Subject: [os2genau_digest] No. 834
From: Digest <deadmail>
To: "OS/2GenAu Digest"<deadmail>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:01:02 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600

**************************************************
Monday 12 April 2004
 Number  834
**************************************************

Subjects for today
 
1  Re:  Broadband : Dennis J. Nolan" <denny at alphalink dot com dot au>
2  Re:  Choice ? : nickl at pacific dot net dot au
3  Re:  Broadband : Daryl Pilkington <u3232 at home.dialix dot com>
4  Re:  Choice ? : Paul Smedley <paul at smedley.info>
5  Re:  Choice ? : nickl at pacific dot net dot au
6  Re:  Win XP reqs : Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
7  Re:  Win XP reqs : Mike O'Connor <mikeoc at dodo dot com dot au>
8  Re:  Win XP reqs : Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
9  Re:  Win XP reqs : Mike O'Connor <mikeoc at dodo dot com dot au>
10  Re:  Win XP reqs : Chris Graham [WarpSpeed]" <chrisg at warpspeed dot com dot au>
11  Re:  Win XP reqs : Kris Steenhaut <kris.steenhaut at hccnet.nl>
12  Re:  Win XP reqs : freiherr at earthlink dot net
13  Re:  Broadband : voytek at sbt dot net dot au
14   ot: MM or SD cards ? : voytek at sbt dot net dot au
15   Mozilla problem : Alan Duval" <amoht at ozemail dot com dot au>
16  Re:  Broadband : Dennis J. Nolan" <denny at alphalink dot com dot au>
17  Re:  Win XP reqs : Mike O'Connor <mikeoc at dodo dot com dot au>
18  Re:  Win XP reqs : Dennis J. Nolan" <denny at alphalink dot com dot au>
19  Re:  Win XP reqs : Kris Steenhaut <kris.steenhaut at hccnet.nl>
20  Re:  Win XP reqs : Mike O'Connor <mikeoc at dodo dot com dot au>

**= Email   1 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 12 Apr 2004 09:59:47 +1000
From:  "Dennis J. Nolan" <denny at alphalink dot com dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Broadband

Thanks everyone for their advice.

I looked at "whirlpool dot net dot au" and after some consideration decided to 
go with "Swiftel"

It's a six months contract, the prices are qood, the Netcomm 4 port 
modem is being supplied direct from Netcomm for $125, when Netcomm's web 
site has it at $245 RRP.

As it's only another $10.00 per month to bump the speed up to 512/128, I 
opted for the higher speed.
So by next week I should be flying.

Regards

Dennis.

Ed Durrant wrote:

