submix8c

Yeah, and mines a Celeron 3.3Ghz 2GB RAM... (<--what does that tell you?) WHO makes the Computer WHAT is the Model of the Computer WHAT is the MOTHERBOARD of the Computer Do you have an ADD-IN VIDEO Card Do you have an Add-In Sound Card FULL SPECIFICATIONS, please...

How-to is in the links. That file is DIFFERENT between Languages. If you DID do that (according to instructions) it should work.

From where did you get them? Intel doesn't list anything older than Win2k - http://downloadcenter.intel.com/SearchResult.aspx?lang=eng&ProductFamily=Internet+Devices&ProductLine=Entry+Level+Desktop+PC&ProductProduct=Intel%C2%AE+82945G+Express+Chipset

DUDE! You should for "Unattended INSTALL" to a No-OS-Installed Partition utilize the DEFAULT "NTUSER.DAT" by 1 - Install then MODIFY the pre-existing one AND "replace" during #2, #3, #n INSTALLS -OR- 2 - INSTALL and WHEN the DEFAULT "NTUSER.DAT" file is CREATED, do the SAME THING as shown. READ a little - we CANNOT provide you with one as we 1 - DON'T KNOW what "mods" you want -OR- 2 - DON'T want to "do for you" when you can 2a - Do it yourself -AND- 2b - Come back when you have problems with it AFTER YOU TRY IT. The WHOLE IDEA is to provide the "mods" to ANY AND ALL NEW USERS THAT GET DEFINED AFTER INSTALL COMPLETES! ONE TIME and NOT for "each user" AFTER. Besides, WHAT are you going to do - run a "script" each time a NEW USER is defined? We don't do "hand on a silver platter" here - we HELP people HELP THEMSELVES? I hope this clarifies the situation. Read a little, come back with SPECIFIC questions, OK?

If it's the same as mine, the LAN/Network is "Realtek 8100C (10/100 M LAN)" - these are not supplied in the OS. You have to get them for 98SE. AFAIK, only older Intel NIC cards were supported. What is the Add-In NIC? HOWEVER, your MoBo may have (?) Intel Pro100 (?) according to this. I have found a ZIP file that MAY have the correct drivers for Realtek - I don't remember checking this. google this (with quote): "Lan_Realtek_5.641.209.2006_XPx86_A.zip" Several folders inside it. Try and let me know (IF it's a Realtek?). Still, won't do any good without Video unless you can "force" the "Standard/Default VGA" (whatever) somehow, since the LAN won't work in Safe Mode. edit - In Safe Mode, run "Regedit" and "Export" the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\PCI branch and zip\attach it -OR- Just list the Ven-Dev info IN FULL. exactly as you see it.

My impression was "Same stuff, different place". Haven't gotten there yet. Experience w/WinVista+7 indicates that - just a "bear" to find.

I haven't "built" mine yet (i.e. transfer MoBo from "torn up" box to "replacement box") so can't say what MIGHT be needed. I have the same situation with my Dell E521 (not yet "reloaded"). Take a look at the FULL specs (see Wayback link AND the ECS PDF guide) - You (and I) MIGHT have to install a PCI Video Card -OR- find a compatible PCI-e card. As far as SATA, it APPEARS that you can go "IDE Mode" in the BIOS - otherwise attach a PATA/IDE HDD along with the CD/DVD (change jumpers HDD=MS CD=SL) and "disable" the SATA Controller for the duration of the Win9x. edit - for using SATA, you could also get rloew's "patch".

Does it by chance REQUIRE "Visual C++ Runtime" (there are several versions of them, BTW)? http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=5032&game=Witchaven%20II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchaven_II What are your PC Specifications? Would be a good question too...

From Gateway: ECS uBTX Motherboard With Intel 945G (specifically, 945GCT-M3) Apparently preloaded with Vista. I have a W3650, apparently the same board, NOT a uBTX, meaning "mounts/built backwards", even though it was ALSO described as "uBTX". If the "same", they have 4xSATA-II and 1xPATA connectors. Probably yes, PEG vs "On-Chip". Is this the MoBo? Another snapshot/specs courtesy of WayBack. Manual from ECS: http://download.ecsusa.com/dlfileecs/manual/mb/eng/p4/945GCT-M3v3.0/23_945GCT-M3%20%283.0A%29-low.pdf

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2007/03/02/1786493.aspx http://support.microsoft.com/kb/168475http://support.microsoft.com/kb/959753 Google: create default user profile xp site:www.msfn.org ...and dig in... HTH (BTW, I've never tried this - some other esteemed member that HAS done it may be able to specifically help)

4 - (fsquirt) AGAIN, it is VOODOO since it ONLY OCCURS IN THE I386 FOLDER! This could ONLY HAPPEN if you have a BOGUS (warez) XP AND IT IS WITHIN A "x.CAB" FILE! You have (in essence) CREATED a brand new TOPIC with the SAME QUESTIONS, thus VIOLATING (again, no less) the RULES! (remember them?) You are one lazy and insistent person aren't you? Have you tried this instead of this instead of not providing...

3 - "HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\Currentversion" "HKLM\System\Currentcontrolset\Control\Productoptions" "HKLM\System\Currentcontrolset\Control\Windows" More locations (not to mention the Kernel) exist. Some more specific info. Now as to the "legality" (from another website) The "some more" mentioned is Tweak-strikethat- and I will say no more. An example of how deep it goes. You really want to "break" your OS, don't you? Changing this has absolutely no value except to "trick" a Buyer, "trick" an Installer, or to "hack" the OS (e.g. "Convert Pro to MCE"=ILLEGAL). "Tricking" an Installer is safer to just change (if available) the MSI or just "repack" it (if it will even RUN on it).

