Petr

which can be disabled from Adobe Reader 7 options dialog box. I hate it when it loads at startup. try running AR7 without their stuff loaded at bootup time. could be a difference in performance. Foxit Reader is a nice alternative to Adobe Reader. There's even a Foxit Reader Pro edition (shareware): http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_pro.php I'm going to use the free edition Foxit Reader. Foxit reader is almost unusable for reading text documents, it has much lower quality of displayed text. It depends on the pdf document itself too, of course. Petr

This is not correct. Patched ESDI_506.PDR uses extended commands for accessing sectors above 137 GB barrier, if you have smaller disk, no extended commands are used. I think that the assumption that drive bigger than 137 GB will support 48-bit LBA commands is reasonable. Petr

I think almost everything was written in this thread already. 1. AFAIK the problem is just with defrag and scandiskw applications. I should be noted that this problem occurs for ANY type of the disk, i.e. even for SCSI or USB disks. 2. If you place all partitions used by Windows 98 below 137 GB barrier you can use even bigger disk even if the Windows 98 driver does not support 48-bit LBA (e.g. in multi-boot configurations with XP or Linux) 3. Forced compatibility mode is almost unusable because of big slowdown and delays. DOS Scandisk is reported to work for bigger disks. 4. ATA (IDE) disks bigger than 137 GB requires 48-bit addressing to access the space beyond 137 GB. a) Mr Lowe sell just patch for ESDI_506.PDR, ESDI_506.PDR is generic 32-bit driver for ATA HDDs. B) Intel® Application Accelerator - Supported Chipsets - in other words it supports the following Intel southbridges: ICH - 82801AA, ICH-0 - 82801AB, ICH-2 - 82801BA, ICH-4 - 82801DB. ICH-3 - 82801CA was supported by version 2.2.2 only. In addition to these chipsets it apparently supports also older chipsets, the INF file is hidden inside of the IAA23 package. The southbridges are: PIIX (82371FB), PIIX3 (82371SB), PIIX4 (82371AB), PIIX4E (82371EB). It means support of 430FX, 430HX, 430TX, 430VX, 440LX, 440ZX, 440EX, 440GX, 440ZX, 450NX. According to official statement Intel® Application Accelerator does not support the Intel® 440BX/LX/EX/GX/FX or 430xx chipsets but I have tested in on several computers with 430HX, 430TX and 440BX chipset with no problem so far. It should be noted that Ahead recommends to uninstall IAA - very clever instruction if you have disk bigger than 137 GB! c) Regarding VIA, ULi (ALi), SiS, nVidia drivers I have no personal experience. d) Just connect bigger disk and use Mr. Loew utility. e) I'm not sure what you are discussing, functionality in Windows 98 or in DOS? I just tried several USB2 controllers, NEC with 720101 chip seems to be OK but slow, VIA VT6202 is OK but a bit slow too, VIA VT6212 is the best, card with ULi/ALi chip M5273 did not work at all, both with Orangeware and ULi driver, both in Windows 98 and XP. My biggest USB disk is 120 GB so I cannot say how they work for >137 GB disks. f) Yes, this Promise driver can be used even for Ultra66. Unfortunately BIOS in Ultra 66 does not support 48-bit LBA. As of other manufacturers, I know that Slicon Image (former CMD Technology) PCI-0649 does not support 48-bit LBA (neither BIOS nor Win9x driver) and newer PCI-0680 supports 48-bit LBA (both BIOS and driver). Apparantly current Highpoint controllers support 48-bit LBA and Windows 98. It would be nice to have the table with all ATA/IDE controller chips showing the 48-bit LBA support in BIOS and 48-bit LBA support in Windows 9x driver. Probably 48BITLBA.EXE - 48 Bit Support Test Program Version 4.6 from Mr. Loew could be used for testing? Petr

The Product Key is in XXXXX-XXXXX-XXXXX-XXXXX-XXXXX form, it contains 5 x 5 = 25 charcters. It may look similar to Windows XP certificate: According to MS KB article OEM Product ID Not Accepted During Reinstallation it looks like in some cases the OEM Product ID (20 characters) is required for re-installation. Petr

The >137GB problem is identical for Win98, Win98SE and WinME. Have you checked what driver is used? Is it really ESDI_506.PDR? Then you can try 48BITLBA program to check the status of 48-bit LBA support of your system. It is part of Mr. Loew 137GB patch package, direct download link is here: http://members.aol.com/rloew1/Programs/Patch137.zip One thing is not very clear in your post - you wrote "I booted with a WinME startup disk" - have you booted really to Windows (GUI) or to command prompt only? In fact, command prompt (not DOS box inside the Windows) uses BIOS calls only and no problem appears. The problem exhibits just and only if you use 32-bit disk access using ESDI_506.PDR driver. Petr

