King_V

Ok, I realize this has probably been done to death - I know there's issues with vcache and system.ini with regard to having MORE than 512MB installed (up to 1GB). While I do want to manually make that change (can't use unofficial service pack, it doesn't seem to play nicely with 98lite), I came across some references somewhere that say that, even if you have something MORE than 256MB (even if less than or equal to 512MB, and thus no instability issues), Windows 98 simply will never utilize more than 256 megs. Is this true? If so, what's the solution to this? Or does the >512MB fix take care of this issue as well? Thanks in advance...

Ok, now I know I've had the combination of Firefox, Win98SE using 98lite, and Windows Media Player 6.4 working all nicely together sometime in the past, and allowing me to click on sound samples at Amazon, BMG Music, and so forth. However, it's not working now, and I don't quite understand why. I'm stumped as to what's going on here. I'm using Firefox 2.0 (though up until yesterday, it was Firefox 1.5.0.7, which wasn't any different in terms of the symptoms. Anyway, when I go to a website such as Amazon, and try to listen to sound samples with Windows Media Player, the behavior is somewhat strange. Ok, I know this isn't exactly everyone's taste in music, but take, for example: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000001C8...2836372-7555314 When I try to play the WMP sample of the first track, WMP pops up, and says Done, but nothing apparently happens. I can right-click on it, however, and choose Error Details, which reveals the following: --------------- Could not connect to server: http://www.amazon.com//gp/music/clipserve/...2836372-7555314. Please see the help file. (Error=C00D0006) Cannot open. Please verify that the path and filename are correct and try again. (Error=C00D0006) --------------- Of course, clicking on More Help brings you to Microsoft's website, which simply says that no further information is available. Yeah, thanks for nothing. Anyway, here's the strange part: The actual link to the sound sample that causes this has a URL of: http://www.amazon.com/gp/music/wma-pop-up/...2836372-7555314 which, obviously, is different than the URL provided in the error message. However, if I copy the URL from the error message and paste it into the browser, voila! I get the sample! That's weird enough, but here's where it gets stranger still. I tried listening to samples at bmgmusic.com. Again, not to everyone's taste, but here's the one I happened to try: http://www.bmgmusic.com/catalog/product/cd...productId=32258 Click again on the first track. At least time, it actually pops up the error message for me. The actual URL that the link has is: http://sg1.allmusic.com/cg/smp.dll?link=un...zx&r=20.asx The error message that I get from WMP is: ---------------- Could not connect to server: mmsu://sg5.allmusic.com/022wma_28/s100/s10031/s1003157/s100315799kr1c2.wma. Please see the help file. (Error=C00D0006) Could not connect to server: http://sg5.allmusic.com/022wma_28/s100/s10...315799kr1c2.wma. Please see the help file. (Error=C00D0006) Cannot open. Please verify that the path and filename are correct and try again. (Error=C00D0006) ---------------- Copy-pasting that HTTP url given in the error window however, does not work. It simply presents almost the same error, but with a somewhat different URL than originally, which in turn also won't work. I recall reading some time ago (and searched for it, and can't find it), something saying that this might have to do with Internet Options. Of course, making this a tad trickier is that, with Internet Options, I'd have to go straight to the registry due to my 98lite install. I've no problem with that, if that's what it takes, but I could very well be confusing that issue with another issue. In any case, I don't know what's actually causing the errors I'm getting. In fact, I'm not entirely sure even whether this is a Windows Media Player issue, an issue with some network setting or Internet settings with the OS, or a Firefox issue. In other words, I'm totally lost. Can anyone help? Suggestions? Solutions? Thanks!

Forgive my inexperience with this, but am I correct in assuming, based on the above explanations, that this requires either assembly code, or in some other way a binary executable, and direct-reading of particular memory locations? My experience working with DOS is extremely minimal, and pretty much limited thus far to .BAT files, so I wanted to make sure I understood what was going on before tinkering with anything.

All, Well, put my project on hold a bit before, but now I'm getting back into it. I want to essentially create a Win98Lite boot CD of sorts. However, what I've been searching for on the web and can't quite get a handle on how to do, is some method that will give me the following: 1) List of hard drives on the system (or the last hard drive) that are NOT cd drives. 2) List of CD drives on the system. Anyone know how this can be done? I've found a couple of batch file programs that are supposed to be able to show all the drives that exist, but they don't seem to work reliably.

