Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


LoneCrusader

Moderator
  • Content Count

    1,347
  • Donations

    $375.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

LoneCrusader last won the day on May 3

LoneCrusader had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

191 Excellent

2 Followers

About LoneCrusader

  • Rank
    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • OS
    98SE
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

6,867 profile views
  1. There does appear to be a problem when applying FIX95CPU to a full OSR1 installation from CD/scratch. RTM installations later manually updated to OSR1 should not be affected. FIX95CPU tests for the existence of FILEXFER.EXE to determine whether the version of 95 being patched is RTM or OSR2... FILEXFER.EXE does not exist in RTM, but does in OSR2. Apparently it exists in OSR1 as well. Looks like I will need to find another file to test for to make the determination. Anyone who may have further input on this please chime in. On the other hand, if you're not getting anywhere with 95 RTM or OSR2 either on this machine I'm not certain what other problems may be in play. OSR2 should definitely work, even if the others don't.
  2. It's been a long time since I've used it, but I have an AGP Radeon 92xx card here that I previously used before I moved up to the 9800XT years ago. I know a working driver package for this card existed for 95*, but I don't remember any specifics of it. It should be possible to get this card up and running under 95* though. I doubt this card is the problem, *but once again my experience is based on OSR2. ON the other hand... after seeing you said "All-In-Wonder"; I do vaguely remember noting years ago that the system requirements on one of those older All-In-Wonder cards were different from the system requirements for the exact same normal Radeon 9xxx model. If you happen to have any other AGP or PCI video card, it may be worthwhile to do a test run with it instead of the All-In-Wonder. We can't say for sure this IS the problem yet, but if you have a way to test without it it could help rule it out. I understand completely.. my first machine had DOS and Win 3.1, but my next machine had 95 OSR2. I always preferred it.. hated 98FE with a passion. For a long time I refused to use 98SE because it changed IE from 4 that I was used to to 5 that had some minor difference that annoyed me (and now I can't even remember what exactly). I only moved to 98SE years ago when I hit this very CPU bug on my new P4 3.06GHz build. At the time I didn't know how to fix it, but at least I revenged myself on the problem years later. It may take me some time to dig further into this.. I've got some issues coming up this week that will prevent me from getting much done, but I've not given up. In the meantime, if you have the opportunity you can try some test runs with different conditions and see if anything changes. -Try a different video card if you have one (even one without 9x support). -Try disabling all onboard devices you can in the BIOS of the motherboard and reinstall. If it works, re-enable them one by one until you see the problem. -Try to get a BOOTLOG from the system.. this can be tricky as it's a hidden file and frequently gets overwritten. Bet way is to choose Logged boot from the menu, let the system crash, and then retrieve the file with another OS. This may give some idea of what exactly is crashing, although I'm not the best at deciphering them.
  3. Looks like a nice board. I've never used ASUS myself, but it's very similar to many systems I've worked with so it should work for what you're wanting to do. For testing purposes and troubleshooting the current problem we should probably stick with the setup you've begun, and keep RAM at 512MB or below. However, I will point you to a few fixes that will make your life easier, especially since you're multibooting with XP. With the recent passing of my good friend and one of our most knowledgeable members here (rloew), his software is now available to the public. Make all 4GB of RAM, your SATA ports, hard drives larger than 137GB, and TRIM capability for FAT32 usable under 9x with the patches found here. I see you're already having some of the classic issues with large amounts of RAM (unable to open DOS boxes etc). This MAY be contributing to the problem as well (unless you're always at 512MB or below when experimenting). The patch I linked will eliminate that, and the need for system.ini modifications and other "tweaks." What video card are you using? This may be significant as well. I've seen 95 fail to boot on some newer systems with a particular video card but work on other systems with the same video card. In this case these machines were newer than the one you're using but it's still a possibility. The Incorrect MS-DOS version error may very well be significant.. I have always used OSR2 or later for anything myself. It's been a long time since I've even looked the package over (I slipstreamed the fixes, so I no longer have to