>I was waiting for someone else to reply as I use Cable rather than ADSL broadband.
>
>I'd just like to clarify first of all that you already have a router ?? A router is
>usually
>used to connect between two different networks or network topologies. So what kind of
>router do you have - what was it previously used on ? Are you sure
>you don't simply have a switch ? (sorry if this sounds like a dumb question but it's
>important to any solution definition).
>
>I'm generally happy with Telstra, apart from their latest plan to start blocking
>ports, starting with SMTP. However there are other companies in the market that
>may be able to offer you a better deal or better technology. One that comes to mind
>since you are in Adelaide is Internode. You may want to contact them and see
>what they can offer.
>
>Unfortunately all alternate suppliers are dependant upon Telstra for the phone
>infrastructure that ADSL runs on, so when Telstra decides to cut retail and not
>wholesale prices, the other companies simply cannot compete.
>
>If someone on the list can confirm or correct this, please do. I believe what is
>supplied by the ADSL ISP whoever it may be, for your end of the system, is
>a line splitter-filter to allow you to still use your normal phone line at the same
>time as the broadband link and an ADSL modem, with either an ethernet or USB
>connection (go with the internet one). By the way because of this filtering, you
>cannot have adsl on a shared line of any kind as a "split" has already been done.
>This occurs often in appartment blocks or units. Also the link back to the
>distribution
>point must be copper, not fibre. Last of all you must be within 3.5 KM phone
>cable length of the exchange where the ADSL equipment is.
>
>It sounds like the choice is yours on whether to go with the single port or 4 port
>ADSL
>modem / switch / router. It depends upon whether you want to expand later. By the way
>you could attach your existing switch/router via a cross-over cable to the ISP
>provided
>box, so "daisy chaining" and getting more ports.
>
>Another option (which will save on future cabling costs around the house) is to buy
>your own ADSL Router/switch with Wireless capabilies built in.
>
>Whichever way you go, the ADSL connection will provide one DHCP IP address, this
>then gets "natted" (shared) to multiple IP addreses that are given out to connecting
>systems using DHCP by the router.
>
>I hope this has clarified things a bit.
>
>I think the key questions are:
>
>1. Can you get ADSL at all.
>
>2. What exactly is the router device that you presently have
>
>3. What expansion of your local connections are going to be required in the future.
>
>4. Which ISP do you want to go with
>
>5. Do you want to go Wireless.
>
>
>Cheers/2
>
>Ed.
>
>"Dennis J. Nolan" wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Hi all
>>
>>I'm seeking advice
>>
>>I think it is time for me to go ADSL
>>
>>I've been doing a little research, and having got a friend up and
>>running with Big Pond's offer where everything that could go wrong, went
>>wrong. I've decided to get as much enlightened advice as possible before
>>comiting myself.
>>
>>At home I have two, sometimes three or four computers on a peer to peer
>>LAN through a four port router.
>>The router has a WAN connection to which I asume the modem is connected
>>
>>Now the service I am contemplating provides a fixed ISP address.
>>
>>They also supply, at extra cost, either a single port or a four port
>>modem router. (Netcom NB1300S)
>>
>>If I get the four port router-modem, should I give the existing one the
>>flick or keep it
>>And if I keep it is the single port router- modem the way to go.
>>Does using the two router configuration un-necessarialy complicate the
>>setup.
>>
>>If I recall corectly from my Bigpond installation experience, the modem
>>needs to be set up with the account number, user_ID and password.
>>
>>Also the fixed IP address will have to be loaded somewhere
>>The ISP's DNS news server and mail send and receive also need setting up.
>>
>>What changes need to be made to TCP/IP, and what about DHCP and all the
>>other networking accronyms.
>>
>>So what I'm after is recomendations and advice.
>>
>>It would be nice to have it so that when my grand-daughter is visiting,
>>she can be connected to the internet from her computer via the LAN,
>>rather than kicking me off mine.
>>
>>Thanks in advance.
>>
>>PS   Rob, I solved my updating problem by a new complete install of eCS.
>>But the downloader still doesn't work with  Smart Cache  running and the
>>proxy server tick box ticked.
>>
>>PPS  It seems that Longhorn is becoming more of a Shorthorn as they
>>discard features to try and meet delivery dates.
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>Dennis.
>>
>>

>> 

>>    
>>
>

> 

>
>.
>
>  
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   2 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 12 Apr 2004 09:09:10 +0900
From:  nickl at pacific dot net dot au
Subject:  Re:  Choice ?

Hi Alan

I have the ability to run both Mozilla (1.6a....I know I should update,
but when it ain't broke :-)  ) and Firefox. The secret is: Don't run them
together/concurrently. Either one or the other. This tip was handed to me
by a Canadian friend. I think they are linked in some way.

Hope this helps you.

NICK

In <20040411110805.KQTT6056.smta05.mail.ozemail dot net at localhost>, on
04/11/2004 
   at 09:08 PM, "Alan Duval" <amoht at ozemail dot com dot au> said:

>On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 22:46:03 +1000 (AEST), John Angelico wrote:

>>On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 21:00:23 +1000 (AEST), Alan Duval wrote:
>>
>>>Hi.
>>>
>>> a few weeks ago I went to the Choice magazine site using Mozilla 1.4. in eCS 1.1. In attempting to use the 
>>>scroll bar at the site the Choice screen went blank. 
>>
>>[chomp] fine detail of serious problems
>>
>>>Switching to Win 95  I was easily able to enter and use the Choice site using Internet Explorer 4. 
>>>It thus seems that you have no choice when you want Choice.
>>>Has anyone else looked at this site?
>>
>>Hmm, just went there with Firefox 0.8 browsed no problems. I don't have the
>>full Moz or IBM browsers here.
>>
>>However, I notice someone else has commented that your version is well back
>>in the series. Could be time to update.

