RJARRRPCGP

Are you jumping on his back with accusations of warez? Probably didn't know that the full resource kit isn't free.

I agree somewhat. Just got p***** when someone said that's it's a DOS extender or even worse, a shell!

Get the message about a problem with a web page on Windows Update and gives me a Windows Update error code right when I tell it to scan for updates! This is with a fresh Windows 98 SE installation on a Gateway Solo 2150 laptop PC. I FDISKed and reformatted the HDD, because the previous Windows installation, which I believe was Windows 98 SE, had malware. I can't recall having this problem after installing Windows 98 SE from scratch on a custom-built PC. Is this because Microsoft changed Windows Update? That was when running Windows Update with Internet Explorer 5.0. Does Windows Update suddenly require Internet Explorer 6?

You shouldn't be having any errors, because it's only 2D! The NES isn't 3D!

Link21 was being negative again by saying that Windows 9x is just a DOS extender! Like it's Windows 3.1 or something. Windows 98 SE probably was one of the best operating systems based on Windows 95!

That means that your computer is only seeing 63 mb of memory so it appears that it is not a windows problem. It must be a hardware problem. Google is a search engine and probably the most popular one. www.google.com With that motherboard I am sure that you should be useing low density ram. That is the first thing I would check. Also try switching the ram around to different slots and see if that makes a difference. One last thing. In my opinion it is always better to use matching memory sticks although it is certainatly not a requirement you will have far less problems that way. 1996? Pentium IIs didn't even exist back then, AFAIK.

I would be p***** too if Prime95 failed at stock. Glad to hear that increasing the VDIMM solved the problem. That's strange, because usually if the Windows installation was successful, the RAM's fine. That symptom sounds like a processor chip problem instead of a RAM problem. If the RAM wasn't stable, you're usually aren't even able to use Windows without getting an error message. If the RAM isn't stable, you usually get error messages such as "Windows-corrupt file The file x is corrupted and unreadable" (or similar) pop up error messages, "***STOP: REGISTRY_HIVE_FAILURE" BSOD, "Windows could not start because the following file is missing or corrupt WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\CONFIG\SYSTEM" and etc. Being able to run the Windows installation process without any errors, but Prime95 fails usually means that the motherboard isn't giving your processor chip enough Vcore or the processor chip is faulty. Windows, especially a Windows NT-based OS is sensitive to RAM malfunctions. You usually can't even browse the internet if the RAM is having a malfunction. Also, there has been reports of Prime95 always failing with some Athlon 64 processors.

That's impossible! Because Prime95 and 3D Mark passed, even when OC'ed! Prime95 can fail even with a PC that appears to be stable, thus that's out of the question! Installing a sound card driver isn't gonna put the PC at full load! If it was my power supply, I wouldn't be able to keep my OC.

The problem is that Windows NT-based Windows versions has quirks that Windows 95-based versions don't have: If I just plug in a hard disk drive, even when I can use it and it detected it properly, it wants me to reboot! It wants me to reboot again if it sees an added hard disk drive, even when it can be used. It basically wants me to reboot twice, with every hard disk drive detection! It has a tendency to take RAM for itself more than a Windows 95-based Windows would! On one PC, even with at least 256 MB or RAM, (that's kind of small) the HDD was cranking more under Windows 2000 than when under Windows 98 SE while running Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban. The hard disk drive was working less hard when running the same game under Windows 98 SE! Also, I doubt that people gonna want to get 4 GB of RAM just for Windows! Also, Windows NT-based Windows versions seem to force virtual memory (page file) on users that don't require virtual memory! Or they at least try to force virtual memory on users. Also, it appears that Windows Vista, which hasn't been released don't like legacy hardware at all! It appears that it will refuse to continue running if the motherboard don't have APIC! This means that motherboards manufactured in 2002 or later probably are required!

A car PC? That was something I thought about a while ago!

9X is junk. Not only Mozilla, but also Microsoft. Internet Explorer 6 is compatible with piece of junk Windows 98/ME. And so is DirectX 9. It was a huge mistake by Microsoft to make DirectX9 compatible with Windows 98/ME. A flat out huge mistake!! DirectX 9 should have been for Windows 2000/XP/2003 and above only!! Performance would have been so much better that way. First off, Windows 9x does support long file names, second, Mozilla isn't 16-bit! Mozilla probably can support long file names. I dunno why it can't. Also, DirectX under Windows 2000 and Windows XP more likely wouldn't perform better by dropping support for Windows 9x. Why would it? Because Windows 98/ME have next to nothing in common with Windows 2000/XP. It would have been much better if DirectX 9 was for Windows 2000/XP only so it could have been focusued on making it better for the native NT based OS only rather than having to work so much harder to make an API designed to run the same software compatible with two completely different OS architectures!! Windows 95/98/ME were by far the worst core 32-bit operating systems ever made!! Linux, OS/2 WARP, Solaris, BSD, MAC OS X, and Windows NT flavored operating systems are all good quality 32-bit operating systems. Windows 95/98/ME are sh*tty quality fake opertaing systems running on top of legacy 16-bit DOS which was native to ancient legacy MS-DOS 1.0 I would understand if it was Calmira XP. LOL! Someone modded Windows 3.1 so that it has long file name support and Windows XP-style taskbar!

