eidenk

I get a Low Resource error saying Ninety Percent or more of your system resources are in use.To free up system resources,quit any programs that you are not using.If you do not your computer may stop responding. this only happen when i delete a large number of files. I have never experienced such a thing on both 98SE and ME. that is how mine reacts exactly i had no low resources How many percent of resources exactly (or even aproximately) were free when you started deleting ? If you didn't have the resource meter on to monitor that, you could have been anywhere between 11 and 90%. If you were at 11 it is possibly normal. If you were significantly higher it is not and it would be interesting to get to know which MS file leaks resources on your system. Also you could have a leak on a shell extension you have installed. I once had one like that, which was an archiver shellex, Quickzip if I recall correctly. Each time I was using the context menu, 1 or 2 percent of resources were going away to never come back. After 50 or so right-clicks in explorer the OS was dead.

What's so great about the Yahoo toobar ? You speak about it a lot since some time.

I get a Low Resource error saying Ninety Percent or more of your system resources are in use.To free up system resources,quit any programs that you are not using.If you do not your computer may stop responding. this only happen when i delete a large number of files. I have never experienced such a thing on both 98SE and ME. Are you sure you were not already very low for other reasons before deleting ? Actually I moved more than 50.000 small files, 1-2 clusters or so, ( the entire textiles.com website linked by LLXX in another thread) from my desktop to another drive just two days ago with the resource meter on screen (for testing purposes having nothing to do with the copy files freeze problem) and noticed no impact on the resources at all. Of course, Explorer froze (with IE 5.5 SP2). I am pretty sure the freeze problem is about explorer not being able to keep up properly with the copy speed. It can't update itself as fast as the data actually changes in Windows and ends up freezing. Pretty sure also that there is a disk write speed setting somewhere in Windows that could solve the problem (which is of no real consequence for me as I have a fast workaround to get to normal explorer again in one click and 2-3 seconds). Possibly, using Total Copy, which allows to limit the copy speed, will generate no freeze problem for such operations. But I haven't done specific testing of that so can't really say.

With all regards due to you, please refrain with such senseless (and dangerous) statements. A user who sticks to 98SE/ME is someone who does not buy XP or Vista.

How did you notice that exactly ?

In my experience, the single hardware feature that affects the most the behaviour of a full Win98 SE is the amount of memory, not really the processor speed. If you have less than 64 Mbytes of memory, Win98 becomes slowish, due to swapping to HD. You can also very much feel the difference between 512 MB and 1GB for still the same reason you say. Almost day and night if you use your PC a bit intensively. Still speaking about 98SE/ME of course.

??? I don't get this.... I have Mobile Siemens Scenic 700/710 on 133MHz and Win98 works like a dream... NO TWEAKS! So i don't see the problem... Do you have the feeling that a folder on your desktop on which you double click is actually opened before you have finished to click it ? Can you add ten shell extensions and not feel a difference as to the context menu display speed when it set to no delay ? Can you run ten third party background tasks and not feel a difference as to the speed of operation of your OS ? Etc... You probably get my point better now.

Now you must fill the second partition with data and see if it screws the first one because what you show here can be done without a patched esdi_506.pdr I think. Only then can you actually applause.

There is large disc support on Windows ME now as I guess you don't ignore. I personally would not swap it for another OS. Of course it has no system restore and system file protection. But to truly enjoy it I recommend at least a 2ghz cpu and 1GB of RAM. That's why I laugh when MS says you can run Vista on a 800MHz chip. Sure I could also run ME or 98 on a P133... I had considered eventually switching to 2k because of dual core cpus support but my own experience with 2k, albeit very brief, hasn't been a pleasant one. Not saying it is a bad system as I haven't enough experience with it. I managed to screw it faster than when I started with win 95 and maintenance recovery turned out to be quite problematic/difficult so I gave up as I was just trying it out of curiosity and not out of need. I have XP but I have never installed it. It just covers my use of a Live XP CD that I use from time to time.

