saugatak

@TommyP, no the CODECS folder. I searched my existing system, which has DX9 already installed, and I don't see "d3dx9_27.dll" anywhere, so I don't think APPREPLACE is the right folder. Myy guess is that it's a new .dll to be slipstreamed in the CODECS folder. Am I wrong?

Suryad, there's this program called Deep Burner. Google it. It comes in a free and paid version and the free version does enough for most personal uses, certainly as much as Windows Media Player burner. WMP is bloated, has as a "feature" all sorts of DRM, is basically spyware and a security risk. P.S. you can't uninstall Windows Media Player. You'll need to nLite it out.

Win2k3 latest NTDETECT.COM and ntldr is in SP1. WinXP NTDETECT.COM and ntldr is in SP2. Not sure if they're the latest versions though, might have been updated in hotfix. Re whether it's legal or not, if M$ lets you download it for free, it's legal enough.

Suryad, you may also want to download the Quicktime and Real Player codecs and plug-ins for your browser. If you have the codecs, Media Player Classic will display QuickTime and Real videos as well, so instead of having 3 separate media players for each format, you can get by with one.

New version of Media Player Classic released. http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.p...ackage_id=84358 includes the Media Player Classic plus d3dx9_27.dll, which is a new dll. I'm gonna put this dll in my HFSLIP\HFEXPERT\CODECS folder and try to slipstream in the new version.

I'd help but this is way out of my league. You guys probably know this already, but QuickLaunch is buried somewhere in C:\Documents and Settings\User\Application Data\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Quick Launch. Hope that helps B)

Actually, I like Quick Launch, if for nothing else than to jump onto the desktop. I vote for keeping QuickLaunch in.

@FDV, so if I replace all references to "mplayerc.exe" with "mplayer2.exe" that should do the trick in doing an appreplace using HFSLIP?

GI Schmoe, as I have been complimented on this thread for my biting sense of humor, I beg to differ. Also, your explanation makes NO SENSE because you put MY NAME by YOUR WORDS. That's called a MISTAKE. Your attempt to explain your dumb mistake as a lame attempt at humor is called PATHETIC. Finally, I find it weird that I'm called an AMD zealot when all of my machines are either PIII or P-Ms. I run PIII's and P-Ms because I think the P-IV is a piece of crap. I'm happy with my machines as I use them for common business use and have no need to upgrade. But when drivers for WinXP 64 bit become more common and more programs go native 64-bit, I will upgrade to the best the market has to offer, and that is dual-core AMD x86 compatible 64 bit chips. By doing so, I'll have saved my business some money in not making any unnecessary hardware upgrades to P-IVs. If Intel offers a better solution between now and then, I'll go with Intel. It'd be more appropriate to say, I call it like I see it.

Copyrights expire in 95 years, or 125 years! That's great! By the time Win98's copyrights expire and I can use a version based on the source code legally, I'll be . . . dead.

Nuff' said Uh, Dood Clear the buckshot from your head. You're quoting yourself there, not me. See your post #97. Duh.

Step 1: First you demand proof. You get the proof with articles to Tom's Hardware, AnandTech and other sites. Step 2: After getting the proof, you say, Oh yeah I guess you guys have proof. But that's not real proof. Those are fanboy sites. Now I want "real" proof. Step 3: Meanwhile, you sit on your a$$ offering as convincing proof for your position . . . YOUR WORD. Wow, that's real convincing evidence. In any case, if all the testing done by Tom's Hardware and Anandtech (and Anandtech used 64 bit operating systems and databases) and Intel's own admission that they have to scrap their existing "latest" technology because it sucks isn't enough to convince you, nothing will. Edit: Got rid of non-relevant portions of Maxamoto's quote above.

I am interested in trying this out but I don't have the necessary Win95 system files without the dreaded Explorer? Any ideas where I can get 'em? I'm not trying to do anything illegal, but I have a legal copy of Win98SE and since the USDOJ said it's wrong to bundle IE with Windows, why do I have to pay extra for a Win95 CD that nobody even has anymore just to enforce the ruling against M$? If anyone can provide me with a RAR or ZIP of the files, please PM me. Thanks.

@Oleg, I did that plus TommyP's MPLAYER2.IN_ in the FIX folder I don't think that will work, will it? FDV's fileset removes media player 2. So just replacing it means that it will get removed, right?