The disk in www.winpack.org died and since it is not my computer (even not in our country) I cannot help to repair it so here is new temporary location for fesp201en.exe (20,118,016 B): http://old.winpack.org/nsp_petr/fesp201en-alpha1.exe (still the original file from July 6th, 2005). Petr

I don't know if anybody mentioned it - there is a new version of root certificates uodate, version 8: http://download.windowsupdate.com/msdownlo...en/rootsupd.exe (released in January 2006) Petr

No, it contains IE 5.0 (98 first edition contains IE 4.01SP1 and Me contains IE 5.5) Also referenced here: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/164539 Petr

Maybe I have noticed it. I tried to open http://driveragent.com/ in MSIE6.0SP1 with KB912912 and I just got an error that ActiveX could not be loaded. I tried their diagnostic program http://driveragent.com/files/ActiveXCheck.exe and it discovered no problem in configuration. When I put back the URLMON.DLL 6.00.2800.1526 from KB905915, the ActiveX control was offered for download and install and everything worked as axpected. Then I re-installed KB912812 - and still everything works fine. Apparently there is just problem with downloading and installing of the ActiveX control. So it seems that if the ActiveX control is already installed, then no problem arise. The problem is just when new ActiveX control has to be downloaded. Is this the behavior that is discussed in this thread? Petr

Do you know what conditions trigger the wrong behavior? My standard system has URLMON.DLL 6.00.2800.1538 from KB912812 and I see no problems with Windows Update or Windows Update Catalog or Office Update? Petr

Yes, the file in Microsoft Download Center is identical to file downloaded from Windows Update. Official download page is here: Security Update for Flash Player (KB913433) Supported Operating Systems: Windows XP Service Pack 1; Windows XP Service Pack 2, Windows 98, Windows Me, Windows NT. Security bulletin: MS06-020 Apparently it installs Flash version 6.0.84. Petr

I remember that I was using 33 MB partitions with MS-DOS 3.3. Please check the following references: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/69912 http://mirror.href.com/thestarman/asm/mbr/FDISK.htm Petr

-nope, sry... didn't even know about it, actually... but from reading a few posts here about it, sounds like it's not very safe/reliable... and with sp2.1a, who needs the CD? >;] I know about February 2004 CD only, it can be browsed here: http://maxtor1.slu.edu.ph/Public/SPACK_n_P...MSWindowsSU_CD/ - but there not many updates, and the worst thing - it chages the version from 4.10.2222 A to 4.10.2222B and some programs won't install on such a modified system. Petr

What do you mean by "MSI support update"? It contains Windows Installer 2.0 Redistributable for Windows 95, 98, and Me Petr

Wrong. Win ME CD contains about 7000 files but just 139 files are updated. Petr

Just an idea - what about to use code signing and catalog files just in the way it was supposed to use them? I see at least these possible advantages: - all updates and hotfixes for Windows ME would seamlessly install without the of nircmd utility and other tricks. - all updates, hotfixes etc. would be signed so anybody who downloaded them would be able to test the integrity and origin. - maybe also it would enable to make slipstreamed IE6.0SP1 available for download, exactly as it is from Microsoft, when Microsoft will stop the support. (IE5.5SP2 is already crippled on the Microsoft download servers, the first cab for each platform is missing, so you can add components, but not to install it from the scratch) - maybe also the functionality of Windows Update site could be duplicated (after Microsoft will close it) In general, I see two possibilities how to manage these certificates. 1. To buy commercial code signing certificate (is this sufficient?), or 2. To create our own root certificate authority. Both approaches would have some advantages and disadvanatages. - commercial certificate is not free of charge. I did not made deep research but it looks like Comodo code signing certificate for € 99 per year could be the right one. I think I could donate this amount if necessary. - Own certificates would not be recognized by Windows by default, the root certificate has to be imported at first. - Own root certificate would mean that all people involved could use their own code signing certificate. - Own root certificate would mean to use also own timestamping service (?) - Official certificate would mean that the person who would create all the .CAT files and who would sign all files would be clearly expressed - do we accept this? Some details about code signing process are here: http://www.instantssl.com/code-signing/cod...ng-process.html SIGNCODE.EXE is part of IEAK6 for example, CHKTRUST.EXE is part of IEAK4 or Visual Studio .NET My feeling is that everything is very easy - but only if you know how to do it. Is here anybody experienced? Any comments? Petr