>Following your success John, I reinstalled Mozilla 1.4 and was also able
>to access the Choice site so maybe  my previous version had become
>corrupt although it had been functioning OK up till then. As i've had a
>few  problems with programs over the last 6 months and some were due to
>faulty RAM is it possible that i've got  other hardware problems? Could
>the CPU be faulty?
>I've also downloaded Firefox 0.8. I suppose I would have to delete
>Mozilla if I installed it. I've got PMMail/2 to  get eMail.

>Regards

>Alan Duval

> 

-----------------------------------------------------------
nickl at pacific dot net dot au
-----------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   3 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 12 Apr 2004 11:29:43 +1000
From:  Daryl Pilkington <u3232 at home.dialix dot com>
Subject:  Re:  Broadband

Dennis J. Nolan wrote:
> Thanks everyone for their advice.
> 
> I looked at "whirlpool dot net dot au" and after some consideration decided to 
> go with "Swiftel"
> 
> It's a six months contract, the prices are qood, the Netcomm 4 port 
> modem is being supplied direct from Netcomm for $125, when Netcomm's web 
> site has it at $245 RRP.
> 
> As it's only another $10.00 per month to bump the speed up to 512/128, I 
> opted for the higher speed.
> So by next week I should be flying.
>
Thats great Dennis, knowledge is power :)

The 200MB package is not much at all, but I notice you can change up 
your plan to more data at no cost. So see how you go with the cheaper plan.

The 1GB/1GB package would be fine for even the heaviest web surfing & 
email. Jing & I probably use about 1.5GB month for these sort of 
activities. We use Internet for everything:-
Telephone book
Internet telephony to China & Canada
Macquarie Dictionary
TV guide
Email
Train & bus timetables & trip planning.
Lots of research
(Found out about aphids)

Sure, if you start downloading videos & music, you'll need more.
There is heaps of multimedia stuff at:
http://www.abc dot net dot au
Perhaps you missed a TV news article:- the video will be there!
Or are you a Radio National or local radio fan?

This will definitely blow-out a 200MB account.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   4 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 12 Apr 2004 11:10:31 +0930
From:  Paul Smedley <paul at smedley.info>
Subject:  Re:  Choice ?

Hi Nick,

nickl at pacific dot net dot au wrote:
> I have the ability to run both Mozilla (1.6a....I know I should update,
> but when it ain't broke :-)  ) and Firefox. The secret is: Don't run them
> together/concurrently. Either one or the other. This tip was handed to me
> by a Canadian friend. I think they are linked in some way.
> 
> Hope this helps you.
Actually it's quite easy to run different versions of Thunderbird, 
Firefox & Mozilla concurrently.

Instead of starting the .exe directly, you need to start it with a .cmd 
file such as the below that I use for Thunderbird:

//Start tbird.cmd
SET MOZ_NO_REMOTE=1
SET LIBPATHSTRICT=T
set beginlibpath=e:\tcpipapp\thunderbird;%libpath%
set mozilla_home=m:\mozilla
thunderbird.exe
//end tbird.cmd

Obvious paths adjusted to suit your own system.  The reason why 
different versions won't run at the same time is becuase they are all 
bult from the same underlying code, and the libraries (DLL files) have 
the same names.  Thunderbird 0.5 is built off of Mozilla 1.6b from 
memory - the Mozilla 1.7 libraries are not compatible with Thunderbird 
0.5 - similar story with Firefox..

Hope this helps,

Paul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   5 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 12 Apr 2004 09:48:57 +0900
From:  nickl at pacific dot net dot au
Subject:  Re:  Choice ?

Hi Paul.

Thanks for that. I'll set it up and see how I go.

Luckily it hasn't been a great priority for me at the moment, but it's
certainly worth knowing.

