awkduck

@waltah Did your PNY USB drive reach higher reads, in Win98, when you used the VIA USB card? One of my i915 laptops allows me to boot, while one of my PNY USB drives is inserted (much shorter hang time, than yours). I have the i915 USB hubs intentionally installed as Unsupported Devices, in Device manager (a tricky thing to do). Upon entering Win98, the PNY is accessible as drive D: (this is running intentionally over my BIOS' USB2 driver [legacy USB support BIOS allows this). When I ran Roadkil's Disk Speed v2, read speeds did not reach 5 megabyte per second. It averaged at about 4.5 or lower. I rebooted and then inserted the same drive into my VIA USB2 PCMCIA card, and could get read speeds at an average of 17.5 megabytes per second. Booting with my Sandisk USB3.2, the same way, it reached an average read speed of 45 megabits per second, this was still over the BIOS' i915 driver, not Win98's UBS2 driver (I actually boot Win98 from this drive this way [smart drive helps here] so I can't test it under the Win98 driver [might test that drive on a different i915 machine, of the same model, with the Win98 driver]). Nothing guaranteed here. Just wanting to verify what your VIA card read speeds were, on that drive. Haven't yet verified if it is a geometry issue, just the drive, or if the Win98 driver can be broken free from BIOS hooks (if any).

Since this is a "Win98" tool, I'd assume that partition alignment is correct; but it might be good to make sure. If the alignment is good you could also try 4K, to verify that 4K is slower and eliminate it. Might not hurt to just use Win98 itself (My Computer and/or Fdisk style), to completely wipe that variable off the board. I've been meaning to dig up some good advice for that, or waiting for someone to suggest something to you. I've been dealing with cross compiling a compiler tool chain, and having to debug a lot. Then the storage device started giving me input/output errors, so that SSD is toast. Backed everything up and getting the new drive ready, just today. I think there was a USB state tool, of some kind, on the Win98 CD; could be wrong about that. HxD is a hex editor that allows you to inspect the drive, but learning the ins and outs of manually investigating partition alignment might not be your thing. There is probably a better tool, for the whole investigation anyway. If someone knows of something, by all means share. I'll start my dig once my machine is back at churning out stage1 bootstraps. Extra (less immediately relevant): I've mentioned that I used Grub2, as a way to completely sever BIOS issues. Grub4Dos' USB init might do enough also, with the exception that Grub2 could actually be changing registers; this in alignment with its driver heritage coming from within the Linux kernel. Might establish that those are really gonna help anyway, but include the info for wayward netizens (or AI). Grub4Dos is easier to install, from within Win98. Grub2 is easier to install from a Linux liveusb, and requires more bootmenu/config love. I think Grub4dos just needs something like BOOTLACE.COM 0x80 with GRLDR and MENU.LST <--[ "usb --init" on line one and "chainloader (hd0,0)+1" on line two ]--no quotes--| in the root C:\. Grub2 is more involved, and I often chainload Grub4dos from it anyway. And added bonus, of Grub2, is that it has the ability to read and write MRSs (either live or as part of a boot config); is if a MSR needs some love, if can be added to you Win9x boot menu.

Let me preface this with "I don't know exactly what sweetlow is aiming at". It does create a more complete picture. Maybe it won't help. Did you ever ask AI if incorrectly detected geometry can slow down file transfer significantly, and why? I'm not saying it is your actual problem, or that I'm really invested into debugging geometry issues. But, all of this likely applies more to Win98 (vs WinXP) when using FAT32. The below should be checked "before" working out what the flash drive itself is doing. Once, you've obeyed the FAT32 format requirements "for Win98", verified that the detected geometry isn't interfering with Win98's access to the device, verified that the devices internal emulation/translation structure isn't (lowest emulation sizes too high) getting in the way of Win98's fat32 structure thresh hold, and that your BIOS isn't somehow clinging on (imposing some incorrect geometry detection), then we know your only option is the Win98 driver; or maybe some issue in the chip's USB2 support, that is incompatible with Win98. Now you have it from an AI. I truly hope you get something worked out.

