If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Is there anything beyond Windows and Linux
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Is there anything beyond Windows and Linux
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m: I'm not sure if this was finally fixed in WinME Nor me but I'd like to know. WME files have been used to fix things in W98 sometimes.. I think that NUSB draws files from WXP and WME, and I read that WME has a limited set of DOS commands some pof which can improve on their W98 versions, but I can't remember details. Mostly disk formatting I think, but I never looked into that because I'd already decided on GDISK. One thing I'd like to do is totally remove all access to the format functions from the Windows shell. Having 'format' right next to 'disk information' seems stupid to me. Never mind that the format dialog defaults to exit, it should have been harder to get at in the first place. M$ had a really weird habit of hiding things people needed for safety and good understanding, then putting truly dangerous tools in easy reach of misfires while reaching for purely informational ones! |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Is there anything beyond Windows and Linux
Bill in Co wrote:
I guess a W98 SE shell is ok though. No, I seem to recall having issues with files larger than 2 GB with some programs, too, even with Win98SE. http://support.microsoft.com/?id=318293 ========= Windows 98 Explorer Cannot Copy Large Files Symptoms: When you use Windows Explorer to copy a file that has a size of 2 gigabytes (2 GB, or 2,147,483,648 bytes) or larger, the file copy process does not work, and you receive an error message that is similar to the following error message: Error: Cannot create or replace "file name.xxx". The parameter is incorrect. Cause: This problem can occur because of a problem in the versions of the Shell32.dll file that are included with Windows 98 and Windows 98 Second Edition. The root cause is a generic file operation which is used by the shell in Windows 95/98 and Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 which interprets values that are greater than 2 GB as negative numbers. The problem was eliminated as part of many changes to the newer shell that comes from Microsoft Internet Explorer 5 used by Microsoft Windows 2000 and Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition (Me). On Windows 98, the Shell32.dll file originates as part of Internet Explorer version 4.0. On Windows 98 Second Edition, Shell32.dll originates from Internet Explorer 4.01 Service Pack 2. Workaround: To work around this problem, copy the files by using the COPY command from a command prompt. Status: Microsoft has confirmed that this is a problem in the Microsoft products that are listed at the beginning of this article. This problem was corrected in Windows Millennium Edition, Windows 2000, and Windows XP. Installing a newer version of Internet Explorer does not resolve this problem, because later versions of Internet Explorer don't update Shell32.dll on any platform except Windows 2000 and Windows Me. =============== A win-98 patch was created a few years ago - COPY2GB.EXE The COPY2GB patched kernel32.dll v. 4.10.0.2226 is based on Microsoft's hotfix kernel32.dll v. 4.10.0.2225 (from KB320798). http://www.mdgx.com/files/COPY2GB.EXE Some people usually add the Unofficial Win 9x Stack Corruption (98KRNLUP.EXE) which installs Krnl386.exe v. 04.10.00.2000, and SHELL98 (Win 9x Explorer Lockups With IE 5.xx/6.xx update) which installs Shell32.dll v. 4.72.3812.634. http://www.mdgx.com/files/SHELL98.EXE http://www.mdgx.com/files/98KRNLUP.EXE This .2000 version is based on Windows 98/98 SE Cursor + Icon Handling Security Vulnerability Fix (Q891711 / KB891711.EXE). This .2000 patch of KRNL386.EXE prevents a rare, but then very often fatal case of stack corruption when certain KERNEL APIs are called. The only connection to KB891711/Q891711/U891711 is that these 16-bit binaries call at least one of those KERNEL APIs. However, many of the serious problems people reported with KB891711.EXE 4.10.2222 were most likely caused by a buffer overflow condition on the 16-bit stack of KB891711.EXE. The problems that still occured with KB891711.EXE 4.10.2223 but were much, much less common, were most likely caused by the stack corruption bug in KRNL386.EXE. We've discussed 98KRNLUP and SHELL98 here before (April 2011). |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Is there anything beyond Windows and Linux
98 Guy wrote:
Bill in Co wrote: I guess a W98 SE shell is ok though. No, I seem to recall having issues with files larger than 2 GB with some programs, too, even with Win98SE. http://support.microsoft.com/?id=318293 ========= Windows 98 Explorer Cannot Copy Large Files Symptoms: When you use Windows Explorer to copy a file that has a size of 2 gigabytes (2 GB, or 2,147,483,648 bytes) or larger, the file copy process does not work, and you receive an error message that is similar to the following error message: Error: Cannot create or replace "file name.xxx". The parameter is incorrect. Cause: This problem can occur because of a problem in the versions of the Shell32.dll file that are included with Windows 98 and Windows 98 Second Edition. The root cause is a generic file operation which is used by the shell in Windows 95/98 and Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 which interprets values that are greater than 2 GB as negative numbers. The problem was eliminated as part of many changes to the newer shell that comes from Microsoft Internet Explorer 5 used by Microsoft Windows 2000 and Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition (Me). On Windows 98, the Shell32.dll file originates as part of Internet Explorer version 4.0. On Windows 98 Second Edition, Shell32.dll originates from Internet Explorer 4.01 Service Pack 