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. 


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by LoneCrusader

  1. I believe you may have assumed more from my reply than was intended. I have NOT used MULTCORE, nor do I have a copy unfortunately. It may or may not work with Windows 95; it is most likely untested in that environment unless Rudy made any tests in the past few years (most of his software was originally designed with only 98/ME in mind; only after I became closer to him and began helping test and debug things [and requesting 95 support specifically] did he spend much time on 95). Let me also clarify; any "application" you wish to use in this context would have to actually be compiled !WITH! the MULTCORE SDK. An application generically designed to use multiple processors, say on a later NT-based OS, will NOT use multiple processors under 9x without being REcompiled MULTCORE-aware. AFAIK, MULTCORE is a unique 9x-specific implementation, NOT a 9x-port of some existing NT capability. I've never had any issues whatsoever with HyperThreading. Never had to disable it to make 9x run either.
  2. Ah yes, have several of those. Loved the cases. I used to buy them just to get the cases and use them for building newer machines.
  3. Do you mean that you have NO USB ports at all from the beginning, or you DO have them BEFORE you install NUSB? AFAIK the X99 chipset boards do not have USB1 controllers, only USB2/USB3. This can lead to a situation where USBD.SYS is not copied to \WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS during installation. The USB2 drivers depend on it, but do not force it to be copied, expecting it to already be there because of the USB1 install routine. Try copying USBD.SYS to the correct location if it isn't there (but I think NUSB does that anyway... ) If the latest NUSB, using a WinME file, required another WinME file, don't you think it would have been included? Why would you install a VIA hardware-specific USB2 driver on a system that (as far as we know, and most likely, being Intel-chipset-based) does not have a VIA USB2 controller?
  4. It's been a long time since I worked with ATI cards and Windows 95, other than some experiments with an XP-era laptop (Mobility Radeon) which produced very weird results and I never solved the issues. As someone else pointed out above, I know for a fact that the Radeon 8500 does work fine under 95; I have the drivers CDROM that came with one and have used it. IIRC, the 9250 had a working package as well. Since the last 98 driver is of course still a VXD, then theoretically it should work under 95 as well, and thus theoretically all the same cards working under 98 should work under 95. There may be other incompatibilities or dependencies though. The Control Panels/SysTray shortcuts and such will definitely not work under 95.
  5. As others pointed out, I don't think Windows 9x can use WDM graphics drivers. I read somewhere years ago that video drivers must be VXD, but I no longer remember the source. We were able to load the HD Audio BUS driver (HDAUDBUS.SYS) that enumerates the actual HDA audio output device, but none of the actual HDA device drivers (Microsoft/Realtek/Sigmatel tested) would load, despite the fact that all required WDM functions were satisfied. Either the system would boot to the desktop and no sound was produced (MS driver on originally supported hardware), or the system would die in BSOD's and never reach the desktop (Realtek,Sigmatel). We were unable to debug these crashes. Work was also done on loading USB3 drivers under 9x. No success here either; Rudy commented that these crashes appeared to be the result of "Initialization has already failed and the Driver is cleaning up." From my understanding of MULTCORE, any program you wish to use it with must be compiled with "awareness" of MULTCORE in order for it to actually use multiple cores. (i.e.; You can't just install MULTCORE to your machine and expect any program(s) to simply automatically USE multiple cores. You must have the sources for, and be able to recompile, any programs you wish to use it.)
  6. Officially compatible/supported - no. However Windows 95 (OSR2.5 + FIX95CPU + XUSBSUPP) seems to run just fine on various Socket 775 boards. Your issue will be a lack of drivers for USB2 controllers, integrated HD Audio, and possibly integrated LAN depending on the chipset used. If you're prepared to use add-in cards instead of onboard, then you may bypass most of these issues. The unofficial NVidia drivers do work on 95, minus the control panels and such. These can be used with early PCI-E video cards, although extensive testing has not been done on the stability of such a setup.
  7. Funny you should mention this, it reminded me that Rudy once mentioned that I had made some DOS-scripted thing I was working on (FIX95CPU maybe..?) written less readable by changing the default color from Red to Blue.. After reading your post and looking at the page for a while, I wasn't really happy with the blue (or dark purple visited links) myself. ...So, the "readability" fix is in. Just for you, jaclaz. Had to dig deep back (20 years! ) into my old Starfleet Academy "Romulan" days to find a more suitable shade of blue that we used back then on our page. Not a fan of amber myself, but it may show up somewhere later, simply for the fact that it is viewer-friendly.
  8. A heads up for those who are interested; I have uploaded a few more pieces of Rudy's work to my site. These are mostly things that weren't advertised or well known.