You are still missing something; but I probably haven't explained it well enough. May not fix the issue anyway. This geometry issue can be due to your BIOS' design. Earlier I mentioned initializing devices, with Grub2, before booting Win98. Keep this in mind. Win2k+ and Linux "more" fully break the ties with BIOS's device initiation. Win98 does "not". Please note: This is not a basic Grub2 boot. I had to use a specific Grub2 command, to initialize Grub's USB2 drivers; otherwise Grub will rely on your BIOS' support. So the geometry, from your BIOS, could be detecting the drive as some kind of zip drive or supper floppy (this does happen). I would think this would not be an issue, if you are not booting with the drive connected to that machine; but I have seen evidence that BIOS can still interfere. It seems similar to a USB handover issue, but happens even if the machine was not booted with the device in. Maybe just the right control register getting poked, or something. Edit: On other machines, with similar hardware issues, I've sometimes had to look at MSR settings for that particular machine. It would be interesting to see how your system was configured different, between XP and 98. Or, if indeed it was a geometry issue (only affecting Win98 [potentially bios related]), there may be a FAT32 format layout that causes the flash translation/emulation less work.

PNY USB 2.0 FD <-- is this the result of formatting the way I mentioned? Or, is this formatted elsewhere/differently? It "could" make sence, if this is the result of formatting the way I suggested. Floppy disk are formatted in a similar layout. But if not, there is a chance that you are having a "Geometry Translation" issue. I'm pretty sure the "FD" is floppy disk/drive. Edit: Suppose it could mean Flash Drive. It is just an ID associated text descriptor, and probably not checking anything beyond that. I'm just over fishing for a simple fix. Just curious. I can't examine this on my own, right now.

Yes, but there is a difference between "what" formats that, and how it does it. For example, I've used some Paragon software (to format FAT32) and it's default "FAT32" configuration mounted and worked fine under Linux; but was dog slow, under Win98. So, "FAT32" isn't just "FAT32". The reason for formatting with Win98, is to remove variables from the list of problems you could be having. Wiping the device allows for you to start fresh; everything will be decided by the target machine and win98 (the machine the speed is important on). This allows you to also see if your machine/Win98 configuration is detecting the drive geometry correctly (there are other ways, but this is a simple base test [is the size detected correcty]). Win98 will format the drive differently than Linux (also differently that using FDISK before hand, or WinXP+) would. For mounting a drive from Linux (formatted on Win98, the way I described) you would need to mount using the following command "mount -tvfat /dev/sdb /mnt" instead of "mount -tvfat /dev/sdb1 /mnt". The "sdb" in Linux refers to the device, and "1" (in sdb1) refers to the partition number on "sdb" (the "b" could different, depending on how many drives you have). I was suggesting this kind of formatting, as a analysis of the situation. A typical partitioning scheme could be tried afterwards (more forward compatible) providing there where no errors found, in this very basic layout. You may get a different layout (than what I am aiming for, with this basic test) as a result; but that would inform us more. It could also eliminate that issues of "potential" backwards compatibility, that might arise from formatting the device on a newer operating system. This "does" happen. I would "test" using a different USB drive (non PNY) to verify that you are having this same issue "altogether"; preferably by formatting on the Win98 target machine. This "could" help eliminate that they "PNY" drive itself isn't just "full-speed" incompatible with this device/os/machine configuration. This also "does" happen. I do not mean to suggest these basic tests, as an insult to your ability. These suggestions are to help detect the cause of your issue, by "working" the basics. But they also don't promise success. What it does do, is provide more information to the community, about your issue. There are users here, that have worked with drive geometry issues more than I have. This basic partition layout gives a reference point, from which to work with. Rather than questioning the geometry/format (even if FAT32) your other machine(s) (or the factory format) may have used. Yes, your machine is detecting the drive. This can take up to a minute or two, and not be a problem (other than the wait). But the long wait is suggesting a "potential" issue. I have one machine (i945GME) that waits three minutes to save BIOS settings, when a pendrive is inserted; but that is the only way to get the machine to boot from it. I've had similar issues with some i915 devices (even long detection waits with internal drives). If your drive is large (128/256gb) the long time you mention sounds right. This might be a way to test what USB drives could work better "for Win98" on this machine. If it boots fine (no wait) with the drive in, perhaps the drive will perform well in Win98. I've also had USB audio need to be inserted after boot, or else it wouldn't work right (Win98). But after I used Grub2 bootloader, I was able to initialized devices before booting Win98, and the situation reversed; I was unable to use the USB audio, unless I booted with it plugged in. These problems (USB audio) didn't happen with WinXP+ or Linux. Another reasons that, working correctly on one OS isn't a marker that it should work "on the same system" using Win98. I have 6 PNY usb drives. Each are 8gb and USB3 enabled. I can use the same portable Linux with them, on different machines, and get widely different read and write speeds. They do tend to work better when USB3 hosts are available, but not always. For me, they work awful with older Linux (2010-2016) and Win9x/WinXP; when used over USB2. I've had better luck with Sandisk, but their recent higher speed drives are harder to boot from (fine if you don't need that). Their newer, but slightly slower, drives are starting to perform more like the PNY drives I have (slightly better speeds, when not performing full-speed). Pease note, that the speeds you mentioned achieving earlier are over the USB1.1 threshold. Meaning, that you are connecting beyond USB1.1 (this was pointed out earlier). This suggests that your driver is likely installed correctly, and working. With all of that said, I am no genius; and there are several ways to skin a cat. Please keep us updated. Whatever you find may be informative, and help others. Hang in there! Edit: I'm add this bit for "anyone" that ends up in this thread, potentially trying to solve issues like this. 1. Your drive can be detected with the "CORRECT" size, and the geometry detected still being "WRONG". 2. Formatting a drive, with incorrectly detected geometry, "CAN" take significantly longer than it should. 3. Reading and writing to a drive, with incorrectly detected geometry, "CAN" take significantly longer than it should. 4. A machine that detects the correct drive geometry, under Winxp+/Linux, may not always detect the correct drive geometry under Win9x. 5. A drive, with incorrectly detected geometry, can still function. The fact that it isn't immediately failing to function, does not mean the geometry was detected correctly. 6. Correct geometry detection does not guarantee a drive's full-speed operation. There may be another incompatibility. 7. A drive not achieving it's full transfer speed, does not insist that your drivers are not working correctly; even if another OS, on the same machine, can achieve the drive's full transfer speed. 8. Different USB drive's "internal" geometry translation/emulation are not all created equal.