Thanks again.

NICK

In <4079F38F.7080308 at smedley.info>, on 04/12/2004 
   at 11:10 AM, Paul Smedley <paul at smedley.info> said:

>Hi Nick,

>nickl at pacific dot net dot au wrote:
>> I have the ability to run both Mozilla (1.6a....I know I should update,
>> but when it ain't broke :-)  ) and Firefox. The secret is: Don't run them
>> together/concurrently. Either one or the other. This tip was handed to me
>> by a Canadian friend. I think they are linked in some way.
>> 
>> Hope this helps you.
>Actually it's quite easy to run different versions of Thunderbird, 
>Firefox & Mozilla concurrently.

>Instead of starting the .exe directly, you need to start it with a .cmd 
>file such as the below that I use for Thunderbird:

>//Start tbird.cmd
>SET MOZ_NO_REMOTE=1
>SET LIBPATHSTRICT=T
>set beginlibpath=e:\tcpipapp\thunderbird;%libpath%
>set mozilla_home=m:\mozilla
>thunderbird.exe
>//end tbird.cmd

>Obvious paths adjusted to suit your own system.  The reason why 
>different versions won't run at the same time is becuase they are all 
>bult from the same underlying code, and the libraries (DLL files) have 
>the same names.  Thunderbird 0.5 is built off of Mozilla 1.6b from 
>memory - the Mozilla 1.7 libraries are not compatible with Thunderbird 
>0.5 - similar story with Firefox..

>Hope this helps,

>Paul.

> 

-----------------------------------------------------------
nickl at pacific dot net dot au
-----------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   6 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:29:23 +1000
From:  Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Win XP reqs

Hi Robert, Mike and others

  I eventually managed to move data around on my Harddisk so that I could let the XP
install, install it's partition at the very front of the drive. Guess what ... even
with an XP Install created partition - the install program says there's no XP
compatible partition there !

  I'm starting to conclude, that it's the 120GB Harddisk that XP install can't handle.
I think I'll dig out an extra drive and add that into the system to see if XP can
install to that.

Cheers/2

Ed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   7 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:41:06 +1000
From:  Mike O'Connor <mikeoc at dodo dot com dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Win XP reqs

Ed Durrant wrote:

>Hi Robert, Mike and others
>
>  I eventually managed to move data around on my Harddisk so that I could let the XP install, install it's partition at the very front of the drive. Guess what ... even with an XP Install created partition - the install program says there's no XP compatible partition there !
>
>  I'm starting to conclude, that it's the 120GB Harddisk that XP install can't handle. I think I'll dig out an extra drive and add that into the system to see if XP can install to that.
>
>Cheers/2
>  
>

Hi Ed,

Being M$, it's just sulking that it can't have *all* of that drive to 
itself, and doesn't want to share!
Probably can't see past the JFS volume.  Unfortunately I didn't get to 
see your prior messages until after the event, as I was going to suggest 
that whilst you had the JFS backed up elsewhere that you relocate the 
other regular compatibility drives forwards, after the XP-designated 
partition, and leave unformatted extra [XP-data] space prior to adding 
the LVM volume back after them.

-- 
Regards,
Mike

Failed the exam for
--------------------
MCSE - Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert
--------------------
[ISP blocks *.exe, *.cmd, *.bat, *.reg attachments]
[Please use zipped versions of above]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   8 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:23:02 +1000
From:  Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Win XP reqs

Mike O'Connor wrote:

>
> Hi Ed,
>
> Being M$, it's just sulking that it can't have *all* of that drive to
> itself, and doesn't want to share!
> Probably can't see past the JFS volume.  Unfortunately I didn't get to
> see your prior messages until after the event, as I was going to suggest
> that whilst you had the JFS backed up elsewhere that you relocate the
> other regular compatibility drives forwards, after the XP-designated
> partition, and leave unformatted extra [XP-data] space prior to adding
> the LVM volume back after them.
>
>

Multiple LVM Volumes, but the space available for WinXP was/is at the start of the
drive prior to any OS/2 partitions.

