Petr

Nobody is using the OS alone. The recommended hardware configuration is mostly dependent on the application used and not on OS itself. It is true that NT5.x systems (2K,XP) consume more resources than Win4.x (95/98/Me) systems but it may not be so important if you use resource intensive applications. Petr

I'd be interested knowing why you say that. My experience. Both Windows 2000 and Windows XP should be fine tuned to achieve really good system. My experience is that Windows XP (NT 5.1) is better base for it than Windows 2000 (NT 5.0). You can set XP to look like 2000 (and Me) and you will have the ability to use more programs, like more secure IE6 with pop-up blocker, IE7, MP10, etc. Of course, you can use also 3rd party programs on Windows 2000 but you have just broader range of choices on Windows XP. Wider hardware support. Shorter boot time. And if you are looking for help, there are 13 times more XP users than 2000 users so you have better chance with XP to find it. For people who already use Windows 2000 and are satisfied with them I'd not recommend to switch to XP but if you have the choice to start with 2000 or XP I recommend XP. BTW, interesting numbers here: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=5 but even more interesting would be absolute numbers than the share. Petr

3 years old, this is not very good specification of your computer. It may be rather powerfull with 2.66 GHz Pentium 4 processor or with Athlon XP 2200+, or it may be weaker box with Celeron 1.8 GHz or AMD Duron 1.0 GHz, this was the range in the middle of 2003. The size of the RAM is importanat too. You will see better responsiveness with Windows 98 SE or with Windows Me in comparison to 2000/XP. Windows 2000 will have rather long boot time. Windows XP should acceptable on this hardware, especially if you have 256M (or better 512M) of RAM. There are many new applications that are not compatible with 98SE/ME and some even with Windows 2000. It's up to you what is your priority. If you need the highest speed and don't need newest versions of all programs, then 98SE is good choice. If you prefer to be able to run newer applications and a bit slower response is not so big problem for you, I'd recommend fine tuned Windows XP, with removed all unnecessary components and services (look for nlite) - but this is discussion for other forum. I'd never recommend Windows 2000. Petr

IE5.5SP2 uses VGX.DLL 5.50.4133.200 or hotfix version 5.50.4909.1000. IE6.0 uses VGX.DLL 6.00.2600.0000 IE6.0SP1 uses 6.00.2800.1106 (first release), 6.00.2800.1265 (re-release and KB826940), 6.00.2800.1411 (KB833989 security update), 6.00.2800.1461 (KB883586 hotfix), 6.00.2800.1488 (KB890573 hotfix) Original Microsoft VGX fixes install on systems with IE 6.0 SP1 only (6.00.2800.1106-6.00.2800.9999) , I have no idea if the 6.0SP1 version of VGX.DLL can be used with IE6.0 or IE5.5SP2. Petr

It is here: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=565543 Petr

This version of wextract.exe is part of IEAK 6.0 SP1 [2.55 MB]: http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie6...EN-US/ieak6.exe No, it is not, IEAK 6.0 SP1 contains wextract.exe 6.00.2800.1106. Petr

I have heard this but I use Sourcer for almost 20 years already.... I even tried to use IDA many years ago but it looked very strange and confusing to me. Do you know about good tutorial how to use it? Petr

Thank you for your offer but these seems to be also US English versions: 0795 Part No. 000-04404 - Original Windows 95 OEM, marked "For Distribution Only with a New PC" 1297 Part No. X03-50348 - Version 4.00.950C of Windows 95 Operating System Versions, aka OSR2.5 Petr

Microsoft has released the official patch: http://blogs.technet.com/msrc/archive/2006/09/26/459194.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/...n/MS06-055.mspx Windows 2000 patches contain: IE5.01 SP4 contains VGX.DLL 5.00.3845.1800 IE6.0 SP1 contains VGX.DLL 6.00.2800.1580 The patch has to be re-packaged for Windows 9x. Petr

