Jump to content

LoneCrusader

Moderator
  • Posts

    1,451
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7
  • Donations

    $700.00 
  • Country

    United States

Posts posted by LoneCrusader

  1. On 3/13/2022 at 6:48 PM, Jody Thornton said:

    ...might be a clever idea, especially for those that choose forked browsers for UI customization above all else...

    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.. :unsure:

    • Like 1
  2. 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. :no:

  3. 15 hours ago, Tripredacus said:

    However, this is managed by the "forum leader" and is not usually handled by globals or supers. I believe the XP forum leader is @LoneCrusader

    No, I can't claim that title. Or at least it was never given to me, lol. :angel

    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..)

    • Like 1
  4. On 12/15/2020 at 9:56 AM, assenort said:

    Immediately after its installation, the computer began constantly refusing to shut down, instead displaying and getting stuck at "Please wait while your computer shuts down" message (red letters on blue screen, hope you recall what I am referring to, if not see pic below). This annoyed me to no extent, and I had to uninstall the XUSBSUPP pack even though it had excellent functionality. After the uninstall, the shutdown problem disappeared*.

    After that I installed the half-baked pack created by PassingBy, which did not cause problems with shutting down the machine, and seem to be working fine. Only recently I discovered that the pack has serious deficiency with both functionality and un-installation, hence my first post in this topic.

    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...

    • Upvote 1
  5. On 12/13/2020 at 7:35 AM, assenort said:

    the USB pack install its own patched nodriver.inf file in

    C:\WINDOWS\INF

    C:\WINDOWS\OPTIONS\CAB

    so my question is - should I leave this file as is, or try to replace it with a previous version?

     

    Obviously, if you want to remove the entire pack, you should delete all files modified by it and replace them with the versions from the corresponding previous update(s).

    This pack was long ago superseded by XUSBSUPP; I see you are aware of it...

    On 12/13/2020 at 2:02 PM, assenort said:

    Thank you, sir, but this does not address the problem I currently experience and for which I seek resolution.

    On a side note, I am well aware of the USB mass storage pack created by RLoew and LoneCrusader. This pack has excellent functionality, however it triggers the shut-down bug on my machine.

    Regards.

    What shut-down bug? I am not aware of any such bug, you seem to be the only one who has this issue?

    • Upvote 1
  6. 22 hours ago, Goodmaneuver said:

    If you use WinME straight out of the box there is a 32GB limit on USB without updating the USB drivers. The internal native drivers had this limit that is why I said the SYS files need to be updated in earlier post but I wanted to change wording a bit on the particular post you have shown as it is not that good. I tried the early pure ME build and I know that 32GB was the limit but it is not an important issue.

    Updating which USB drivers, specifically? The only drivers directly associated with USB storage are USBSTOR.SYS and USBMPHLP.PDR. Neither of these has ever received an "update" of any kind from Microsoft for Windows ME.

    Both of these files are directly used, UNMODIFIED,* in NUSB for Windows 98.
    * = USBMPHLP.PDR requires a "downversion" patch to allow it to load under 98. This has no effect whatsoever on the rest of the code.

    As far as I know, you are the only person to ever make such a claim about this "32GB USB limit." If there were such a limit, it would have been widely reported by now.

    15 hours ago, siria said:

    => What happens when writing "too much" to a huge USB-disk?? Which was partitioned with some tool on a NOT updated XP-SP3 or early Vista or Win7? Perhaps data on this complete partition lost? Or possibly even complete HDD with all partitions lost??

    => Would I even notice data are lost after writing "too much"? Any error message? Before or only after too late? Or just silently messed, and some data still work, but all 'overflow' will be lost?

    => Mainly: is there any chance to check *beforehand* if USB-HDD partitions are "too big"??
    .

    If I had the time to dig through the forum, and through all of the correspondence I exchanged with rloew over the years, I'm sure I could find some more specific numbers. So the following is strictly my opinion, based on some experience and a lot of communication with the "expert" so to speak. So, YMMV.

    In short I would not worry about any FAT32 partition 450GB or smaller over USB, and even that number is only because IIRC he said somewhere that SCANDISK would choke at somewhere around 470GB. (USBSTOR.SYS/USBMPHLP.PDR do not suffer from a ~137GB limit as ESDI_506.PDR does) If you don't plan to use 9x SCANDISK or DEFRAG on the partition, then that number can be pushed up close to 1TB. At/around 1TB there is another bug in VFAT.VXD, which rloew also had a patch for, but I would probably not venture into this territory without the entire TBPLUS package, which unfortunately only exists for 98SE (and not for 95, 98FE, or ME).

