LoneCrusader

What's wrong with the VMware driver? I know there is one that works under 95 because I have used it. This is possible under XP (and 2K I assume) but not under Windows 9x (that I am aware of ). Under Windows 9x one must dig through HKLM\Enum key of the registry or use a third-party tool do get specific hardware ID's.

Hello, Welcome to MSFN! Sounds like you already have a fair amount of experience in working with Windows 9x and newer systems. I've recently been experimenting with Windows 95 and 98 on a Gigabyte GA-X79-UD4 board so I know what you're dealing with. I know these aren't directly related to your question, but I wanted to ask. What's wrong with your USB mouse? It should work... And, what did you change in BIOSINFO.INF? It's common practice here to run SETUP with the "/p i" switches to disable ACPI, but another solution is always interesting. On the subject of HD Audio, I have also tried to get the HDAUDBUS.SYS driver loaded with the help of our resident expert rloew and his WDMEX.VXD (an expanded replacement for WDMSTUB.SYS). So far I managed to get the driver to load without errors in the Device Manager but it also doesn't function properly. It does not enumerate the \HDAUDIO "child devices" tree as it should. So far we don't know why, and I don't know what else to try. rloew may be able to elaborate further on the subject. As far as getting the driver to load with the INF, I removed all of the mentions of NT and all of the NT-specific sections from it and added the following two lines, based on my examination of the last version of the RealTek AC'97 WDM driver package INFs. HKR,,Driver,,hdaudbus.sys HKR,,NTMPDriver,,hdaudbus.sys If this line is present, I get a BSOD during boot. I don't know if it is necessary or not. HKR,,DevLoader,,*NTKERN Since you are getting an error in the Device Manager it sounds like your WDMSTUB.SYS is not covering all of the necessary WDM functions used by HDAUDBUS.SYS. EDIT: Struck out incorrect or superseded information. HKR,,DevLoader,,*NTKERN line IS REQUIRED. Without it driver does nothing; with it produces a crash. Enumeration is not the current problem based on these findings.

You probably just need a 9x compatible version of VMware tools, which provides a display driver. Google "VMware tools Windows 95" and you will find some links; supposedly this one should work.

I can verify that the mods on the linked page will get a MSI GeForce GTX 980 Gaming 4G up and running under XP with the 368.81 driver package. No further testing done besides installing the driver, but that's a big step in itself. Now if VBE9x or some other method will just get rid of the glitches it presents under 9x...

I remember on an earlier version of the forum software, there was an option to email yourself a copy of a PM conversation. Very useful for technical conversations where you may need the info without having to login to the forum or for helping clean out your PM inbox. Is this feature still around somewhere or has it disappeared?

In all honesty guys, any attempt to extend XP's kernel and API functionality will most likely require disabling/circumventing Windows File Protection and possibly other "security" functions. I would simply accept this as a given prerequisite and just move forward... It comes down to a choice between "do I want to leave things as they are for security" or "do I want to extend the possibilities of XP?" I think you're worrying too much about this point. Most users who would be willing to use a "KernelEx" type project are power users who are certainly familiar with the risks of running "non-secure" systems. In the end security comes down to the user, regardless of what operating system they're using.

Oh, the PaleMoon guys are being Microsoft's toadies again? Hating on older systems because they want an excuse to stop supporting them? Big surprise. I saw this coming even before the artificial POSReady block brouhaha earlier this year. EDIT: Wow, wth? My post is considered older than the one I quoted?

If I were you I would dig a little deeper into those reports and want to see some video and/or screenshot evidence that the ATI cards are really messing up EGA games. Also, just because one ATI card or series of cards may have had issues does not mean that all ATI cards have the same problem. I wouldn't rule them out just because someone had something bad to say about them, there are too many variables, not least of which can be user error.

While I hold the good old Voodoo cards in high respect there's no reason to have to go back that far in order to find a working PCI graphics card. I know ATI made PCI versions of several of their 7xxx, 8xxx, and 9xxx series cards. I would probably look for a PCI version of the Radeon 8500, as I have used this particular card in several Win95 machines and I know the disc that came with the cards has working 95 drivers... I don't see any of those on eBay currently but there are some 7xxx and 9xxx series: http://www.ebay.com/itm/152225129722 http://www.ebay.com/itm/182243441276 http://www.ebay.com/itm/381761732402

Dibya, while we all wish you success with your projects it might be better if you started a new thread (or used one of your older ones) in the XP forum for them so that everything can be kept together and organized. Right now you have discussion of your mods going on in three or more different threads and it will soon become difficult to keep track of what information is where. If you need to consult with other developers or project maintainers in their threads you can always include a link back to your main thread that contains the relevant information.

I'm not familiar with that board, but from a quick Google search it appears that the 3.0 revision of the board can support Wolfdale (a BIOS version 3.2 and a beta BIOS version 3.22 were mentioned as well so it may need this even on the 3.0 board?). Looks like it has a AMI BIOS though.. I wouldn't choose this board for a 9x setup myself but to each his own. If I wanted Socket 775 + AGP I would look for a DFI LanParty 875P-T or 865PE-T (these are rare!), but unless you need AGP there's no reason not to use a PCI-E board and an NVidia 7xxx card.