But, if the processor is having data corruption, then if you get and run Prime95, it shall fail, Prime95 often would give you an error message. I always test my processors with Prime95. Also, if the processor was the problem, the machine check error usually would be a BSOD, the BSOD would be ***STOP: 0x0000009C MACHINE_CHECK_EXCEPTION Also, if the processor is the problem, your more likely to get a BSOD when gaming then when at the desktop. You're less likely to get crashes when idle. Processor errors can occur if the motherboard isn't feeding the processor the proper Vcore! Some motherboards have a BIOS bug that cause it to not give it the proper Vcore! Also, the above BSOD is a symptom to look for when OC'ing the processor. If you get the above BSOD or ***STOP: 0x000000A IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL , increase the Vcore and try again. If that don't help, your processor is at the dreaded OC brick wall! Thus you likely have a crappy processor stepping.

I remembered getting the Blaster virus before, even with 56k. Back in November, 2003, One evening, I was out of the house then when I came back, saw that Windows had rebooted. Then what do you know, I saw "msblast.exe" on my HDD! That was just because I forgot to install a firewall before connecting to the internet!

Use a firewall! You're being attacked by the dreaded Sasser virus or another internet virus! A virus is causing LSASS.EXE and RPC to crash. Because of a security flaw bug in LSASS and RPC! This is why Windows 2000 and later sucks without a firewall!

9X is junk. Not only Mozilla, but also Microsoft. Internet Explorer 6 is compatible with piece of junk Windows 98/ME. And so is DirectX 9. It was a huge mistake by Microsoft to make DirectX9 compatible with Windows 98/ME. A flat out huge mistake!! DirectX 9 should have been for Windows 2000/XP/2003 and above only!! Performance would have been so much better that way. First off, Windows 9x does support long file names, second, Mozilla isn't 16-bit! Mozilla probably can support long file names. I dunno why it can't. Also, DirectX under Windows 2000 and Windows XP more likely wouldn't perform better by dropping support for Windows 9x. Why would it?

I don't think it's Via's fault. Because Windows 98 SE worked well with a Via-based Athlon motherboard, but that's with socket A and an Athlon XP. If it's Nvidia, then it's a different story. With my nForce 1 motherboard, an Asus A7N266-VM, Windows 98 SE would crash with a black screen after installing the Catalyst drivers for my Radeon 9000 Pro. The same video card is fine under Windows 98 SE with my Asus A7V8X-X motherboard, which uses the Via KT400 chipset. But, believe it or not, while Windows 98 SE crashed with a black screen, Windows ME was fine with the Asus A7N266-VM! I thought that Windows ME wasn't that much better than Windows 98 SE! That's strange! With my Asus A7N266-VM motherboard, I was required to use Windows ME, Windows XP or Windows 2000! I didn't think that Windows ME was different enough for that to occur! I don't have that strange problem with my Asus A7V8X-X motherboard.

There's no hope for turning Windows 3.1 into a super gaming OS. First off, DirectX didn't exist until at least Windows 95! Now, I can see why someone would say that it's rediculous! No surprise here that Link21 is already bashing this one! LOL!

Via actually is one of the better ones for Windows 98. nForce is actually more likely to have compatibility problems with Windows 98.

Windows 9x drivers aren't compatible with Windows 3.1! Because the Windows 3.1 kernel isn't 32-bit at all! Even with Win32s, kernel functions are still 16-bit. 32 bit applications under Windows 3.1 are always required to communicate to the kernel in 16-bit-ese! Even with Windows 95, that wasn't the case. Windows 95 was the first consumer Windows version to have 32-bit functionability natively supported.

That's a major no! The motherboard probably got damaged. Sorry.

You're dorking around with directory and file security when doing it this way. Windows XP applies different security permissions when installed on FAT32 than it does when installed on NTFS. Installing straight to NTFS is much more secure. It also does not fix the security permissions when you run the convert. It just decided to dork around with the driver letters on my main PC! Windows XP Pro SP2 (testing) decided to make my primary master HDD letter E! That means I'm now required to install Windows on a FAT32 then convert it to NTFS or unplug my second HDD!

Yep. Because you're getting RPC-related errors, you may be infected with the dreaded Blaster virus.

It don't support resolutions higher than 1024x768 without turning down the refresh rate.

I think the best non-IE option is still http://windowsupdate.62nds.com/, but there is also a qchain solution called daisy that looks promising. But it appears that Daisy don't support Windows XP. I tried it before under Windows XP Pro SP2 and HFNETCHK complained about it not updating properly and Daisy was repeatedly trying to install 2 of the same hotfixes over and over again.

The processor may be damaged. I gotten the same symptoms when I wasn't gentle enough when reinstalling a heatsink with an Athlon T-bird I used to have.