Q192841 - Difficulties Using AMD K6-2 or Athlon Central Processing Unit update for AMD processor with 350+ MHz (amdk6upd.exe package) is for Windows 95 OSR2 only. I remember that some time ago I had problem with esdi_506.pdr and scsiport.pdr on Windows 95 (original) so I patched them the same way as the OSR2 files were patched. Here are: ESDI_506.PDR 4.00.957 (patched 4.00.956) SCSIPORT.PDR 4.00.952 (patched 4.00.951) It is possible that even the 4.00.1119 and 4.00.1112 versions will work in original Windows 95 but this is just to be sure. It is hard to say what is correct, Q153471 has ESDI_506.PDR 4.00.954 for Windows 95 Gold and 4.00.1116 for Windows 95 OSR2, but in Q252215 the 4.00.1116 ESDI_506.PDR is intended for Windows 95 Gold. Rather confusing. If anybody will encounter any problem with additional files in Windows 95 original, i.e. Hsflop.pdr, Cdfs.vxd, Disktsd.vxd, Int13.vxd, Ios.vxd and Vfbackup.vxd please let me know and I will try to patch them too. Petr

I tried to create the patch here: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=83413 Petr

Hi, I have tried to create the patch for Q312108 - Windows Protection Error in NDIS with a CPU That Is Faster Than 2.1 GHz since Microsoft stated that It is possible that the problem was resolverd in ndis.vxd 4.00.1113 that is part of Windows 95 Dial-Up Networking 1.4 Upgrade - it is in msnet95.cab Just to be sure I have backported the code from 4.10.2000 version in original Q312108 hotfix to 4.00.1113 and created version 4.00.1114. I have also patched the code in 4.00.950 version and created 4.00.951 version. This file can be easily manually replaced but backup the original file in case of anything unusual. Here are the files: NDIS.VXD 4.00.951 for Windows 95, Windows 95 SP1 and Windows 95 OSR1 NDIS.VXD 4.00.1114 for Windows 95 OSR2.x NDIS.VXD 4.00.1113 extracted from DUN 1.4 If anybody is able to test Windows 95 on >2.1 GHz system and Windows have the problem described in Q312108, i.e. "While initializing device NDIS: Windows protection error" during boot, please test these files if they really cure the problem. Petr

I don't know, Microsoft states in the Resource Kit: My disassembler (Sourcer) works correctly because it uses Windows Preprocessor that defines all necessary things. My problem is with the file itself, I want to modify the code and I don't know where the offsets are stored, I have to study the LLXX's document. Petr

Thank you for the link LLXX. It seems the internal structure of VXD files is much more complex than I expected. It looks like "Fixup Record Table" could be the right place but I have to look at it much deeper later. Petr

Thank you for your reply jimmsta, btw, LE files are linear executable 32-bit, not 16-bit. Clive Turvey is author of the SOURCER disassembler that I use and I use his utilities too. The information I'm looking for is where the data offsets are stored, this knowledge is necessary to patch the VXD files. I was not able to find where in in what format this information is stored. Petr

Is anybody able to help me to understand the internal structure of the VXD files? If I use SOURCER disassembler, I receive the following output (as an example): 21401 CD 20 0001003F VMMcall Get_System_Time ; Win-VMM function fn=1003Fh 21407 3B D0 cmp edx,eax 21409 77 F5 ja loc_3326 ; Jump if above 2140B C1 E1 02 shl ecx,2 ; Shift w/zeros fill 2140E 89 0D 000010E4 mov dword ptr data_0171,ecx; (010E4=0) 21414 E4 21 in al,21h ; port 21h, 8259-1 int IMR But if I look in the VXD file alone, I see just zeroes instead offsets in mov instructions, i.e. in this example I'd see just: 89 0D 00000000 mov dword ptr 0,ecx If I look into the WDF file generated by the Windows Source Preprocessor, I see here: 21410 wd 000010E4 So the preprocessor was able to determine that the double-word on offset 21410 should be overwritten by 000010E4. OK, but where is the information stored? I tried to search for both 21410 and 000010E4 but nothing found. So where this information is stored and in what format? Is there any good information source regarding the structure of LE (VXD) files? Petr

erpdude was thinking about URP: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=548322 I'm also preparing a list of files but I'll see... Petr

