LoneCrusader

I just said I don't have one of those PCI-E cards. I have a PCI USB2 card from that company that does indeed use an NEC chipset. It is recognized by the standard drivers from NUSB 3.5. It does not require any special rituals in order to use USB Storage Devices.

There may be more 95-compatible drivers available than you think. Post all the specs of the system here. Grab the SCANPCI tool rloew attached to ruthan's X99 chipset thread and run it in DOS before Windows loads. Post the output here so I can see what specific Device ID's are in your computer.

I split the posts concerning the X99 system from the Compatible Hardware thread and put them in this thread where they make more sense. The Compatible Hardware thread is meant to be for confirmed hardware, not hardware under experimentation. Let's try to keep on topic in different threads.

Did you run SCANPCI on your X99 system? I don't see any Intel ID's in that list. OK, saw this in the other thread. I see ACPI issues for certain. ACPI controller and motherboard resources causing problems. This is very common. You need to install Windows 98 with the "SETUP /p i" command to prevent ACPI from loading. Then do not remove any devices and manually install PCI Bus. If your motherboard BIOS allows setting the SATA controllers to IDE Mode then you shouldn't need AHCIBIOS unless you want to use AHCI in another OS.

I don't have one of those, I just found it while looking for something else. I have another card made by that company however and it works flawlessly. Sure there are probably cheaper ones that will work fine. That was just an example from a company that seems to have good quality. Sometimes you get what you pay for though. Buy cheap junk, get cheap junk. I think the card you linked is listed wrong anyway. It claims USB 2.0 in the title but in the description it says Renesas USB 3.0 chip. This definitely won't work.

Don't confuse the SIIG card that I linked that uses the same chipset with the PCI-E card I linked before on eBay. They are not the same. I only said they have the same chipset so they should work with the same driver. Miscommunication created somehow above. The one on eBay is definitely PCI-E.

Is it still bundling adware? Version 2.5.0.0 was the last before they started this, I hope they have removed it by now.

Yes, PCI Bus must be added manually. This has been an issue on some boards all the way back to around the 965 chipset. It depends on the type of BIOS the board has and may vary between manufacturers as well. I haven't had to take any other steps to detect devices. Sometimes when a PCI-E card is added another "bridge" will be detected, but I believe this is to be expected.

Ouch. Looks like you can never be too careful. I used the driver CD that comes with the card. If need be I can upload the driver somewhere. rloew mentioned a PCI card using this chipset to me before. The driver should be usable with a PCI-E version.

USB2 cards come in PCI-E as well. EXSYS EX-11066. And it even has an NEC chipset. Best for compatibility IMO.

Possibly some miscommunication about removing devices in the various threads. Is this a clean install or a moved install? If it's a clean one you do not want to remove any devices that actually did get detected before installing the PCI Bus. Then after installing it more devices should appear. It is very strange that this is not happening, you may be right about something on that board not working properly. Newer systems use an ACPI enumerator before a PCI enumerator so that's why PCI Bus does not get automatically installed; 9X does not recognize the newer ACPI controllers and therefore doesn't know what to do with them. But I suppose we should continue the discussion of this system in your X99 thread.

Yes, the INF's really only provide correct device names. A system should work just fine without them, but it is nice to get correct specific names to help identify problems and to prevent having a list of "Unknown Devices" and "PCI cards". All Intel INF packages are like this; none of them (even the old 9x compatible versions) actually contain any driver files such as .VXD, .SYS, .PDR, .MPD, etc etc. I will probably be using XP/XP x64 on the system as well when I put it into everyday use. Right now I have an adequate system for browsing online with XP x64 (P67 chipset) and I have it along with several other machines which need to have their contents archived and transferred to any newer system I would use on a daily basis. I haven't needed to move up yet, and I will have to set aside time to do so. Unfortunately I haven't had time to do any gaming with my newer systems yet. It's part of my plan, but real life and work and such always seem to get in my way and must therefore take precedence. Also doesn't help that my friends who I used to game with all have the same issues now. No, not a power problem with the OS or shutdown. A hardware power problem on the motherboard itself. I kept expecting it to fry, so I stopped fooling with it. I think this board was a RMA that an eBay seller somehow got ahold of (and of course resold AS-IS). I will check the USB3 ports later. If your USB Storage is not working you might want to read this issue I had with a X58 board and experiment with the BIOS settings that I found to be the culprit. Not yet. I will get to it eventually (probably not soon, other projects are currently ongoing).

Yes, you can install them on a copy of Windows that is already set up, but you may need to manually remove several things from the Device Manager first.. or it may just auto-update them when it detects a newer-dated INF file. Never tried using that method, so YMMV.

DDR4 working fine on my Intel X99 system that I discussed here.

