awkduck

WSL9x is now a thing. However, it doesn't seem extremely useful. For now "and maybe forever" there is no network bridge, and it can only access hardware through Windows. Would be neat if it could have used the extra cores, that Win9x cannot. Unless there is some networking capacity (between the two kernels) there isn't likely a way to run an X client in Windows, that could connect to an Xserver in Linux. Maybe added features will eventually exist; but there is a good chance this was a "proof of concept" or "nostalgia" work.

First try TCPMP MOD (roytam1's build). This may not be a solution, but I've had some luck getting the Mplayer for DOS working (in Win95); it has some h264 support. There is also DOS-DUGL. They should work with the Windows SB16 emulation, but "how well" is questionable. You'd also need some power, to get smooth playback. Alternatively, you can use either in DOS. This would require a SB16 compatible sound card, or SBEMU/VSBHDA. Lastly "again in DOS" you could use HXDOS, the modern Mplayer port (for Win98), combined with SBEMU/VSBHDA. <-{search the forums here for that Mplayer release} That same Mplayer, or its sources, might have potential for Win95 back porting. Edit: For DOS video players, in Windows, you may need to have the prompt at full screen. Otherwise you may get a "video mode not supported" message. You may also need to adjust video settings, on the player side; maybe resolution.

Not the primary cause, but adding salt to the injury, this is an "in-order-execution" CPU. If not reaching maximum CPU load, you'd think that audio stutter could be ironed out. But I can see there being real issues, with SoftGPU. With a similar spec CPU, and out-of-order-execution, I'd expect "maybe" 3fps (possibly a little higher using TitaniumGL). Anytime FPU is really needed, this CPU is probably in trouble. Edit:The Via Nano is out-of-order, and then some

Make sure DMA is enabled, for the drive. You may need to reinstall/reset drivers and the registry, for this machine; or just use this drive for a fresh install. Some BIOS have settings for what DMA types are available, to the controllers, among other settings. Yes, but I haven't used it (or even read the included manual). My first question would be about booting. Some drivers won't do you any good, until you are booted into Windows.

Interesting, that copying to another drive was slower. You'd think reading and writing, on the same drive, would be slower. At least, you'd have an easier solution. I've never used it, but you might investigate rloew's AHCI driver. If you do, please update.

So, without giving hard numbers, there was no "noticeable" difference? If that is the case "without causing you technical gymnastics" the easiest test I can think of, is a dual boot/warm boot. Boot first into XP, then warm boot (reboot) into Win98. Obviously, I understand that this may be a test too far. This would conclude the "basics" that I can dredge up, right now. A warm boot would "probably" not reintroduce anything, that XP disabled. I haven't tested this extensively; it could very well reintroduce things. I'm glad the boot/poweroff issue is better. I could have guessed there might still be a problem. My i915 systems needed more "help" too. As mentioned before, disabling legacy USB (meaning also USB Boot) improved some USB issues. I had to do more, to completely clear the problems. Oh, be sure to still test booting the machine "without" the drive inserted, for any signs of change. You may not notice anything difference, with just storage IO. But you never know, your i915 isn't the exact beast(s) I have.

Yes, this would make sense, as you would not be using conflicting drivers; BIOS conflicting with Win98 (your current situation). In my previous posts, I mention "running" Win98 from a BIOS driven port (Windows driver disabled, for those ports, and booting using the BIOS USB driver for the primary harddisk support). I was able to reach the theoretical "maximum" speeds. NOTE:There are USB drivers for DOS. You have to really look for them (Panasonic, and others). Often, yes. I've seen NetBSD USB drivers "near" match, even after the overhead of a running kernel. Otherwise, you will find there tends to be a difference is speed (any OS) though sometimes only a little. It often was "not" a lessor evil. It was to push people forward, with the added excuse of saving developer time and product support. The era was rife with machines carrying the "Made for XP" sticker. There is a larger framework here, that can be explained away with consumer speak lingo. A good chunk of truth involves the murky reality, of things like the Microsoft Halloween documents, and deals made with various vendors, manufacturers, retailers, etc. This is just the reality, of the "upgrade" mentality. Upgrade mentality "facts" have often been proven wrong, or even scandalous. Though there is potential for a scandal mentality, on the other side of the fence. Especially, if there was/is a new product on the horizon.

