Offler

I had some trouble with installation process. some apps was not running correctly. Examining showed that few video filters have not been installed. In previous installation i was able to install everything without trouble, but it was only accident. Then i overwritted System directory by those of older installation and again installation of test application was sucessful. Later tests showed that this is caused by missing *.dll files - msvcr71.dll was the missing file for this case. This file has to be part of visual c++ redistributable package but it is not. Redistributable package 2005 and 2006 does not contain this file. system also contain exuberants service pack1, NET 2.0, MDAC 2.8, DirectX 9.0c Nov2007 and MSVCR2005 and still there are missing files direcly in system. this is the list of Dlls which i recommend to add: ijl15.dll mfc70.dll msvcp70.dll msvcp71.dll msvcr70.dll msvcr71.dll following files can be safely manually upgraded to newer versions from win XP, but are not crucial: msyuv.dll wow32.dll iyuv_32.dll ioctrl.dll

As long i know DualCore processors are now mainly based on Pentium III architecture. Thats why i am searching for Core1 processor. Uniprocessing for next generation of Win9x based systems? Maybe, and maybe not... Right now i think that Windows 2000 and good Dualcore processor is best solution. Althought few applications are intended for multiprocessing - mostly server applications. If we are talking about pc games these are multithreaded, but their performance is still mostly depending on graphic card. I have here Tualatin-S and SDram. I see that i need little bit faster memory, but only in TES:Oblivion. Games which are using standard "Level loading" and are not loading next area after few steps are unable to fill whole memory bandwidth. Mostly data streams are between 133mb/s and lower even throught AGP slot, and i may say that Harddisks are not slowing down my performance. (swapfile is located in ramdisk). If we are talking about vista... It is only OS on market which is supporting more than two cores as long i know. But there are few apps for this hw potential. Just like with 64bit... Technological roof for these days is Vista 64 bit with Intels Q6700, and with NV8800 GTX, with turbomemory (flash memory in pci slot acting as swapdisk). I dont know which aplications do have 64 bit engine optimized for quad core... and i really dont know why my computer (tv tuner, some games, mostly writing) will need this performance. 32 bit and singlethreading, and uniprocesing is still standard and no sw developers anounced compatibility only for dualcore or higher. I guess how many common users will sell their P4 based machines with XP, while these computers are quite reliable and are performing well. I think that only benefit from this generation is DDR memory, but if those people have weak graphics and other equipment... Tualatins were always performing better than P4 family, but intel recognized that marked is searching for higher Ghz, no matter their efficiency.

Two years ago many common users recomended me to leave Windows 98 for many reasons. It was too old, its support was ending, and because it was terrible os. Well. I think that Windows XP is terrible and i have my own reasons for this - especially its requirements which are used for features which i do not require. But those people just forget about that everything goes old and Microsoft will not support any operating system forever. Since 2000 there was no major move on computer marked. Nowadays most computers are based on Pentium 4 processor with DDR memory, and users are in majority using Windows XP on them. While XP system is supporting up to 2 Processors, or two threads it is little bit wasting. Pentium 4 processors always offered high frequency, but low performance - even when we are comparing it to Pentium III Tualatin family. Memory bandwith has been extended dramatically last years but its effects to system performance are not so remarkable as with graphic cards. The real dual processing came last years with Athlon X2 and DualCore processors. Here can be windows XP used with best results, when its ability of dualprocessing is fully used. P4 cores cannot be compared with this performance and their functionality belongs to uniprocessor solutions and its hyperthreading feature is recomended to be disabled... Therefore mainstream computers based on P4 core are best performing with uniprocessor OS - Windows 9x, Dualcore processors are best performing with Windows 2000 and XP, and for quad core is most useful Vista. I think that only support by OS devepoper is not the only reason why to use the system, also age is not so big problem. Windows 2000 is also 8 years old and its derivation (winXP) is still being used. The real reason why to use or not to use an operating system is construction of computer and its ability of multiprocessing, or uniprocessing.