As far as I know you can't have "too large" a power supply, as the motherboard and devices will only draw as much as they need. The problems come when the devices draw more than the PSU can put out. I would trash the Celeron (known to gamers as CelerOWNED ) processor and replace it with the highest-clocked Pentium III that is compatible with that board. You will see a very significant increase in performance. Virtually any Pentium 4 (Socket 478/some Socket 775) motherboard is great for running Windows 9x as most of them have compatible drivers and some can use over 3GHz processors and 4GB of RAM (you'll need rloew's patch for that much RAM though). Boards newer than that can be used in some cases but require more effort and more non-free patches. See the sticky thread we have devoted to motherboards for more info (I know it's a lot to read and somewhat disorganized, but we hope it will be improved in the future). You've come to the right place for Windows 9x support. You won't find any haters here that will waste your time telling you it's old and to run something else.

This card apparently uses the "memory banking system" that rloew and I discovered while experimenting with 512MB and larger nVidia cards. With rloew's NVSIZE patch you can make all 256MB of the cards memory usable under 98SE.

It's normal behavior for Windows 9x as far as I know. Windows 95 doesn't use DriverVer entries either. I can't speak for Windows ME offhand but if I remember correctly I don't think it works there either. DriverVer entries first appear in Windows ME .INF's but this may simply be due to the fact that ME technically came out after 2K and shared some degree of driver interoperability.

It may be possible to run 98 on this hardware, but in order to do so you will definitely need several patches from our good friend rloew and I almost guarantee you will need to install with "SETUP /P I" to disable ACPI. I have never tried to install 9x on hardware this "new," but it doesn't mean it's impossible. I have used 9x successfully on an X58 system and rloew has it working on a Z87 system. If you don't have at least rloew's RAM and SATA patches though, don't waste your time trying. This is hardly helpful. This is the dismissive attitude I see given to 9x users who want to use 9x on modern hardware on various other forums. I don't like seeing it here as well.

The original incarnation of the UBCD apparently included the 98SE Setup files along with a MSBATCH.INF which provided a Product Key. This forced the project to be considered "warez" and a violation of copyright. MSFN cannot be the host of such a project or condone the posting of links to it as such. Now...This was all before my time here, and discussion of the issue since has been pretty much "taboo." I assume one could create a package that included everything from the original except these two problem items and it might be acceptable; but in the end it's not my decision.

I'd like to register a vote against this, or at least to make the order switchable somehow. I had to track down a method of reversing it back to the old way on PaleMoon.

Here's a link. Notes from MDGx on this fix:

Never seen that before. Remove all of the floppy disk drives and controllers from the Device Manager and reboot, see if they all reappear. Does your system have a floppy drive? If not, you may need to disable the Floppy Disk Controller in the system BIOS. Beyond that I'm not sure.

Windows 98 Second Edition and Windows ME do not need this patch as they don't suffer from the CPU clock speed bug to start with. Microsoft issued an official HotFix for Windows 98 First Edition (RTM), Q312108, which can be found here.

Yes, you must keep the updated files installed by the FIX95CPU script. If older files from the original CD SETUP are allowed to overwrite them then it will undo the patch. Glad you got it working!

So, did you use the latest FIX95CPU (v3) as instructed or are you using an older version? DUN14-95.EXE is still a recommended update but when using FIX95CPU as intended it should not be necessary to install it in order to get the system to boot. Boot into Safe Mode again and check the version of the NDIS.VXD file in the WINDOWS\SYSTEM folder (right click on it, choose Properties, then examine the Version tab) and report the results here. If it is not version 4.00.1113 then you need to re-run FIX95CPU per the instructions. You still didn't answer my other specific questions. It is important to know the specific details of the processor you're using since it is possible that there may be further bugs with CPUs clocked above 3.73 GHz as this is the highest clocked CPU I have to test with.

As dencorso has already pointed out I will need a lot more information in order to even attempt to address your issue. What is the exact model and clock speed of the CPU? What motherboard are you running it on? How much RAM do you have (and if more than 512MB do you have rloew's RAM patch to fix it)? What steps did you take during installation? What exactly happens, and what error, if any, do you get? Those questions, at least, must be answered to begin with.

Purely hypothetical, but it MIGHT be possible to use some updated files from XP to get secure sites working again under IE6. Even IE8 has issues with these sites unless one has either SP3 for XP x86 or installs specific HotFixes for XP x64 (as there was no SP3, only SP2). I mentioned this before in this thread (and this subsequently linked thread is also related), but I haven't had the chance to do any experimentation and I never use IE for anything anymore if I can help it. The KB articles for the HotFixes I used to fix my XP x64 problem may give an idea what files are necessary to make an attempt. I wonder whatever happened to maximus-decim and his "cumulative updates" for IE6? If he's still making these packages somewhere then he might be the one who could figure this out...

You can't apply any of the patches until Windows has completed the first round of setup (unless you manually pre-patch all of the files on another machine and drop the resulting files into the \WIN98 SETUP folder in order to override the ones in the CABs). If you mean Step 3 in the post you made then you haven't run SETUP yet at that point. In order to use a 500GB SATA drive you will definitely need both the SATA and 48-Bit LBA patches in place. FDISK is known to be limited when calculating disk capacity. Usually it still works fine to partition a drive so long as you set the whole drive as a single partition or specify the partitions by the percentage of the drive to be used rather than by byte count. There are many other tools that can be used in place of FDISK if you wish, so long as you get a proper FAT32 partition created, formatted, and set "Active." I have no experience with SSD's so I can't advise you there. Note that in order to TRIM it under 9x you will need yet another solution form rloew.