The actual speed limit that causes the error varies between AMD and Intel CPU's. There are two different errors each with different speeds. The first problem (Windows Protection Error in IOS.VXD) occurs at around 350MHz on AMD and somewhere around 1000MHz on Intel (I used to know the Intel limit more specifically, but it's been a long time.) The second problem (Windows Protection Error in NDIS.VXD) occurs at 2.1GHz on Intel and I'm not sure of the limit on AMD; rloew may know this. Both of these are fixed for all versions of Windows 95 by my FIX95CPU v3 patch. More info here if you want. Microsoft did provide a HotFix solution for 98 First Edition. They later revised that KB article with a LIE that no fix was available. The HotFix can be found online. I think I gave MDGx a copy, so it should be there. Microsoft also provided a solution for 95 OSR2 but they failed to make this known (intentionally, or just oversight?). NDIS.VXD 4.00.1113 from Dial-Up Networking 1.4 for Windows 95 contains updated code that fixes the issue. All of this is covered at length in the thread I linked above.

Yes, that's it.

9x compatible PCI-E sound card. On my system the 95 .VXD driver worked better than the 98 WDM .SYS driver. 9x compatible PCI-E network card. (sold) BEWARE - you MUST get Version 1.x of this card. Version 2.x IS NOT 9x compatible. On eBay many sellers use stock photos of v1.x card. Do not believe this, if you buy one make them show you a picture of the actual item. Drivers here. How to tell them apart? Version 1 pic. Version 1 pic2. Version 2 pic. Version 2 pic2. I am using the equivalent of NUSB 3.5, however my 98SE system is slipstreamed to include this out-of-the-box. I have seen problems in systems that have only USB2 controllers and no USB1 controllers. This is caused by USB1 drivers not getting copied to the system because there is no USB1 controller to install. USB2 drivers depend on USBD.SYS, a USB1 driver that the USB2 INF does not copy. Try copying USBD.SYS to your \WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS\ folder or manually adding USBD.SYS to the CopyFiles section of USB2.INF before installing and see if it helps. I have most of these boards because for years I tried to stockpile a bunch of 9x-compatible hardware. This is why I have so many 8xx systems. Later on some friends of mine who work for a large organization gave me a bunch of old hardware they were replacing. This is how I ended up with many 9xx systems. Beyond those it has become a hobby to try running these older systems on newer hardware, and when I can afford it I get a newer board and see what happens. I don't have much AMD stuff except very old Super Socket 7. I have a Socket 939 nForce 3 AMD system and one slightly newer than that, but that's all.

I checked my INF's against xRayer's for this device. xRayer's INF is missing the "INTEL_PCI" install section that the device ID is directed to, so I can only assume it does nothing if no error is reported. My INF's point this device to a blank section like the original 9x compatible Intel versions, so my INF "does nothing" for this device as well. Both sets of INF should name the device but that's all. (It's really all chipset INF's are good for anyway.) Neither of them should have any effect on the nVidia driver. The only way I could see any different condition arising from using xRayer's INFs or my INF's would be if the entry for this chipset's LPC controller on xRayer's INFs does not load ISAPNP.VXD as mine (and the original Intel 9x compatible ones) does. Keep me posted about what you find.

You can discuss 9x issues here to your heart's content (or till you're blue in the face), take your pick. But you must learn to separate different issues and keep discussions on topic. Different specific forums and threads exist for a reason. Use them as such. Do not post about 9x things in the XP forum. Do not discuss subjects from one thread in a different thread. Failure to do this results in a nightmare for anyone looking for specific information or trying to follow a discussion. In the event there is an issue with "overlap" across multiple operating systems, you need to keep the discussion in the forum for the OS where the issue originated and where it will receive the most relevant attention.