I have been betatesting newest ultima online client for one server on Windows 98SE. During logon it showed BSOD due afvxd.vxd conflict. Also system was freezing when application was running and i was watching videos with VMR9 renderer. I tried some internal settings to find the problem and later i decided to change the system file for different version of afvxd.vxd. I was planning to solve BSOD problem but after i replaced the file all bugs dissapeared. Original version: 4.10.2222 - Windows 98SE Fixed version: 4.10.1657 - from Winsock2.0 update for Windows 95. Probably the oldest version available. the problem and its solution means that application is written for older versions and developers of ultima online are marking compatibility with the oldest file version... The same file in higher version is not fully backward compatible and due poor programming of UO client it is not forward compatible with newer versions, or worse the version which is delivered to users of windows 98SE+ is buggy. If possible send me afvxd.vxd from Windows ME to compare it during betatest. If the problem persists there should be a reason to add afvxd.vxd version 4.10.1657 to some unofficial updates

if we are looking for difference between software and bloatware lets look at windows 98Se and Windows ME. system is same, but there are some new features which are not intended for power users but mainly for common users. The same difference is between windows 2000 and windows XP. Video Mixing Renderer 7 was designed to use graphical acceleration for video rendering. Nothing less nothing more. Performance 1280x720 - 43 fps on my system. Video had 60 fps. Video Mixing Renderer 9 was designed to use Shader program to improve video quality by filtering. This filtering is done by processor or graphic card. Performance 1280x720 - 8-9 fps on same system with same movie. But if we ask question where is realtime postprocessing during playback necessary, we shall find an answer, that these settings are most useful for low and mid quality video, for PAL/Secam quality, and for MPEG4 based compression to supress negative side effects of interlacing, noise and compression. HD videos dont have those side effects - at least those i have seen and it was not upscaled Mpeg. Therefore is not necessary to use DX9 renderer, and it seems there is no reason for that. One guy told me that he upgraded his P4 to dualcore because he was trying to view HD movies. With VMR9 of course. Well if there is so big difference only in default renderer i would reconsider buying new computer with newer system, when only few switches in Media Player Classic will grant me an acess to HD quality with same hardware i already have.

Some friend of mine told me that if I play video of HD quality at least *720p format he will buy my computer for aprox 1000 us dollars. I have here Pentium III Tualatin 1,26 ghz@ 1,5ghz, with 1,5 gb of SDRam at 158Mhz. He was trying to convince me that my computer will not be capable to play video at this quality. So I downloaded one HD video from gamespot. Format was WMV (WVC1) 1280x720 at 30 FPS. When opened it with Windows Media Player 9, codec was downloaded and after reboot i was able to play this video with no trouble at requested resolution (720). The trick lies in Video Mixing Renderer. While Windows XP is using VMR9 by default the same computer will be not able to play video, because VMR9 is using much more processor. Windows 9x is using VMR7 by default so any rendering can be done with less hardware requirements. So if somebody says that windows 98 cannot survive future, i may say that i have proof that windows XP is directly designed to have bloated requirements

Many users of Windows 9x were asking if there is a possibility how to run windows on different file system as FAT16 or FAT32. Well there is one possibility. ifshlp.sys this file is "Installable file system" helper.it recognizes which filesystem is installed and loads proper drivers for it... the questions are? 1. Can it be upgraded? 2. which filesystems it can handle after upgrade? there are drivers for NTFS in win9x, althought they need to be corrected, and there is possibility to use other filesystems if there should be a driver... I am not capable to program new drivers of ifs helper ... but i am sure there is somebody. some references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_9x http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Installable_File_System

i didnt tried it because emm386 is able to store its page frame to UMB automatically. the configuration as described was almost same as emm386 can do. i wanted to place page frame elsewhere. for example i placed page frame at d800 where UMBPCI begins with its umb mapping. it worked for DOS perfectly but i was unable to run windows...

I tried another setting: DEVICE=C:\DOS\UMBPCI\UMBPCI.SYS DEVICE=C:\DOS\HIRAM\HIRAM.EXE DEVICEhigh=C:\OS\HIMEM.SYS /numhandles=128 /hmain=64 /TESTMEM:OFF /Q Device=xms2ems.sys 768 DEVICE=C:\DOS\EMM386.EXE noems NOTR xms2ems was not working with rest of system (sblive or dos4gw) but when entered in this order xms2ems creates EMS and then emm386 picks up its management. This works for most apps except one - the SBlive driver. Amount of EMS must be smaller than 1mb or the driver shall not load. But applications are expecting larger ems like that. page frame is stored in conventional memory and there is 540kb of conventional memory free. i try to use bare emm386 with ram parameter and compare it... when using "noems" there was aprox 610kb of conventional ram free even when files and buffers were on their topmost limit, but UMB was completely used. also i was able to run UMBPCI to locate only 32kb of memory but the effect was same as using emm386 with ram parameter. Right now i try to lower the buffers to 20-30