  9. Intel-branded motherboards later than the D875PBZ are garbage for Windows 9x. The proprietary Intel BIOS is useless for configuring anything of importance, and many things are not configured in a 9x-friendly way, leading to various odd incompatibilities and errors. Third-party boards based on Intel chipsets are usually fine, especially if they use AWARD BIOS. Several years ago rloew and I spent many hours experimenting with some Intel boards similar to this one.. in fact one was a D945GCCR. Also included a D945GTP, a DP43TF, DP45SG, and a couple of others I can't remember offhand. All of these exhibited some strange issues under 9x; resource conflicts, problems using video cards, hangs when loading USB2 drivers, etc etc. Third-party boards (Gigabyte/MSI/etc) using AWARD BIOS based on these same chipsets did not exhibit these problems.
  10. I received one of these as well. I assume a spammer created an account and used the PM system to send out solicitations. This does not mean that the spammer actually knows your email address, he just abused the PM system. When I logged in the offending message had already been wiped out, so nothing to worry about. Hopefully someone higher up will give us a word on what happened, it's above my pay grade...
  11. Very convenient to omit the option to leave things as is, so long as it pushes the "rebranding" agenda, no? Yes, I've stated my opinion clearly. And it was not my intention to restart the debate; I simply pointed out the fault in the choices. But, since you apparently have decided to make a "snide" comment about it, complete with innuendo regarding the "thoughts/intent/motivation" of those who might oppose the viewpoint you're pushing it should be pointed out that we also have our share of those who have loudly, and clearly, and repeatedly "browbeaten" (to borrow a very good term that was used before) roytam1 toward taking this action, despite the fact that he does not see it as a problem. Also, to clarify another point, roytam1 also indicated that branding was needed to go along with any name change. So there are two criteria at work here; not just a name that he approves of, but also corresponding branding he approves of to go along with it. Anyone can spout off names, but there are very few, if any, of us who can produce "branding" of a quality high enough to correspond with the product. Now, I certainly have better things to do with my time, and no desire to spend any of it on this issue again. I've said what needs to be said up to this point. But do not behave as if any who oppose your viewpoint on the issue do not have the right to voice that opinion and/or point out the fact that this "election" is rigged. The one consolation is that, in the end, roytam1 makes the decisions.
  12. This is subjective, depending on which side of the "great debate" you come down on. Those who are advocating for (or going along with those who wish to) changing the name have created the poll(s), and as such have purposely omitted the option to leave things as-is.
  13. "RoyTamFoxMoon" was never intended to be a serious suggestion for consideration, and roytam1 specifically objected to names based as such, so it should not be an option. Also, while I'm sure someone will object to this, in the interest of democracy, there's no option for "just leave the names alone and quit rehashing this every few months."
  14. Not a bad idea, although true slipstreaming is better IMO. We can't distribute custom slipstreamed builds though.. so any solution at all might be an improvement.
  15. OK, so my intent was not to "make fun" of you or anyone else. The point was to try and get you to realize that the article you linked (and seem to believe is somehow an authority on the subject) is strictly an opinion piece. Just because it shows up on some tech website does not elevate this type of stuff to "gospel." Just because any given "forked browser" project is forked from earlier code than contained in the current version of the original browser does not automatically make it "less secure." This is disingenuous. It's easy to create doubt based on a statement such as "it's based on a much older version." But that statement does not take into consideration what exactly has been changed in the "almighty newer version." For all anyone knows, there could have been no changes whatsoever to the actual "security" code. All changes could be to the GUI, etc. And to go a step further, the "almighty newer version" may have even developed a gaping security hole that didn't exist in the older code. "Newer is better" = chronological snobbery. OK, so, once again, if you wish to base your opinion on things like you linked above, be my guest. However, I fail to understand how you can be critical of "browser forks" and "smaller groups of unknown developers" when you wish "to see more from Retrozilla." RetroZilla is a browser fork, of a far, far older version of Firefox code than that used by Basilisk, Pale Moon, etc., and it is created by a small, small group of "unknown" (except to those of us here) developers. And, since those selfsame developers are "wasting time with several forks of Firefox for XP," I'd also like to see a list of those "3 or 4 main well known browsers ready, working and updated perfectly for security issues" on Windows XP.
  16. My hosting provider has been making a lot of changes lately, some of which directly prevented me from further updating the section devoted to Rudy's work for a few weeks. I can make changes again now, but I'm not certain what the issue with the certificate is. I can't see any options anywhere that I can control that affect it. So far the only solution to bypass the security warning seems to be to ensure you're using http:// to access it rather than https://. I have modified the link in the earlier post as such.