use the diskette) but I remember specifically having to use SETVER in the script in order to have compatibility with the original version of 95. I reworked the last version of FIX95CPU to be compatible with the earlier releases of 95 (DOS 7/FAT16 as opposed to DOS 7.1/FAT32; originally my package only supported OSR2) but it really had very limited virtual machine testing done on those systems. Now that I think about it, OSR1 may not have been tested at all. The original release and all OSR 2.x were tested, but I didn't have a copy of OSR1 to test, and I assumed the DOS version would be the same. I'll see if I can find a copy of OSR1 to examine... I'm not certain how different it is from the original release. Depending on whether or not a new set of .CAB files was built, or whether another method is used to apply any updates it may be doing something unexpected. It's possible it may be overwriting some of the files applied by the patch (although I think this is unlikely); or OSR1 may introduce something else that causes a problem that did not exist under 95 RTM but was fixed in OSR2... there are several possibilities.
  4. We need a little more information before anyone can help you. What are the full specs of the computer you're trying this on? Were any errors reported during the installation process? Are any errors reported when the machine reboots?
  5. WinRAR 3.93 is the last version with official 98-ME support. It's been a long time since I visited this issue, but IIRC, the installers for 3.93 and down to somewhere in the 3.7x range (this seems to be very close to what the OP said about 3.80, so all 3.7x builds may work) crash when run under 95. The program itself MAY still work under 95 up to 3.93 IF the unpacking and installation process were done manually, but I never tested this.
  6. I've been mostly offline for a couple of weeks and I return to find this. There aren't even words to describe the shock. I was just thinking that I haven't spoken with him in a couple of months and I should see how he's doing... and now I'll never be able to do that again. I was probably closer to him than anyone else here. I considered him one of my best friends. Unfortunately I never had the opportunity to meet him personally (although if I'd ever had occasion to go to New York we hoped to do so), but I've spoken with him on the phone and we have exchanged hundreds of emails over the years. He was always helpful and knowledgeable and never failed to help me with whatever issue I asked him about, from the small and insignificant to the overwhelming. I can't count the hours he probably spent helping me; fixing bugs, developing drivers, explaining arcane subjects so that I could understand them enough to help him... I always hoped that real life would eventually afford me the time to spend learning about programming and reverse engineering and that I would have his wisdom there to guide me along the way.. and now it's lost... Oh God this doesn't do things justice but I'm at a loss for any more words right now. Rudy, you will be missed.
  7. It sounds as if the "product type" ("SKU" in the more recent Windows versions) of your copy of the upgrade does not match the product type of the key you have. Are you certain they were bundled together? I'm assuming you have a valid, legal Product Key for your Win98 upgrade in this situation. You can find the information you want here, but it is intended for research and informational purposes, not as a means to circumvent licensing requirements. Otherwise this discussion cannot continue; we cannot promote "bypassing" licensing requirements, even for such an old system. Just keep this in mind for any further discussion.
  8. Let me be sure I'm understanding the problem... If you perform a factory vanilla installation of 2K Pro with SP4 on such a system, USB2 does not work? I assume these problem systems also have no USB1 controllers showing up in the Device Manager as well? If the above is the case, then chances are the problem is that the file USBD.SYS is not being copied during the installation of USB2 controllers. This file is not listed in the copy sections for USB2 controllers in USB.INF, but the USB2 drivers are still dependent on it. It is only listed in the copy sections for USB1 controllers, which at the time the INF was written, would also automatically exist on a USB2 system. On newer systems with no USB1 controllers to install, the file is not copied. This issue also affects Windows 9x. Verify that USBD.SYS exists on the resulting system. If not, then copy it manually to SYSTEM32\DRIVERS, reboot and see if the problem is cured. If USBD,SYS does exist on the resulting system, then verify that USBHUB20.SYS exists on the system. It seems to be called in both a copy and delete operation for the same USB2 Hub installation routine. If anyone can verify these conditions one way or another I may be able to sort it out... No problem. I'd just like to get to the bottom of this USB issue since I've seen it reported before and I can't understand what the problem is. It should be simple to fix!