i want to use single config sys configuration. in some cases win98 gui can benefit from more space in conventional memory. i am sure that i need files 255... Oblivion was causing trouble while using less (sound problems directly connected to this setting). this configuration is set for one goal. completely fulfill UMB in dos mode and keep conventional memory so free as possible, with XMS and EMS alltogether My system (gui) cannot boot if any UMBs are free - there i must use umbfill so i rather use umbs for excess of buffers and files like just fill them up with no effect. right now i am missing only one thing it this and it is page frame for EMS in any place where possible. i am reading mdgx's page for more info and i shall play with some bios and system settings and i hope there shall be some additional place.

to alexanrs: If possible i try to use original memorÿ tools. i dont want to use non standard command.com because of compatibility. i tried the qemm.sys already. it created 256mb of ems, but it has not possibility to set the frame position. to dencorso: xms2ems did the memory trick. it opened ems 64kb page frame in conventional memory and created 8mb of ems. worked good for TES:Arena, but sblive nor dos4gw extenders were not functional... but very good beginning. i tried this configuration: DEVICE=C:\DOS\EMM386.EXE FRAME=NONE NOTR this setting created 32mb of EMS without creating page frame. EMS is present but it didnt worked for TES:Arena. i need 64kb of memory where can be page frame...i try to remove some bios shadowings and maybe there shall be enough place for placing it...

well there are different things. umbpci is good for memory managing in windows. the best i have seen. it does not turn on protected mode as i know. Emm386 and similar are turning on protected mode and creating EMS. I dont know much about technical details but i think this description fits. In my case UMBPCI is not loaded in memory with emm386. it try to load before himem.sys, but because himem.sys is not present it only maps UMBs. Then HiRAM do something similar so upper memory is fully available before himem is loaded, but no manager is present at this time - memory is empty. then i can load himem.sys with Devicehigh parameter also i tried different expanded memory managers. applications had several trouble with them. Without EMM386 i was unable to load SBLive emulation, and some dos4gw apps. Aplications which use EMS (TES: ARENA) are automatically not working. i tried cwsdpmi and similar but it was not the right choice. sbemulation was still not working and some dos4gw were not working anyway. i tried dos32stub and it worked but i need to recompile some *.exe files and it was waste of effort. i like emm386 like is used now. without EMS support, only with its basical service which allows sbemulation and other apps to work correctly. Good for compatibility, but its ems support is just terrible. what i need now is EMS emulation driver. i have heard about Rdosems.com, but the file is unavailable on internet... i need something which can create ems and nothing else. In my system UMBs are provided by hiram and umbpci, compatibility with all apps is granted by himem.sys and emm386 but i want to use different way how to enable EMS.

umbpci and hiram is used in this case only to trick himem.sys to store it into upper memory. that config is little bit weird (xms provider already loaded in umb) but it can spare me some kilobytes in conventional memory. Usually users do not need emm386 in windows 9x if they dont want to use dos programs. Emm386 provides EMS, UMB and Protected mode. UMBPCI provides only UMB which is mostly better choice just because it is not so fat as EMM386 Managing... I need Protected mode. Not because i want to use it, but just because some dos applications are programmed for it - therefore i can use dos4gw without trouble and no other dos stubs are needed. I need EMS for older games. these two functions of EMM386 are crucial for wide spreaded compatbility. UMB managing which EMM386 provides is really a disaster for upper and conventional memory. i try some other configurations... and i hope i find another better solution. Edit: i tried some different configurations but none of them worked. If i want to have full compatibility it will by at cost of half of upper memory and part of conventional memory - with full usage of emm386 and without UMBPCI and HIRAM. One positive thing is that i found a way how to remove umbfill to run windows 98 correctly even without umbfill. it seems that "LocalLoadHigh=0" works this time. Last thing i can do is to find an EMS manager which will work with all other memory managers together - something that can transform part of XMS to EMS without negative side effects as emm386 did. Edit2: i made free some kilobytes again and put more programs to upper memory. now i have 615000 bytes of conventional memory available and conventional memory is almost full (720bytes needs to be umbfilled). the thick with localloadhigh does not work anymore, and i really dont know why.

problem solved. EMM parameter line must be entered like this: DEVICE=C:\DOS\EMM386.EXE NOTR NOEMS This configuration allowed SBlive emulation driver to run and also all games based on dos4gw were running correctly, even when no EMS is present. Only few very old games had problem with it - The Elder Scrolls: Arena, Dynablaster, Aladdin and some other. the only mystery that remains it why 10mb of memory is missing when this device is used. Without EMM386 i have 1024mb of RAM present in my windows, with it i have only 1014mb of ram...