  7. 21 hours ago, Goodmaneuver said:

    ...SIS 5597/98...

    I've never had any experience with this chipset, so I can't speak from any experience with it. Maybe the SATA adapter did in fact cause something to be "reported differently" to the BIOS which allowed a drive connected through it to boot where a similar larger drive directly connected would not. It's impossible to know. But I would definitely not place any faith in such an adapter "providing" 48-bit LBA support where the original BIOS does not. Only thorough testing with multiple writes + retrievals of data beyond the barrier can prove whether or not the issue is resolved, and even then the results most likely only apply to that extremely SPECIFIC hardware configuration.

    21 hours ago, Goodmaneuver said:

    If both PATCHATA and PTCHSATA patch the same file then if you install both patches then it would only work for the last driver patch that is installed, you would think.

    Not really, if you understand how file patching works. Each patch fixes a specific issue in a specific section of code. These can easily be mutually exclusive.

    Remember that even Microsoft HotFixes are "cumulative" - fixes included in previous versions are still present when a new issue is fixed.

    It is worth noting for the record here that the "most complete" / "ultimate" patched version of ESDI_506.PDR exists in the TBPLUS package. This version includes everything from the two mentioned packages plus several other fixes.

    21 hours ago, Goodmaneuver said:

    Not all RLoew products are available like File64. I have the demo and it stops several games starting but no full package available.

    I know. :( There are several that even I do not have. I'm hoping that Jason does not give up on expanding the site he set up for his dad's work.

  8. 16 hours ago, Goodmaneuver said:

    You did not believe me before but it is true the SATA hardware uses 48bit addressing and I have tested it on a SIS 5597/98 motherboard. A 500GB SATA drive booted with this early motherboard with the IDE to SATA plug in board but read my link I showed.

    You may have booted with it, but did you actually verify that you were able to access and actually USE the entire disk beyond the ~137GB barrier, WITHOUT corruption or errors? There's a big difference in being able to boot with a newer, larger drive and actually being able to use it as intended/expected. AFAIK, there has never been an issue with "booting" from these larger drives on older systems, the problems only arise when you attempt to write data and/or access beyond the limit.

    It is my understanding that the adapters that are the subject of this thread only provide a translation of the data streams from SATA->PATA "protocol" and vice versa. This is only a bridge across the two ports to connect a drive of one type to a connector of another type. These intermediate bridges cannot override the actual PATA/SATA onboard controller and/or the BIOS, through which the OS must communicate with the drives in question. If the HDD controller and/or the BIOS does not know how to address a "larger" hard drive, then a bridge that simply changes the drive type connector cannot cure this deficiency.

    An add-in controller card that has its own HDD controller and ports however, is another thing entirely.

    16 hours ago, Goodmaneuver said:

    RLoew ... PTCHSATA.EXE ...will not eliminate the 137GB Hard Drive limit ...

    Let's not further confuse rloew's tools. PATCHATA removes the 137GB barrier. PTCHSATA allows use of Native SATA controllers (i.e. not "Legacy" / "IDE" / "PATA"). Only the first is necessary on an IDE/PATA only system. The second will probably be needed in addition to the first on a SATA only or SATA/PATA mixed system. Both of these patches only apply to the built-in Windows 9x ESDI_506.PDR driver, and will not help you if you are using another manufacturer-provided driver, whether it's IAA or manufacturer-provided SATA controller drivers.

  9. 11 hours ago, Cixert said:

    Well, it's been almost 2 months, I get to install Adobe Primetime on Firefox 52 ESR but in the plugins list the message "Adobe Primetime will be installed shortly" appears continuously.
    Any ideas to activate it and remove the message?

    Despite the fact that it is deemed unnecessary in the main instructions, and that other members here report success without this step, I have always had to include it to get this working on systems that I have set up:

    On 8/5/2017 at 12:44 AM, LoneCrusader said:

    I just went through this same problem on a machine I built for someone else. I kept getting the "will be installed shortly" message until I manually set 51.0 in the %VERSION% section of the update URL and manually forced it to check for updates. Then it magically decided that it would work...:wacko:

     

     

    • Like 1
  10. On 11/9/2020 at 9:10 AM, Tripredacus said:

    The first question is what the maximum disk size is that I can clone and extend to that will work with Windows 98 FE? Shiva currently lives on a 20 GB IDE disk, and the disk in the new system is 250 GB, which I presume is too large.

