• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About Nomen

Profile Information

  • OS
  • Country
  1. Was wondering what was the last or best netbook-sized PC that had good to complete XP driver support.
  2. These servers have been running on BX-440 chipsets with P2 or P3 800-850 mhz CPU since about '99. Gigabyte motherboards (with on-board SCSI that isin't used any more). 768 and 1 gb installed ram. Newer dlink pci ethernet cards (circa 2005 or 2006) - running 1000 mbps (yea, the cards had NT drivers out-of-the-box).
  3. I'm looking for a low-power micro computer box (or even just a board) along the lines of a Zotac Zbox or Intel NUC that has win-2k or even (a long shot) NT4 drivers. Would like to take a pair of NT4 servers (based on desktop PC) and replicate them in a low-power format (15 - 25 watts). I think the installed software can run under 2K without much issue, but this might get problematic if I try running XP. If such hardware once did exist, it might still be available on ebay. I just need to know what to look for. Any ideas?
  4. I'm still using FF2 as my primary browser, and use opera 12.02 when necessary (like for posting this). Under FF2 I have addons like Block Site 1.0.3, DOM inspector, FrameExt (don't know if it's doing anything for me), Lightbeam 1.0.2 (same with that one), Nuke Anything Enhanced 1.0.2 (I like that one), Remember Mismached Domains 1.4.6 (doesn't seem to help much), RightToClick (don't use it much, doesn't always seem to work), and YesScript 1.7. Between adding hosts file entries, YesScript and Block Site, I'm still getting a lot of script-not-responding messages. I'm using DOM inspector to see where / what these scripts are, and add them to YesScript and/or to my hosts file and/or Block Site. What I'd really like is a way to know *WHAT* script is not responding - is there any add-on that will tell me that, or some other way to get that info? I set my script time-out value to 4 seconds (any script that takes longer than that - I don't want FF to run it). What I don't get is - for YesScript, if you enter the URL of a site you browse to, does YesScript block all scripts coded by the page you have browsed to, even when the script files point to other domains (which is typical)?
  5. Does any nvidia video card above the 6200 have enhanced hardware for video (movie) rendering that reduces the main CPU load when playing back hi-rez movies? Does having 512 mb vs 256 mb video ram give you any movie-playing advantage whether or not any such enhanced hardware is present on the card? (this is, again, my way of asking if anything beyond a vanilla 6200 AGP card with 256 mb ram gives any benefit to win-98 users with P4 or Core2 systems who are not gamers but who may want to watch 1080p movies using mplayer classic or vlc).
  6. Is it normal that on win-98se, when you ping 127.x.x.x (where x.x.x could be *anything*) that you always end up pinging yourself (ie - the local machine) ? I unplug my ethernet cable and I'm always able to ping 127.x.x.x. My hosts file defines localhost as, and ipconfig sez my netmask is (that's intentional on my part). TCP/IP properties has my actual network IP hardcoded as Reason I ask is that I'm looking at the Personal Web Server logs and I'm seeing hits from and wondering where the hell that's coming from. I doubt that my LAN router is able to pass local traffic on anything other than 192.168.x.x. must have originated from my own pc... ?
  7. IHV kit issue was still kicking around in 2007:,1 See also: HDAudioDdi11.doc
  8. Win-XP created a hash at install time based on about a dozen different hardware serial numbers or codes, and over time some of those hardware components could change and not trigger an on-line re-validation. Some of these hardware items were CPU type, amount of installed RAM, type of video card, CD-drive model, NIC mac address, hard drive type/model, volume serial number, etc. Each item got 1 "vote" (the mac address got 3 all by itself). If the total votes dropped below 5, XP would invalidate itself and force you to perform on-line re-validation. There was a program called "xpinfo.exe" that would display all the hardware items and show which of them were giving a "yes" vote. So that's how I understand the validation scheme for XP. How does it work with Windows 7? Is there a similar hash generated based on hardware components? Is there a program like "xpinfo" that will tell you the current state of which components agree with the original Windows install state?
  9. Win98se with Kex. I know the thread is about win-95, but I thought I'd put in my 2 cents about flash/youtube on win-98. I don't know how close we are at this point in having flash/youtube stop working on win-98, and I don't know if what works for win-98 will work for win-95.
  10. tells me I have flash version The "check-now" button at says this: ============ YOUR SYSTEM INFORMATION Your Flash Version flashversioninfo Your browser name browserInfo Your Operating System (OS) OSinfo ============ In other words, it doesn't seem to know. This is on FF tells me: ========== Oops, your web browser is no longer supported. (...) This message is based on the the user agent string reported by your browser. Any extensions and plugins you have installed might modify the user agent string. We received: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv: Gecko/20081217 Firefox/,gzip(gfe) =========== I can nonetheless play any youtube video or visit the main page and not see any nag or warning message.
