LLXX

It's just a proof of concept, a minimal system to build on. For comparison, a full install of Windows 98SE takes up approximately the same amount of space. (Minimized 98SE... ~5Mb)

O RLY? That was a D0 before microcode was updated - this was confimed by replacing update.sys with older one which didn't have the microcode for my CPU.

Not everyone wants all that crap installed too, you know... You've basically created an ultra-bloated OEM restore CD. I'm still working on Windows 98 Third Edition ~ which will be nearly the same as 98SE except with updated files (think of Windows XP with integrated SP2)

Google 'setupp.ini'

Last attempt to extract some actual information from this user. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

I think that's a bug. XP and previous OS, would remember the last used option.

Multiply that 10 bytes by 1000 repetitions in an unrolled loop and see how the savings grow. The data is inherently aligned. That was just an example. You're reading it wrong. I'm defining the relationship between efficiency and speed / efficiency and size, not speed and size. Putting both in one sentence does tend to confuse though... although I should point out that there is no simple relationship between speed and size. Once again going back to the commercialisation of programming, which I have already discussed earlier. However it's not commercial software that was the point of this debate, it was about free and open-source software.

Tried asking them?I think they're using some sort of VPN / tunneling proxy.

Books are not really worth buying when you can find almost all the information you need on the Internet (and you can even download books now). Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite

A WinRAR is fine too.

You should've installed Windows to the D: or whatever drive you were planning to convert to NTFS.Actually, if you could format and make an NTFS partition from DOS, why not let the Win98 installer (which uses 3.1 -> DOS routines for file access AFAIK) install directly to the NTFS partition?

"rarely"? Make that 'never'.I'll go for the 6,5535 files test if you really want proof of that. @above: If it's the same version but in a different language, use a hex editor and fix the affected bytes in the code section. I'll try that right now ~ Edit: Can't find a fixed WinME shell32.dll to template from. I can't do anything

I have DirectX 9.0c version that will work on 9x, will upload somewhere if wanted (33.4Mb)

- Not getting a reply you want: timeless

Yes, that's the size of the base install CABs.

Don't know why http://support.microsoft.com/kb/885626 wasn't mentioned yet. Should've been the first thing posted.

Mobo is from '93, CPU is newer. But it's actually an overclocked 200 BIOS is probably '95

The China DOS Union has collected some very useful DOS software, including USB drivers. Unfortunately the text is in Chinese, so this translated version will have to do:http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/t...%2fdoswarec.htm (Scroll down to bottom 1/4 of the page or so.)

O RLY?Manipulating a lot of data with one instruction vs doing the same with repeated instructions, one for each datum, does not decrease the overall size of the code? What takes more space, add [di] y2 add [di+1] y2 add [di+2] y2 ... add [di+6] y 2 add [di+7] y 2Or movq mm0 [.pat2] paddb mm0 [di] movq [di] mm0 ... .pat2 ////h0202020202020202The former is 31 bytes, while the latter is only 21 bytes. Both perform the same task, i.e. add 2 to a sequence of 8 bytes without looping. The latter is several times faster too. Also, it takes CPU cycles to fetch instructions too, whether they be from the cache or the main RAM. Efficiency is directly proportional to the speed and inversely proportional to the size. Many formal computer science courses don't really spend much depth going into discussions on software efficiency, because [1] they are reluctant to admit that software efficiency has decreased with time, [2] the amount of material that is written on efficiency is relatively sparse, and [3] they don't want to get into heated debates such as the one right here, that often begin to degenerate BTW, I'm still surprised why there isn't a .NETlite since there's already nLite.

If you have it then why don't you just try...?

:blink:Umm... WHAT did you do to Win98se to make it take up two CDs?

The 98se drivers are worth a try. ME has a very similar driver architecture to 9x.

(This will only work if your USB drive can be detected by the BIOS as a HDD or similar accessible device. Otherwise you may need to use DOS USB driver to enable such access.) Copy the I386 directory of the XP CD to the USB drive. Boot from a DOS boot floppy to a command prompt. Make an I386 directory in the root of the C: drive and copy everything from the USB drive to it. Run WINNT.EXE in the I386 directory and proceed with setup as normal.

Do not forget that the nLite generalisation is coming from someone who thinks services should be left alone

If I understand this correctly, Windows programs can use only up to 3 GBs of the RAM, but the remaning 1 GB isn't left unused - it is used by the system/kernel... If the original poster is using WinXP Home though, it would be better to try Pro instead. You're confusing virtual addresses with physical addresses.Virtual addresses beyond 3Gb (C0000000) are indeed used by the system drivers and ring0 components. Physical addresses, 3-4Gb are also 'reserved' and devoid of any actual RAM, as mmio ports and other things lurk here. With PAE enabled, the physical addresses beyond 4Gb can also be used for physical RAM. Also, don't forget that your processor has to support PAE. This is supported on all CPUs starting from the Pentium Pro, so that point is moot. Ensure that "Physical Address Extension" is displayed in the System Properties dialog below the amount of RAM the system can sense. If it doesn't mention PAE, then it's not enabled.