Petr

Just few replies above: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=582335 Petr

You probably mean Internet Explorer 6.0 SP1, there is no 6.1 version. Petr

Here is the explanation: http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/msjvm/ Fortunately I have everything on CD-ROMs. And here is the latest Windows 98 DDK: http://www.arte.unipi.it/Public/Win32/win98ddk.exe Petr

What "problem with HDD's over 60 GB"? I don't know about any remaining problem? Please report it. Petr

I'm not good programmer (better to say no programmer at all). I tested Q263044 fdisk and it worked with many partitions and with 250GB disk. AFAIK there is nothing like LBA48 support in FDISK, LBA48 must be supported by BIOS. The advantage of Q263044 fdisk is that it is localized to many languages. Everything what I did was correction of display in case of disk above 99999 MB. I have not heard about any problem with MS Q263044 FDISK yet. In fact there is absolutely no feedback so I don't know if everything is correct or not. Petr

Hello, I have tried to determine what is the meaning of ProductType for 9x OSes. Here is the result: This information is always stored in HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion, ProductType. The following texts are taken form Microsoft MSInfo32 utility:Windows 98 100 - Clean install using Microsoft Internal 101 - Clean install using Full CD 102 - Clean install using CD 103 - Clean install using Full Floppy 104 - Clean install using Floppy 105 - Clean install using Web 110 - Clean install using Select CD 111 - Clean install using MSDN CD 112 - Clean install using WIN98 Upgrade (Windows 98 SE only) 115 - Clean install using Full OEM CD 116 - Clean install using OEM CD 120 - Clean install using OEM Preinstall KitOn the distribution media, the information is stored in setupx.dll (stored in precopy2.cab), string resource 96, string 1526. Windows Me 100 - Microsoft Windows ME 4.90.3000 Microsoft Internal 101 - Microsoft Windows ME 4.90.3000 Retail CD Full 102 - Microsoft Windows ME 4.90.3000 Retail CD Upgrade 103 - Microsoft Windows ME 4.90.3000 Retail Floppy Full 104 - Microsoft Windows ME 4.90.3000 Retail Floppy Upgrade 105 - Microsoft Windows ME 4.90.3000 Retail Electronic Upgrade 110 - Microsoft Windows ME 4.90.3000 Select CD Full 111 - Microsoft Windows ME 4.90.3000 MSDN 112 - Microsoft Windows ME 4.90.3000 WIN98 Upgrade 115 - Microsoft Windows ME 4.90.3000 OEM CD Full 116 - Microsoft Windows ME 4.90.3000 OEM CD Upgrade 120 - Microsoft Windows ME 4.90.3000 OEM OPK Full 121 - Microsoft Windows ME 4.90.3000 ??? On the distribution media, the information is stored in setupx.dll (stored in precopy2.cab), string resource 96, string 1526 and in W9xsetup.bin, string resource 10, string 144. For Windows 95 the information is taken from the web and from my experience: 1 2 - Retail CD Upgrade (full too?) 3 - Floppy Upgrade 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - Floppy 8 - Floppy 9 - OEM CD FullThis information is stored in SETUPPP.INF (in PRECOPY.CAB) in [data] section, as [ProductType]. The information if it is upgrade or not is stored in SETUPC.INF, [data] section, CCP=0 means no upgrade, CCP=1 means Compliance Checking Program. If you have CD-ROM Windows 95 full, no upgrade, no OEM, and any floppy disk installs of Windows 95, please let me now the ProductType value so I could improve the table. Petr

Here is corrected version of FORMAT, it shows now "Formatting xxxG" for disks > 64 GB. disktools.zip Please test. Petr

Thanks for the information. I'll try it when I will have some time. There are also SciTech drivers for Geforce 6200, I should check if they oficially support PCI-E version or AGP only as Nvidia does. Petr

I don't know, just rough guess: probably these patches implement "Drop support for Pre 2K". Petr

Yes, I know, I'm just waiting for any feedback, after verification that SE version works perfectly I can modify FE and ME versions too. On the other hand I have no idea what should be the difference between W95 OSR2, W98, W98SE and WMe versions of FDISK (with exception for check for DOS version 7.1 or 8.0)? Is there different letter ordering? Are there different requirements on partition type, size, position? Or should I just make one version working on all systems? Petr

Not all updates are iexpress packages. /R:N works for iexpress packages only. Other packages require /norestart for example. Petr

Answer 1: This bug is resolved, it means that the support for pre-Win2k platforms (Win9x/Me/NT4) for Gecko 1.9 (Firefox 3) had been dropped. Answer 2: Nightly builds of FF3 are available here: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/fir...y/latest-trunk/ Petr

Here is compiled usbview.exe with added about 1000 additional Vendor-ids from http://www.linux-usb.org/usb.ids. http://old.winpack.org/petr/usbview.exe Works on Windows 98 SE, XP and probably on all similar platforms. Please confirm that it displays everything correctly. Petr

Version 5.00.2195.1620 works on Windows 98, it is the same file as http://www.ftdichip.com/Resources/Utilities/usbview.zip already discussed here. I have tried to compile the version from Windows Server 2003 SP1 DDK and not only that it works on Windows 98 SE, but it also displays VIA EHCI (USB2.0) controller correctly! Nice. Both XPSP2 and WS2003SP1 versions (5.2.3790.1830, 5.1.2600.2180) work OK on W98, surprisingly building for Windows 2000 platform resulted in the following error message: 1>BUILDMSG: Warning : The sample "c:\winddk\3790~1.183\src\wdm\usb\usbview" is not valid for the current OS target. Thanks for this information erpdude. Petr Edit: Now I have tried also Windows Vista WDK (build 5744) and usbview.exe does not run in Windows 98 OS regardless on the build environment used.

