LLXX

Copy all its files and registry keys. Older programs tend to be less intrusive in terms of registry keys, and they may only require the files in its own directory. Copy all your cookies too.

Are you sure K6 and K7 are even capable of being updated through microcode? AFAIK AMD did not start doing that until K8. K6.SYS is probably equivalent to the SetK6 function, K7.SYS would be real uC update.http://www.sandpile.org/post/msgs/20002555.htm

Wrong file. It's in explorer.exe bitmap 157 I've changed mine to say "Windows 98 Second Edition"

Old method, doesn't work anymore. M$ was rather slow to notice that though!

You can also download the bootfile somewhere on that site.

The Big Typhoon is also rather heavy because of its size. Make sure your mobo can handle the extra weight. If you're not too concerned about noise, get a smaller heatsink with a more powerful fan instead.

Makes sense. It is the Intel compiler after all... so it'd be optimised only for their processors.

However much a volume license costs. No activation, forever.

I've tried it, and it seems FAT32 is faster on almost any size of drive, but with larger drives the difference decreases. I timed the copying of 512Mb from memory onto a file on two identical 120Gb hard drives, one formatted with FAT32 and the other with NTFS. The difference between FAT32 and NTFS was approximately 1.5 seconds. 1. Overwritten MFT = loss of all your small files, as they are stored directly in the file table itself. Overwritten FAT = no loss of file data since all file data are stored in the data area. 2. Neither do files on FAT32. 3. True, but then again, NTFS has its own set of problems with corruption. 4. True. Can't argue with that. 5. Misconception. You're confusing FAT32 with FAT16. FAT32 supports 2^32 clusters, which means up to two terabytes at only 512 bytes per cluster. As opposed to FAT16, which has an inherent 2Gb limitation (65536 clusters * 32768 bytes/cluster) "Partition table"??? That is independent of the filesystem... and there is only one, in the MBR at the very first sector of the disk. If you meant a second FAT, that has been a feature ever since FAT12. In fact, it provides more places for malware to hide - see http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Alt...ta_Streams.html It depends on how much disk activity you produce. The more, the more frequent you should defrag. Also, the more frequently you defrag, the less stress is placed on the drive when you do defrag, as with files being already contiguous the hard drive has to move the heads less, and excessive seeks is what wears out the drive quickly. Think of defragging as being like physical exercise - the more frequently you do it, the better condition your body will be in, and the less stress it places on your body if you're already fit. However, defragging too frequently is a waste of time as the files have not fragmented yet. Because you use NTFS, which is more insensitive to fragmentation than FAT, you'll see less of a difference Correct. FAT32 partitions can be up to 2 Terabytes in size.

Also check that the processor's cooling system is intact and working properly.

Make a backup of that drive first. The 137Gb limit only becomes apparent if you try to store more than 137Gb on the drive, otherwise everything appears to be fine. Is there a "disable LBA mode" option in the BIOS?

Open MSDOS.SYS in the root with a text editor, and find BootMenu line. Set it to 0 or delete the line completely, then save the file and reboot.

As always, a backup is *strongly recommended* whenever doing such large operations on the drive.

DOS boot disk? Boot to a DOS prompt and leave it there. It should boot alright, since the amount of work needed to load a DOS kernel is considerably less than any other OS.It will then heat the CPU, as unlike most other OSs DOS runs in a continuous loop and doesn't halt the processor when idling.

The system timer does *not* have 1ms granularity.See http://www.codeproject.com/system/simpletime.asp Learn to use the CPU's clock counter if you want nanosecond accuracy (e.g. 2GHz CPU = 0.5ns per clock)

Can you check with a disk editor to see if the partition table is still intact and also the partition bootsector? This might be caused by a problem in the cabling.

Please kindly note that there is a Vista forum on MSFN. It is here: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showforum=67

Actually, properly defragmented FAT32 is proven to be slightly faster than NTFS, which makes sense since NTFS is a more complex filesystem than FAT32. I'd choose FAT32, both for the slight speed advantage and for its cross-platform compatibility (many more HDD-utilities are able to work on FAT32 part'ns than NTFS). It's also *much* easier to manually recover files using a disk editor in the case of corruption. Choose NTFS if you want the extra features it provides, choose FAT32 if you just want simple and compatible.

Kernel32.dll VerifyVersionInfoW (required by MSO.DLL) possible - but then what would 98SE identify itself as? VerSetConditionMask (required by MSO.DLL) possible - see above SetFilePointerEx (required by OSE.DLL) possible GetFileSizeEx (required by OSE.DLL) possible CreateHardLinkW (required by OSE.DLL) NTFS only, no chance User32.dll GetLastInputInfo probably unlikely AllowSetForegroundWindow no functionality to be implemented SetLayeredWindowAttributes too much work required to implement transparent windows Shell32.dll SHGetFolderLocation available in Windows ME shell32.dll (5.0 or later version) AdvApi32.dll - All the functions below will require extensive work and thus won't be implemented - would a replacement ADVAPI32.DLL from a newer Windows version work? LsaClose LsaStorePrivateData LsaRetrievePrivateData LsaNtStatusToWinError LsaOpenPolicy ConvertSidToStringSidW DecryptFileW EncryptFileW ConvertStringSecurityDescriptorToSecurityDescriptorW ConvertSidToStringSidA CheckTokenMembership This patch will also work on WinME if you disable the SFP, otherwise the original kernel will be restored.

XP should run decently on your system, given that I've installed it on far slower machines (e.g. Pentium 166) without any problem (other than speed). 1. Intermittent read error in CD-ROM drive2. Error due to interference on ATAPI cable 3. Intermittent memory errors which show up when CAB files are being decompressed 4. Processor errors which show up when CAB files are being decompressed

What heatsink did you replace your existing one with? Are you sure it's sufficient for cooling your processor? Memtest86 does not heat the CPU very much, since it was designed to test memory. Either your heatsink is installed in a slightly tilted position (very common mistake on the Athlon series CPUs since they have a small die) or you have used too much thermal compound. Idling temperature ~38-39°C is a bit on the high side. If everything else is installed correctly, it seems that your heatsink is not powerful enough to cool.

light the darken sky upon others dumbusers, what was your solution, how you resolve your problem.

There is no problem... your computer wouldn't even boot if +12 was at 7.5... I don't trust software monitors for this reason - they aren't very accurate. Anything below 10 volts is likely not going to boot.

Good to see no problems so far. Keep posting whether it works or not, so that in the event of any system instability being noticed I can try to resolve the problem as soon as possible. This is still in beta stage.

I've tried 2K on a 33MHz 386 with 64M of RAM. Too slow to do much of anything.A 386 would be better off running 3.11 or trimmed-down 95.