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

    1,248
  • Donations

    $125.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

96 Excellent

About LoneCrusader

  • Rank
    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • OS
    98SE
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

5,521 profile views
  1. LoneCrusader

    Possible to Spoof XP x64 SP2 to report SP3?

    Changing all of these locations unfortunately didn't help. I assume, as Trip mentions, that something else is used to determine the Service Pack level or there is some other problem causing the game to fail silently. Any suggestions for running such a trace? I've also encountered other XP x64 specific issues before that I keep meaning to find solutions to but there never seems to be enough time to spend on it. The most annoying example so far besides this current one involves HP Printer driver packages that provide XP x86 drivers and Server 2003 x86/x64 drivers but contains a specific artificial block against XP x64. Manually unpacking the drivers and trying to manually install any of the files for those other three systems fails to produce a working printer. ~ Backing up a bit to provide more info and add what else I have learned so far; I started this topic thinking that a simple SP level spoof would cure the problem because at that time I had yet to encounter anything else (other than the deliberate printer exclusion) that works on XP x86 SP3 that failed to work under XP x64 SP2. The game in question is League of Legends, and at least as of fall of last year it was working properly under XP x64 SP2 despite an occasional nag screen about updating to SP3. Hadn't played the game since then, and now it's broken. The game uses at least two .EXE files, one for player interaction, matchmaking, and other game content; and the other for the actual game itself. (They have been pushing a "new client" program for a while now and have now made it mandatory; I assume this is probably involved in the problem, but it's not perfectly clear which "client" EXE is changed or both.) The first of these two EXE's still works fine. The second, the game client, fails silently when a game is launched from the first "interaction" client. The EXE is listed as a running process in the Task Manager, but nothing happens. This process has to be killed manually, which will then cause the "interaction" client to reload and report that the game is in progress and give the option to rejoin it. Doing so reenters the same loop. I examined the offending game client EXE file with Dependency Walker. Three delay-loaded dependencies are listed as missing. Two of these are in IESHIMS.DLL and WER.DLL; which according to everything I can find with Google are irrelevant for Windows XP and programs reporting these dependencies are "expected" to be intelligent enough to not use these functions under XP. Searched for these files anyway and ended up on a long wild goose chase to nowhere. I suppose one could rob them from Vista or 7 if necessary; but I doubt this is the issue. The third missing dependency is in DEVMGR.DLL. Pulled a copy of this file from XP x86 SP3 and dropped it into the game folder. No joy here (this was with the reg spoof above still in place as well). After all of this failed to work, I wondered if it might be video hardware related since the machine I was using had a somewhat "older" video card. Loaded the game on my Core i7/X79 chipset/GTX980 system and had the exact same problem under XP x64 SP2. Set up XP x86 SP3 on this system and the game runs perfectly fine (with some annoying crashes from time to time, but I'll wager they have not been spending much time properly debugging under XP anyhow). So, the game does in fact still work under XP x86 SP3. Somewhere along the way a difference between it and XP x64 SP2 has become an issue.
  2. LoneCrusader

    Possible to Spoof XP x64 SP2 to report SP3?

    Apparently I wasn't reading too clearly when I examined my registry. I'm not sure what happened, but the x86 and x64 values do indeed match at that location. These locations use the same "200" value in a DWORD format. HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Control\Windows HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet002\Control\Windows Also, at these locations HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion x64 has "Service Pack 2" as a string value. I suppose it's trial and error now to see if changing these will circumvent the problem... Thanks! I wish it were that simple. The program (a game I play infrequently) is already installed, and previously worked until they decided to change the base minimum specs and pushed an update that broke things. Not even sure this will cure the problem, as there is no error thrown, but it seemed like a good place to start since they specifically changed the prerequisites.
  3. Has anyone here tried spoofing XP x64 SP2 to report SP3? I've encountered an issue with a program that defines XP SP3 as the minimum requirement for operation under XP. It makes no distinction that no SP3 exists for x64 XP (which should be defined as a BUG, but most of you here know how such people react and the response you will generally get if you criticize something that doesn't work properly on an older system), and demands an update to Vista in order to run under an x64 OS. I turned up some pages with Google that discussed spoofing x86 SP2 to SP3, but the values in the given registry locations did not match the original x86 values under x64.
  4. Apparently the installer must be run in order to unpack the update. I'll investigate further on that later. But to answer your second question no, this update should not be used on your current machine. In general it's best not mix up other manufacturer's packages whenever you're setting up a system not using their components. Always start with installing the bare minimum of packages specific to your machine, then proceed to other solutions if and only if you have problems.
  5. LoneCrusader

    Steam Dropping XP&Vista Support

    While such a game is definitely in very poor taste, I'm not certain "public outrage" should be a sufficient justification to suppress freedom of speech or more specifically the freedom to create content, however distasteful it may be. The appropriate response is simply not to buy it, as opposed to silencing whoever produced it. Banning a game will not bring back the dead nor prevent evil/sick people from doing evil/sick things. But this is OT for this thread anyway.
  6. Why are you using a VIA update on a computer that doesn't have a VIA chipset? In any case please provide a link to this update and I will see what, if anything it changes that could affect USB. I have encountered at least one situation where an Intel USB1 controller on an MSI motherboard would cause Windows 95 to hang but did not affect Windows 98SE. The same VID&PID controller on a different motherboard did not have this issue, so it's possible the problem is purely hardware related. The few ATI/AMD chipsets I have encountered have not been 9x-friendly at all.
  7. LoneCrusader