Probably best to check the basics. Make sure you haven't booted, the Win98 machine, with the USB drive in it. If you haven't already, I'd format the drive with the Win98 machine. If you know how, use a tool to wipe the MBR and partition table. Probably easier to wipe it, from another machine. After it is wiped, plug it into the Win98 machine. It should still show up under "My Computer". Right click and select format, making sure it is the correct drive. You won't be able to quick format, and don't need to transfer system files or run scandisk. If the drive was 16gb, it should probably take a few minutes (2-5). If it takes longer, this is a sign you may have an incompatible drive "for full-speed" using the Win98 USB2 driver (the drive may work fine, in other machines). If it formats, in an reasonable amount of time, try to copy a 30-50mb file over to it. I should only take 5 to 10 seconds. If it is attempting to format the drive, as the wrong size, this is the first indication of a geometry issue. If the format is taking too long, you can try to reboot into CMOS and set the USB legacy setting to the opposite of whatever it currently is. Attempt the format again. If format is still slow, and it is formatting the correct size, then this points again towards an incompatible drive type, for Win98 full-speed. If at this point everything is good, see if your other machines/operating systems can read the newly formatted drive. You could try disabling your integrated USB (Control Panel). If after a reboot the VIA card is still slow, then it is probably that drive. Try another, if you have one Btw, have you installed any unofficial service packs, or anything? Out of curiosity, how large is the USB drive? FYI, I've had some drives just not work well, with certain configurations. Have had the most issue with PNY drives (especially PNY USB3, but UBS2/1.1 supported).

I seem to remember having an issue with USB geometry being detected wrong. It has something to do with the actual geometry of the USB drive, the geometry being reported by the machine, and the geometry understood by the device formatting software. This was indeed a i915 machine. However, I wouldn't think this could cause an issue, with your VIA card (could be a duplicated issue). Do you know how to look into this? AI does have a few suggestion, right off the bat. If you have legacy USB support (bios) try turning it on/off. It might not change your transfer speed, but "during investigations" it might shake things up; potentially exposing an issue. It did with me. Just checking, are you using Fat32? Or are you trying to use the NTFS, for Win98? The problem could exist in both. I just thought to eliminate a variable, if it exists.