    Provided you 1) use rloew's PATCHATA to update ESDI_506.PDR on your Win98 installation (and your intended hardware does in fact support 48-bit LBA), or 2) keep your 98 partition limited to ~120GB at the beginning of the drive, then no, there is no problem using the 250GB drive. If the larger disk is connected via SATA, you will most likely also need rloew's SATA patch.

    re: 32GB limit;
    This is totally nonexistent. Windows XP (2K as well?) and later impose a false limitation and prevent you from creating a FAT32 partition larger than 32GB, but they manage larger FAT32 partitions created by other software/OS'es just fine. No such false limitation exists under 9x. I believe the origin of this falsehood can be traced back to an old KB article that claimed that the size of a FAT32 volume under Windows 95 was limited to 32GB.. but this was never true to begin with.

    • Like 1
  11. 3 hours ago, Goodmaneuver said:

    These IDE to SATA adapters take care of the 48bit addressing because they are using ATA-6 or 7. There are a number of caveats see here and a few of my posts above and below https://msfn.org/board/topic/180571-hd-ac97-audio-beyond-the-137gb128gib-barrier/?do=findComment&comment=1175057 The 48bit extender unofficial driver for 98 may still need to be needed though to read the larger drives properly - checked in Paragon Partition Manager -  just have to see when connecting a non boot drive that has been formatted if you have all that is required to use the larger drives. I was running with the original ESDI_506.PDR until just recently as well so I do not know but I have installed the above mentioned driver for WinME and it made a difference.  If you update to use Rudolph Loew's PATCHMEM.ZIP then ESDI_506.PDR is updated/patched only if you use the /M option.
     

    Aside from the other issues in this post... PATCHMEM has absolutely nothing to do with ESDI_506.PDR, or SATA drives, or 48-bit LBA, or ATA in general, or anything remotely related to or resembling a hard drive whatsoever for that matter. :whistle:

    A standard SATA to IDE/IDE to SATA adapter will most definitely not provide compatibility with 48-bit LBA drives on a system that does not already support this in the BIOS.

    Where does this stuff come from? :wacko:

    --

    Now, as to the original subject. These types of adapters are now very common and cheap.. however the quality can vary widely. Do your homework on manufacturers and especially chipsets used.

    The Intel Application Accelerator does provide 48-bit LBA (beyond 137GB) compatibility for Windows 98/ME on certain supported chipsets, but it is locked down to these chipsets and cannot be used on "post-9x support" systems. IIRC, rloew said that there was a bug or some other limitation somewhere in the IAA, but I no longer remember offhand what exactly he said about it. It's probably stated somewhere here on the forum if one takes the time to search.

  12. 3 hours ago, jasongeo2 said:

    Thank you for the kind words about my father. Rudy has two sons. Jason loew is his blood son and we have the same mothers and I am Tony Sotomayor. Rudy was my step dad. I miss him so much.And Im glad to see how he impressed his fellow programmers on this thread and how much they respect his work. I knew as a child Rudy was very intelligent and a gifted programmer. If anyone would like to download a picture of Rudy when he was in his last year in College at University of Oklahoma 1970(Sooner 1970). I have a pic of him that was taken of him at the Engineers Club Engineers week party pic. Maybe someone can put it on this thread or something? He was young fresh leaving college and healthy. Picture is how I like to remember him. You can email me direct for that pic or anything else you want to know about my dad at jasongeo2@aol.com

    Welcome to MSFN, Tony! I wish it were under better circumstances, but we're glad to see you here. Thank you for the picture of your dad.. I know I probably speak for several others here as well when I say I wish I had known more about Rudy and been able to get to know him better personally. I exchanged many, many emails with him, and always enjoyed hearing about whatever he was experimenting with at the time. We once discussed meeting up if I were ever in New York, but unfortunately I never got the opportunity... One never knows the future, but if I had had any idea he would be gone so soon I would have MADE the opportunity. :(

    I haven't been able to work much lately on the page that I was making that is dedicated to Rudy's work, but I will add this picture to it, and I would be glad to add any other such things as might be interesting.. I thought about making a short biography type page, but it's hard to know where to begin, and it's depressing to realize just how few details you know about someone else's life and interests outside of whatever subjects you've discussed, even when you considered them a close friend...

