eidenk

Sorry, I'm not familiar with [never heard of] modplug tracker. Just a heads up, Modplug Tracker is a media player for MOD-format music. You can use Winamp w/ a plugin to play such things - in fact, I remember winamp having very decent plugins for MOD files. I use MediaMonkey now, which supports Winamp plugins, so I'll try and see if such plugins still work, when I get home (at work right now). Jimmsta you confuse Modplug Player with ModPlug Tracker. ModPlug Tracker is a tracker as it's name says.

OK guys, I catched a trojan rootkit on my Windows ME machine the other day. It is invisible from explorer once it is executed. It is also invisible from process viewers. It very probably also prevents its registry keys from being seen with Regedit, albeit I have not looked into that. I did post it on the sysinternal forum on the 19th : http://forum.sysinternals.com/forum_posts....;PN=1&TPN=9 Today I have seen on Softpedia that at least 10 antivirus software companies have updated their definitions. It is very likely they have picked up the trojan on the sysinternal forum but I can't be sure about that. The rootkit is here, along with the registry keys it writes : http://stashbox.org/uploads/1158687866/Trojans.zip You may want to download it and scan it with your antivirus if you use one, and report it if it is not detected. You can also run it in a virtual machine if you have got one to see what it actually does. On my real machine, Jetico firewall intercepted it wanting to access the net but I am not sure other firewalls would have catched it as Jetico is way more efficient than all the others firewalls I have tried. The exe is executed at startup from the HKLM runservicesonce key and the dll hooks into explorer. If you are afraid to download it, you may want to search yor machine for ifN.exe and wuhch1.dll to see if you are infected. I have since looked into all anti-rootkit software available and none works on 9x/ME. The myth, propagated on this forum, notably by LLXX (Hi) that 9x/ME is secure because none is interested by attacking it and that no antivir or firewall is necessary on those platforms, it is just that : a myth. Best regards to all.

Is 1394BUS.SYS a setting file ? No it is a 32bit PE file just like most exes and dlls. Is Usbport.sys a setting file ? No it is a 32bit PE file just like most exes and dlls. etc... Just go in your system32/drivers dir and you should find more than a few of those "settings" files.

What happens to your reinstall windows on top of itself if the virus is started from one of the run keys in the registry for example ? Or if it is a registered dll ? Shellex, BHO or so. Answer : It strikes again immediately.

Which virus was it ? Did you catch it ? If not, it's certainly still on your system. What files did it delete ? Do you know exactly ? I suggest you reinstall Windows from the 98CD in a new directory such as Windows2 or Newwin. From that new installation, scan your drive(s) for viruses. Once this is done and cleared, you can reinstall windows again in it's original dir on top of the old one so you shouldn't lose most of your settings etc...

There is too much junk running on that computer. You can easily cut that list by half or more. QuickTime Scheduler : Probably not needed (can be disabled in Quicktime options) Real Player Scheduler : Probably not needed (can be disabled in RealPlayer options) Are sure you need to run all those antispyware/security stuff in the background when you don't even run a firewall ? a-squared Anti-Malware, Computer Associates Dashboard Tray, eTrust PestPatrol, SPYCATCHER SCHEDULER DAEMON, 3AVG processes. Do you actually need the Rockwell WaveStream Message Server services (MSG32.EXE and MSGLOOP.EXE) running all the time ? Is that QMgr Loader really needed ? What's that ENCMONTR.EXE running for ? Why is Rundll32.exe running ? You'd better know why it is running as it could be running anything dodgy Do you use the Microsoft® Windows® Task Scheduler ? If not, disable from startup. Are you sure you need Winzip in the tray all the time ? If not, disable from startup. Are you sure the Netropa processes for your keyboard are all compulsory to run ? What do you run HID Audio Service ? What is it ? What is HPSYSDRV.EXE running for ? Do you run SMILEYSOURCE.EXE all the time ? What a mess !

Get Nirsoft's Current Process. Launch it and select Explorer in the top pane. Then chose Select All in the lower pane. Choose copy and paste the result here. And do the same with Internet Explorer if you can. http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/cprocess.html

Thanks for the mitosis reverse hyperthreading hint. I found that thread that is quite interesting : http://digg.com/hardware/AMD:_Reverse_hype...st_single_core).

To those who advise me to use XP, it's not even the solution as most programs can't use the two cores on XP and probably it is the same with Vista, as noted by fredledingue. As I understand it, the typical setup is to run the OS on one core and the apps on another one. Any app that has not being written with specific code for supporting dual cores can't benefit from them and it's a real pity. Specific code must exist in apps themselves so that they can use two cores and there aren't many so far. Just very high end products have that support. There is no way I know to switch mode where the dual core is used as if it was a cluster and all the computational power can be piped into anything.

I know and it's a pity.

If so you must create it from scratch there if you want to add extra context menu items that appear only under My Computer.

You can't use 6.4 if you want to watch videos from the sites bearsowner says. WMP9 is compulsory or at least some components of it.

