Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


  • Content count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About risk_reversal

Profile Information

  • OS
    XP Home
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

839 profile views
  1. I gave up on the AOL client when it was discontinued. I now access my AOL emails via SeaMonkey (IMAP). Have set them all up so that when I open the email client they are all together and no need to log into each account separately using a web browser. Good Luck
  2. risk_reversal

    Newer motherboards that support WinXP

    Gigabyte GA970A DS3P Rev2.0 (NB AMD 970) running AMD FX6300 with 8GB ram (Vengence), Nvidia MSI GTX 660 and Samsung EVO 850. WinXP SP3 x86 runs very well. This mobo only has a 4+1 VRM which is fine as I don't o/c anymore. Also have the Gavotte RAM patch on the XP partition from which I run virtual ram. Good Luck
  3. risk_reversal

    Update Win 7, or Not ?

    +1 for 'don't bother'. I also only install any KB's as and when absolutely necessary. The thing I found most irritating about Win7 was not only having to shut off Services that were not required but also having to spend an inordinate amount of time turning off items in the Task Scheduler and Start Scheduler which report back to MS on a regular basis unless disabled. However, having done all that as well as installing the Ram patch (have win7 x86) which can now detect and use 8GB of ram, I find the system is running nicely. I dual boot with XP SP3 and also did not bother with any updates on that o/s either. Good Luck
  4. risk_reversal

    Antivirus for xp?

    - Avast AV - Comodo FW v5.12 (used to use OnlineArmor which was excellent but it had a glitch on my new XP build) - SAS v5.6 & Malwarebytes v1.75 - NoScript browser addon - Windscribe VPN browser add-on (which also has a rotating user agent feature) and hides your system in the crowd (see browserleaks & panopitclick) Obviously nothing can beat safe browsing as has already been stated ie which site you go on and what you download The rise of audio fingerprinting is a concern...... Good Luck
  5. risk_reversal

    Old Mobo running XP - SSD / SATA III compatibility

    Many thanks for your reply and info jaclaz. Let me ask you a final question. If I get say a SATA III replacement drive and the throughput of the new drive is say 120MB/s. Since the bandwidth of the PCI bus is only a max of 133MB/s what is going to happen to the data flow along the PCI bus if I am using other devices located on the PCI bus at the same time or if I am copying data from one HDD to the other. For clarity although I have 2 HDDs in my rig, I use the 2nd HDD to copy and save the data from the 1st disc as well as making images of the system partition. Many thanks for your help
  6. risk_reversal

    Old Mobo running XP - SSD / SATA III compatibility

    Many thanks for your reply jaclaz Although I am currently running two SATA II HDDs on the onboard Promise Controller, I have used the limiting jumpers on the HDDs (at the back) to restrict them to SATA I speed. Both drives are Seagates, one is the ST3500514NS it's an Enterprise drive. I have never tried the drives without the limiting jumper. The reason being that my Asus motherboard also has the Via on board SATA controller (chipset VT8237) which is not compatible with SATA II HDDs. At the time there were many posts about data corruption on the Via SATA controller with SATA II HDDs and the only way to make them work was by limiting them to SATA I. With this corruption in mind, I made the perhaps false but logical move to limit my HDDs to SATA I even though there was no evidence to the contrary when putting them on the onboard Promise Controller. I though the minor speed boost was not worth the safety aspect. I did however take into account the following: 1. That there was a possibility that the onboard Promise Controller may not be compatible and 2. As you are probably aware the onboard Promise Controller 20378 shares the PCI bus with other PCI devices and runs at 133MB/s (at 32 bit which my board has). If a drive is going to be using 150MB/s+ then a bottleneck would inevitably occur on the PCI bus. This could cause issues and potentially data corruption. Setting the Promise Controller to IDE mode in the bios, I beleive, merely allows for HDDs to be used in an individual and separate manner. Year ago I had an MSI KT3 Ultra 2 board which had an older Promise Controller on board with no IDE mode and it was still possible to arrange this set up (ie running 2 independant and separate HDDs in a 1+0 single strip single disc RAID-0) even though the Promise Controller had Raid option only. What I am trying to say is that setting the Promise Controller to Raid or IDE in the bios would merely change only how the drives are to be interpreted by the Promise Controller. There is a post made by a user years ago in the Asus forum who attached SSD and SATA III drives to the same motherboard that I have and put them on the Promise Controller. Both drives were detected by the Promise Controller bios and Windows. He reported that Windows XP now booted in 1/3 of the time. If that is so and all the data was flowing into the PCI bus, then it is logical to assume that the onboard Pomise Controller is not limiting any speed and that all the bandwidth on the PCI bus itself must be being used. Whenever bottlenecks occur, data corruption is never far behing. Do you see what I mean I am not too sure what you are saying. Are saying that selecting IDE mode in the bios for the onboard Promise Controller will only allow drives to run at a theoretical max of 133MB/s? BTW, it I run HD Tune on both of my drives, I get about 75MB/s for each. Which makes me confortable given that the PCI bus can handle up to 133MB/s. Not sure if I am confused but if you have any further thoughts let me know. Cheers
  7. risk_reversal