@FDV, I want to replace WinMedia Player with the Open-source version using HFSLIP/HFEXPERT folders so I want to put it back. Will uncommenting the following work? 1. SYSSETUP.IN_ [infs.Always] mplayer2.inf,DefaultInstall.NT 2. SYSOC.IN_ [Components] WMPOCM=ocgen.dll,OcEntry,wmpocm.inf,,7 3. TXTSETUP & LAYOUT [sourceDisksFiles] wmpocm.exe = 2,,,,,,,32,0,0 wmpocm.inf = 2,,,,,,,20,0,0

FDV I thought you did incorporate some of those mods. Few concerns I have: 1. Will any of those mods screw up popular programs? 2. Will any of those mods be affected by subsequent security downloads? FDV I thought you did incorporate some of those mods. Few concerns I have: 1. Will any of those mods screw up popular programs? 2. Will any of those mods be affected by subsequent security downloads?

Incroyable HULK, I agree with everything you said but THIS . . . . . . .with respect to the x86 64 bit chip market ONLY. I agree with the above statement as it applies to the rest of the x86 market other than 64 bit x86 market. Intel reliability has rested in part on 2 factors: 1. optimized C compiler for Intel; and 2. bug testing done mainly on Intel (factor mentioned by Incroyable Hulk) BUT the above 2 factors are reversed for the x86 64 bit market, where the C compiler is optimized for AMD 64 bit chips, and M$ 64 bit Windows XP is BUILT for the AMD 64 bit chip. Now I know Intel reliability has also depended upon quality of chipsets and there can be an argument made for a lot of 3rd party chipsets provided by 3rd party vendors being flaky, but there are also good 3rd party AMD chipsets out there now, particularly for the 64 bit market.

I think Crash is right. For purposes of helping FDV and TommyP get these betas ironed out and released as final code, let's all test using the same stuff. How about we agree to use FDV's fileset unmodified, except take out COM and DTC, if FDV hasn't done so already. When TommyP and FDV are happy with it and then FDV uploads the latest versions to his website, then we can all go back to hacking away

****, this is a high level conversation! @TommyP, you rip out MDAC? Don't you need ODBC and/or OLE at all?

Uhh, Maxamoto, have you been reading the links posted to? Here's another one: http://www.theregister.com/2005/10/29/intel_xeon_2009/ FYI, when Intel withdraws its processors that compete with AMD and says it will release new 64 bit chips with a new design and compete with AMD year or two from now, that is an admission on Intel's part that they can't compete. What did you expect? Intel to actually come out and say, "We suck compared to AMD." Maxamoto, with respect to your traveling around the world and noticing all the AMD processors failing wherever you go, watching Canadians cry like babies, etc., etc. -- whatever, it's hard to believe. P.S. I withdraw the personal attack on Max. Went a little too far there, I admit, heh.

Instead of removing Paint & Calc, let's leave in . . . unless someone has good suggestion for replacement of Paint & Calc. They both kind of suck. Any ideas for good freeware replacements. Cool to have spanking new OS with good utilities in there.

I've cited articles from Tom's Hardware and AnandTech that directly support the proposition that, when it comes to dual-core x64 bit chips, AMD is the ONLY game in town. Other people have cited Information Week and the FACT that Intel has admitted that AMD is killing them and that Intel's dual-core x64 bit solution sucks. All of these cited sources have run tests and benchmarks proving all of the above. That is called EVIDENCE and LOGIC, not opinion that "materialize from nowhere" as you wrongly state. You, OTOH, don't cite a **** thing, so I'd say it is YOU that is pulling opinions out of your . . . . well, normally I'd say out of your a$$ . . . . but in your case, I'll say out of your head. Really? How many dual core 64 bit Intel and AMD computers have you worked with? Enough to form a large enough sample to get statistically significant results?

FDV, grabbed it. Should this be put into the FDVFILES folder?

Read this article from Anandtech. http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2447&p=7 So TomsHardware and AnandTech are both saying, if you want to go with dual core 64 bit systems FOR HIGH END DATABASES, go with AMD. And you're saying go with Intel. My gosh, who would be crazy enough to take Toms Hardware and Anand Tech's advice over yours? Let me see . . . . that would be just about everybody.

@RogueSpear It's hard to put this delicately, so I won't even bother. Given a choice between going with what Tom's Hardware says and some guy on the net whose avatar is a picture of someone with his head stuck up his A$$, I'll go with Tom's Hardware. http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20051017/index.html What's most annoying about you and GI Joe is your dismissal of other people's opinions, which are based on knowledge of the latest technology. If there's one thing I've learned on these forums is that there is no one way of doing things. There are people here posting about making a hybrid Win98SE/ME ripping out IE and OE and getting 40MB system installs and thus a flying gaming rig, something I would have never thought possible. Use google. You'll read about people putting together fantastic and stable dual core 64 bit AMD machines that slaughter Intel's offerings.