Editing the context menu of My Computer can be done under this registry key : HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\CLASSES\CLSID\{20D04FE0-3AEA-1069-A2D8-08002B30309D

I'd pay £30 or maybe even £50 for working drivers that would harness all the power of a dual core chip into 9x and the apps it runs. Is it theoretically possible to write such drivers ?

I don't have IE6 and this problem also manifests with IE5.5 SP2 and copying, moving/deleting/large amount of small files.

That's not very clever really. I have seen that Mr Loew, who is registered on this forum, has been around the 137GB patch thread recently. I guess he has inspected your patches and has been satisfied that his work has not been simply copied by you, otherwise I guess he would have said something. So why this tease LLXX ? Can you tell me what is the point of it ?

Does not inspire confidence eh, that is now a dead issue for ME as I'm getting over it. Well that's not so dead an issue really as there is currently a kernel32 2GB+ patch for Windows ME by anonymous, packaged and distributed by MDGX, that no one really knows what benefit it brings to the Windows ME platform. Furthermore there is another similar patch by LLXX, which makes the issue even more alive. I had expected to witness a "battle of the 2GB+ patchers" but it did not happen so I have learned nothing. I am sure a full explanation would not be too lenghty if it goes concisely to the point. I understand that, as this patch fixes a bug in 98SE, and as the same faulty code is also present in ME, then it may make some sense to also fix it in ME despite the fact that the bug corrected in 98SE cannot be found in ME. But still I'd like to know where it benefits if only so I could also possibly see where it could do harm eventually. Anyway I think MDGX has been too fast to distribute that anonymous patch like that. Is it better than LLXX's for example ? One thing I am sure about is that the only unnoficial patch I run is the 137GB LLXX patch. It does the job it is meant to do and it does it well. And anonymous had said that the 137GB LLXX patch was not good because it was not patching enough code if I recall correctly. Also something I wanted to say is that redistributing those patched files is maybe not very legal, and, as to avoid as much as possible potential problem with MS, should be distributed under the form of patchers rather than hacked files, I tend to think.

I have never said it was free. I just said there were ad-ons for Winfile here and there. And after that, I did not ask for proof of anything with regards to some of those add-ons' status as freeware or not freeware. You should chill out really.

IMO you also need the Windows Media Format runtime 9.

Does not inspire confidence

The acm codecs don't play mp3 files in Windows Media Player. They only allow to encode in mp3 format into the wav and avi containers. They also allow to playback such files of course. They work just like the video codecs and require to be properly registered/unregistered to be specified under/deleted from the Drivers32 section of the system.ini file which I am almost certain regsvr32 does not do. As for the ax files, they are directshow filters, meant to provide mp3 (in the case of those we speak about) playback support in Windows Media Player. You can't do encoding with them AFAIK. Those need only regsvr32 to be registered/unregistered as MDGX explains. The filters that mplayer2 uses will be the one used also by wmp 7, 8 9 or 10 or any of their hacks as they are all just only front ends for the directshow multimedia playback runtime. For that reason, I find quite bizarre that one front end would not play the content of some mp3 files whereas the other does play them all. Anyway you must try what MDGX said with regards to axs. If it doesn't solve the problem you could also try the lame directshow filter instead of the fraunhoffer ones for playback of mp3s in your hacked windows media player. http://www.free-codecs.com/download/LAME_D...Show_Filter.htm

I couldn't be using that over explorer really but some people do. A computer dealer I know in town told me he can't use explorer. He doesn't "get it" and he just only uses winfile for browsing directories on XP. I don't know erpdude. First I am not very knowledgeable in the inner workings of RAM, second I don't "get" CLASYS's posts in general, so it's very hard to answer anything. But I think your question is this generic one : So I'd say, possibly, because of electronic erosion, high energy cosmic ray hits, structural fatigue due to repeated cycles of variation of temperature. But I would think any stick dying for those reasons after a few years would have been near dead when new because of some defect. Maybe there are other factors that are more significant but I can't think of any right now.Hope this satisfies your query. What is the point of this patch on Windows ME ? Same question as for the LLXX patch. There is apparently no copy problem here for 2GB + files without patch. So why patching ? What's the benefit of it ? As it has already said by several in this thread, if it ain't broken, don't fix it. And has this 2GB limit somehow something to see, even loosely, with the FAT16 limit of 2GB ?

I recommend applying the SP before before using SRR or Oppcom for WinME.

There are some utils for enhancing Winfile, LFN support, etc.. http://www.wincorner.com/ http://www.winability.com/fmutils/ It would be nice if someone could come up with a mean of proving the _llseek kernel patch useful for Win ME.

Well with an AWARD BIOS Revision 6 your mobo must be a fairly recent one. I have got this BIOS on my Abit NF7S v2 and the patched esdi 506.pdr works like a charm above 137GB in the fourth primary partition under windows ME with my 200GB Western Digital Caviar drive. If you are in doubt, do like me, change your master drive for a sub 137 GB one and use your big one as slave. Then install the patched esdi and experiment. I think that it is not possible to create more than 4 primary FAT32 partitions under Windows 98SE. If you want to have 5 partitions, I think you'll need to create extended partitions within one of the four primaries. Someone will correct me if I am wrong about the latter.