    Old Mobo running XP - SSD / SATA III compatibility

    I have run across one post from a user who upgraded his system in this way and stated that the onboard Promise Controller 378 does indeed detect SATA III / SSD and that XP also sees thos HDDs. No further info was provided in terms of the stability of that connection, as far as data corruption is concerned. This is what I would like infomation on.
  8. Hi guys, Wonder if any of you can help. I am running an old rig, Asus A8V Deluxe Rev 2.0. I am trying to upgrade a HDD and wanted to know about SATA compatibilty. My current set up is that I am running 2 SATA II HDDs from the onboard Promise Controller (Sata 378 TX2 plus). The bios is set up to run in IDE mode so the drives run independently (ie non raid). Although my HDDs are SATA II, I have set the jumper on them to work in SATA I mode. My question is not strictly to do with XP but more so in respect of the onboard HW that I am running. Since a lot of you are runnig XP, I am sure that some of you must have older HW as well and perhaps someone has had to solve this problem. Question: Is my onboard Promise Controller able to operate SATA III HDDs and not lead to data corruption of any kind. The Asus forum has an example of someone who has upgraded his drives to SSD / SATA III on the Promise Controller and he reports success. However, the user does not provide any further info and certainly no details of any data corruption that he may have experienced subsequently. So I would ideally like to have real live info as regards this. I don't think that the board manufacturer is important as the onboard Promise Controller SATA 378 was used on many boards of that era. Many thanks for any info provided. Cheers
  9. risk_reversal

    Discussion On Best Windows 98SE Data Backup Program

    Sorry, misread the OP's requirements which was for data backup. In which case, I use SyncBack. Version 3.2.18 works on 98SE (even through filehippo does not show it under requirements) http://www.filehippo.com/download_syncback/tech/3792/ Good Luck
  10. risk_reversal

    Discussion On Best Windows 98SE Data Backup Program

    I personally use Images for Dos v1.99. http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/image-for-dos-v1.htm Spartan interface, will do byte for byte copy. The TBI viewer will allow you to view or extract individual files from an image. Does not install but runs from a bootable cd (which I prefer) and will create images directly to external media via usb2 (or burn to CD/DVD). Not free but excellent in my opinion. I did try Acronis prior to that but for some reason I had issues. Good Luck
  11. risk_reversal

    WIN98SE, recommeded Servicepacks

    If you have usb1.1 then NUSB 2.x (last I beleive 2.4) will be fine. Version3.x will add software for USB2 controller but if you have a mobo with that has that already installed then v2.4 again will be fine. I only ever use version 2.4 irrespective of whether my mobo has usb 1.1 or 2.0. You might also consider using the winME defragmenter. The items I use are. 1. NUBS (it has detected all that I have thrown at it. Cameras, thumb drives, external HDs and USB hub on a Dell monitor) 2. WinME defragmenter 3. KernelEX (to allow you to run quite a few other progs made for XP) 4. RLoew's ram limitation patch (I dual boot 98se & XP with 2gb of ram) other than that I have customised the desktops, icons, etc but all that is merely cosmetics The other limitation as has been mentioned is the 137GB HD size. I overcome this by using a third party onboard Promise controller and hence do not have to rely on the 98SE drivers. Good Luck
  12. Apologies for resurrecting an older thread but as regards formatting tools I use BiNG. Although not freeware, there is a trial period. Furthermore (and similarly to PM which I also use), it can be run from a bootable CD with no installation, which is the way I like to run any partition manager utility. BiNG will detect hard drives connected via USB2 and will allow formats, resizing, etc. My use of PM was superseded to an extent by BiNG simply because I was under the impression that PM8 (which I understand Norton has now dropped from its line up) could only handle max partition sizes of 320GB. On previous PM versions that I used eg PM6 there was also a size limitation officially of 40-50gb but would work to 80gb. Beyond the safe limits PM would just crash the partition on any attempt to create or resize.. I too have external USB drives formatted to FAT32 my largest is 500gb (465GiB) and works fine. Not sure if I feel confident having a larger partition than that. As an aside (and I am sure that a lot of you are well aware of this) one can also use GParted as a (free) partition manager (create, resize, etc) this prog can either be downloaded as a standalone utility or can be run from a Linux Live CD (I particularly like Puppy Linux, which I also have installed on a dual boot system). GParted is quick efficient and as safe as BiNG. Good Luck
  13. risk_reversal

    KernelEX - Newbie Questions

    Correct. At install I did indeed select the option NOT to enable kernelEX on all executables by default. Cheers
  14. risk_reversal

    KernelEX - Newbie Questions

    My question was more to do with the procedure that I used, ie is that generally the way to go about it in using KernelEX. If you see what I mean Cheers
  15. risk_reversal

    KernelEX - Newbie Questions

    Many thanks for your reply loblo. I think I understand what you are saying. My somewhat pedestrian interpretation is questioning why bother then having the 1st option Use default compatibility options [KernelEX is disabled], if it is actually enabled as you say but not in any special mode. I guess as I understand KernelEX better and become more proficient with it the penny will eventually drop as to the significance of that entry. Let me as you a further question relating to my original post Did I follow the correct procedure to install KernelEX ie place the 2 files (are both files required?) which I specified above in the C:\windows\system folder then run KernelEX. Lastly, any ideas on my SuperAntiSpyware install as detailed above. Does it look like I did the right thing. I have never actually installed any progs in XP under compatibility mode so effectively this was my first time. Perhaps some other users can also offer some comments please. Cheers