I've done this before, adding XP to an OS/2 LVM machine without these problems, I really
think it is that WinXP can't handle such a large drive, or at least not this one !

Took the system apart - no more mounting places available for the extra drive,
and if there was, I'd be adding a standard EIDE (pre ata-33) drive onto the same channel
as an ATA-100 drive, which is likely to slow the system down no end, so I'll have to find
a different solution again.  Probably more the card I want to test into another machine
after all.

Cheers/2

Ed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   9 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:52:58 +1000
From:  Mike O'Connor <mikeoc at dodo dot com dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Win XP reqs

Ed Durrant wrote:

>Mike O'Connor wrote:
>
>>Hi Ed,
>>
>>Being M$, it's just sulking that it can't have *all* of that drive to
>>itself, and doesn't want to share!
>>Probably can't see past the JFS volume.  Unfortunately I didn't get to
>>see your prior messages until after the event, as I was going to suggest
>>that whilst you had the JFS backed up elsewhere that you relocate the
>>other regular compatibility drives forwards, after the XP-designated
>>partition, and leave unformatted extra [XP-data] space prior to adding
>>the LVM volume back after them.
>>
>Multiple LVM Volumes, but the space available for WinXP was/is at the start of the drive prior to any OS/2 partitions.
>
>I've done this before, adding XP to an OS/2 LVM machine without these problems, I really think it is that WinXP can't handle such a large drive, or at least not this one !
>
>Took the system apart - no more mounting places available for the extra drive, and if there was, I'd be adding a standard EIDE (pre ata-33) drive onto the same channel as an ATA-100 drive, which is likely to slow the system down no end, so I'll have to find a different solution again.  Probably more the card I want to test into another machine after all.
>
>Cheers/2
>  
>

Hi Ed,

Looking at your previously furnished LVM output, I think the problem is 
that in that extended partition, it can't see the FAT16 drive E:, M$ has 
a problem that's well documented with logical drives [of FS types that 
it *accepts*] not being recognised when preceded by non-accepted FS 
types.  I don't have [didn't keep] the relevant references, but there 
have been many, which is one reason for advising non-compatibility 
partitions all be placed at the *end* of the extended partition - which 
is probably why LVM has *end* of freespace as default selection on creation.

Note this condition applied prior to the advent of LVM also.

-- 
Regards,
Mike

Failed the exam for
--------------------
MCSE - Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert
--------------------
[ISP blocks *.exe, *.cmd, *.bat, *.reg attachments]
[Please use zipped versions of above]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   10 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:30:45 +1000 (EST)
From:  "Chris Graham [WarpSpeed]" <chrisg at warpspeed dot com dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Win XP reqs

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 20:05:02 +1000, Ed Durrant wrote:

>Following up on my problems in adding an XP partition to my
>OS/2 box to test  hardware ...
>
>I think I have found why WinXP wont install high up on a
>drive, where OS/2 and eCS will - from
>
>http://www.star-tools dot com/partitionstar/english/manual/bid.html
>
>Windows 2000, XP:
>
>    FAT 16, partition smaller than 4 GB and ends below 8 GB:
>Type "06"
>    FAT 16, partition smaller than 4 GB and ends below 8 GB:
>Type "0E"
>    FAT 32, partition smaller than 32 GB and ends below 8
>GB: Type "0B"
>    FAT 32, partition smaller than 32 GB and ends below 8
>GB: Type "0C"
>    NTFS, begins below cylinder 1024: Type "07"
>
>So it looks like an XP boot partition MUST start below
>cylinder 1024.

Technically, ALL boot partitions must Start and End in the first 1024
cylinders.

I manged to get away with in on a 9Gb SCSI disk. I partition it within the
1024 cylinders, backed it up to tape, made the partition full size and then
did a restore. Bingo.

>What's also interesting in this table are the FAT32
>partitions that can be up to 32GB in size but must end below
>8 GB - how's that possible ??

I guess 32 max size, but for a boot partition it must be still less than
the 1024 cyl (8Gb) limit.