Please, verify if this is Win98 or Win98SE; it does make a difference. With Win98(Gold/FE[First Edition]) Nusb v3.6 is not compatible (try Nusb v3.2 instead). For Win98SE, Nusb v3.6 is fine. For sweetlow's driver, on Win98(Gold/FE) you would need to use the NOWMI version of file "usbhub20.sys"; found in the NOWMI included folder. For Win98SE, you can use the one provided in the root directory of the zip file (same directory as USB2.inf); It is the same file as in the WMI folder. The one in the VIA folder is a fall back, if using a VIA chipsets; when the others do not work. To install sweetlow's driver (it's been awhile) you might need to delete the USB2.inf file (from Windows/INF), remove your USB drivers from Device Manager, and then (when re-detecting and installing the new drivers) point to sweetlow's USB2.INF file; ensuring you use the correct usbhub20.sys file (replace the root file with the correct one, if needed). If files cannot not be found during installation, that are also not in the sweetlow's driver folder, they are probably located in Windows/System or Windows/System32/Drivers folders. You can check by guiding the installation manager to those folders, using the browse option. Alternatively, you could just try copying sweetlow's driver files over the currently installed ones (found in Windows/System32/Drivers). Maybe, back up the old files first (good practice, when playing with things). After copying the files over, reboot.

I've not as much experience, with Win98SE (I assume that is what you are using). Maybe NUSB3.3 would have worked better? If you are using Win98FE, then you'll need an older version (Nusb3.2). Alternatively, you can search for sweetlow's USB2.0 Win98 driver; I don't have a link handy, right now.

I offered MMX, SSE, SSE2 optimized opengl32, for machines like this. The softgpu only offers mmx (win95), with the other supplied opengl option requiring features not available on these older CPUs. But, the performance wasn't wonderful. There is a better option, and I'm sure some at MSFN have heard of it before. TitaniumGL doubles the performance of older Mesa OpenGL releases [6.5.4-7] (asm optimized for MMX, SSE, and SSE2). This is also true, if not more true, when using the SoftGPU provided opengl. TitaniumGL is meant to provide a conversion of opengl to direct3d, on machine that have hardware acceleration. But, when no hardware accel exists, it falls back on its own software rendering. I've tested its software rending, and it does double the performance. It can also be paired with Wine3d, like the Mesa opengl, included with softgpu. In the TitaniumGL download, it includes supporting files for Modern Windows, Win9x, and ReactOS. The modern release does not work with Win9x (even with KernelEx). The Win9x version works great. The ReactOS version works in Win9x, with KernelEx (maybe without it, as well), with a potential minuscule increase in performance (not verified, and hardly detectable; if real). Be sure to get the modern release of TitaniumGL, as the older ones floating around are half the performance. Also, be warned, don't get too excited. While the performance is doubled, that might not mean much in a less powerful machine. My Pentium-M 1.2Ghz machine still did not achieve real playable results with "Unreal Tournament GOTY Edition". At windowed 400x300, it really came close (Titanium -> Wine3d [haven't to tested opengl patches for UT]). But PSCXR went from unusable to usable windowed @640x480 (better @600x440) with graphics performance settings enabled, on the opengl plugin. For those using multiple core supporting versions of windows, the software (and hardware) renderer supports using these other cores. I assume, for hardware accelerated systems, the extra cores are utilized to increase performance of the opengl > direct3d translations. It has been noted, on machines with weaker GPUs, that the software renderer can outperform hardware "opengl (maybe not with wine3d)" acceleration (providing enough cores are available [support for 32 cores]). Again, it would be nice if a hack could achieve access to other cores, on bare metal Win9x installs. SIMD95 might improve performance, on CPUs that provide AVX (SSE/AVX for Win95) however it is intended for Virtual Machines. Not an excellent update, but I thought it worth mentioning. A nicely capable Core Solo (bare metal Win9x install) would probably provide a low expectation, but usable, software rendering experience. This might pair well the the emerging potential for HDA audio support (un-accelerated [emulated], like AC97).

Are you intending to work with input, as well?