Hi Eidenk, good question but I don't know the answer. And therefore I'm looking for it. Your part numbers I have found in the list of US versions: 0197 Part no. 000-59944 US OSR2.1 0796 Part no. 000-45235 OSR2 without setup.exe Pan-European English version is also base for the Czech, Greek, Hungarian, Polish, Russian, Slovenian and probably also Vietnamese version - just for languages with single byte character set other than CP1252 and left-to-right writing. US English version is base for versions that use CP1252 codepage exclusively, i.e. for Basque, Brazilian, Catalan, Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish versions. Apparently the PanEuropean version contains some additional nls files, keyboard layouts and other font files. For example, larial.ttf (large arial) in US version has 138332 bytes and "contains 653 glyphs and 105 standard kern pairs " while PanEuro Win95 arial.ttf has 143300 bytes and "contains 653 glyphs and 909 standard kern pairs" This difference was in Win95 only, Win98 and WinMe have the same code base for all a.m. language versions. Petr

Hello, as I already mentioned I'm trying to put together all international versions of Windows 9x to be able to prepare all language versions of the service packs. I have MSDN subscription for several years so I was able to downoad most versions or I have MSDN CD-ROMs, but not for everything. My MSDN Professional license covers the use of all Microsoft operating systems from DOS 1.0 to Windows Vista in all languages but I'm missing some media. So I believe is absolutely legal to copy it from sombeody who has them. I used List of Localized MS Operating Systems to determine what versions exist. Windows Me - I don't have Chinese (Hong Kong), just Chinese (Simplified) and Chinese (Traditional) Windows 98SE - I don't have Basque and Catalan Windows 98 - I don't have Basque, Catalan, Japanese (both PCAT and PC98), Chinese (Traditional) and Thai Windows 95 - here I have just a few ones: Retail Full: none Retail Upgrade: US English, Czech OEM: US English, Czech, Swedish OSR1: Swedish OSR2: US English, Russian OSR2.1: US English, Czech OSR2.5: US English, German I'm mostly interested in Pan-European English versions to see the difference in the core files because the Euro update package contains different GDI.EXE file for US English and different for Pan-European English Windows 95. (Win95 was produced in Arabic (both enabled and localized), Basque, Brazilian, Catalan, Chinese (Simplified), Chinese (Traditional), Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew (both enabled and localized), Hungarian, Italian, Japanese (both PCAT and PC98), Korean, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Slovenian, Spanish, Swedish, Thai (enabled only), Turkish, Vietnamese. I'm not sure how it is with Slovak version - it is not on the list, but Y2K update exists: http://download.microsoft.com/download/win...5/SK/w95y2k.exe . On the opposite dide, the Y2K update does not exist for Vietnamese. This list Microsoft Windows 95 International Components does contain Pan-Euro, but does not contain Arabic, Basque, Brazilian, Catalan, Hebrew, Vietnamese and Slovak. The contents of WIN95, WIN98 or WIN9X folder (without OLS, TOUR subfolders) is sufficient for me, if anybody has the required Windows version but does not want to give it out then I will prepare a script that will just report the file list, versions and checksum. I need no product keys. I'm also interested in original, not modified boot floppy and CD-ROM boot records from retail versions of all Win95, Win98, Win98SE, WinMe. Petr

Yes I could but it would be useless for you because it needs DOS FoxPro 2.5b development environment. Someone could re-write it to C or other normal language. Petr

There is new critical vulnerability in vgx.dll that also applies to IE on Windows 9x. Microsoft published this Security Advisory (925568) ZERT created an unofficial patch: http://isotf.org/zert/download.htm I have tested that fully patched IE 6.01SP1 on Windows 98 SE will crash. I have not tested other version of IE and other version of Windows. The ZERT patch does not work on Windows 98 but probably it could be possible to use it on Windows 2000 and copy the patched file to Win9x. Petr

The information is stored in the installation package, you can use any resource editor to look at all of the RCData resources. And I wrote simple decompiler that creates the SED file from the IExpress package. It is written in DOS Foxpro because I know no other programming language and is very primitive - but it works. Petr

You can use everything displayed by SET command, %cdrom% are %RAMD% are not standard. Petr

It is http://old.winpack.org/nsp_petr/mc/update_sys-wme.zip but please read http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showto...mp;#entry341762 Petr

Most IDE drivers (if not all) show real name of the IDE HDD in the device manager, just the default Windows driver shows just TYPE47 or TYPE80. Would be possible to add this feature to this driver? Petr