Yes, I've described this more than 4 years ago here: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/xosl/message/2864 Petr

In Windows XP Service Pack 2 Deployment Tools is contained oformat.exe, it checks for MS-DOS version 8.00 (Windows Me DOS) and is almost the same. Something is explained here: NTFS Preinstallation and Windows XP Even this version (released in 2004) has 65536 MB limit in displaying "Formatting 65,535.99M" message. Petr

I believe that the free FDISK may work. I use Ranish Partition Manager if I need to partition something non-standard. Several years ago when I configured my PC with many different OSes I've noticed that although partitiong seems to be very easy, different utilities write slightly different data to the partition table and partitioning made by one program was considered as invaild by other. I had tested Win98 FDISK, Windows XP partitioning, Linux fdisk, some fdisk delivered with Ghost and maybe some other. The funniest story was that if I used Win98 fdisk, WinXP had no problem in extended partition, but if I used Windows XP partitioning, the system did not boot. I discovered that the difference was the data written to the offset from the start of the disk field - Windows XP partitioning wrote offset from the start of the extended partition instead. (if I remember correctly). There are also differences in the chain of partition tables used for logical disk drives in extended partition. Also some partitioning programs starts all partitions at head 0, sector 1, while others can start (and end) the partition anywhere. And the biggest problem for me was to determine the right number for each partition (I had about 20 partitions) - different numbering was used by Windows XP in boot.ini (default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(7)\WINDOWS), Windows XP disk manager shows no numbers and even the ordering is different, Ghost shows different numbers, linux shows different partition numbers (hda1, hda2, ... hda16), terrible experience if you have to configure boot.ini or lilo.conf after moving the OS to different partition or just to determine in Ghost what is the right source and destination partition. Does anybody know - is there anywhere some good description of this? Edit: There is also other difference, different FDISKs use different partition type for different tasks. Petr

OK, but XP is able to assign drive letters itself. I'm only not sure what will be the result of changing the drive letter of system disk. Do you think that the drive letter assinging program is able to tell to Windows XP installer what drive letter is primary partition on drive 2? Petr

Does it mean that Windows 98 SE assigns drive letter to NTFS partition? I supposed it is completely invisible? What is the result without the letter assigning program? Petr

I prefer to verify everything myself. Thank you for the MSKB article, it is good to see that in reality is everything like described in it. And two extended partitions - it was just test and proved that it does not work well. You never know what will creative users do on their HDDs. :-) Petr

At this link is clearly written: I'd not believe in this tool for bigger disks and in general - are you sure that it is 100% compatible with MS-DOS 7.1 and 8.0 and Windows 95/SE/Me?. And do you know it's license? Is it illegal to redistribute it too, I've written to the author and not received the permission to add it to the SESP. As Mr. Loew explained here approx. year ago, according to DMCA it is legal to patch the software to correct its bugs. Yes, to be fully compliant with all licenses, it would be better to distribute just patches, not full programs, but since I have seen that even Microsoft recommends http://www.bootdisk.com/ that contains MS fdisk and format utilities I see no reason for it. Petr

I think it is correct, Windows XP can be installed on logical drive in extended partition. I'm not sure if Windows XP setup is able to create the partition or not, I always partitioned the disk before installing Windows. Even Windows 98 can reside in extended partition but it is necessary to install it to primary partition and then move it to extended partition using Ghost or similar tool - if I remember correctly. Several years ago I had a setup with 4x Windows 98 SE, 4x Windows XP, Windows 2000, 2x Red Hat Linux but I used XOSL as boot manager and hiding of unwanted partitions. Petr

I've tried one experiment and put after C: another two disks with the same layout: DISK 2 1. PRIMARY - D 2. PRIMARY - J 3. EXTENDED \-- logical disk - F \-- logical disk - G 4. EXTENDED \-- logical disk - L \-- logical disk - M DISK 3 1. PRIMARY - E 2. PRIMARY - K 3. EXTENDED \-- logical disk - H \-- logical disk - I 4. EXTENDED \-- logical disk - N \-- logical disk - O but the system was so confused that format overwrote one partition by another and even it was not possible to format all disks. Also Win98SE FDISK did not displayed correctly the logical drives in the second extended partition. So here is the resulting rule for disk ordering: - the first primary partition on every disk - logical drives in the first extended partition on every disk - the second primary partition on every disk - logical drives in the second extended partition on every disk So there is the answer to the original E-66 question "Why?": In the first setup the order was disk1-primary, disk2-primary, disk1-logical, disk1-logical In the second setup the order was disk1-primry, disk2-logical, disk1-primary2, disk1-primary3 So the mistake was to change the logical drives to primary partitions. Without this, the order would be: disk1-primary, disk1-logical, disk1-logical, disk2-logical exactly as needed. So after my short experiment I again recommend not to use more than one DOS/Win primary and one extended partition. And don't change the letters by any utility unless it is really necessary. Anything other is just asking for troubles. Petr

I'd avoid the use of the drive letter assigner program if possible because it means that you will have different letters in DOS and different in Windows - a good chance to do something wrong. Petr

Just a note to the screenshot, current DX9.0c is October 2006. Petr