-Chris

WarpSpeed Computers - The Graham Utilities for OS/2.
Voice:  +61-3-9307-0344   Internet:   chrisg at warpspeed dot com dot au
FAX:    +61-3-9307-0633   Web Page:   http://www.warpspeed dot com dot au
Postal: WarpSpeed Computers, PO Box 212, Brunswick, VIC 3056, AUSTRALIA

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   11 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 12 Apr 2004 11:44:13 +0200
From:  Kris Steenhaut <kris.steenhaut at hccnet.nl>
Subject:  Re:  Win XP reqs

Chris Graham [WarpSpeed] wrote:

>Technically, ALL boot partitions must Start and End in the first 1024
>cylinders.
>
>  
>
allow me to correct:
"WINDOWS XP bootpartition must start and end in the first 1024 
cylinders; on top of that, all other Windies must boot from C: ."

-- 
Groeten uit Gent,

   Kris

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   12 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 12 Apr 2004 04:31:28 -0400
From:  freiherr at earthlink dot net
Subject:  Re:  Win XP reqs

On 04/12/04 at 02:41 PM, Mike O'Connor <mikeoc at dodo dot com dot au> wrote:

>Ed Durrant wrote:

>>....  I'm starting to conclude, that it's the 120GB Harddisk that XP install can't handle. I think I'll dig out an extra drive and add that into the system to see if XP can install to that.
>>
>>Cheers/2
>>  
>>

>Hi Ed,

>Being M$, it's just sulking that it can't have *all* of that drive to
> itself, and doesn't want to share!

I don't know if this might be a workable strategy for anyone else, and
I have absolutely no experience with Microsoft operating systems since
MSDOS 3.2 (went from there to OS/2 1.30.1, and still have all the
original disks and docs).

This happens about twice a year, as I add new machines to the system. 
I first zero-ize both IDE drives, then install eCS on the first with
BootManager.  Then I create, using LVM, all the partitions I'll need
for Linux on the second drive, making /boot a primary and adding it to
BootManager.  Then I install Linux, instructing it to put LILO in
/boot.  It works without fail.  I have no idea if this would work with
XP, and have no intention to find out.  

I am a strong advocate that each operating system and all associated
files be on a completely separate drive.

Regards, 
Eric Schilke

Copyright (c) 2004.  All rights reserved.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   13 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:29:34 +1000 (EST)
From:  voytek at sbt dot net dot au
Subject:  Re:  Broadband

> The 200MB package is not much at all, but I notice you can change up
> your plan to more data at no cost. So see how you go with the cheaper
> plan.

>
> This will definitely blow-out a 200MB account.

fwiw, I do about 400MB/month on a 33.6 dialup

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
**= Email   14 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:42:49 +1000 (EST)
From:  voytek at sbt dot net dot au
Subject:   ot: MM or SD cards ?

I have a new Palm which apprently can take either SD or MM cards, what the
difference, which ones should I buy, sd or mm ?

also, which card readers works/doesn't work with OS/2, (more) feedback sought

Ed, if I recall, your DSE reader had problems ?

Voytek
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
**= Email   15 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:38:02 +1000 (AEST)
From:  "Alan Duval" <amoht at ozemail dot com dot au>
Subject:   Mozilla problem

Hi,

I spoke too soon.  Went to open Mozilla 1.4 again and the system crashed and showed this error message

Exception in module: os2KRNL
TRAP 000e	ERRCD = 0000	   ERACC = ****	    ERLIM = ********
EAX = 0008b505	EBX = 00000344	ECX = 00687c3c	EDX = 00000000
ESI = 00000000	   EDI = f9d02d1a	EBP = 00004f8e	    FLG = 00012207	
CS:EIP = 0168:fff48842		CSACC = c09b		CSLIM = ffffffff
SS:ESP = 003000004f6a		SSACC = 1097		SSLIM = 0000429f
DS = 0160	DSACC = c093		DSLIM = ffffffff		CR0 = 8001001b
ES = 0160	ESACC = c093		ESLIM = ffffffff		CR2 = 00000000
FS = 03c0	FSACC = 0093		FSLIM = ********

The system detected an internal processing error at 
location	##0168:fff1eb6b  -  000e:cb6b.
60000, 9084

07860686
Internal revision   14.093_W4

Rebooted and this time opened Mozilla successfully.