2. Workaround: To work around this problem, copy the files by using the COPY command from a command prompt. Status: Microsoft has confirmed that this is a problem in the Microsoft products that are listed at the beginning of this article. This problem was corrected in Windows Millennium Edition, Windows 2000, and Windows XP. Installing a newer version of Internet Explorer does not resolve this problem, because later versions of Internet Explorer don't update Shell32.dll on any platform except Windows 2000 and Windows Me. =============== A win-98 patch was created a few years ago - COPY2GB.EXE The COPY2GB patched kernel32.dll v. 4.10.0.2226 is based on Microsoft's hotfix kernel32.dll v. 4.10.0.2225 (from KB320798). http://www.mdgx.com/files/COPY2GB.EXE Some people usually add the Unofficial Win 9x Stack Corruption (98KRNLUP.EXE) which installs Krnl386.exe v. 04.10.00.2000, and SHELL98 (Win 9x Explorer Lockups With IE 5.xx/6.xx update) which installs Shell32.dll v. 4.72.3812.634. http://www.mdgx.com/files/SHELL98.EXE http://www.mdgx.com/files/98KRNLUP.EXE This .2000 version is based on Windows 98/98 SE Cursor + Icon Handling Security Vulnerability Fix (Q891711 / KB891711.EXE). This .2000 patch of KRNL386.EXE prevents a rare, but then very often fatal case of stack corruption when certain KERNEL APIs are called. The only connection to KB891711/Q891711/U891711 is that these 16-bit binaries call at least one of those KERNEL APIs. However, many of the serious problems people reported with KB891711.EXE 4.10.2222 were most likely caused by a buffer overflow condition on the 16-bit stack of KB891711.EXE. The problems that still occured with KB891711.EXE 4.10.2223 but were much, much less common, were most likely caused by the stack corruption bug in KRNL386.EXE. We've discussed 98KRNLUP and SHELL98 here before (April 2011). I vaguely recall now. But I do recall the browse DLL file fixes I used (from IE 5.5) that eliminated that "deleting large number of files hangup" in Windows Explorer. I think I also tried the other mentioned suggestions back then (of replacing shell32.dll, as I recall), but to no avail, whereas replacing the two browse DLLs with the IE 5.5 versions - DID eliminate the problem. (This particular bug appeared after upgrading to IE6). Also worth upgrading was using the WinME defragger. It is much faster than using the Win98 one. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Is there anything beyond Windows and Linux
In message , Bill in Co
writes: wrote: [] Not a problem. I would not have any NTFS drives if I had my choice, because if I cant access them from Dos, and something fails, I lose my data. Just to set the record straight, that's not necessarily true. There are some utilities available that will allow you to access files on a NTFS partition, even if you can't boot up into windows. But I'll grant you, it's not as easy as simply booting to DOS. snip Some (all?) of the actual from-DOS such utilities are read-only (and often don't do long filenames). FWIW, I've got BartPE installed here (on this XP machine that came as NTFS): not that it is foolproof as it assumes you can still get as far as a boot menu. (You can make a bootable CD version too though.) It gives me a shell that looks vaguely like Windows Explorer, from which I can do most file operations, including in particular run at least the ..exe in a ERUNT folder if Windows won't boot. (ERUNT is an ERU clone for NTFS systems: when I asked its author how I could use it if I couldn't boot to get at the NTFS system, he recommended BartPE.) ERU got me out of trouble often enough under '9x that I was very pleased to find ERUNT, but only when that question was answered! (And I have verified that I _can_ do a restore from it.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf A clean, neat and orderly desk is a sign of a sick mind. (G6JPG's mind is clearly extremely healthy ...) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Is there anything beyond Windows and Linux
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co writes: wrote: [] Not a problem. I would not have any NTFS drives if I had my choice, because if I cant access them from Dos, and something fails, I lose my data. Just to set the record straight, that's not necessarily true. There are some utilities available that will allow you to access files on a NTFS partition, even if you can't boot up into windows. But I'll grant you, it's not as easy as simply booting to DOS. snip Some (all?) of the actual from-DOS such utilities are read-only (and often don't do long filenames). Most. Admitedly, you have to look a bit harder for the ones that have write access, too, especially if you're looking for a freebie. But even with DOS in Win9x, if you boot up on a DOS disk or in true DOS mode, and make changes to the files and their filenames there, you lose the associated nice long file names you once had in windows, since DOS is unaware of them, IIRC. Unless you know of some utility that runs (in true DOS) and somehow avoids that. How it could be aware of the associated long file names (running in true DOS) I don't know, but I suppose it's possible - with some special driver. FWIW, I've got BartPE installed here (on this XP machine that came as NTFS): not that it is foolproof as it assumes you can still get as far as a boot menu. (You can make a bootable CD version too though.) I seem to recall doing this too, but it's been so long since I even had to play with that, I've pretty much forgotten. Because I've never had a catastrophe on this WinXP computer that has necessated me using such (or accessing the files below windows). I can't say the same about my Win98 computer. :-) But maybe it's because I "messed around" with that computer a bit more in the early days. I think it's due to two things: one, just mentioned, and two, that WinXP is more robust and bulletproof, especially