Yes it works. Maybe it is caused with chipset. i have Via Apollo Pro 133T. These chipsets are excellent with memory handling. The system is performing better as common P4 with DDR. I will put it here all as it is written Config.sys: SWITCHES=/F /E DOS=HIGH,UMB,NOAUTO FILEShigh=255 FILES=255 BUFFERShigh=99,8 BUFFERS=99,8 LASTDRIVE=K FCBShigh=1,0 FCBS=1,0 STACKShigh=0,0 STACKS=0,0 DEVICE=C:\DOS\UMBPCI\UMBPCI.SYS DEVICE=C:\DOS\HIRAM\HIRAM.EXE DEVICEHIGH=C:\OS\HIMEM.SYS /numhandles=128 /hmain=64 /TESTMEM:OFF /Q DEVICE=C:\DOS\EMM386.EXE NOTR SET PATH=C:\OS;C:\OS\COMMAND;c:\vc;C:\DOS SET BLASTER=A220 I5 D1 SET CTSYN=C:\OS DEVICEhigh=C:\DOS\QCDROM.SYS /D:AADVARK SHELL=C:\COMMAND.COM C:\ /E:1280 /L:160 /U:160 /P /F ACCDATE=C- D- E- F- DEVICEhigh=C:\OS\SETVER.EXE DEVICEhigh=C:\OS\IFSHLP.SYS device=C:\OS\COMMAND\DISPLAY.SYS con=(ega,,1) Country=421,852,C:\OS\COMMAND\country.sys Autoexec.bat @echo off rem @CTTY NUL LFNFOR ON c:\dos\xmsdsk\xmsdsk.exe 524288 K: /c1 /t /y rem C:\OS\COMMAND\label k: scorpion lh C:\dos\blaster\sbeinit.com c:\dos\shsucdx.com /d:AADVARK /Q /l:f c:\dos\cmouse\ctmouse.exe mode con codepage prepare=((852) C:\OS\COMMAND\ega.cpi) mode con codepage select=852 keyb sl,,C:\OS\COMMAND\keybrd2.sys c:\dos\umbpci\umbfill.com rem CTTY CON SET PATH=%PATH%;C:\PROGRA~1\ATITEC~1\ATICON~1 this allows me to put most device drivers from dos mode to upper memory. There is also XMSDSK present which change 512mb to Ramdisk and there is windows swapfile to improve overall system performance. If EMM386 or UMPCI is not present XMSDSK will freeze system. i really dont know why when it works with XMS and not EMS. Umbfill allows me to use 1gb of standard memory. without it i have to enlarge ramdisk to 700mb. UMBfilled memory is 3kb so i have some space for one or two smaller drivers. also buffers and files shall be confusing for some people. I was trying to set it up as MDGx recomends, but it had one setback. Oblivion is probably working with extremely large number of Files. 150 was not enought so i entered the highest possible number and it works. I want this system to work with all apps - dos and win32 based. this also could be little bit confusing. FILESHIGH=100 FILES=150 if these two commands are entered this way it means that 100 files shall be located in upper memory and total amount of Files is 150 - which means that rest of 50 files will be located in conventional memory. I put these lines together because there is possible that system use default value if "FILES" command is missing. Also "NOAUTO" setting allowed me to enter some files of system manually to config.sys and there set their position to upper memory, else these files shall be called automatically by system (to conventional memory) Fatness of EMM368 is supressed, himem is in upper memory and dos games are working without any trouble, swapfile is on ramdisk and i have 1gb ram for windows. Only what i have to do is hit a key during startup or wait a couple of seconds longer...