    • Like 3
    • Upvote 1
  13. 9 hours ago, VistaLover said:

    I'm sorry to admit that the above expectation borders with Utopia... :( The general consensus on "their" camp seems to be that "we" are in essence practically stealing code "we" were never meant to lay "our" hands on, that "we" are just acting selfishly, full of entitlement... :huh:

    I understand where you're coming from with that, however I certainly don't believe it's too much to ask for them to keep their "unsolicited opinions" to themselves. I don't care if they "disapprove" or "dislike" what we're doing, I know they don't approve and I didn't ask them to agree with it. I only ask that they stop "disparaging" us with it. This is how "diplomacy" works. If they expect us to do something that they demand, then they can show good faith by ceasing their constant attacks.

    And, I hate to say it, but they have no right whatsoever to insinuate that someone is "stealing" code; that's not how "Open Source" works. If that is their attitude, then they're nothing but a bunch of hypocrites, because they owe their entire existence to Mozilla and Firefox, from which they "stole" code to begin with. If they want the "right" to claim people are "stealing" code, then let them go and start from scratch and build a closed-source copy of what they have now. I would estimate they might be back up and running in five years or so, if they're lucky...

    9 hours ago, VistaLover said:

    I think that part was explained previously by M.A.T; hosting the source code of one project covered by MPL-2 in a private repo does not make it Closed Source; whenever the code author releases an executable form (binary) of the code, he has the obligation to provide, by reasonable means, access to the source code that was used to compile the executable form; "reasonable" means could very well be a link to a source tarball or, upon user request, dispatch of the used source via a physical storage medium (the cost of which should be covered by the user requesting it...); what's more important is the fact that the publicly revealed source code does not carry the "buildability" obligation, that is any additional "hack" used by the author to compile the source into an executable form can remain private...

    That is Mr. Tobin's interpretation of the licensing. That doesn't necessarily make it the correct, or most accepted interpretation. You will recall that I disagreed with him on this previously, and he had no direct response to the points that I made. It would be pretty senseless to be able to obtain source code that could not be "built" - this, to me, is a perfect example of "attempting to limit the user's rights in the Source Code" which the MPL prohibits, as I listed before.

    Based on previous behavior, which I also provided links to, it seems to me that Mr. Tobin and company prefer to just go around making threats and creating a toxic atmosphere for those whom they don't like building their code, hoping that they can "scare off" or bluff them all into submission, because whoever they're targeting simply doesn't want to deal with their constant attacks.

    9 hours ago, VistaLover said:

    I see this discussion (here in this thread) quickly exploding, again, to Rebranding Roytam1's browser offerings ; so I agree with @TechnoRelic that any additional content to that end be posted in the existing specific thread, not here...

    Oh no, I have absolutely no intention of beating that dead horse again. It is dead, and should remain dead. The issues of licensing are wholly independent from the "rebranding" discussion.

    9 hours ago, VistaLover said:

    My initial comment here was to highlight the fact the unofficial Pale Moon branding (upon which NM28 is built) has been changed upstream but not adopted by "us", and the eventual ramifications (if any) that decision (by "our" maintainer) may entail... I hope it's clear now... :)

    I knew that, however these "ramifications" (read "threats") or whether they can be enforced or not come down to licensing. I covered that specific aspect in my other post. You did ask for other input... :rolleyes:

    • Like 6
  14. 5 hours ago, VistaLover said:

    I'm really sorry :( to have to bring this up, but don't you expect "upstream" to hear about that?

    You are, at the end of the day, still building "unofficial" Pale Moon builds and upstream have modified that branding (which is their prerogative, it appears...). I won't pretend I understand fully the Open Source licensing schemes, but I smell (additional) trouble coming from upstream, this time from Moonchild himself :(

    With all said and done (and undone) in the past, I'd hate to witness any further escalation between "us" and "them", especially if it results in more restrictive action(s)/sanctions from upstream... What do others think on this?