Haven't a clue what the error message means or what I should do. Could someone please enlighten me?

Regards

Alan Duval

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   16 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:52:58 +1000
From:  "Dennis J. Nolan" <denny at alphalink dot com dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Broadband

Daryl Pilkington wrote:

> Dennis J. Nolan wrote:
>
>> Thanks everyone for their advice.
>>
>> I looked at "whirlpool dot net dot au" and after some consideration decided 
>> to go with "Swiftel"
>>
>> It's a six months contract, the prices are qood, the Netcomm 4 port 
>> modem is being supplied direct from Netcomm for $125, when Netcomm's 
>> web site has it at $245 RRP.
>>
>> As it's only another $10.00 per month to bump the speed up to 
>> 512/128, I opted for the higher speed.
>> So by next week I should be flying.
>>
> Thats great Dennis, knowledge is power :)
>
> The 200MB package is not much at all, but I notice you can change up 
> your plan to more data at no cost. So see how you go with the cheaper 
> plan.
>
> The 1GB/1GB package would be fine for even the heaviest web surfing & 
> email. Jing & I probably use about 1.5GB month for these sort of 
> activities. We use Internet for everything:-
> Telephone book
> Internet telephony to China & Canada
> Macquarie Dictionary
> TV guide
> Email
> Train & bus timetables & trip planning.
> Lots of research
> (Found out about aphids)
>
> Sure, if you start downloading videos & music, you'll need more.
> There is heaps of multimedia stuff at:
> http://www.abc dot net dot au
> Perhaps you missed a TV news article:- the video will be there!
> Or are you a Radio National or local radio fan?
>
> This will definitely blow-out a 200MB account.
 
>
> 

>
> .
>
I went for the 4Gb plan

Now I'll be able to see the Canetoad video without worry.
For those that havn't seen it, it's awesome. Won a St KIlda festival 
prize last year.
Look up Cane-Toad and follow the links.

Regards
Dennis.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   17 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:57:18 +1000
From:  Mike O'Connor <mikeoc at dodo dot com dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Win XP reqs

Kris Steenhaut wrote:

> Chris Graham [WarpSpeed] wrote:
>
>> Technically, ALL boot partitions must Start and End in the first 1024
>> cylinders. 
>
> allow me to correct:
> "WINDOWS XP bootpartition must start and end in the first 1024 
> cylinders; on top of that, all other Windies must boot from C: ."

Kris,

So how do OEM manufacturers produce systems with just a single C:  
partition taking up the whole of a 120GB drive?

Chris should have said [Primary partition] boot partitions - as we 
should all know LVM systems/current LINUX have no problems being booted 
from a logical partition completely above cylinder 1024.

[More later on primary-partition-boots completely above cylinder 1024]

-- 
Regards,
Mike

Failed the exam for
--------------------
MCSE - Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert
--------------------
[ISP blocks *.exe, *.cmd, *.bat, *.reg attachments]
[Please use zipped versions of above]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   18 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:02:29 +1000
From:  "Dennis J. Nolan" <denny at alphalink dot com dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Win XP reqs

Ed Durrant wrote:

>Mike O'Connor wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Hi Ed,
>>
>>Being M$, it's just sulking that it can't have *all* of that drive to
>>itself, and doesn't want to share!
>>Probably can't see past the JFS volume.  Unfortunately I didn't get to
>>see your prior messages until after the event, as I was going to suggest
>>that whilst you had the JFS backed up elsewhere that you relocate the
>>other regular compatibility drives forwards, after the XP-designated
>>partition, and leave unformatted extra [XP-data] space prior to adding
>>the LVM volume back after them.
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Multiple LVM Volumes, but the space available for WinXP was/is at the start of the
>drive prior to any OS/2 partitions.
>
>I've done this before, adding XP to an OS/2 LVM machine without these problems, I really
>think it is that WinXP can't handle such a large drive, or at least not this one !
>
>Took the system apart - no more mounting places available for the extra drive,
>and if there was, I'd be adding a standard EIDE (pre ata-33) drive onto the same channel
>as an ATA-100 drive, which is likely to slow the system down no end, so I'll have to find
>a different solution again.  Probably more the card I want to test into another machine
>after all.
>
>Cheers/2
>
>Ed.
>
>

