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.

On the first day of 2027, all Operating System vendors are required to implement age verification, when creating a user account. There will be fines up to $2500 per affected child for negligent violations (you just did get it implemented, for some reason), and $7500 per affected child for intentional violations (you intentionally didn't implement it). The information is cloudy, on how the verification will actually be required to work. They made everything clear enough, except for how the "verification" will work "outside" of the operating system. If you are interacting with the Internet, the O.S. will "signal" the outside world about age. The cloudy part, is how the age will be verified during account creation. It apparently includes Operating Systems like ReactOS, Haiku, Linux, Windows, Macos, and FreeDOS. I think FreeDOS/SvarDOS could skate by, if they discontinued their online package managers. Ubuntu and Debian Linux are already in talks about how to accomplish it. I guess MidnightBSD says they will just prompt California user's with a statement that they aren't allowed to user the O.S. in that state. Microsoft has all but already done this, anyway. It's basically like the Discord thing, but only at the Operating System level. Win9x is no-longer supported, so the post is a joke about how Win9x user are immune to the whole thing.

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1043/id/3269704

Mine isn't completely locked down, but I get the feeling success will be tough. I'm not aiming to look at that machine, too soon. I was going to start by disabling everything, I could, and boot a bare pre-configured Win98 image file, from ram. Should try 95 on it, too. I can get that on most things. By the way, if you didn't know already, those Cx0 have SSE3 (pni). Probably doesn't help it much, but surprised me.

We gotta take it all, with many grains of salt. I hope I don't come back, a week from now, and read my writing here. I'd have stop myself from edition all the things I say, that are "kinda" right, "close" to right, and "maybe, I shouldn't post when I haven't slept well". You guys bare with me pretty well.

This was my Sandisk USB3.2 running with the BIOS driver, in windows. With the Windows driver I maxed at 20 megabits per second. If I toyed with the format, I could probably get it up to 27. Really depends on if you are using all big files, or lots of small files. I run on this drive, so it is more geared for smaller file access. Only bringing this up, because you shouldn't let the 45 megabits convince you to run out and buy one.

That's fine, with me. I do have a post, somewhere here, where I describe a way to use the modern Windows version of Grub2. It works the same; just different installation, on a system is was never meant to support. Plop boot manager also has it's own USB driver. But I am not sure if you can even get it to initialize, unless you are actually going to boot off the USB drive. You could also test, using Super Grub 2, no need for Linux. But it could only serve as a test, since it can't install Grub2. Another option would be using a LiveXP ( or newer ) I sure there as still some of those floating around; then you could use the Win32 Grub2. I should've also mentioned, USB boot. You BIOS may have a boot order option. If it lists USB in the order, maybe the only way to disable it is removing USB from the list. XHCI is USB1,2,3, EHCI is USB2 and UHCI/OHCI is USB1. Anything related to USB deviced ( not the hosts themselves ) could be related to Legacy USB. There looks like there might be a option to disable USB boot and/or USB wake. But that was just a brief gaze of some documentation. ---- About AI, if a you spends some money ( on the better ones ) you can see them do some amazing work. I'm not really a fan of AI, but they are getting better. Right now, its mostly the user's understanding of what to expect out of it, and how to reach those realistic expectations. For now, Law is a bad place for it. But I imagine there are just as many winning cases by hallucination, as there are people getting caught with their pant down. But that's more in the ballpark of selling used cars; you can't expect people to not fudge the line. It just a matter of how desperate they are.

@waltah Updated For any developers out there: I noticed that Roadkil's disk speed test reports the USB Cached Speed as 43.16 MB/s, when things are working well. When things are real slow, the Cached Speed reports 1.4 GB/s. If the issue @waltah is having isn't BIOS related, maybe he could test that and give results ( not necessarily using Roadlik's test ).