  11. Back in August I was working with RT7 to create an installation image of Win-7 SP1 Ultimate 32-bit but without any of the "bad" KB's. This is what I had determined at the time: Here's my list of 99 "Bad KB's" for Windows 7. 947821 2823324 2999226 3054464 3075853 3084905 3107998 3138615 949810 2840149 3012973 3058168 3078405 3086255 3112336 3139921 958559 2876229 3014460 3060746 3078667 3088195 3112343 3139923 971033 2882822 3015249 3064683 3080042 3090045 3118401 3139929 976932 2902907 3021917 3065987 3080149 3092627 3121260 3146449 2454826 2922324 3022345 3065988 3080800 3093983 3123862 3150513 2505438 2923545 3029606 3068707 3081437 3099834 3124280 3167679 2506928 2952664 3035583 3068708 3081454 3100956 3125574 3173040 2545698 2970228 3042058 3072318 3081954 3102429 3126030 2592687 2976978 3044374 3074677 3083324 3102810 3134815 2660075 2977759 3046480 3074683 3083325 3102812 3135445 2670838 2990214 3050265 3075249 3083710 3103696 3135449 2726535 2994023 3050267 3075851 3083711 3103699 3138612 The convenience rollup kb 3125574 (which I list as "bad") contains the following "bad KB's" that are in the above list: 2660075 2970228 3075249 3092627 2726535 2994023 3078667 3102429 2882822 2999226 3080149 3107998 2923545 3068708 3081954 3118401 If you start with a fresh install of Win-7 Ultimate 32-bit (this might apply to 64-bit as well) and do not choose KB3125574 but take everything else offered by WindowsUpdate, then the following KB's will be offered to you that are on my bad list: 976932 2726535 3042058 3092627 3167679 2506928 2923545 3068708 3102429 2545698 2952664 3078667 3118401 2592687 2970228 3080149 3124280 2660075 3021917 3086255 3138612 One other note: KB3161102 will irreversibly remove the "Windows Journal" feature/function from your system. I'm not calling this a "bad" kb because of the relative lack of use of that feature and it's well documented troubles as being exploitable by malware. If you use Windows Journal, then put 3161102 on your bad list. Bottom line: If you avoid the 99 KB's in my bad list, then there are a total of 278 "good" KB's that you might or should want to download (or roll into an install image). This includes 107 KB's in the convenience rollup, some of which may not be offered to you through a WU session but instead would have to be downloaded and installed manually. There is one exception: KB2670838. It's called an "Evil update" but it is one of a handful of necessary KB's you need to update the system to IE 9 or higher.
  12. I connected the cloned drive back into the desktop PC used to perform the original cloning, no other drives were connected except CD-rom drive. I booted an MS win-7 CD and let it proceed to the GUI install screen so I could get the option to "repair your drive". That option is not available for some reason when you boot the same CD but press F8 during boot to get the text-screen options. Pressing the "repair your drive" button and I got the message that it was detecting a problem with the boot partition - or perhaps not knowing what was or where was the boot partition (D?) but it determined or indicated it knew how to fix the problem and my only choice was to perform the fix, which I did and which happened instantly, and I shut down the system and put the clone drive back into the netbook where it booted perfectly, no issues, no messages. The clone functioned exactly as the original.
  13. I cloned a 160 gb drive to a 1 tb drive using Ghost 2003, but the clone won't boot. I get a text-screen telling me "Windows failed to start. A recent hardware or software chance might be the cause. To fix the problem..." Status: 0xc0000000E Info: The boot selection failed because a required device is inaccessible. I'm thinking that maybe the 100 mb recovery partition was resized on the clone (I know it was because I couldn't match the original size while resizing the data partition to the full size of the destination drive). Anyways, I have a bootable USB thumb drive with win-7 installation CD created by RT7 so I booted from it but was not able to get the recovery/repair option to show itself. All it wanted to do was to install win-7 on the target drive, gave me no option to repair the existing install. It knows there is an existing install because if I go one step into the install it tells me that it detects an existing install and it will move it to an alternate folder. The PC (a net-book) has no optical drive, so what-ever I'm going to have to do will have to be via thumb drive - or take the drive out and slave it to another (desktop) system (?) and perform the repair on it while in slave mode? Or can I make the drive the primary/only drive on the desktop system and boot from actual win-7 CD and will it perform the repair without needing to boot into windows? And why can't I get recovery/repair options when booting the RT7-prepared thumb drive?
  14. Starting early this month, I installed the Personal Web Server that comes with win-98 on one of my home systems and forwarded port-80 from my router to the PC. As expected, there were a lot of requests from bots for files that don't exist. After a few days I created those missing files by taking a 60 mb porn video and replicating it as many times as necessary, creating various directory trees and placing these replicated files in the correct places so they'd be served up when requested. Examples of the most commonly-requested files are: config.php setup.php sitemap.xml testproxy.php (this is very common) stssys.htm robots.txt wp-login.php xmlrpc.php The default.asp page gets requested a lot, but I think it can't be a binary file because only a fraction of it ever gets uploaded and I think that corresponds with an EOF character being hit. Some of the more strange file-requests are: /muieblackcat /ncsi.txt / I've served up that 60 mb file about 85 times so far, totalling just over 5.15 gb. My upload speed is only about 70 k/sec so I figure I'm tying up those bots for at least 15 minutes each time they request these files. My internet plan is unlimited and this is the upload direction we're talking about so I'm probably going to substitute a 1 or 2 gb file at some point. Over at $dayjob my web server is seeing the same sort of hits for these files, but for a twist I'm performing an http re-direction on them to a 4 gb file being hosted by a remote server. I've tested the redirection to see if the bots follow it by pointing to the PWS on my home server and in most cases the redirection is followed. There doesn't seem to be a way to setup re-directions on win-98 PWS like there is on IIS4 running on NT4.
  15. Arrrgh. The hosts file that I created for this system, taken from a few different sources, included "" but not "". Hence the ability for dns to resolve one and not the other.