LoneCrusader

3-15-2016 Added under "Supported Software, Games + Hardware": * Unofficial Intel ICH6/7/8/9/10+ Chipset INF Drivers for 98SE: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=163405 Added under "Component, Cumulative, Native Drivers, Updater, Update + Upgrade Packs": * Native USB Drivers (XUSBSUPP) for 95 B/C OSR2.x: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=177518 Added here so the thread can be unpinned. 8-28-2017 Added under "Supported Software, Games + Hardware": * Using real-mode (aka "DOS")-LAN-Drivers in W98SE?: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=176892 * PCI-to-PCIe-adapter work great!: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=176889

I have cleaned up the thread; moved the discussion of VTT and added a note that such discussion should be made elsewhere to the first post of this thread. Carry on...

Those should work OK, remember it's mostly about personal preferences once you have the basic requirements down. I personally wouldn't choose the G31 board since it's not a full size board and only has 2 RAM slots, but it's totally up to you. Check out the BADCAPS website when/if you want to get into the capacitor issues. I've had work done by the guy who runs it, and I was very impressed.

I have some HP ZD8000's which I had planned to try setting up 98SE on. They were available with around ~3GHz Pentium 4's, can use up to 2GB of RAM AFAIK, use the Intel 915 chipset (but the HDD inside is still actually PATA not SATA). I believe the ones I have use ATI Radeon X600 graphics. I never got around to the experiment, but offhand I don't see any reason it shouldn't work.

Come on you guys, there's no sense in having a row over something like this. I can see good points on both sides of this issue. Yes, it may technically be off-topic to post discussion and screenshots of success in this thread and maybe they would fit better elsewhere. However I don't see any reason to be overly agitated and hold up the entire project if such a report pops up from time to time. @loblo I understand you wish to report success with jumper's new files, but apparently he feels that such discussion should take place in a different thread. He has the right to do so I suppose, since it's his project and his thread. If you want me to move a post for you, let me know. @jumper You have the right to organize your thread as you wish, but if you do not want users to report successes with and discuss individual programs from time to time it may be best to state that specifically in the first post. Not everyone will have the same outlook on what is and is not "off topic."

I'm still digging, I may have it somewhere but it's lost in time. For the moment I found a working Wayback Machine link to 5.6, but the page it's originally linked from indicates 95/NT4 are not supported. For what it's worth, the current 7.2 Bootable DOS version is OS Independent, but you probably already knew that. I don't know what your goal is, whether you specifically need the Intel utility or whether you're just looking for a good CPU info tool, but CPU-Z version 1.32.1 will run on Windows 95. It may require a DLL file that does not come by default and/or the Desktop Update shell installed (it's been a while since I used it), but it does work.

You CAN get it working, but you MAY not be able to do it without a patch. It's mostly luck of the draw as to whether the card and your system will get along. It depends on what memory size the card reports during boot. Some 512MB cards work and some don't, but either way the card will probably be limited to 256MB actually usable unless you use rloew's patch. (Use DXDIAG tests and/or the nVidia Control Panel to check the reported memory once installed.)

I had hoped for more input from active KernelEx'ers about this, especially in letting me know what other threads are important and need to be linked here. Without any further suggestions I will have to assume the topic is good as-is and unpin the rest. I may add a separate link into the above list that will take you to the last/newest post of the given threads. @MiKl The WUPG98 thread among others seem to have been placed into a weird "Archived" state by the forum software upgrades. When this is in effect for a thread even I can't perform any actions on it. The NUSB thread was previously locked in this state and dencorso had to work on it for a while to get it back. We're trying to address the issue, as I agree with you that it needs to be unpinned. It hasn't seen any updates in forever and I don't know of any active users of it. Revolutions Pack is a different matter, it needs to remain pinned IMO.

The unofficial installer package does not always detect all of the "newer" cards that the driver will still work with. MDGx repacked the installer with an updated INF that handles later cards than the ones that were in the INF in the original package, but he could not update the nVidia setup/detection program that checks the cards initially. One must usually unpack the installer to a folder and manually point the Device Manager/Add New Hardware/Update Driver dialogs to it. The 6800GS may not have had "official" 9x support but the 6800 Ultra did, and the GS should work since it's the same chipset. You would probably have to manually add its VID & PID to the INF file for the driver version you are trying to use or use the 82.69 driver.

The OP's post could possibly fit in either the main forum or the project forum, depending on the greater scope of what he is trying to achieve. Since very few details were given, it has been moved to the main forum. However we also don't need any backseat moderators. Forum moderation is not up for public debate. If you have concerns about any post, take it up with myself or another moderator by PM.

I agree, I'm very fond of the 865 and 875. I build all of my 9x gaming machines on these boards, but one must be aware of the capacitor issues. Prescott and even Gallatin Pentium 4's work as well. I have to disagree on the RAM though, I once crashed my 98SE machine (which was running a 3.06GHz Northwood + 512MB of RAM and ran out of memory) just trying to read some pages on a mainstream news site. This was most likely a random occurrence, but there are also programs which very much need more RAM, such as some of the last 9x compatible games. WarCraft III, Rise of Nations, etc. Sounds like a winner!