    I'm not an expert on Open Source licensing either, but apparently someone here is going to have to become one... This whole business is ridiculous. I would prefer to see the great "dispute" settled as well, because it IS in everyone's best interests to NOT be fighting each other, BUT - NOT by simply giving in to the constant threats/intimidation coming down from "on high." I don't speak for anyone but myself, but if it were up to me I would not lift a finger to conform to any "demand" until some degree of mutual respect is established. The first step of which must include "them" putting a stop to the constant disparaging of the "XP (and Vista :angel) community" and "our" choices - as if anyone here needs "their" approval to use any given OS, or gives one iota what "they" think about our choice of that OS.

    That being said, I figured the "branding" problem would be simple enough.. just revert that particular change. While "they" will surely be very angry about it, in the end, (AS FAR AS I KNOW) they cannot force the change "retroactive" on already released code/versions/files. Even if they wanted to take the time and go through all of those old versions, and push out another update for each with the change, it would not erase what has already been made public, and is already covered under the "previous" existing license/redistribution conditions.

    5 hours ago, VistaLover said:

    Finally, I don't use any of these forks myself, but out of pure (healthy) curiosity, what source do you actually use now to produce updated builds of? AFAIAA, upstream have moved to a private repository, so are you now just updating the platform (UXP) submodule/component, which is still public?

    These "private" repository issues are another aspect which we must figure out with regard to the licensing conditions. I see this "behavior" as simply an attempt to create more hassle for anyone who wishes to build the code for themselves.. which most certainly violates the "spirit" of Open Source, and may violate the actual licensing, depending on which licenses are applicable to different parts of the code. The MPL 2.0 (which to my knowledge governs the Firefox code that PM is developed from) contains some interesting specific statements that would seem to be relevant here:

    "All distribution of Covered Software in Source Code Form, including any Modifications that You create or to which You contribute, must be under the terms of this License."
    "You may not attempt to alter or restrict the recipients’ rights in the Source Code Form."

    "...Covered Software must also be made available in Source Code Form, as described in Section 3.1, and You must inform recipients of the Executable Form how they can obtain a copy of such Source Code Form by reasonable means in a timely manner..."
    "You may distribute such Executable Form under the terms of this License, or sublicense it under different terms, provided that the license for the Executable Form does not attempt to limit or alter the recipients’ rights in the Source Code Form under this License."

    ... so, I see it as a question of whether or not these statements are to be "understood" at face value. If so, then I'm not so certain that "private" repositories and "hoops to jump through" to obtain sources are not in direct violation of this. :unsure:

     

    • Upvote 2
  15. On 9/14/2020 at 5:50 PM, arepakiller said:

    Question, do old LCD get dimmed in  brightness over time? This one certainly look like doesn't have much brightness.

    I've heard that this does indeed happen, but I don't have any experience with it. I'm a CRT monitor die-hard, lol. I have a few LCD monitors in my collection but I never use them. (Of course with a laptop you're stuck with it...)

  16. 13 hours ago, roytam1 said:

    just got a quotation from Ontrack for recovery, which may cost me HKD 3000 to 6800. Of course it is a large amount of money and I'm think considering to go for it or not.

    I assume this amount is for them to actively recover the data for you, not just for some recovery software? Is the price contingent upon them successfully recovering everything?

    Of course it also depends on just how "irreplaceable" the data is; or how hard it would be to "recreate" the lost items... If you have PayPal, some of us might be able to contribute a few dollars toward helping you... :unsure:
    (for reference, if the conversion I'm getting is right this amounts to approximately $400 to $900 USD; seems a very wide price margin!)

    • Upvote 1
  17. On 9/7/2020 at 9:20 PM, MrMateczko said:

    That source might have been me :ph34r:

    Although it is probably incorrect, as I got VBEMP working with its .VXD file totally removed, leaving just the .DRV file.

    So it must have at the very least a .DRV file, not necessarily a .VXD file. I think the .DRV file is what is displayed in details in the Device Manager for a GPU.

    I believe I read it on a website somewhere, not on a forum... I thought it was MDGx's site, but I think I was unable to find any such reference there whenever I last checked (but I no longer remember when that was, or how thorough my search was...); possibly it came from a site linked from his?? :unsure:

    Interesting about VBEMP... I suppose experiments with .SYS video drivers might be in order if anyone has the time and hardware to experiment... a good first experiment might be to attempt to use a Win2K-compatible .SYS driver for a video card that we already know works under 9x with the proper 9x driver... such as a Radeon 9xxx series or an nVidia 5xxx/6xxx series card.

