LLXX

Is the hard drive even spinning up? In many cases if it's only being powered by the USB cable, it's not getting sufficient power. Be careful with this as you can easily burn out the USB controller on your mobo if you draw too much power from the ports.

With the "optimise" option to remove duplicated files.

You have no choice but to replace it, since the first defect is near the beginning: If you only had this one It would be possible to limit the system to use only 640MB, avoided the area with the error.

i've never had a problem, any problem, reading PDF's with Foxit. granted, it may not render as well, but for people like me who hate huge, bloated, slow loading apps that are full of useless 'features' i don't need, i'll take a rendering quality hit any day - assuming the quality actually is poorer. What I did to solve the problem of the huge Adobe product was similar to what I did to 98se - strip the garbage out of it and customise it. I did that to an installation of v5.1 (or was it 5.0? I can't remember) - According to Adobe, it needs 30Mb of disk space, but by deleting all of the unnecessary files that come with the default install (most of the plugins and font tables for languages that I'll never use) I got it down to 7.5Mb. By resediting the EXE and removing another load of junk, it's now down to 6Mb. Starts instantly too.And, if you want even less bloat, get v4.05 and strip that down. This is most importantly because FAT32 does not support "alternate streams", which malware and virii tend to reside in. Some information here: http://www.diamondcs.com.au/index.php?page...id=ntfs-streamsMore interestingly...

98se is not vulnerable in the way that the NT-series are... do not worry.

Try CabPack. Get it from any of the sites here http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=cabpack&meta=

"10x zoom" in Paint has been there since Windows 98... nothing new. It's even mentioned at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Paint

Another typo. Sorry.

Are you overclocking? If so, and even if you aren't, lower the RAM clock - sometimes this happens if you have low-quality RAM that may run perfectly fine at a lower speed. Otherwise, yes, you will have to replace the whole stick. You can't easily buy individual chips and solder/unsolder them on yourself.

http://sillydog.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5595 http://www.smspower.org/maxim/16bit/osr2fix.htm http://oldfiles.org.uk/powerload/win3x.htm Details in the first and second links, what you need is the 3xstart.exe from the third link:

MSDN Subscriber Downloads.

How many processors do you really need just to run the OS? Considering I've actually used 98se on a machine as lowly as a 66MHz 486 (actually used for a few weeks, not "installed and tested to see if it runs") and found that even with 32MB of RAM it's already quite fast and responsive, I can only say that on a single-core 4GHz P4, it flies. The only reason I'm using such a fast machine is mainly for the *other* bloated software I have. "someone who successfully ran 2GB of memory" right here. I can say that it works very well. FAT32 is a perfectly fine filesystem. It has a noticeable performance advantage due to its simpler design. If one really wanted to, they could use the http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/NtfsWindows98.html (currently read-only, but as their DOS version already supports writing...), and it is rumored that the Chinese have written an NTFS filesystem driver for DOS, to enable DOS 7.10 to boot from and read/write to NTFS partitions. So, even though it doesn't come with 98se (then, does FireFox come with XP?) it should be straightforward to add that support. NTFS is a much more complex filesystem than FAT32, and more likely to be corrupted by an untimely shutdown. With NTFS, manual recovery is extremely difficult and automated recovery programs don't often work too well short of raw sectordumping. With a FAT32 partition... a Disk Editor, some Paper, and a Calculator is all you need to perform some data recovery - I've done it myself Name one remote exploit that does not require the user's actions on 98se. I.e., how can you exploit a virgin install of 98se that is only connected to the Internet, with no user present to visit a malicious website or download a virus etc.? How many can you name for XP? RPC vulnerability is the first one that comes to mind... and the mere fact that there are countless "security updates" that MS has to provide shows how full of bugs the OS actually is. I've had an unpatched virgin install of XP (original) infect itself with a virus within minutes of connecting to the Internet (to download the updates that were supposed to prevent that). 98se basically does not have a whole lot of "services" listening on ports in the background, waiting to be exploited.I don't use a firewall, I don't use an antivirus scanner except my own eyes and brain, I visit some questionable websites, and I haven't ever gotten a virus, spyware, or other malware for as long as I can remember. I just secure my IE and use 98se

Windows 98 is not an NT-based OS, and thus does not boot via NTOSKRNL.EXE. The fact that you had to copy the XP kernel over to 98 should already be a sign something is wrong. The correct syntax should be D:\="Windows 98" instead of multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Windows 98" /fastdetect

Is there a SETUPLDR.BIN in the ERD5 dir? The message "CDBOOT: Could not find NTLDR" occurs when it can't find that file which it tries to load. Does it work if you move ERD5 dir into the hidden part? I think that might be the problem - it can't find ERD5 from the hidden part. If you don't hide anything, it will be able to find the ERD5 dir.

