LoneCrusader

No matter the topic title from way back whenever, no GeForce 8xxx or higher card has proper working drivers for Windows 9x. Just because someone added them "hopefully" to the INF file and created a thread about it does not magically produce positive results. Discussion of flashing one card to another is generally off-topic for this thread, but I don't think anyone would have a problem with it as long as it involved cards that were actually 9x compatible, In this case, both cards in question are incompatible, and therefore very much off-topic despite the initial discussion of them being well intentioned and likely arising from not knowing they were incompatible in the first place. Enough of this.

Thanks for the info. For completeness could you also list the correct location for patching x64 version 5.2.3790.3959? I note that the same byte sequence occurs several times throughout the file.. how does one know which instance specifically requires patching? The SETUPAPI patch allows one to modify certain files on the installation source prior to SETUP.. some can be edited without problems (i.e. TXTSETUP.SIF, DOSNET.INF that are used by nLite) but others such as LAYOUT.INF cannot be modified without causing errors during SETUP. FDV's patch for this works on XP x86 but I had no way to port it to XP x64.

Patch is there for SYSSETUP.DLL but not for SETUPAPI.DLL. I've not been able to locate a patch for the x64 version of this file, and the byte sequence for the x86 version doesn't match even though they're the same build number. Anyone have information on this? Thanks!

Thanks, I looked over the updated .htm file. Looks like a lot of new additions. I assume a bunch of these came from the NT5.x Updates URL drop by abbodi1406. But I also am interested in the process (how and why) of what has changed; for example if one of the new updates completely supersedes/replaces a previous update that was in a previous version of the Update Pack. An old example from 5eraph's thread at RyanVM: Keeping track of all these things can be a pain.. I know all too well from doing my own slipstreamed builds of earlier Windows versions. But it's nice to be able to follow all the steps that lead to the finished product. Also, what do you mean by this? What was the limitation and what was the solution? Thanks!

Do you happen to have any documentation/changelogs for the updates you have made? It's always nice to know specifically what has been done.

It's been a long time since I've worked on these. (Wow, almost 8 years.. where does the time go?) I believe x79 was the highest chipset covered by the version of the Intel INF files I used as a base. I see some x79 references in the files, so this chipset should be covered. I never got around to working on x99 or higher. Virtually impossible to find the time for any of my projects these days.

Well, I finally solved it about a year ago in one of those rare instances when I actually manage to find time to work on my long-suffering never-completed projects. You can stop the process that "deselects" these components by editing their respective .INF files and commenting out the "ValidateProc" line in each of their sections. Extract MOTOWN.INF and MMOPT.INF from precopy2.cab if they don't already exist in the main \WIN95 folder. Find the sections [media_acm], [Rec], [Vol], [media_clips], and [CDPlayer]**. Comment out (place a semicolon at the beginning of) the line in each section that begins with ValidateProc. (i.e. ;ValidateProc) Save changes. This should solve the problem. ** = I don't remember anything offhand about the [CDplayer] section; or whether or not this is required. I may not have looked into it further at the time, but just handled it similarly to the others once I figured out how to prevent them from being deselected.

Very depressing news.. I had feared for the worst for some time now, given that he had not been active here, and had not responded to messages I sent previously. Den was one of the few people "online" who I considered a true friend, and I will sorely miss his presence here. While I had not spoken much with him over the past couple of years (where does the time go? ), he was always helpful and always ready to give clear insight on whatever issue we discussed. He was very wise, and not only on the subject of computers. While not the subject of this forum, he understood historical and political nuances that befuddle most. I believe my first interaction with him revolved around problems with a flash drive.. and IIRC by the time it was over the discussion included rloew and jaclaz as well. Now of these greats only jaclaz remains with us. I never expected to become one of the "old ones" - yet here I am. My pitiful knowledge can never live up to the bar set by Den and others, and I will never be the "diplomat" that he could be when dealing with differing viewpoints and difficult members. I know that this forum and the collection of knowledge that it represents mattered to him, so let us all work to continue and preserve it in memory of him. Rest in peace my friend. You will not be forgotten.

I'd like to see something like this as well.. I hate the fact that every browser is trying to become Chrome, but unless some major player in the "industry" bucks against it, it will continue no matter what any individual user likes or dislikes. I'm no programmer, but I just can't imagine it is really that hard to produce a sane UI for a program. Worth mentioning, this Chrome derivative does seem to have some very small measure of UI customization support..

Done. You all should review the posts here and in the original thread for continuity and edit if necessary.

Also seeing this on Firefox 52.9.0esr; spoofing FF 68.7 on Win7 as the User Agent seems to fix it, for now.

There are no working USB2 or USB-HID (Keyboard, Mouse, etc) drivers for Windows 95 available in the wild (rloew and I spent many, many hours searching and testing to no avail); so this could place a major roadblock in your path if you have no PS/2 or other legacy ports.* As pointed out earlier, even if a device provides Legacy KB/Mouse emulation during boot, once USB1 controller drivers are loaded in 95 this is lost. You can circumvent this to a degree by not loading USB1 drivers, but if you wish to use removable USB drives with your installation then this is not a viable alternative. I once managed to get through the device detection prompts on a system with no PS/2 ports by overloading the keystroke buffer with "Enter" presses before the KB emulation was lost.. but this still is not helpful if one cannot control the resulting installation once the desktop is reached. * - But such things do exist. rloew managed to backport some of these things from 98 to 95 for me. I hope to eventually pack these things up with an installer to set everything up, but I never seem to be able to find the time to work on it (or any of my other computer projects) anymore.

NUSB (version 3.3 or 3.5 recommended) package will cover the USB2 drivers as well as add USB storage support. The rest should be here (including the original Intel provided USB2 controller driver if you prefer).

No, I can't claim that title. Or at least it was never given to me, lol. I suppose I can be considered as such for the 9x forum, but unfortunately I can't take on such a role for the older-NT family as well. I'm doing well to manage to keep up a daily check in on things.. RL issues are really taking a toll on all of my "computing" endeavors these days. - (And while I agree it may not be ideal to have so many "pinned" threads, I don't see the need to start changing things just for the sake of changing them. It's been that way for a long time and hasn't been an issue... Why the sudden "wave of discontent?" .. not to say that it could not/should not be improved, but just saying..)

Sorry for the late reply, and I can't really offer much help... IMO, it's probably a hardware-specific issue with your system. But... By chance, when you encountered this issue with XUSBSUPP were you attempting to shut down with a USB drive still attached to the system? If so, this may be the culprit.. I rather doubt it in a way as I believe it would have been manifested somewhere before during all these years. But I do know that most, if not all, of the "power management" code was stripped from the RLUSB drivers (originating from Microsoft UMSS sample source for 98) as a first step towards Windows 95 compatibility back when the project began. It would be interesting to see if having a USB drive connected or not makes any difference on your system. Also, if you wish to experiment you might try using other (older) versions of the USB driver stack files (USBD.SYS/USBHUB.SYS/UHCD.SYS/OPENHCI.SYS) from the other Microsoft HotFixes to see if any of them do not exhibit the issue. It's possible one of the "fixes" breaks something on specific hardware configurations...