    Planning to get this PC for a particular build

    In general I would advise anyone to avoid "prefab" (Dell/HP/Compaq/eMachines/etc.) computers for any type of gaming build and especially for Windows 9x builds. From my experience with certain Dell machines that originally came with XP, Dell seems to make subtle undocumented changes to the motherboards which can cause the onboard devices to not always function as expected despite having 9x-compatible drivers. Also they frequently use garbage OEM BIOS'es which not only severely limit the options available to the user but can even cause wide incompatibilities and annoyances when trying to run Windows 9x. Also avoid any Intel-branded motherboard later than the D875PBZ for this same reason. Intel chipset-based boards by say Gigabyte, MSI, etc. are fine, just as long as they use AWARD BIOS or something else besides Intel. I personally like P4's and have a whole stockpile of P4-compatible hardware. But if you're going to do this, don't settle for anything less than 3GHz and 4GB of RAM, especially if you plan to dual-boot with XP.
  8. LoneCrusader

    ATI Radeon X1800XT for Windows 9x?

    Really? Good. Now, for the sake of posterity and to assist anyone else who might have trouble finding this information, please describe in detail: 1) what steps you took in your experiment(s), 2) what specific driver version(s) you experimented with, 3) which specific non-9x-supported ATI card(s) you tried modifying the drivers to work with, 4) what specific other hardware was used during the test(s) including motherboard, CPU, RAM, etc., 5) which specific version of Windows 9x you were using in your experiment(s), 6) what version of DirectX were you running, 7) what other drivers, if any, were installed on the system at the time of the experiment, 8) what other software was installed, if any, that might be relevant to the issue, and 9) any other information that could be helpful to someone to reproduce your results. When you have done this, then we will know just how thorough your input is on the subject. Even more interesting. Please provide some direct links to pages documenting experiments on the subject. I highly doubt the number will approach 20, much less 100. A bunch of people saying "can I do this?" to be answered with "no it won't work" does not count as an "experiment." Too young? Not likely, but irrelevant. So, "Omega Rad" drivers have been "really good at getting newer cards to run on 98"? OK, please list for us which specific newer cards they provide support for that Catalyst 6.2 did not and which specific version to look for? And, JFYI, Windows 9x can and does run just fine and "fully work" on plenty of motherboards with PCI Express chipsets with a few unofficial updates. Many games that came out just before everyone started dropping 9x support can very well benefit from more improved or more modern hardware, whether it be a newer video card or more than the standard amount of RAM. WarCraft III and Rise of Nations are two specific examples that I've played myself. I've seen both lag during big battles when running on a 3GHz P4 with 2GB of RAM. I could not imagine running either one of these games on such an antique as you seem to think is "adequate" to build a proper Windows 9x machine. And, also FYI, I can have 4GB of RAM "stable" under Windows 9x, and so can anyone else.
  9. LoneCrusader

    ATI Radeon X1800XT for Windows 9x?

    Maybe not. But if everyone here had always taken that attitude about experimentation then many of the things we now know to be working would have remained hidden. Don't be so ready to rule out things before they have been tried. Now yes, in this particular case I doubt that any ATI cards newer than the X850 XT PE can be used. However I also don't know how much effort was ever put into changing that either. If no one had taken the time to try with nVidia, then we would have no 7xxx card support. Don't be surprised if few here share this opinion. My opinion is that there is no good reason to artificially limit your hardware. Why slow any computing experience down on purpose? Most all of these "older programs" will benefit from higher performance, other than maybe some DOS game that requires slow CPU cycles. DOSBox is the answer for this.
  10. LoneCrusader

    Last Versions of Software for Windows 98SE

    Despite claiming compatibility, the newer versions of CPU-Z are missing the VXD file that is required for the program to do anything under 9x. I recently tried to use the newer version of CPU-Z + the VXD from an older build and if I'm remembering correctly I got a BSOD. I don't remember offhand what the system specs were, but it was a "newer" machine.
  11. You can add the Streaming Proxy manually in the same way you added PCI Bus to your setups. In my experience it always gets reinstalled when a new Audio device is installed anyway but I don't have any USB Audio devices, only add-in cards.
  12. No. As far as I know there are no .VXD drivers for anything USB. And no .VXD drivers for anything HD Audio either; hence why we need a permanent solution to the 98SE WDM Audio problem.
  13. Issues when using an audio device with WDM (.SYS) drivers as opposed to 95-style (.VXD) drivers seem to have been around for a long time. I turned up this old thread elsewhere where they were having trouble getting audio output to be produced and volume control to be available when using WDM drivers. Despite the title it is hardly "resolved." Anyone else here experienced issues with WDM-driver audio devices? Did you find a solution? I've seen some issues myself but found no immediate solution other than to use the 95 ,VXD drivers when available. We need to find a solution for this, not a workaround. (especially if any "newer" audio devices are ever to be backported )
  14. I understand completely. I'll always prefer Windows 95 OSR2 over any later version. I didn't have good experiences with 98FE so for a long time I resisted using even 98SE; but once I was forced to use it for something I wanted to do I found that 98SE works well for the few things that 95 won't do. You're lucky that you've been able to get these systems to run with so much RAM. I have never been able to get a 9x system to boot with more than 512MB no matter how many tweaks I tried. The only time I saw 98SE boot with more than 512MB was when I experimented with an older version of the Unofficial Service Pack. It booted with 1GB but it was really unstable and crashed after a few minutes. This issue seems to vary widely across different hardware configurations.
×