  18. 3 hours ago, arepakiller said:

    Do you know a good old laptop that have a good video card for dual booting xp and Windows 98SE and/or Windows ME (I know Me was unstable as heck, but that was the OS that I grew up with)?

    It's been a long time since I did any research into this, but previously I settled on the HP ZD8000 (or Compaq NX9600) for my own attempt at a high-end 9x laptop. It features a high-end P4 CPU, uses a desktop chipset so is capable of >2GB of RAM* (*3GB visible to OS with a BIOS mod; search for my name and "ZD8000" over at BIOS Mods), and has an ATI Mobility Radeon X600 graphics chip and AC'97 audio that can be made to work with available 9x drivers. These laptops have their quirks however, and it took me many failed attempts to achieve anything close to success.

    When I last worked on it, I had 98SE up and running without any major issues left to solve, but I just haven't had time to spend on it...
    Too many projects; too many real-life responsibilities; too little time. :}

  19. Short answer; No.

    Despite the fact that some WDM (.SYS) drivers are supported under 9x, as far as I know, video drivers MUST be .VXD type drivers under 9x. I read that somewhere years ago, but I no longer remember the source.

    However; to be perfectly honest I don't know if it has ever been tried. We worked on HDAudio and USB3 drivers without any success, but never video.

    This is a very deep rabbit hole... I don't recommend such an experiment for most average users.

    For the record however, so that anyone else who ends up reading this will know: first (UNDER 9x, NOT NT!) run Walter Oney's WDMCHECK utility or rloew's DISPPE32 on the 2K/XP driver you wish to load and see which WDM functions are missing. Then you must load WDMEX and repeat the same process again to see if all functions are satisfied. If they are, then there may be hope, and one must proceed to INF modification. If not, then you're probably out of luck unless someone else who knows how to expand WDMEX comes along.

    ... And if you're already lost, or can't figure out how to use those two tools, then you're in over your head. :angel

    • Like 1
  20. I've not had any direct experience with mobile nVidia cards...
    I bought a laptop some time ago that has one but I've not been able to find the time to do any experimenting with it;
    I had plans to try and use it with Windows 9x, but it has HD Audio, and rloew and I never managed to get HDAudio working under 9x.

    So, the only experience I have with mobile video cards and 9x comes from my HP ZD8000 (ATI Mobility Radeon X600) experiments.

    I do know that some 7xxx series desktop cards were supported by the last "official" 9x release, (81.98 I believe), but not (IIRC) the higher-end 78xx/79xx cards. These cards do work when using the last released "beta" driver, which is 82.69, and which I believe you have tried. (Note, not all of the cards included in the unofficial 82.69 INF, including but not limited to any 8xxx/9xxx series cards, do NOT work with this driver.)

    The only other thing I can add to this discussion that may be relevant is that the "actual memory size" and "reported memory size" of any VRAM must match under 9x, or problems will occur. rloew and I did extensive testing in relation to this in order to find out why some people reported success with 512MB cards, and why some did not. Hence the NVSIZE patch...

    For example; newer cards with large amounts of RAM may report 256MB of RAM to Reserved Memory/MMIO to minimize the >3GB memory "reduction" to x86 systems and use a "memory banking" method to access all VRAM (reserved resources are doubled, so a 512MB card that reports 512MB of RAM will automatically cause 1GB of RAM to disappear from an x86 system with 4GB of RAM, so you're already down to 3GB reported to the OS). However, the 9x driver does not know how to handle this memory banking, and expects the reported VRAM to match the actual VRAM. Cards that report 256MB when actually using more will cause crashes...

    TL;DR;
    I had a 512MB 7200GS card that reported 512MB. It didn't crash under 9x with the 82.69 driver.
    I had a 512MB 7950GT card that reported 256MB and used banking. It caused crashes. Patching the card BIOS to report 512MB corrected the problem.

    I hope I've explained this well enough; it's been some time since I worked with these issues, and sometimes I struggle to remember the exact terminology rloew used in context...

    So, to make use of this... you need to figure out how much VRAM is reported under XP, and how much system RAM is reported on the Control Panel/System tab. Then we must figure out if the correct total VRAM size is being reported by the card BIOS.

    Since actual system memory is being used, and not dedicated VRAM, I don't know if this can be fixed or not... :unsure:



×
×
  • Create New...