This is one of the machines I intended to test; however you have one of the main machines (Wyse Cx0) I was interested in. I also have a HP t510 (VT8237A/VT8251 HDA/VIA Eden X2 U4200), but I have not been about able to boot Win98 on it.

@waltah Another note: I do sometimes get that long boot/post hang "like yours" if the machine has already been booted once (since the machine was plugged into the wall). After that, it is a crap-shoot; it will either boot from the USB or have a really long post time (often the later). Its easy to unplug the laptop, then without fail it can boot off of the USB drive again (issues I've not had booting this machine with Grub2, as every time something is being triggered during Grub initialization). I do not think the geometry is wrong. I formatted the PNY from DOS (BIOS Driver) and inspected the result. The partition offset was not perfect, for a flash drive, but otherwise looked good (examined from a different system). Oddly, the partition offset being the only difference (cluster size the same as others, I've tested), it benchmarked between 5.5 and 6 megabytes a second (Windows/BIOS driver); not great, but "strangely" faster. I'm setting up a hard drive for Win98, in that machine, to see if I can rectify the issue; more closely matching your setup (using one of the Grubs). There are some Linux reports of i915 not relinquishing BIOS USB control (sometimes other things). They encouraged people to disable legacy support (is there a BIOS update, for this machine?). Since I have no problem using this machine in Linux, and you in XP, I think the chances (of forcing relinquished control) are good. It has worked for my Win98 USB audio, in this same machine, anyway. Update: It "has" worked for me. 27 odd megabytes a second. Things to investigate before considering the following. BIOS may not list Legacy USB options straight forward. It could be listed as something like USB keyboard and Mouse. This is what often provides a keyboard and mouse, when the machine has no PS2 inputs. If you use the following approach, Windows would need to load at boot, and could not exit to real MsDos, as there would be no keyboard (or mouse) support. Using only the "nativedisk ehci" command ( not nativedisk uhci [ohci for AMD machines]) might preserve PS2 keyboard and mouse emulation; but I wouldn't count on it. If you NEC/VIA USB2 device happened to be faster, it might just be easier to use it. This is how you could using Grub2 to clear BIOS control. You need a USB Live Linux, that boots with Grub2 (only using it for the bootmanager and potentially Grub2 installation later). Read the whole post, if you are actually thinking about trying this. Don't try the installation, unless you are willing to start your whole Windows 98 installation over, from scratch. START At boot, you would press "c" to enter the CLI: The the following (note that, pressing up will go through an editable history of typed command) ls # Your looking for drives like (hd0,msdos1). You need to identify the difference between your drive and the live Linux. ls (hd0,msdos1)/ # Once you've identified the the USB drive, you need to verify where it has Grub2 installed # Since you should be for a folder named i386-pc, inside a folder named grub. These could be located in a folder named boot, or something. # Once located, take note of the path chain. Examlpe: (hd1,msdos1)/boot/grub/i386-pc The folder grub will be our "prefix". nativedisk ehci # This cuts grub off of it's modules, and needs to be rectified ( we booted grub off of the now lost USB prefix folder ). # But in my test, this command has removed the BIOS hooks for USB2 in Win98 set root=(usb0,msdos1) set prefix=(usb0,msdos1)/boot/grub ls # If! only your USB device is listed, we need to load drivers for your Hard Drive nativedisk pata # For IDE ( I assumes you have IDA/ATA or the BIOS mode set for compatability ) nativedisk ahci # For SATA ( !!!!This is probably no good for WIn98/Dos booting. I'm adding it for completness !!!! ) ls # Locate your Hard Drive set root=(ata0,msdos1) chainloader +1 boot # Or press F10, if Grub2 has that option available END You'll have to replace the partition label, for the one actually provided "when list the devices" for the USB. The only thing that should have changed is the devices name. Likewise, if you HardDrive partition came up as msdos5, then