That is the SECOND time that you asked that AFTER BEING GIVEN THE LINK IN POST #2. GOOD GOD, man! CLICK THE LINK IN POST #2 ABOVE and READ IT!!!!

As jds said, If it is NOT really "bad" (actually a ClamWin program) then you can - 1 - Report it to SpyBot 2 - Put an "exception" in SpyBot (select "Advanced Mode" at the top to see additional options) Also don't TOTALLY trust VirusTotal - SOME of the software listed actually comes up with False Positives (even on XP programs). "w9xpopen.exe" appears to be a Python "wrapper"(?) program. Not really sure... BUT it might be because it "calls" some Windows pgms/functions causing it to be suspect. See this - appears to be safe.

Ummm ... isn't that the infamous version number that almost always meant a 32GB limit bug, beyond which the BIOS would fail to boot? I've never seen (and I've disassembled/reassembled and stripped/recycled quite a number) of that "version" - every one of them went at LEAST up to the 64g-limit and generally had a "patch" for the 132g-limit. It all depends on the MoBo/ChipSet. For example, I have used "patched" on Tyan boards many times (Via Chipsets). The "Base BIOS" (eg 4.51PG) is not necessarily the "problem" - Take note of people actually REQUESTING that "BIOS" for their MoBo's - just THAT is totally... NOT! Pull one of them apart with a Utility ("editor") and you' ll see what I mean. Please note THAT is what the OP has (and supports up to the "highest limit"). @rloew - Thx for details all in one place.

Wonder if it has a Linux partition(s) already on it?

Misunderstanding.... From what I had "found" on the "latest BIOS" the posts found claimed "120gb" which I had found "odd". The other "oddity" was by how the Compaq BIOS' "see" a HDD. Yes, I DID have to "wipe" (zero the first+n-Sectors - insurance) when I had put a 40gb from another PC (using the 255) due to the "way" it provided the Addressing (using 240). The pre-installed XP wouldn't boot (naturally) after being "swapped in" (ran fine in the "other" PC). I DID say that I wasn't sure if it was "odd" in that it wasn't giving an accurate value (or WAS it?). It seems it was, just using a different "translation" scheme (as some Compaqs have ABSOLUTELY been know to do - older Phoenix BIOS). Fine... the Compaq is irrelevant BUT the "latest BIOS" thing was a bit odd, since the BIOS is (apparently) an Award v4.51PG (not known to do weird stuff). The 255-head thingy should apply here AND provide EXACTLY what your numbers provide. So... 8gb? Appears to be an i440BX Chipset...

WHAT??? It was given in POST#2!!!

To point out, BTW, the APPARENT limit, with the UPDATED BIOS, is the variant#2 and "not a hacked" one. The Compaq EVO limit (apparently) is seeing the 160GB = 137,328mb (not MiB?) according to the BIOS at Boot (using conversion link = 127.9GiB-Rnd). Also bear in mind that (as I said) the Compaq EVO uses that "strange" Translation so many of older Compaq/HP used (and could be "fooled" by the value it's reporting - could BE MiB). So the "upper limit" of the UPDATED BIOS are rather confusing (based on "investigation). I still suggest you check into that BIOS if it's the correct one for your MoBo (if it's not already installed). That "8mb" thing mentioned is confusing the heck out of me also. There are also (as I said) a NUMBER of variations of the "ASUS P2B" - You need to look at the MoBo to see the EXACT version or get a tool that will tell you. The BIOS String will also help (for a potential and maybe unnecessary BIOS upgrade). Call me silly, but I won't mess with a PC until I know EXACTLY what the MoBo is... (find Everest Home Edition - good enough for yours...)

+1...Without the "fix" Win2k will "choke" and risk of corruption (e.g. a partition with the "limit" but extending BEYOND it). Kind of like the similar "problem" Win9x folks RIGHT NOW are having trouble understanding.

WIN95 RTM WIN95 OSR1 WIN95 OSR2 WIN95 OSR2.1 WIN95 OSR2.5 I have no clue and no desire to spend time loading all the different versions to find out as this would be an exercise in futility. Besides, the issue not the "missing functions which are irrelevant to the OS in question based on WinAMP code that obviously check for the OS in question and acts accordingly".Function Dependencies ONLY MATTER when a given Not-OS Program is installed and "fails". Check out KernelEX project, OK? There is ALWAYS a "limit" to what an OS can do for a Program that is normally NOT supported by the OS, even for the KernelEX Project!

Hmmm. haven't yet tried it (the WD tools). If HDAT2 works, then fine. BTW, the CD referred to (in the quote) is the v11 as jaclaz stated. And apparently is not a DDO. Still, I will ALSO try the DDO (to get full size) as well as the CD ("clamp"). edit - don't expect me to "test" very quickly. You could do the same. I gave links to the actual WD DDO and jaclaz (confirmed by me) has given the name/version of the WD Software for "clamping". And (see jaclaz comment below) you're kind of adding to the confusion with such a statement.

P.S. You'd better get an "unaltered" source and start from scratch (aside from the PT-BR fixes that you MUST use).BTW, AFAIK, you ADD the Language Pack to an ENU source. Kind of sounds like you have a "warez" version if it's "pre-integrated"...

I told you in your OTHER thread. SOME folks do NOT install a "firewall" but use "TCP/IP Filtering". NO I will NOT go into "explaining that"! Do a little research ON YOUR OWN. The whole POINT of this Forum is to HELP - NOT "Please hand it to me on a silver platter"... BTW, there are MANY threads on MSFN about "Firewalls" and "Antivirus" Products. TRY SEARCHING FIRST rather than asking for something that's ALREADY THERE (See that "gear" at the top right? CLICK IT!).