Tripredacus

Still a problem.

NTLDR is missing message comes from the OS itself, so this means it can see the disk. This message means that the BIOS did the hand-off to the disk, read the boot .ini and found where the OS is, but the path did not resolve. So the first thing to do is to check the boot .ini and see what is in there. One example of a situation where a BIOS update can cause this is if the OS volume where Windows is located had its drive letter change. Such as if you are using multiple hard disk and Windows is in D: a BIOS change could cause the re-enumeration of volumes and D: is now E:, etc. If it is a situation where your OS was on C: but now that volume is a different letter, then it may be better off reverting that BIOS version again as the Windows installation could have problems with the drive letter changing. NOTE: The forum will not let you type in the term I put in bold above without a space. You will get an error if you try to submit a post without the space. EDIT: I'd also like to report that while the retroweb (site linked earlier) is good for information, I find their software to be lacking. That site does not take into account board revisions such as is common with Microstar boards which means this issue will likely exist for other brands. That would be a reason why a BIOS update may fail. Also I've yet to find any drivers on there that have worked. For example, ones that are marked for Windows 95 requiring different OS like XP, or 32bit options are 64bit versions, etc.

In case anyone has trouble reading through this thread, I can provide this bit of information. Using Dell Optiplex 9020, the LAN HwID is VEN_8086&DEV_153A The driver located in ProEMbSw11.exe in the PRO1000\WinXP Related\PCIe works just using manual update through Device Manager without having to do any file modification. Fortunately, it appears this file is in Archive from when it used to exist on Intel's website: https://web.archive.org/web/20181201110458/http://downloadmirror.intel.com/22928/eng/PROEmbSw11.exe

I have no idea if Google sells the information or not. Are these new people to the internet? Likely their data is already sold. Personally, if it was a small bit of information, I wouldn't use a form or a database. Just send the information and store it manually on your local system. If the information is not supposed to be shared to everyone, there is no reason to host the data on a server.

*taps the sign It is the same as previous OS, the issue is the Shell, not the OS.

Topic title changed, see rule 12. If the title is wrong, you can edit it to be what you want it to say.

Russia is blocked because of spammers. Nothing wrong with Russian people posting here, if they are breaking a law in their own country then that is something they will have to deal with themselves.

Name changed

On the host system (where the share is located), you create a user account with password. Then you use that username/password on the remote system... For example, Computer2 is the server (the location of the share), Computer1 is the client. You create an account on Computer2 called Account2. On the client, you connect to the share and the username you use is Computer2\Account2. If you only type Account2, the client will "send" Computer1\Account2 and if the server does not know what Computer1 is, then it will reject the credentials. Alternatively, I believe that you can add accounts from other computers to share permissions, but I don't remember if a password is required. To do that, you would add Computer1\Account1 on the server side and it will recognize that user. I don't remember if adding that to the share/permissions is enough or if you have to add it to Users as well.

The CD Drive that gave me the error had been used with this OS for over 20 years now, so it isn't like it is some brand that wasn't compatible. But this computer has sat being unused for a very long time and if the CD drive was the only thing that failed in that period I should count myself fortunate. I can see it being picky about the USB CD drive, which is known working on other systems. It turns out I have about 30 IDE ODDs at home so hopefully one of them will work. This computer uses Win 98 FE just because that was the newest OS that was available at the time it was installed. Perhaps it may have been technically true that SE had come out by then, but that was back when I was a farmer and didn't have a wider access to software once I later entered the computing industry. I never needed to update it because everything worked and my next computer ran XP so I didn't have any issues with compatibility.

My ASPI memory had to do with Adapter controller cards and not specifically with the CD drives. I tried 2 other drives, one works but it has mechanical problems, so perhaps it is actually the drive and not something else. I tested using a Windows 95 CD-ROM boot disk. I'm out of IDE ODDs here, I'll have to dig through the stockpile at home and see if any of those work.

A USB CD drive counts as another CD Drive? I'm also having some foggy memories of having to do something with ASPI from my time at Iomega to resolve issues with ZipCD. I will check for disk emulator/mounters.

I recommend that long-time, known users do not change their username on a site. If you really want to change your name, confirm and it will be done.

Windows 98 FE, having issues with CD drives. Same behaviour with both an IDE and USB CD drive. The drives are detected in Device Manager. They get drive letters in My Computer. Both respond to the Eject command, but when trying to access either drives it immediately will say "Device is not ready" without any attempt to read from the drive. I have reinstalled the chipset drivers and there has been no change. USB mass storage drives work fine. I can still do the old boot into Safe Mode and remove all of the controllers and drives and reboot/reintall, but besides that is there any other thing I can look at that would effect CD drives in general?

The files in the driver dir that are oem*.* (inf and cat) are actually generated by Windows when a driver is installed. It copies the inf and cat from the install source and renames them and puts them in there. As such the numbers are not going to match up between systems.

I think the complaint was not about whether you were able to flash a card, but whether you were able to successfully use said card on Win9x using this modified driver.

I seem to recall the 2023 version of the HP printer software would not work on a Windows 8.1 system. Not exactly the same errors but I did see that "default text" message. The person did not actually use or need anything that the HP software had offered, as they were able to print and scan with just the driver installed.

I do not see any recommendation to purchase anything. The OP lists specific cards and doesn't mention flashing cards to become different cards.

Make sure the write speeds of the NVME are what they are supposed to be.

I'm sure 90s DOC is competely different than modern DOC/X formats. If he had used any sort of format over the years, it is possible to write a script or program to parse the files and put the information into a single file, or into a database to then generate a single file. I doubt there is any ready-made solutions for what you are looking for.

Windows sales numbers in B2B are in the toilet. Retail seems OK but mainly driven by video games. Most productivity these days is done OS agnostic, requiring only a web browser.

You change the config.sys with Notepad, or from DOS you can use EDIT.

What kind of documents?

Unfair to lump all of Server together, same as with Linux and MacOS. Really telling that CP/M and Unix are missing from this all-time list.

I had recently upgraded my gaming PC to Windows 10 from Windows 7 in order to maintain Steam compatibility, and at that time I had bought a new SSD. But ever since then, the computer was basically unusable for 5-10 minutes after boot, or when downloading anything like Windows Updates. I tried many different things, then the other day I decided to try running a benchmark program. The reason why my computer was so slow became immediately clear. The original disk is a Crucial, and the new disk is a SanDisk. I've since moved back to the Crucial for reasons that can be seen below. Both of these were tested on Unclesocks2 Crucial MX500 SATA SSD SanDisk SSD Plus SDSSDA-480G Others can feel free to post their own results here as well