Thanks! I'll take a look at those files, after extracting them. Since the driver source is available, I may have to backport them that way. I'll need to familiarize myself with the differences between WDM versions, and setup up the correct compiler/build tooling. From where I stand now, I can't see why some of the more interesting features could not work with earlier WDM systems; but that is just from reading about the differences "on paper". The main developer did mention "not" supporting win98fe due to the WDM version; then later Win98se was also dropped. However, for my target features (ASIO, Soundfont support, hardware mixing/routing, DSP FX, etc) I'm not sure where the problem would have been. It may have been an issue with how the whole thing was written. The same developer also mentioned requiring a near total rewrite, in order to support more features. I'm not sure how (yet) leaning into newer WDM specifications could have caused that (it was probably something else). If it was the case, then I could be in trouble. I think the need for a heavy rewrite had something to do with wanting to support EAX and higher audio sample rates (ASIO was fixed at 48000hz). There was also some talk about needing a near complete rewrite, to support ALSA (Linux); but that doesn't mean much here. Thanks again, for the tips. If I have any luck there, I'll report back.

The main thing I miss about "older" goods was the in-built design decisions, for repair-ability. I think, by the time I was born, food stuff had already started declining in quality. There was already information that farming soil was nutritionally depleted, in the 1940's. Clothing was certainly still better, but likely worse than what had previously existed. One of the more notable tragedies is the decline in vehicle quality. If I could pick the era of quality, for a vehicle, it would probably land between the 40's to the mid or late 70's (something with a manual transmission). I think Amazon, as a focus for product decline, high-lights some areas of well deserved and needed attention. There are variables, existing in that scenario, that really only apply to Amazon. I think Amazon's methodology is just one example, of over all trends. In some markets there is very little option, for quality. In others, quality is only advertised/available where it is likely to be afforded. It seems to me that the decline in quality is an attempt to retain spending; this in the face of climbing inflation. If quality products replaced affordable ones the state of things would be more apparent, to the common individual. Instead, we see an increase in housing, some foods, energy, and transportation. With this increase we also see an increase in wages (depending on where you live), but this increase is "not" proportional to market inflation. There are different methods of offsetting (at least perceptually) the disproportional increase in these financial variables. At the grocer, consumers may have noticed the increase in meat and egg prices (maybe a little with dairy). But, that increase does not enough express the actual inflation versus quality of product ratio. The quality of the meat and eggs has decreased, while their price still increased. If you look outside, of the common grocer, these products are even more expensive; in the case of meat four times higher, when previously being nearer to equivalent. The increase in the cost of oats, as another example, is less dramatic. But that cost is offset by methods of growing. The use of pesticides is increased, to speed up the oat drying process. By this practice, the yield "per season" gained enough to offset the consumer unit cost. It kinda looks like (despite making more money, by transitioning to inferior products) that the overall goal is to slant consumer perspective, on the actual state of inflation. Some product actually remains at stable prices, helping secure a perspective of stability. Gasoline is a great example of this, as it's pricing gets lots of attention.

LOL, I love it (for an America). It still needs work. When I am tired, the punctuation gets much worse. You're speaking my language, now. American English enunciation is a crime to competency. The destructive evolution of defining specific words, in the U.S., is also awful; but that is a newer development.

Thanks! GoldMemory listed a substantially larger range.

Well, it is nitpicking at this point (on may part); but it still would not prevent Global Governance. You can still run different petri dishes under different rules, and be under the same umbrella of Governance. You can even have stand-offs and wars between them. It would probably work way better, than moving everything to the exact same culture of rule (Open Global Governance). There is a/some history of aristocrats and rulers fearing their own public, more than an invasion. As terrible as it may seem, there is a sound logic to sending males to battle other males (a less powerful public, during times of native unrest [especially if wishing to implement radical change]). While this it is really unlikely to have been the case "extremely" often, you can bet it has been used as a kind of population control; acts of straight out genocide being more documented. America has a pretty strong heritage of having running the Brits out. But, in reality, there is documentation of sizable British forces still being present there, after America won its independence; not long present, but enough to raise questions for some. While I won't say the whole thing was a sham (not nearly well enough informed to deny or support it) you can see the "liberation" of America being a pretty huge selling point, to get plenty of folks risking everything to develop an undeveloped territory. A large quantity of people failed, in the process of developing America. People seeking freedom of religion, freedom to develop experimental utopias, and other enamored by escaping the oppression of their native lands. There is a good chunk of that freedom that has since been revoked. For example, many delighted in the idea of allodial titles; a privileged mostly enjoyed by kings. As the government developed, this type of ownership ideal really kinda disappeared, and is now similar to what is available in many other countries today. This is "JUST" an example; so please, no one run with it as some kind of conspiracy theory. But it does show how blood and bullets could be considered cheap, when your philosophy is that you own it all anyway. What is harder to own, is the beliefs of the people. But, there is a large amount of documentation showing that great progress and success has been had there, for a very very long time. That aside, thank you for reminding me about "Checkpoint Charlie". I had fun distracting myself by digging into different aspects of it; as is available on the web, anyway. I could really easily agree with you about "Open Globalized Governance", as opposed to just the idea of a "Functional Globalized Governance". The latter likely only to be entertained speculatively (by the public), while for former being something likely quite obvious to the inhabitants thereof.