you would use that instead. It will be important to remember what your device and partition names where. They will be needed to permanently install Grub2, and the fix (if the test worked) When I tested this, I intentionally left an extra FAT32 PNY USB drive inserted, along with the Live LinuxUSB. This "ensured" my USB device was "Completely" un-relinquished from BIOS control. Permanent Install If everything when well (you have faster speeds for USB2, on the PNY Drive), you'll need to boot into the Linux LiveUSB and get a hold of a root Terminal. I'm not describing things like "How to copy Linux to a PenDrive" or "How to access the Linux terminal" as that can pretty easily be discovered online (maybe a lot of this can [recursive joke]). Most LiveUSB systems allow you to run Root commands by using "sudo command". Alternatively, you could run "sudo su" and skip typing the sudo command after that. If you only have one Hard Drive, you device label will probably be "/dev/sda1" . The "1" stands for partition "1". An issue you might run into, is many Linux Distros and LiveUSB automatically mount things (it's rather upsetting). In Linux, drives get mounted to a folder. You may have familiar desktop icons/menus that lead to your Win98 Hard Drive. But we need to know the actual folder path and name. These auto-mounted drives often end up in places like /media/sda/long UUID name/here or something like that. Another location is /mnt. Another note, is that you need to make sure the LiveUSB doesn't just boot from Grub2; it also needs to have the Grub2 installer. Maybe a good candidate would be Debain/Devuan i386 minimal. The newest Debian/Devuan don't support 32bit systems any more. So, as of the time of writing this, you need to use the version released prior to the current. The following assumes you have one partition and one Hard Drive. Otherwise, you'd need to sleuth a bit and make sure you not installing things in the wrong spot. If it is a dual boot machine, this would also cause problems. This advice is for a one O.S. (Win98) and one Hard Disk machine. There ase the command to run, once you've gathered all the needed information. You may need to prepend everything, with the sudo command. mkdir /win98 mount -tvfat -osync /dev/sda1 /win98 grub-install --target=i386-pc --boot-directory=/win98 /dev/sda echo "nativedisk pata" > /win98/grub/grub.cfg # only one ">" here echo "set root=(ata0,msdos1)" >> /win98/grub/grub.cfg # from here on out you need two ">" echo "set prefix=(ata0,msdos1)/win98/grub" >> /win98/grub/grub.cfg echo "nativedisk ehci" >> /win98/grub/grub.cfg echo "chainloader +1" >> /win98/grub/grub.cfg "boot" umount /win98 poweroff If the Hard Drive is already mount, the win98 designation needs to be the folder/path of where your Win98 Hard Drive is mounted. In this case, you would ignore the above command lines with "mount" and "unmount". The drive/partition designations "ata0,msdos1" need to match the discovered designations, from your test. The commands prepended with "echo" can be skipped, if you have access to an editor ( Debian/Devuan minimal should have nano ). With an editor, you could just add this to a text file, named grub.cfg, placing it in the prefix folder (the same folder i386-pc is in). nativedisk pata set root=(ata0,msdos1) set prefix=(ata0,msdos1)/win98/grub nativedisk ehci chainloader +1 boot Regarding Grub4dos: If you had tried Grub4Dos, and want to revert to booting without it, you can use "C:\FDISK /MBR", but not after installing Grub2; unless you want to get rid of that too (files on disk would still remain, needing manual deletion). Notes: I only used "nativedisk ehci" because when attempting to include "nativedisk uhci" I couldn't get my machine to chainload the root target. Don't use "nativedisk pata" unless you have to. If during the test, loading the Grub2 "ehci" driver did not remove your Hard Drive (from the results of "ls") then you shouldn't need nativedisk pata ( this would mean your drive was still shown as hd0 and not ata0 ). If I get time, I'll did deeper into what's actually being changed here. Maybe a Dos MSR could be used in autoexec.bat, and completely relinquish BIOS USB control. Maybe someone has already come up with a handy little program? Sorry, if the test did not work; and your PNY drive still functions poorly.

Nice to see you're still watchin'.