> 

>
>.
>
>  
>
I know this sounds silly, but several years ago I had much the same 
problem installing Win98 onto a drive that had previously only been used 
for OS/2 and DOS/Win3.11

Turned out there was a virus which OS/2 and DOS was not effected by.

Worst part was that it got onto the install disks. Why did microsoft 
insist on sending out system disks that not only could be written to, 
but they came in the non write protected position.

Regards

Dennis

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   19 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:05:40 +0200
From:  Kris Steenhaut <kris.steenhaut at hccnet.nl>
Subject:  Re:  Win XP reqs

Mike O'Connor wrote:

> Kris Steenhaut wrote:
>
>> Chris Graham [WarpSpeed] wrote:
>>
>>> Technically, ALL boot partitions must Start and End in the first 1024
>>> cylinders. 
>>
>>
>> allow me to correct:
>> "WINDOWS XP bootpartition must start and end in the first 1024 
>> cylinders; on top of that, all other Windies must boot from C: ."
>
>
>
> Kris,
>
> So how do OEM manufacturers produce systems with just a single C:  
> partition taking up the whole of a 120GB drive?
>
> Chris should have said [Primary partition] boot partitions - as we 
> should all know LVM systems/current LINUX have no problems being 
> booted from a logical partition completely above cylinder 1024.
>
> [More later on primary-partition-boots completely above cylinder 1024]
>
Right. I stand corrected.

-- 
Groeten uit Gent,

   Kris

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   20 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:10:57 +1000
From:  Mike O'Connor <mikeoc at dodo dot com dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Win XP reqs

Eric Schilke wrote:

>On 04/12/04 at 02:41 PM, Mike O'Connor <mikeoc at dodo dot com dot au> wrote:
>
>>Ed Durrant wrote:
>>
>>>....  I'm starting to conclude, that it's the 120GB Harddisk that XP install can't handle. I think I'll dig out an extra drive and add that into the system to see if XP can install to that.
>>>
>>>Cheers/2
>>>
>>Hi Ed,
>>
>>Being M$, it's just sulking that it can't have *all* of that drive to
>>itself, and doesn't want to share!
>>    
>>
>I don't know if this might be a workable strategy for anyone else, and
>I have absolutely no experience with Microsoft operating systems since
>MSDOS 3.2 (went from there to OS/2 1.30.1, and still have all the
>original disks and docs).
>
>This happens about twice a year, as I add new machines to the system. 
>I first zero-ize both IDE drives, then install eCS on the first with
>BootManager.  Then I create, using LVM, all the partitions I'll need
>for Linux on the second drive, making /boot a primary and adding it to
>BootManager.  Then I install Linux, instructing it to put LILO in
>/boot.  It works without fail.  I have no idea if this would work with
>XP, and have no intention to find out.  
>
>I am a strong advocate that each operating system and all associated
>files be on a completely separate drive.
>  
>

Hi Eric,
Basically M$ doesn't like to boot from anything other than BIOS disk 80H 
- the first hard-disk.  If you have a FAT16/32/NTFS Primary partition on 
the first hard disk, you can install NT/W2K/XP on the second hard-disk 
[mainly], but it still boots *through* that FAT16/32/NTFS  C: partition. 
If you don't have a FAT16/32/NTFS primary on first disk , e.g. 
OS2-eCS+LINUX|NETWARE, it won't install on the second disk. Things can 
be "fudged" however, but it takes a lot of playing around to get it to work.

-- 
Regards,
Mike

Failed the exam for
--------------------
MCSE - Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert
--------------------
[ISP blocks *.exe, *.cmd, *.bat, *.reg attachments]
[Please use zipped versions of above]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------