270 terminal for TSO sessions.

Sure . But the problem (which is anyway EXTREMELY rare) would not exist and the cure wouldn't be needed at all, if you use the "right" approach which is "use a FTP client for FTP access". Pre-preventative medicine. jaclaz Here's part of what Microsoft Support has to say about that problem: Your Account Is Locked Out When You View an FTP Server with Internet Explorer 6 SYMPTOMS When you are using Internet Explorer to view an FTP server that has many levels of folders and you view folders that are five or more levels deep, your account may be locked out. This symptom only occurs on an FTP server that does not allow anonymous logons. CAUSE After the first logon, a new logon attempt is made when you connect to another folder. Because Internet Explorer does not keep the password, a blank password is sent, and a logon that is not valid is recorded. If an account is set to lock out after three failed logons, the account is locked out when you go five levels deep in the folder structure. So I would agree that it's EXTREMELY rare. And it's similar to the problem of accessing a file 8 folders deep on a CD. So what do you suggest for a FTP client keeping in mind that I would like it to be compatible with 98SE, ME & XP (if that's possible)?

Yes. Hi dencorso. I found the problem with the Q326728 update and it was indirectly related to SP1. I actually have 2 IE6setup.exe packages. One installs IE6 version 6.0.2600.0000 and the other installs IE6 version 6.0.2800.1106. I had installed the latter one (before I ever started doing the MS updates) since it was the highest and the last version of IE6 released by Microsoft. Here's what I found when I opened up the verinst.exe file, from the Q326728 package, in my hex editor. I found a line of code in it that looks at the value "MinorVersion" in the registry key HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings and expects to find a "0" (zero). What was in that value was "SP1;q313829". So it seems that the last version of IE6 already had SP1 rolled into it and I didn't know that. And the q313829 was one of the updates I had applied. Didn't know that SP1 was included in the IE6 version I installed and that q313829 affected that entry in the registry and that the verinst.exe file from the Q326728 package was looking at "THAT" value to determine whether IE6 was installed or not. Seems kind of backasswards to me. Why Microsoft doesn't just look at the "Version" value in HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer is a mystery. Guess they had their reasons. Anyway, didn't think that anything I had done so far had affected IE6. It's the kind of thing nobody would probably know offhand until they did some serious investigating. So the cure was to copy that current value out, save it, put a "0" (zero) in its place, rerun the Q326728 update again and then re-enter the "SP1;q313829" value back into the reg. So thanks for that thought about SP1. It's what prompted me to do some deeper investigating.

I have done every official update on that list, up to the end of 2002, which is where I am at now, obsolete or not. The purpose I have in mind is so that when I am finished with that list I can go to Windows Update and let it give me a once over. That way I won't get a mile long list of recommended updates. This very thing was suggested in the complete list for Q242975 (the USB update) so as to trick Windows Update into believing it had already been done. This suggestion can really be applied to all the updates. When I actually do visit Windows Update I expect little to nothing in the way of suggested updates. This way I can be sure I did everything there was to do. Why does it bother you so much how I reconstruct my system that your every reply is some jab at me?

Yes I have used IE to access FTP sites with ME and XP. It's one of the few things that IE 6 and 8 can still do. That is until I try the IE9 spoof in the registry. that was mentioned in a different article here - tips and tweeks is something I will look at at the very end of this reconstruction. And no I haven't experienced it to date. But I had already done this update in ME and XP. I haven't gone anywhere yet with 98 and will not until I am finished with the updates. 98 is only 1 of 3 operating systems I have, ME and XP being the other 2, and is not needed as my primary OS. It's more of a fallback should anything nasty happen to my other 2. Since this problem is known to exist in IE6 why wait until it does happen when there is a cure? Preventative medicine.

Thanks for your reply dencorso. It's the first straightforward answer I've received. So far all I've done regarding Internet Explorer is install the IE6setup.exe standalone package. The install was over IE5.5 which is what the Win98SE setup puts on the computer initially. There is no provision to uninstall IE5.5 before doing the IE6 setup. Trust you know how that works if you have no previous version. I have not applied any of the updates, patches or cumulative fixes that Microsoft provided yet. I am almost to that point in the list of updates I have. That list is the complete list from this website. All I did was put it in date order and proceeded from the beginning. Currently I am at the end of 2002. I believe the first cumulative patch is the Feb 2003 one which will be coming up soon. Do you think I should wait until I apply that before trying the q326728 patch again?