This is probably private hotfix for IBM. Some information is here: http://www.martini-man.com/pub/HPOmnibook/...9388/README.TXT Petr

It looks like it contains atl80.dll, msvcp80.dll, msvcm80.dll, msvcr80.dll, mfc80.dll, mfc80u.dll, mfcm80.dll, mfcm80u.dll and other files version 8.00.50727.42. Petr

There were several topics about this: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=63394 http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=63727 http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=65914 http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=66858 Here you can see Nvidia 6200 in GA-8I955X Pro board: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?s=&sho...ndpost&p=454412 In general: There is an official Windows 98 driver for ATI PCI-E boards https://support.ati.com/ics/support/default...ge&folderID=297 I have tried X300 and X550 PCI-E boards with no problem. Nvidia oficially does not support PCI-E boards but if you select the appropriate board manually, it works. I have tried GeForce 6200, 6200 Turbo Cache and 6600. The only problem I had was with board with 915GM chipset, but in 955X chipset they worked fine. You just have to find the board supported by http://www.nvidia.com/object/win9x_81.98.html driver. The best would be to try it. Petr

Does anybody have original boot floppy and boot CD for Windows 98, 98SE and Millennium Edition, FPP and/or OEM? I know that there are many websites like http://www.bootdisk.com/bootdisk.htm but they contain modified floppy disks for routine use only and not the original ones used for install. The install floppy/cd-rom contains CONFIG.SYS with lines like: [menu] menuitem=SETUP_CD, Start Windows 98 Setup from CD-ROM. menuitem=CD, Start computer with CD-ROM support. menuitem=NOCD, Start computer without CD-ROM support. menudefault=SETUP_CD,30 CDROMs from MSDN are not bootable and I'd like to have CDROMs that looks like the original ones. I know that there are many other ways how to make bootable CD but still if would be nice to have the original boot record. There are many utilities for creating the boot image for CDs, like http://www.winiso.com/ that can - Make boot file from floppy - Save boot information to file Simple utility for extracting the boot image from CD is BBIE here: http://www.nu2.nu/bbie/ Many utilities for creating image from floppy are here: http://www.fdos.org/ripcord/rawrite/ Petr

What links do you mean? Mine? They are perfectly OK, please see the server response: graburl -h http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/licensing/win/install_flash_player_active_x.exe HTTP/1.0 200 OK Server: Apache/2.0.52 (Unix) Last-Modified: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 17:28:21 GMT ETag: "e0b148-c90b0-59a43740" Accept-Ranges: bytes Content-Length: 823472 Content-Type: application/octet-stream Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 09:51:09 GMT Connection: close graburl -h http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/licensing/win/install_flash_player_active_x.msi HTTP/1.0 200 OK Server: Apache/2.0.52 (Unix) Last-Modified: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 17:28:29 GMT ETag: "d9df14-468e00-5a1e4940" Accept-Ranges: bytes Content-Length: 4623872 Content-Type: application/x-msi Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 09:53:06 GMT Connection: close graburl -h http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab HTTP/1.1 302 Found Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 09:53:59 GMT Server: Apache/2.0.52 (Unix) Location: http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab Content-Length: 342 Connection: close Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 graburl -h http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab HTTP/1.0 200 OK Server: Apache/2.0.52 (Unix) Last-Modified: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 17:27:32 GMT ETag: "4023-b5d7b-56b88900" Accept-Ranges: bytes Content-Length: 744827 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 09:54:28 GMT Connection: close Or what do you mean by "broken"? Petr

No, all three links are operational, I just tried them. Just download the first one (install_flash_player_active_x.exe) and run it - it will install ActiveX used by IE. For completeness here are remaining direct links: Flash Player 8.0.24 Installer for Firefox/Mozilla/Seamonkey/Opera: http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flash...lash_player.exe Shockwave Player 10.1.1.016: Slim: http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/shock...taller_Slim.exe Full: http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/shock...taller_Full.exe This is the test page that will show the version of Flash and Shockwave plugins: http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/welcome/ Petr

Regarding Flash 8.0.24, here are direct download links for packages containing flash8a.ocx 8.0.24.0: http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flash...er_active_x.exe http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flash...er_active_x.msi http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwa...ash/swflash.cab Petr

It's a Windows Installer thing, Petr. AR 6.x uses MSI to install the Adobe Reader and it has MSI scripts that prevent the installation under 98fe, 95 & NT4 and will only install under 98se/me/2k/xp. Yes, I know where the restriction is implemented but I do't know WHY. Petr

I have not noticed anything unusual but it was for short time only. Petr