I bought SB LIVE 5.1 recently. Its dos emulation driver needs emm386 driver or similar. also i tried hiram memory trick to put himem.sys to upper memory.This is my config.sys: device=c:\dos\umbpci\umbpci.sys DEVICE=C:\dos\hiram\HIRAM.EXE DEVICEHIGH=C:\OS\himem.sys /numhandles=128 /hmain=64 /TESTMEM:OFF /Q DEVICEHIGH=C:\DOS\EMM386.EXE NOTR this order allows to load himem sys to upper memory and also allows SBlive, but emm386 gives info that it cannot adress some memory range or like that and requires hit to any key... With this configuratiom emm386 has only 4kb in conventional memory and it does not affect upper memory. Also it seems that no special 32bit dost extenders are needed. Memory managing works as i imagined but how can i remove that annoying pause?

i am working with XMSDSK for some time now. i have 1,5 gb ram and 512 is ramdisk from it. The info about compatibility mode is saying only that disk driver is counting with fat16 harddisk. Because FDD are normally not formated by fat32 those drivers are normally counting with that. I think that info is specially designed for situations where fat16 disk is present - here it really can help with performance. But if you put swapfile to ramdisk you can speed up system performance dramatically even when fat16 is there present. There i am not sure that fat16 mode is not causing problems. Apps are trying to store data there in their usual way, which means that data stored here may have fat32 file names... in this point it may cause trouble, but i never encounter any. even if i have here apps like Prey or Oblivion i cannot fill my Ram completely. I dont know why or how, but i think that the environment of memory is so "clean" than those issues do not appear so often. By oblivion and with KernelEx user cannot be sure if the system lockup is caused by system or by the app...

i am using a lot of WDM drivers on my system. but please dont discuss it here, just post links to drivers.

Since there shall be some trouble with searching for drivers we had to do something. There are drivers which are currently still under development or are being modified to work. If you are an author of this driver, or you have link to this kind of driver please report it here. Example: KX Project Group: SoundCards Specifications: Universal driver which supports All EMU10k1 and EMU10k2 based soundcards. Includes Soundblaster Live 5.1, and audigy, or EMU series with those chips Type: WDM Link:http://kxproject.lugosoft.com/intro.php Please report ALL Win9x drivers which have been released for devices which are not supported by the manufacturer.

there is a driver which can work with EMU10k1 and EMU10k2 based cards on win9x based systems. it is called KX-Project or kxdriver. Try to search.

rigth now i havent found any way how to support some users with Winternals NTFS98. but if we are talking about linux... is there a way how to use alternative file system? (not FAT32, not NTFS, but other if win98 or even dos are main systems)

Networking Intel 10/1000 GT Pro Gigabit network controller. very good piece of hardware.

hard to say. i thought that Net is way how to ruin your system and later i made some test... hard to say if it is doing something for common user but i am sure that it is cooperating with DX9 in quite positive way.

i was researching this problem and i found "Winternals NTFS Driver for Win98". this application was developed by Winternals Software in 1999 to solve problems with dualboot systems. It offers NTFS access in GUI, read-only in trial version, and also writing in full version. It uses original NTFS drivers from windows 2000/XP and throught them it can run at same level as normal NTFS disk. Only setback is that main Win98 system disk must be FAT32, but it is not a problem. I tried it with TV tuner capturing but NTFS with this driver is causing some performance trouble in writing but rest is good. Later was this sofware bought by Microsoft added to SysInternals pack and its price was 400 dollars. In year 2006 its distribution was stopped and the software is now in grey zone of abadonware. Trial Version is still available on certain sites. link to trial: http://www.ftp.planitbs.co.uk/Programs/Sys...%2098/index.htm full version is still available somewhere on asian webs but its legality is questionable. Law in our country is not solving distribution for abadonware. I have a copy of full version on ntfs98 1.07 here, but i want ask somebody how to access it to other users without violating any law. I think the only way how to do it is to pickup a support. Microsoft Corporation is the owner of copyright for this software, and of those parts of win2k/xp which are not distributed with the package.

After few months of testing various versions of Direct X and Net Framework i may say i have finally made some progress. Since last version of DirectX9.0c which is oficially supporting Windows 9x is version from December 2006 the question is if there is any progress while installing newer versions. It depends on only one factor - if the system is using NetFramework and managed code. I have installed NetFramework 2.0 - clean installation, without any trouble. Then i made a backup copy of system and i have installed "random" version of DirectX9 which was available with Prey game. Then i made some tests with 3dMark 2001 and 2003. After the test i reistalled DirectX with actual version (november 2007). After reboot i repeated the tests again and i was able to see some performance upgrade. At this point i might say that managed code can help system to run more smoother if it is installed correctly (first framework and then DX) and newer versions of DirectX can upgrade managed code files and user can benefit from it, even when core dll's are not being upgraded.