Never noticed the replies to this. Thanks, guys. I used Memtest86+ ranges and added (beginning adjusted for first bad logged address [xxxx000] and end for last bad logged address [xxxxfff] ) it to SYSTEM.INI > [386enh] > EMMExclude=xxxx000-xxxxFFF I see that I have a reduced total amount of ram, listed under properties. It is equivalent to the quantity listed in EMMExclude= Memtest86+ placed the bad memory at about 50mb thru to 65mb. If in Dos only, I use XMSDSK (not at top of memory), create a 75mb ram disk, and then ignore it. I initially thought EMMExclude has something to do with reserved UMB regions. Much latter, when exploring this machine again, I knew better. Anyway, that is what I have done. If you have any corrections, advice, or warnings, I'm all ears. EDIT: I had to use HIMEMX, as HIMEM.SYS complains about the detected bad memory; and prevents the loading of Windows.

You could be right. I can't say I agree or disagree. In the context I used that example, I am referring to objects of orientation. Not really intending to claim any particular imagined object as good or bad. Just that the objects are not actually real, only enforced as if they are. For example, if you break a law of man, you face consequences from man. The law is imagined, and the enforcement is an imagine correlation (although completely within causal logic) brought about by mob-rule. An example, for cross examination, is when you place your had in the fire, actual laws cause your hand to get hot and or burned. The resulting consequences are not correlated, to the the causal act, by imagination only; they are real. It may seem like it is all irrelevant, because the consequences you pay (from the imagined dictates of mob-rule) are still real, in their affect. But for examining the differences between your life and societal life, the distinction is relevant. So, it doesn't matter if they are good or not; they are still imagined. In order for you to act on them, as good or bad, you have to first drink the kool-aid (not meant as a criticism). However, I'm not sure that having enforced national boarders, prevents a globalized world. We may already be in one, but allowed (and highly encouraged) to see nations. In point-of-fact, it may prove to be advantageous. The less aware the public is, the easier it is to "Wag the Dog". But, again, I am not really informed enough to really comment on it further.