I'd have to say, this still isn't the kind of AI I was referring to. This is the magnitude of service I mean. What you are getting is a meaningful scrape, of a very sophisticated database. However, it is very poor at navigating "context". Something can be stated "as near fact" but is actually based on the back and forth conversation between two people, neither really understanding the situation. The further you go back, in to support dialog history, the worse it gets. We were very computer illiterate, en mass. The support personal, for Win9x, were really awful. Support, in those days, was unrealized telemarketing. While still pervasive, today, general awareness has improved. If I had the time, I'd hunt down, buy a duplicate machine, and trouble shoot this for you; then upload/post an easy to install fix. The issue is almost certainly your BIOS. This is a known issue, on many machines. It is one of the of the largest plagues, to those wishing to run WinXP off of a USB drive; even Embeded POSReady 2009 has issues with it (installing "too" and booting "from" USB). The issue "booting up and shutting down" with the drive inserted, nearly declares "without much doubt" that this is your issue. With all due respect, I hope it doesn't seem as though I am "trolling" you. I think you've expressed "well enough" you interest for developing this situation further. I'm not trying to egg/edge you on. This post is around 75% clarification, for those really wanting to enter masochism, and iron out an issue like this. As for the other thing.... Try not to feel bad, or be offended. You could almost call it a "cultural" barrier. Not just culture of nation, but culture of creed. Short and to the point, and no sugar coating. If you spend time trying to efficiently communicate to a machine (at the lower levels) you start communicating that way to people. Some of us are that way, before we learn to talk to machines; It just makes us right for the job. If I get a chance, I'll try to hunt down information on your BIOS interface. There should almost certainly be a way, to disable booting from USB; which would likely clear the issue you are having. Congratulations, on the other progress you have had. My first experience "with USB2.0" was on Win98SE, using a NEC PCI card. I had a 40gb IDE Harddrive caddy, and it worked great; from a DELL PII 450mhz machine, up to my PIII 1.4ghz machine. At the time, I transferred files"to and from" that drive faster, than my friends (having P4 1.8Ghz+/ WinXP/intergrated USB2). I also wiped the floor with their machines "at FPS" on Unreal Tournament; this before moving from a PCI to AGP GPU. They had hyper-threading, I only had a little bit of occasional overclocking. That was a great machine, and I'd still use it today. Their main issue "was" XP and integrated devices (no excuse for their AGP cards). Their machines could have been configured much better; but some of those early P4 CPUs where problematic. I blamed it on poor thermal grease and thermal design, but they got much better. Wasn't shocked to see things "more or less" revert to the previous like designs (P6 microarchitecture -> Core architecture). P6 is still cool (no pun intended).

Also, not as advanced, there was the "Processor Serial Number" from 1999-2000. It was removed, due to backlash; but later replaced with Protected Processor Identification Numbers. It is less specific (not your current user name and age), but CPU, mother board, BIOS, etc. finger printing has been around for awhile. Those, themselves, don't track you; and aren't useful, without remote access to your OS. The old conspiracy joke, from late Windows (win3x) adopters, was that Windows looked well suited as a way to break in "Like the windows in you house". This was more of a business type mindset; it didn't really apply to general public consumers, until Win9x. In the Win9x era, the issue "mostly" came from really insecurely designed retail machine/OS packages. Due to poor default configurations people would come home to a running "and Internet connected (dial-up)" PC, that they had left turned off. From my recollection, this didn't seem a common occurrence. As you could guess, since the machines were activated remotely, there were theories about government involvement. Alternatively, devious teenage hackers and hacker groups where also fingered, as likely culprits. In the broader community, these kind of issues arose from the consumer's use of the machine (still relevant today). This was related to hygiene in both Internet habbits and software choice (also still relevant today). Despite all of that, I still completely agree with EliraFriesnan. Hardware wise, 2005 is a good cut of date. I'm not concerned with Government entities finding out, what is one my machines.

