triger49

Member
  • Content count

    143
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About triger49

  1. It seems you guys aren't even able to use a filecompare utility!? But ok - be happy with your 'different' Rain 2.0 ... LOL, gotta love it.... A: Yes I did, with an ancient utility I had for Windows 95 ....showed 5 lines of code different B: Did I bother to reverse engineer it ...No C: Quote from MajorGeeks Page on Ver 2.0 "Version 1.0 is also available online as some have found 2.0 to be unstable." D: This stuff is over 12 yrs old....did it really go that long and nobody else noticed till now? Possible...??? E: Did I dream the numbers I was seeing with Via harware monitor...no! One other plausible explanation ....the install of ver1.0 is corrupted.... but I ain't gonna worry about fix'n something that ain't broke.... Peace! Jake
  2. @Duffy98 .... Thanks, I found both versions over at MajorGeeks. There is a definite difference. Rain v1.0 would falter on heavy system loads after 15 minutes or so. Rain v2.0 seems to have overcome this. it allows a slight increase of maybe 8 degrees or so and then levels off. One variation, I let it auto detect and both versions seem content with using the settings for a Pentium Pro. I have this Pentium III 933mhz overclocked to 980......and heat seems to be it's sole weakness.! Jake
  3. @Duffy98... I saw you mentioned "rain 2" Is there a version "'2" of rain? I have been usig version 1.0 for years and was told a newer version was never released....?? T.I.A. Jake
  4. Did you manage to import the FF bookmarks? Strange thing about that, i have been using an addon called Foxtabs (similiar to Opera's Speed dial) ..it grabbed that addon...Viola..my most used book marks where right there..I have not had time to play with it any more... Jake
  5. Kudos from the peanut gallery... Just took this for a test drive and was kind of amazed! It successfully grabbed all my Firefox 3.xx add-ons and offered to update as needed. Brightened my day...... Thanks... Jake
  6. Hi; Thanks for taking the time to reply... Under Windows ME, no apparent change...and Everest reported the usual 1024 meg installed...1023 meg System Under 98se ....patch caused everything to report identical Windows ME including in Everest...(both system property sheet and Msinfo32 reported 1024 meg) Thanks Jake
  7. Hi Den; Settings I used during testing.... [vcache] MinFileCache=32768 MaxFileCache=262144 ChunkSize=4096 Bumping MaxFileCache to 524288 had no apparent effect. One oddity I happened upon.... If I use the setting MaxPhysPage=40000 On the next reboot, under msconfig>advanced the setting for "Limit memory to 999 meg" is checked. But the system still reports 1022 meg. Under Windows Me, if that setting is checked, it reports 999 meg. Makes me wonder if something is amiss or a corrupted DLL? Jake
  8. How so? 1022 MiB *is* the System Memory, *and* Win 98 can use all of it without any patching. Now, the Physical Memory must have been 1024 MiB, or you do have a really unusual memory stick! Hi ; first things first , thanks to you and rloew for taking the time to respond... The name thing was just a way to differentiate between what went from my hand in to the computer, and what Windows was actually reporting. The result was that Windows Me and 98se both saw the same thing until somewhere between 768 meg and 1024 meg. I had to 2 sticks of 512 meg and 4 sticks of 256meg which afforded me the luxury of several combinations, just in case one stick was a culprit... Like I said from the start, this is strickly a matter of curiosity ...and it was fueled by this article on Raymond Chen's Blog. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2003/08/14/54640.aspx Cheers Jake
  9. ok .... Was doing some tinkering here...using Everest Ultimate. It (Everest) shows two different ram reports...one they call "System Memory" and the other "Physical Memory". System memory always reflects accurately what is installed, both in Windows 98 and Windows ME. I tryed 256 meg increments...(ie 256, 512, 768 and 1024) In each case with both versions of windows,Physical Memory showed 1 meg less than System memory till I reached 1024meg where Windows 98 showed 2 meg less. Also that's the only case where Windows 98 system property sheet showed the Physical memory instead of the System memory.(1022 meg). One thing that surprised me, booted to Dos and used the mem command...it reports 1,048,2xx K....with somewhere around ~300k in use. The last 2 digits are trunciated so I used the /debug switch just see what it was reporting. I know, I know...but just had to satisfy my curiosity Jake
  10. Phew, thank you, Kind sir for the confirmation. The whole time I was typing the original post, the thought kept coming to me, "Nobody is gonna believe this".... Jake
  11. Hi; This is not a matter of any great consequence, just trying assuage my curiosity. Happened upon a couple sticks 512 meg ram for my DFI Ca64-en mothboard. Bumped it to 1 gig ...which it happily acknowledged without complaint. I dual boot 98se and Win ME, this is the weird part. Bios, SIW, Everest ultimate and Windows ME all report 1GIG ....WIndows 98se reports 1022k., both on the property sheet for My Computer and Msinfo32. ...Any body offer a clue? Jake
  12. Hi; Opera 11.50 working here with no apparent problems (including printing) The only problem I've encountered at all is with an occassional FLV video fighting wth my SB100 card and hanging the system...have not been able to pin done the culprit yet....just a loud sqwak from the speakers and it goes unersponsive.... Thanks for the great work... Jake
  13. MDGx ...thanks for sharing this....
  14. Just for my own peace of mind..... Tryed all 3 versions of the dsclient install on my 98se system with ie6sp1....all 3 produced the same "export" version of Secur32.dll. Next stop was grab the high encryption pack and checked the included Dll's against what was resident on my system, The only thing missing of 3 jaclaz pointed out was sch128c. dll. So I copied that into the Windows System directory , ended with same results. Next stop is to find out if that DLL needs to be registered, also going to roll back my registry to a pretest state and try again..... any other suggestions would be welcome??? Jake
  15. @Jaclaz Good find! That PDF only mentions checking IE 4 /5 for 128 bit encryption as the parameter for deciding which level Secur32.dll get's installed. I am curious now, if that is the sole factor or if it checks other things? Interesting stuff...... Jake