  17. FUD rubbish. Stuff like this is garbage, just another crackpot's opinion.
  18. @sparty411, @Omntech I'm aware there is some degree of history and disagreement between you. Both of you have been a bit out of line with some of your comments. I'm glad that this issue has passed now, but it still must be addressed. sparty411, you were out of line to ask Omntech "who are you to..." back during the "great browser renaming war." Some of us who have been here for many years could put the same question to you as well, but it still wouldn't be right. I pointed it out back then, but I mention it here again for reference for anyone who may not know the full history, and because I feel this previous situation created a degree of animosity that helps to explain the current situation. I am aware of the response Omntech posted to that statement that was removed, and it was definitely out of line as well, to be clear. Another staff member judged that to be the best course of action, hoping that my post would be the end of it and you both would cool down, which seemed to be the case for a while. It should be noted as well that it doesn't come across very well here, at MSFN, and in this community, to spread "FUD" regarding older operating systems, older software, and those who choose to use them. Our general philosophy is that everyone has the right to use their computer as they see fit, and they have the right to not have to listen to others criticizing their decisions as such, which, regrettably, seems to be the norm across most of the internet. Let's celebrate the freedom to use our systems as we see fit here, not turn it into any other online forum where we refer to other people's choices as "asinine" and ask them why they want to do things instead of helping them do it. Omntech, I would ask that you please direct your arguments toward the ideas or situations that you disagree with rather than attacking the people who are presenting them. It's not acceptable (or necessary) to call others names to get your point across. Personal attacks cheapen the effect of a good argument. Yes, I "Liked" the post in question above. It was my gut reaction as I disagreed with the post you were responding to. But while I agree in sentiment with many of the things you've said, we must remain a place where ideas are debated rather than a place where personal attacks and insults rule and distort the power of the argument. While it may feel good to lash out at your enemies as such, it reduces the power of persuasion for anyone else reading it who was not directly involved. - This last statement is not really directed personally at either of you, but a general statement of principle. We should not judge someone solely by the number of their posts, or attempt to brand someone as a troll simply because they join and take a different viewpoint during a polarizing discussion. Polarizing situations often bring out those who might not otherwise speak, but this does not allow anyone to simply paint them with a broad brush as a troll or a flamer. Only time will reveal whether or not a member will become a contributor, a leecher, a clueless observer, or a troll, or anything in between. So let's move on from this, and not have any more such distractions.
  19. MSFN is not the place for requests of this nature. Requesting or providing links to copyrighted, unredistributable material is forbidden, no matter how "old" the software in question may be.
  20. You can "slipstream" Rudy's SATA patch by placing a patched copy of EDSI_506.PDR and his SATA.INF file in the \WIN98 folder along with the CABs. Any time you need to include an "updated file" where an older version exists in the CABs, you can simply place it in the same folder as the CABs and SETUP will use the unpacked copy instead of extracting the one from the CABs. AFAIK you can also drop drivers into this folder (like SATA.INF) but I haven't tested it myself. Or, you can actually slipstream it, given that Rudy's 9x slipstreaming tools have been uploaded here. Some time back I spent a long time trying to fool with an Intel motherboard that had an AMD chipset that I had several of... a D102GGC2 to be precise. If the system you're referring to has the same or very similar hardware, do not waste your time. Not even Rudy could make it work on that board (I actually sent him one to try.) This chipset (or at least Intel's own implementation of it, with their garbage BIOS) is utterly useless for Windows 9x. I've also seen issues with SDD breaking Plug & Play, but in my case it was on Windows 95 OSR2.x. I never found a solution.. I'd have to find and look back over some old notes to see if I ever learned anything useful about it. IIRC, VBE9x can be used with DOS Boxes, provided you always run them in full screen mode.
  21. The NForce 4 board was an anomaly for me, lol, I don't usually use AMD-based boards since back in the K6-2 days. Not had good luck with 9x on that board, or an earlier NForce 3 board either. device=c:\windows\himem.sys /machine:1 You might still try my suggestion at some point, but given that the problem seems to have gone away after you changed drives it may not be related. If you try that configuration again, use rloew's SATA patch first.
  22. rloew's patches can be found here. As for the slow booting issue, I've seen a similar problem before. It may be a problem with Gate A20 line control when loading HIMEM.SYS during boot. I had the same issue on an NForce 4 board and found a solution with rloew's help. Add a line to your CONFIG.SYS file for HIMEM.SYS and use the "/MACHINE:1" setting and it may solve the problem. If you need further reference, look here.
  • Create New...