Maybe a little more than "current" Windows. Linux is still track-able, and can be forensically (cyber) investigated. Really, your IP address, DNS activity, and used software, provides a lot of actionable information. Firefox and Chrome sell you out, where ever they are ran. Ubuntu even has telemetry. But it isn't direct evidence of "who" you are. But, work is starting to change that. I'm sure Microsoft also has a plan, to address the law, but I've not heard anything about it. If I remember correctly, there was a community grumble about WIFI device access. So, the "hackable" part there was losing ground. The idea was that the Linux kernel drivers would need to reference binary blobs (black box/closed source), for device access (enforced by law?). As for the rest of the routers functionality, I don't really know; aside for allowing you to install your own firewall and routing software. Likely wired devices are often open sourced drivers. But that doesn't mean the router is less track-able or useful for forensics. Unless we assume that all "closed source" router vendors are adding hidden functionallity, that Linux wouldn't come with. Linux may not even be free of "hidden" functionality, sitting right there in the open for all to see. It has "allegedly" happened to OpenBSD, at one time. And that is opensource code. The with the complexity of large code bases, its hard to say this isn't happening more often. Its not the same thing, but there is a developer "Lennart Poettering" who during his time working on Linux's systemd, also worked at Microsoft. There are some core components of Linux, to much the dismay of some, that have become more "Windows like" as a result of Poettering. RedHat (IBM) is very influential in how Linux is carried into the future. Much of their influence has moved Linux towards a more "corporate" friendly OS (systemd, udev, pulseaudo, pipewire, and wayland). Microsoft is actually a Platinum member of the Linux Foundation (along with many other large names). Most of the Linux people grumbling about this, are hobbyist that know Linux is becoming less useful (for their interests). Many are seeing the reasons they left Windows, showing up in Linux. Linux has been accepting binary blobs, in the the kernel, for quite sometime now. I honestly see Win98 as way more akin to a Ghost gun, than Linux.

My understanding "about ghost guns" are that they refer to 3D printed guns, that can't be tracked and also won't set of a metal detector. Preventative measures and crime investigation become weaker. Strengthening those things sounds good. Moving the goal post, of what it means to own a device "or software" you purchase, is a bad thing. I guess, there is always the old saying, "if you have nothing to hide, you should be okay with it". But it works like this: I may not "currently" be hiding anything you have an issue with. But when you've implemented all the controls that would rationally "prevent" and "protect", afterwards I will be subject to whatever you decide is rational; and I will have less "to no" recourse to do anything about it. Often the above logic is decried as supporting "not protecting" and "not preventing" what is important. But, considering the current state of the would, I don't think those two objects are the goal. All things considered, it seems like the real goal is enforcement of predictability; this for the sake of protecting power. If I was running a industrial production line, this is the exact control I would want. Like controlling the predictability of investment/returns, when growing industrialized chicken meat. The condition of the chickens life isn't relevant, nor hardly the quality of meat that comes from that chicken. What matters is what is important to me, at my level. I kinda think, at this point in the human management game, we are the chickens. But, that is a lot of personal conjecture. I just don't want Win9x to one day be considered a "ghost gun". For now, Win9x carries the advantage of not mattering "in the bigger picture". Who knows what will become of these laws, and how far they'll reach. May not really be an issue, in the end. But, it does match patterned modern trends.

Ghost Guns. I do understand the importance of keeping people safe, on both fronts. To me, it seems like neither front is the actual goal. They both seem like indirect aims, of a larger long term goal; and these two ideologies will be harder to reject (on the face of them, anyway). I've questioned this before, I wonder how long it will be before you can no longer connect to the Internet, using obsolete machines/software; at least without some in-between authorized secured device. I'm fine, without being able to access discord. But it would be nice if an old Win98 machine could talk to another Win98 machine, and not be considered nearing a line of terrorism (imagined future scenario).

I think the same state is passing "or has passed" a law that, a 3D printer must ask permission "from a remote authority" before it can print something for you. Altering the device comes with a legal repercussion, if caught. The "remote authority" needs to approve what it is you intend to print.

There is an issue there. The bigger issue is that, you have to verify your age "in some way" no matter how old you are. As a user, you'd be able to bypass things like this. But the services looking for the age "signal" would fail to support you; again, this all depends on how reliable the undefined verification works. A simple "if or else" can be bypassed. But when you think about bypassing a modern certificate, that's different. In this instance, its not just a case of backporting a certificate data base. It would be more like forging an identity, with less legal liability (for now anyway). This will "probably" eventually work like those anti-cheat systems, where the remote service needs to have administrative access to your machine.

yes. There are a few stragglers, running in "inside" their smart device; but that host network will probably sell them out.