Ok, I'm sure someone must've done this before, but I don't quite know where to begin. I want to essentially make my own Win98SE installation CD so that I can install 98lite without having to take the extra steps normally involved with swapping CDs, etc. I've always found the bootup part of the 98SE cd convenient, with the generic CD drivers, basic command-line prompt, etc. So, what I want is to make a CD with my own customized 98setup folder (made with 98lite), another folder with a bunch of useful command-line utilities, but with the same bootup program that the original 98se CD has. The only program for CD making I have is version 6 of Nero express. Do I have what I need to accomplish what I want? If so, how exactly do I go about it? It's really copying over the bootable stuff that has me scratching my head. Correction, getting the MS bootable stuff specifically. Nero has its own bootable files that you can opt to put on the disc, but they're not compatible with the Win98 install program. Thanks!

To be honest, I haven't tried that, so I'd only be guessing. I would *assume* that it would work because the installer thinks you're trying to upgrade from 6.1 to 9.0b, so everything *should* work. But you'll know right away if it doesn't, as the installation simply doesn't do anything when it fails. However, I think the reason I had to use dxerad was because I'd already installed 9.0b, and while I was technically upgrading to 9.0c using that trick, since it's a 9.0b installer, it probably checked, saw that 9.0b was already there, and figured there was nothing to do. That's all just a semi-educated guess on my part, though.

Yep, that's probably why using the 9.0b setup program works . . the 9.0b setup program doesn't bother with any of this cryptography crap. Give it the .cab files from 9.0c and it won't know the difference. The only thing is, you have to remove your existing DirectX 9 first for this to work (I tried without taking that step, no luck)

I thought about that, but then again, aren't all the DirectX files taken straight from the .cab files? The dxsetup.exe file doesn't actually contribute anything, it just does the grunt work, right? I hope.... I'm not sure how DSETUP.dll and dsetup32.dll work into the scheme, though.

Ok, I tried that method (using the 9.0b dxsetup.exe with the 9.0c .cab files), and it *seems* to have worked. I haven't done any extensive testing, nor do I really know how. Dxdiag shows that I have version 9.0c, and there's definitely several files in the Directx files tab listed that have a date-stamp later than the date of 9.0b Still, I don't know 100% if it's right or not. But if the setup program normally just extracts ALL files from the appropriate cabs, then I think I'm okay. Of course, now there's a directx_dec2005_redist.exe available, and it has a whole bunch of extra .cab files. And, as well, it gave me the same problems about not being able to trust the files. Ah well . . at least I have a fairly recent version of DirectX 9.0c in my system... I think. Still, I think that from now on, I'll try installing DX9c right after a fresh install of the OS.

Came across an explanation here, although I don't know how safe it is. Basically, have the directx9.0b and directx9.0c redistributables extracted each into their own folders (so each folder will have a setup.exe, cab files, etc). Use dxerad to wipe any and all versions of directx from your system (don't know if that's a good/safe idea, the info I found states some errors may occur). Then copy the .cab files from the 9.0c folder to the 9.0b folder, overwriting the 9.0b .cab files. Then use the setup.exe in the 9.0b folder. The author of that post I linked to claims it works . . but I don't know if there might be any small details that he/she didn't catch. I might try it on a spare system, if I can't get it to go in normally by doing it right after a clean 98lite/sleek install.

Any luck with this? As mentioned in this thread, I've had no luck with it even with following the instructions given by Atyafi. Of course, I've already got all my drivers and such installed, so that might be the issue.

I'm in the same boat as RJARRRPCGP. I've installed the 98SEpreDX9.inf file for 98SE, and I still get the same nonsense about a cabinet file not being trusted. The thing is, I'm *almost* positive I've installed 9.0c on a 98lite (98SE base) before. Almost... Anyway, if anyone can offer guidance, I'd very much appreciate it. I'm using 98SE as a base, 95b as the GUI, and used the free version of 98lite 4.5 (I assume the later versions of 98lite don't have a free download available? Would the version of 98lite make a difference?) EDIT: I've come across one or two references on message boards that seem to indicate that there are a few versions of DirectX 9.0c running around. Perhaps the earlier versions didn't do this cryptography nonsense? I haven't found anything definitive, though.