I deleted the file on my installation. Never had any problems with that. It never comes back

??? You mean, as hardware gets faster, the software should get more inefficient and slower so that it balances out? I thought computers were supposed to get faster over time... not slower!Win98se already runs quite well on a P166, but with the newest and fastest hardware it gets even better. In 1999, Microsoft never envisioned 98se would be run on 4GHz machines, so they made it work well on much slower hardware. With the available of faster hardware, they did not care for speed as much, and so it resulted in Win2K and then XP, which are monstrous compared to 98se and have higher system requirements. But, by running 98se on a system "designed for Microsoft® Windows XP" you can have much better performance - just compare the response times between 98se and XP. 98se is responsive and almost instantaneous to respond, XP feels slightly sluggish (I've booted both 98se and XP on a 4.17GHz P4, and the difference is quite dramatic). As long as we're still using x86/PC architecture, 98se will still be the best balance between performance and usability (e.g. Windows 3.11 on my system starts in < 1 second, but its capabilities are very limited; Win95 has some memory leaks; 98A is more unstable than SE; ME wasn't even finished; and 2K and up, the NT series, are too slow but have many features, but 98se is just right.) Regarding drivers and the like, FYI some hardware manufacturers actually still have realmode DOS drivers for their latest products, available for download from their website!

Why exactly do you want it hidden? What exactly is your boot sequence of events? I.e.1. CD boot sector is loaded 2. CD boot sectors loads _______ ... n. _______ loads ERD5.dat If the message "Could not find NTLDR" is displayed, it means that the boot sector could not load whatever file was specified in it (open it in a hex editor and look for the filename and directory).

Don't forget to add a site-blocking HOSTS file. Those are really useful for blocking malicious (including advertising) sites. You can search the Internet for an updated one and merge it into your existing one once in a while.

Disable your ActiveX and scripting of the browser, then visit some of the more ad-infested and suspicious sites and view the source code. Embedded somewhere in the scripting code should be the link to the actual executable (quite often, it's named SETUP.EXE). Just download that and you have the self-contained malware.

FYI this message is issued by the DVD boot sector when it can't load SETUPLDR.BIN from the DVD, it does not have anything to do with cracked SETUPLDR.BIN or not.

The fact that the SD is not treated as a standard hard disk by the BIOS but instead as a virtual floppy and a virtual hard disk is going to be the main obstacle of this. Putting a DOS kernel and a CONFIG.SYS with only "shell=c:\i386\winnt.exe" in it on the floppy image, and the contents of the XP CD in the c: area should work. The boot code in the BIOS will load the virtual floppy image, boot the DOS kernel, which then runs winnt.exe as the "shell" - starting the setup process. They are limited in the number of write cycles, but read cycles can for all practical purposes be considered infinite. As the normal CD-based setup does not attempt to write to the CD, if the setup is run off the SD it should not write to it either.

Please be advised that DOS 6.22 will not correctly handle partitions over 512Mb on most systems, or 8Gb if your HDD controller supports advanced translation. If you want a DOS, I recommend taking the DOS 7.10 kernel and associated utilities (from 98se). It will support very large disks with no problem. You may also want to include Windows 3.11 For Workgroups too, as with a minor modification that will run on top of DOS 7.10

Approximately 2Gb for the 32-bit version, and 2.5Gb for the 64-bit.

Are these what you're looking for? http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=43605

Changing boot.ini won't work, since NTLDR reads the boot.ini to determine the OSs to boot, but NTLDR is loaded by the boot sector which has been overwritten with the 98 one. Is it possible to run FIXBOOT.EXE after booting into 98? If it is, then your problem is solved.