I'd be interested knowing why you say that.

Maybe older versions if any exists.

IMHO, it's got nothing to do with the patch but everything with the formatting(s) you did and yes I did see this once or twice on my machine long time before I used the LLXX patch. You should backup your data if any, erase your drive and recreate your partitions with a trusted tool IMO. This should get you straight normally.

?resp: Meaning all updates called 828026 or 832353 from MS or user-written replacements. PowerArchiver is just a convenient way to get these updates unpacked into their component form, etc. Each one generally would allow a command-line usage with typically /C and perhaps /T, etc. For the sake of clarity, could you please next time use standard vocabulary when you say something ? And say simply "unpacking" as "applying PowerArchiver" could have any of several different meanings. ?resp: Meaning to work with the unpacked files as opposed to the package as is generally expected. Sometimes it's a designated internal .exe file, other times it's some .inf file or other that would be used with a right-click to "install" option on the opened menu, etc."Same here. I just copied that in the registry at HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\inffile\shell\install\command I don't know more about it. There is probably not a lot to change in the inf file to make 832353 work on 98SE as well. I'd suggest you compare a simple inf file that works on 98SE with this one and you should find quite easily what to change to make it work IMO. I think that the_guy is working on such cumulated updates for the Media Players, so maybe it's best you just wait for it. HTH

I used Power DVD 4.0 but I haven't actually looked whereas it was using that dll. Edit : Power DVD does use that dll but probably only loads it without really using it as I have tried also Zoom Player 2.9 now and this one fails, saying it is unable to render the graph. It plays fine with the original qdvd.dll.

I think my only possibly wrong assumption was that it was ifn.exe that was the rootkit whereas it is the dll it drops. A variant of LinkOptimizer/Gromozon apparently. http://www.scmagazine.com/us/news/article/...ted-250000-pcs/ http://securityblog.itproportal.com/?p=465

OK I can play DVDs normally with kb836880 on Win ME.

Intersting chozo but the sequence of events here was as follows : I saw that file. I did execute it. It dissapeared from view but the search found it at the same place and no new exe appeared anywhere as far as I remember. In the registry, it's startup vector remained ifN .exe at the same location. (not looked with Regedit but with a third party tool) A new dll then appeared in the sys dir which is the wuhch1.dll hooked into explorer. A bit later Jetico told me that ifN.exe wanted to go on the internet. I'll need to rerun this in a virtual machine anyway.

Hi Petr, How would I know whether the Win95 OEM discs I have are US English or Pan-European English ? On one CD there is printed 0197 Part No 000-59944, on the other there is 0796 Part No 000-45235.

1) I don't know cos I haven't got WMP9 installed 2) I don't know either as I was not aware of those fixes until now. I haven't got any DV equipment so I can't test KB872901 but I'll test the other one for DVD and I'll let you know how it fares.

? ? You could maybe simply put this in a batch file : "rundll.exe setupx.dll,InstallHinfSection DefaultInstall 132 %1" And replace %1 by the name/path of your inf file. But you'll probably have to use the wait command if you want to chain updates. Better bet is to create a single inf file where you put everything in. Or create an installer for each inf file with IExpress and chain those installers with WishMaker's tool, the Windows Updates Installer.

A filename means nothing. There is no behaviour of ifn.exe described anywhere on your link. Nor is there is there a code name for it.

When you execute this ifn.exe, it disappears from your view and it does not appear in a process viewer list. That has got nothing to do with file attributes, it has everything to do with it being a rootkit. But despite this you can search it and find it if you know it's name. I don't theorize like you man, I just report what I have seen and done.

I have uploaded them on jotti : http://virusscan.jotti.org/ On a second scan nod32 didn't recognize the dll. And F-Prot (Dos version) didn't recognize either on my machine.

And what about simply a killbit for vgx.dll ?

Good to know that Nod32 blocks it which is not the case of all other antivirs. I had tried F-Prot on it I think and it found it was ok.