in terms of handling those old 16 bit apps and sneaky accesses to the hardware, that are pretty much blocked or sealed off in XP. Of course, there was a price to pay for that "protection", in terms of what would still run (or even install for that matter) on WinXP. In fact, I can't recall the last time I had a blue screen on this XP computer, but I had *quite* a few with the Win9x computers, and the software I was then using. It gives me a shell that looks vaguely like Windows Explorer, from which I can do most file operations, including in particular run at least the .exe in a ERUNT folder if Windows won't boot. (ERUNT is an ERU clone for NTFS systems: when I asked its author how I could use it if I couldn't boot to get at the NTFS system, he recommended BartPE.) ERU got me out of trouble often enough under '9x that I was very pleased to find ERUNT, but only when that question was answered! (And I have verified that I _can_ do a restore from it.) I have found ERUNT (in WinXP) very handy, on a few occasions. Using ERUNT in WinXP is comparable to running "scanreg" and "scanreg /restore" in Win98; it saves and/or restores the registry, and its associated files (and that's all). I've certainly used it more often than "System Restore", but the latter is even more "thorough" in what it can restore, if the need ever arises. (But if it gets that bad, you'd be better off restoring from a backup image. :-) I don't recall using ERU in Win98. Just "scanreg /restore", when something went amiss. Not sure what the difference is there. Or maybe using ERU in Win98 is the same thing(?). Or, perhaps ERU was primarily for Win95? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Is there anything beyond Windows and Linux
Bill in Co wrote:
I think I also tried the other mentioned suggestions back then (of replacing shell32.dll, as I recall), but to no avail, whereas replacing the two browse DLLs with the IE 5.5 versions - DID eliminate the problem. (This particular bug appeared after upgrading to IE6). Yes. I have Browseui.dll (version 6.00.2800.2007 xpsp2.100414-1536 10/16/2010) on my system. Also worth upgrading was using the WinME defragger. It is much faster than using the Win98 one. I don't know about speed, but the Win-ME defrag files (diskmaint.dll and scandskw.exe) have the advantage that they can handle a volume with more clusters than the win-98 version of those files. I discovered that when I was experimenting with running win-98 from FAT32 drives formatted with custom cluster size, which resulted in having upwards of 40 million clusters on a drive (and in one case, 120 million clusters on a 500 gb hard drive formatted as a single volume with 4kb clusters). |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Is there anything beyond Windows and Linux
Bill in Co wrote:
But even with DOS in Win9x, if you boot up on a DOS disk or in true DOS mode, and make changes to the files and their filenames there, you lose the associated nice long file names you once had in windows, since DOS is unaware of them, IIRC. Look up something called "DOS 7.1". I think it includes something called LFNDOS or DOSLFN. Gives you long-file-name functionality when booted into DOS. The DOS files that come as part of Win-98se was never packaged by Micro$haft as a separate, stand-alone product. Someone took those core DOS files and added all of the missing utility programs from (I believe) DOS 6.22 as well as a bunch of third-party shell applications and packaged it all up into something that was called DOS 7.1. The ideal starting point for an installation of XP would be to format a hard drive with FAT32 using a utility that allows you to set the cluster size. That accomplishes giving you 4kb cluster size regardless the size of the volume you intend to install XP on. Next would be to download the DOS 7.1 package from the web and install it on the drive. Once the drive can boot into DOS, then install XP (but don't let it change the file system). I did this on a netbook about 3 years ago, and in the autoexec or config.sys I give myself the choice to boot into DOS or XP when the system starts. If I don't make a choice within 5 seconds it boots into XP. (I tried to install win-98 on the netbook instead of XP, but just couldn't get it working in terms of video drivers). I think it's due to two things: one, just mentioned, and two, that WinXP is more robust and bulletproof, especially in terms of handling those old 16 bit apps and sneaky accesses to the hardware, Getting around direct hardware access in XP is easy with "Port-Talker" (or is it Port-talk?). One other interesting thing about XP vs Vista and 7 is that you can run a DOS window in full-screen mode in XP, but you can't do that in Vista or 7. By full-screen, I mean no visible window box. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Is there anything beyond Windows and Linux
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
: Some (all?) of the actual from-DOS such utilities are read-only (and often don't do long filenames). Those two things are easily combined, but getting write access to NTFS doesn't come for free. I set up a real mode recue partition with Datalight network stack and FTP server and client, and for NTFS I used NTSF4DOS (I think, I later removed it), and DOSLFN for the longname read/write access. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Good Linux alternative for Windows 9x/ME era computers. | No Alternative | General | 28 | June 17th 09 09:11 PM |
Good Linux alternative for Windows 9x/ME era computers. | No Alternative | General | 42 | June 6th 09 08:07 PM |
Good Linux alternative for Windows 9x/ME era computers. | No Alternative | General | 0 | May 4th 09 04:02 PM |
I use windows 98 and linux | Shadow | General | 9 | October 21st 08 08:31 PM |
Windows 98 /Linux dual boot system | powerman49 | General | 4 | July 2nd 05 05:06 PM |