Yes. I have a representative board from almost every "family/level/generation" (whatever you wish to call it) of Intel chipset. On the "newer" ones I have chosen however to only spend money on Xxx chipset (X58/X79/X99) boards because I don't want the integrated graphics that come with Zxx boards. I have at least one board using each of these Intel chipsets: 845, 865, 875, 915, 925, 945, 965, 975, P35, P45, X38, X48, X58, X79, and X99. There's a Z87 or Z97 (not sure which) somewhere but I think it had a power problem. I have already used each of these systems at some point or another in test setups just like the one pictured. No audio or LAN yet. I have several of these newer systems but I have not tried to use them beyond proof-of-concepts yet. However I do already have solutions for this. I found a Chinese PCI-E sound card using a 9x compatible chipset on eBay and ordered a couple. They do work. I also have PCI-E Network cards that have 9x drivers. This X99 board has two PS/2 connectors so I'm using PS/2 Keyboard and Mouse. My X79 board has one PS/2 connector so in this case I use a USB Keyboard and PS/2 Mouse. Onboard USB2 ports are working. I just haven't tried the USB3 ones yet. I used the older ones out of force of habit, lol. The RAM patch would have no affect on device detection, this is absurd. Without the RAM patch the system probably would not boot, and even if one had the desire to play around with other "free" RAM tweaks and solutions (which have never worked for me), and if they did miraculously work long enough to boot to the desktop, the system would not be stable. Bottom line, I don't waste my time trying to run 9X on a modern system without the right tools to do it. And rloew's RAM and SATA patches are mandatory for that. Once again the RAM patch cannot affect device detection. Not having the SATA patch will not prevent you from running SETUP or reaching the desktop. Of course these systems could "work" without the SATA patch. If you're willing to run in DOS compatibility mode, go right ahead. The specific Device ID's come from my INF's. They can be found here. You will need the later versions that came along around post #31 or so for an X99 system. I have a 512MB version of the 7950GT that I have used successfully before with rloew's NVidia patch, I just didn't have it in this system. rloew wrote the Shutdown Fix for the 82.69 driver but you must apply it yourself. It's here in a thread somewhere. I haven't tried running 2K or XP on the X99 system yet. I do have XP x86 + PAE and XP x64 on my X79 system though (once again this system is not daily-use yet).

What are you talking about? I'll have you know I have no trouble "detecting" my motherboard. It's right where I left it on my testing bench. It is not mobile and does not have cloaking ability. Stop hijacking threads and cross-posting multiple subjects across different threads. This thread is about MrMateczko's Windows 98SE machine. It has nothing whatsoever to do with VBE9X, DOSBOX, or any of my motherboards.

I have a Gigabyte GA-X99-UD4P motherboard + GeForce 7950GT 256MB with 95 OSR2 and 98SE up and running for testing. Using rloew's RAM and SATA patches, the NVidia 82.69 driver (patched for shutdown), and my updated Intel chipset INF's. I did notice that on this board the SATA controllers will only show up if they are in use. I had to connect a drive to another controller to make another one show up in the Device Manager. Apparently the BIOS disables devices that are not in use without consulting the user.

I'm not insulting your intelligence. I'm just pointing out the fact that moving a pre-installed system is asking for trouble, plain and simple. It's not that there is anything wrong with doing so, but moving a pre-installed system is something to be done when necessary and when you have already tested the target system with a clean install to verify compatibility. You can't just throw it on a new machine and expect everything to work properly. Sometimes that happens, but you can't assume that it will always (or even usually) work. In all honesty I have probably tested rloew's patches on more systems than anyone else, maybe even rloew himself. I have quite a stockpile of various hardware, mostly Pentium 4 era and later that I have either stockpiled specifically for 9x compatibility, been given by some friends I have in a large organization when they were replacing, or purchased specifically to test 9x compatibility. Not too long ago I started out on a "quest" to test Windows 95 and Windows 98 on each subsequent set of Intel chipsets from the time when they were supported (845-865-875) up to the present (X99, I don't have X299 yet). I have tested 9x boards using Intel 9xx chipsets, P35, X38, X48, X58, X79, and X99, all without any strange issues except those cause by Intel-branded motherboards that have a garbage BIOS incompatible with 9x. (Do I need to prove it with screenshots? lol) I only have 2 older AMD nForce3/4 systems but the patches work there as well. I have the full range of nVidia 7xxx cards; 7200GS, 7600GS, 7800GS, 7800GTX, 7950GT, and possibly others. I actually did a lot of testing for the nVidia problems to help rloew as well. It's possible that your hardware combination can cause issues. Any motherboard with an Intel BIOS newer than 8xx chipset is garbage for 9x. It's possible other things may cause issues as well, but you need to be able to pin it down to a very specific point by removing ALL other variables from the situation. Once you do this, if there is indeed a bug of some kind, I'm sure rloew will address it.

I see.. I didn't take into account the Quad support, so I suppose the ConRoe board has some degree of advantage there. However Windows 9x cannot use these other cores anyway, so a single-core P4 with a higher raw clock speed should still be better for 9x than a Quad. Also, if the ConRoe board doesn't support DDR2 then I'm not certain how much having a 1066MHz FSB CPU is any better than 800MHz FSB. Bottom line, if you're looking for 9x performance then any advantage would be negligible, and you could use a 9xx chipset board that also supports DDR2 and have a better result. If you're thinking of other OS such as XP, then there are far, far, more performance-capable systems for it than dropping all the way back to Quad + DDR1. Also, based on reports I've seen I'm not certain ASRock has the same level of quality as Gigabyte or DFI but I've never used ASRock so I don't know.

SoftICE 1.99? I don't think I've ever heard of that... The versions I see mentioned most are 4.05 and 4.2.7., apparently both of which were produced pre-2KSP4 and pre-XPSP2 and require fixes to work under those systems.