  9. I've seen this USB problem mentioned before, and once again, I ask: How does your Windows 2000 even have any references to "Intel C610/X99 series chipset" or "Z68" or "X79" or X58" even? Unless you are using a modified installation source or are running an Intel Chipset INF update after installation these should not exist! The Intel Chipset INF updates include garbage do-nothing INF files for later Intel USB2 controllers under 2K (and for Intel USB3 controllers under XP). All these files do is name the controller with it's proper Intel designation, and link back to 2K's USB.INF, but use the UHCI (USB1.0) install section instead of loading a proper USB2 (EHCI) driver. They do NOT properly link to a USB2 driver (.SYS file). (Examine the [USB_2K.NT] (2K) install section versus the [USB2.NT] (XP) section in one of these Intel USB files, I used "patusb.inf" for example.) However, since these Intel INF files are dated newer than any existing USB.INF file under 2K, 2K chooses these garbage files by default and complains if you want to use the older-dated standard driver. Should work. If anyone really wants these controllers to be given their specific names, then someone will need to add all the Intel USB2 VEN&DEV ID's and their corresponding proper names to 2K's USB.INF, linking them to the proper EHCI driver install section. See NUSB for 98SE's USB2.INF for reference. This will also have the effect of making the updated USB.INF file have a newer date than the Intel ones, which should make 2K use it by default (although it may complain it's not signed, not sure if 2K does this like XP and later).
  10. Weird. The KB Article seems to only refer to 32-bit (although it may have been edited as such, never trust MS to leave KB articles alone); but the Security Bulletin clearly identifies 64-bit as being affected as well. Methinks something is missing here.. EDIT: Ugh, the KB# is apparently different for x64. The Security Bulletin also says .NET4 is affected; there are probably individual updates for each .NET version affected on each architecture.
  11. I would say yes, all updates and packages are important, even those that have been superseded. Non-superseded ones are a higher priority obviously though. Huh? KB2978114
  12. Welcome to MSFN! Regarding your project game machine, you should not encounter this with 2GB of RAM, but if you go above 2GB you may encounter issues with any games that run inside DOS boxes (WarCraft, WarCraft II, probably others I'm not familiar with). If you encounter this, rloew has a patch for this issue as well (DPMI memory limiter). I have a stockpile of high-end P4-era hardware myself, and I've had a couple such gaming machines "under construction" for years now. I never seem to be able to find the time to fool with them, or to be able to put together a group of friends for good old LAN gaming anymore.
  13. I took a look at this tool and it seems very impressive. This video is nice for anyone who's not familiar with it. I'm not sure I would ever use the "automated installer" part of it, but it seems to be a great way to build an archive of updates even if one uses them manually. However obviously it depends on how thorough the person building the database was... and whether or not the links in the database still work. Also probably doesn't include any updates that were not offered on WU or the Catalog (assuming some of these exist) such as anything in a "HotFix by request" category. At this point I suppose we only have The HotFix Share for anything like that... It seems one can somehow write custom Update lists; for someone familiar with the tool it might be possible to modify the working list from this thread to work with the tool.
  14. I've just spent the better part of two days fooling with getting fresh installs of Vista x86/x64 SP2 installed, connected to WU, checking for updates, then manually downloading all the listed fixes from the Update Catalog, and I still have to install them and recheck for anything new afterward. What a nightmare, lol. I guess it wouldn't be so bad if the service weren't (possibly) about to disappear, and if I didn't have other OS'es that need the same treatment before time runs out. Such a repository would be a great benefit, and it's good IMO to have a separate repository with official pre-EoL Vista updates along with the repository of post-EoL fixes. I think the Platform Update file you have is considered a "Supplement" to the Platform Update. I've not been able to figure out if the Platform Update was ever issued as a single package, because its KB number (971644) does not exist on WU, or whether it's just four component packages counted together (971512, 971513, 971514, 960362). Anyone with knowledge of this please chime in.
  15. Yes, this is important. We don't want any MP10 (or MP9) updates to get left out because the MP11 updates have the same KB numbers etc. Same goes for IE6/IE7/IE8 - all need to be preserved, not just the latest update for the latest version.
×
×
  • Create New...