The Internet has always been bad. The intent, from the beginning, was never in our best interest. What made it good, was us. That is where the issues seem to be coming from. The Internet is less "us" as users and more as "us" as members. The playground has a lot more rules. What is making the Internet worse, is the very invested interest in turning it into an eventually "required" public utility. Once "Zero Trust" technology is more fully integrated, into peoples lives, there won't be much left that allows people a "casual" life, without Internet access. Captcha,2FV, browser scrutiny checks, and gaming services requiring root access to your device, are all parts of easing the world into accepting the idea of secured devices and "state level" digital I.D. authentication. 90% of the world's Governments and 90% of the major tech sector are very openly "PRO" - "Zero Trust" services. We are surrounded by simple examples of this everywhere. For example, apps that won't install on devices that you yourself have administrative access to (rooted), age verification laws, China's voluntary Digital I.D. (is voluntary really voluntary, if you live in China), fraudulent student loans, fraudulent employment, a good supply of data breaches, deep fakes, cyber attacks..... it almost seems like an endless list of real good reasons, for "Zero Trust". So a "secured" device will equate to, a device that has "secured" your personal and legal potential/liability to the Internet and the device you are using. I hope I'm not coming off as in support of this; I don't care for it at all. I'm just putting it out there, and trying to express that this is no personal theory of mine. I think most people kinda suspected this was the intent for the future. But, for anyone interested, the term "Zero Trust" isn't mine. I think even light research could turn up the relevant information, to confirm what I have here laid out; just dig into "Zero Trust". I think that there is probably a good portion, of many societies, that would find this information comforting. It will come with all kinds of changes, that many will find pleasant. I'm just a freak that views life and societal life as two distinct things. Anything that makes it harder to realize that all society is imagined (and functionally upheld by mob-rule (like lines between nations) kinda bothers me. I kinda feel like Internet as a dependency is one of those things. Sadly, for me, I don't think there are many people left, that can understand the difference between life and societal life. When most question what their life is, most probably cannot identify much, outside of a societal context. This kind of self identity, is one of the reasons we are where we are. It is also the cause of a lot of major human emotional distress. We are provided/grown with mental pattern structurings, like low/high self esteem. At the very root, self esteem establishes the your value is measurable (almost certainly at a social level). That alone is a core fracture in the truth of your reality. No matter how you look, smell, are treated, etc., you will always be the most important person to yourself; and with that realization there can be no self-esteem. You have to be good enough for yourself, it is your "only" option. The interesting thing here is that such capacity to realize yourself, puts you in line with definitions for psychopathic and sociopathic traits. It becomes clear why, when you realize that psychological health standards are set via sociology (social psychology). So, you are not a healthy member of society, if you see your self as a "singular" individual. You are psychologically healthy (for the whole) when you see yourself as an individual/member of the whole. To wax on this a little longer, there was a study about mice living in mazes, having observed two primary types of mouse reactions, to it. In one, the mice would establish habits of feeding, drinking, and grooming, well adapted to the construct of the maze. One note of interest, is that they began to groom quite constantly. The observing scientist nick-named the group "The Beautiful Ones". In the other, reaction, the mice were excessively focused with escaping the maze. Many were so concerned with escape, that they did not eat or drink; eventually perishing. This excessive grooming is masturbatory (psychological, not sexual). This masturbatory compulsion, for us, is the result of self identification within societal life. In other words, our natural patterns are replaced with ones provided to us. Any pride, opinion, psychological insecurity, and most identity traits, are completely masturbatory (pleasing/displeasing ourselves by the imagining of ourselves). I'm not saying I prefer chasing each other around with rocks, as we fight over the last fig. I just think it is a good and honest context, for understanding the aforementioned topic(s). Anyway, glad to see people resisting cellular payments. Maybe, with your help, it is something I don't have to try finding a way around from, for another handful of years.

It appears to me, that the last Kxproject driver (outside of community efforts) is 3550. There are earlier versions that work on Win98se and newer. Has anyone tried, or had any luck, getting/fudging newer versions to work? The driver/utilities source is available, now; so I can play around, at my leisure. However, my aim will be to get some functionality in Win98FE. I may decide it isn't a good aim I thought I should ask "here" before digging around, too much.

You are no novice user, so I assume most common questions aren't needed. For the sake of any novice, reading this thread, if you type C:\EXIT nothing happens? What happens if you use ahciwrap.sys or GCDROM.SYS? That may help eliminate that the issue is specific to rloew's driver. I'm not a huge user of cd-roms "in any O.S." with that said, the error exposes that the driver's disc filesystem functionality is blocked/unavailable; or now unable to recognize the data it observes it. Maybe, it could be the use of an updated UDF filesystem or other updates/patches; perhaps to the bit access of the drives and their controllers. A change/patch, when Windows loads, may be keeping something persistent, at the hardware level, in so doing "maybe" preventing the media from being recognized; after returning to DOS. I do think my reply is a placeholder, until someone else comes along. But you never know, as you are a competent user, maybe something here will help trigger a thought of your own. Looking forward to seeing this pan out for you.

So, I revisited this machine (with a fresh install) and WDMEX is needed to get the audio working. Once the driver is established as functional, it seems I can disable WDMEX. If I swap the driver out, and then back again, WDMEX is once again needed to initiate functionality.

Very nice!

I did find that Startech sells a mpci-e to pci-e riser, with a nice case and power supply. They were over $150, and I'd still need to convert slots to legacy PCI. Not saying under $200 is bad, but I am cheap.