There will be other changes, yes, but the KernelEx topics are a mess and will be dealt with first.

First of all, motherboard chipset drivers are 99% of the time nothing but plain text INF files that specifically identify devices by name. They are not even necessary for a system to run in 99% of cases. Go unpack the last 98SE compatible Intel Chipset INF Utility and tell me what you find inside. Nothing but a bunch of text INF files and their security catalogs, which serve no real purpose. And this remains true even up the last XP compatible version and beyond. My Unofficial Intel Chipset Driver package will properly name all 9xx and later devices if not having them properly named worries you. The PCI/PCI-E bus "driver" is the same standard one that comes with 98SE, whether you're running a Pentium 1 machine, or an 8xx chipset board or a 9xx chipset board or the X58 chipset for that matter. Not one single true "driver" (.SYS/.VXD/.PDR/etc) is contained in an Intel chipset INF package. And yes, you CAN do a full shut down from either ACPI or Plug and Play BIOS PROVIDED you find a board with an AWARD BIOS as I previously stated. ACPI works better on some boards than others, but if you install 98SE using "SETUP /P I" it will force 98SE to not use ACPI and avoid the problem to start with. This particular issue along with the "Yellow Exclamation Marks" is totally dependent upon the type of BIOS the board uses, NOT the chipset the board uses. Hence why I said use boards that use AWARD and avoid others, particularly Intel proprietary. What makes you think you would need to add a USB card when a board already has onboard USB? This is really going off the deep end... The Intel provided USB2 driver doesn't work with these later systems because it was artificially limited to certain chipsets, but why would you use it anyway when all you need to circumvent this is NUSB or specifically the Win2K USB2 stack? Obviously there are no 9x drivers for USB 3.0, but that certainly doesn't keep you from using USB 2.0. How would you be stuck with 16-bit VGA colors if you are using a 98SE compatible PCI-E video card? Once again you make no sense and apparently haven't read what I posted before. Onboard video is useless and has no drivers as I previously pointed out, but why would anyone want a board with onboard video for a performance system anyway? Use a GeForce 7950GT PCI-E + the 82.69 driver and no more problem. Also, most third-party Intel boards DO have an IDE connector. Just because Intel dropped it on their own boards (which should be avoided anyway because of the BIOS) does not mean that everyone else did. My Gigabyte X58 board not only has an IDE connector, but has a FLOPPY connector! And just what exactly do these driver packages contain? Most likely nothing but text INF files just like the Intel ones. Links please. Graphics cards work with or without any chipset drivers. I usually see ONE Yellow Exclamation Mark on my later Intel systems using AWARD BIOS, and this one can even be eliminated by installing using "SETUP /P I" to disable ACPI. In contrast if I try to set up the same system on an Intel-BIOS board I usually see 4 or more. This is why BIOS type matters.

-Reserved for future use if necessary.-

KernelEx Unified Topics + Links Index Original topics by the original developer Xeno86: KernelEx 4.5.2 >> - Last Full Version completed by Xeno86 KernelEx - Call for support >> - Xeno86 leaves the project, calls for developers KernelEx Reborn - jumper takes over development: KernelEx 4.5.2015.11 updates >> - jumper provides updates to core KernelEx DLL's Applied KernelEx - discussion of compatible programs: KernelEx Apps Compatibility List (New) >> - The most up to date discussion of compatible programs New workaround: Printing with Firefox 3.x & KernelEx! >> Fireshot extension for Firefox 3; print with KernelEx in Win98SE >> Printing with KernelEx 4.5.1 >> Opera, KernelEx and related matters >> K-Lite Codec Pack and ffdshow with KernelEX and Kext >> KernelEx Supplements - auxiliary DLL's, stubs, and associated add-ons: Kext: DIY KernelEx extensions >> - jumper's extenders and stubs KernelEx Auxiliary DLL Updates >> - jumper's list of external DLLs for use with KernelEx ImportPatcher.41 >> - jumper's tool to find and fix dependencies KernelEx In-Depth threads - information for programmers and developers: KernelEx -- On building, debugging and related matters... >> For any and all of you who are actively working on, testing, or running KernelEx: I have created this "Pinned" thread that will contain links to all of the previously pinned threads and links to all of the diverse KernelEx related/auxiliary/extender threads in one place. This became necessary due to the number of different KernelEx threads out there and the fact that the list of Pinned threads needed to be cleaned up. While I follow the topics about it from time to time I'm not very familiar with using KernelEx myself, so I would appreciate input from you guys regarding threads that should be linked in this index. It's easy to lose track of threads that don't get frequent posts, so give me some feedback and links. This thread is NOT for discussion of any specific KernelEx issue and is meant to be an index. Once complete and organized it will be locked. Please post issues in their appropriate threads.

In the end this comes down to nothing but personal preference. I still don't see any reason to choose this VIA board over any "equivalent" Intel based system. So it uses 1066FSB... some Intel based boards with even faster FSB work. So it uses DDR2... some Intel based boards that work use DDR3. So it uses a Core2 Duo processor... I have two Intel based systems currently running 98SE that are using a Core2 Quad Q9400 and a Core i7 930 respectively; not that multiple cores matter for Windows 9x anyway. See the Gigabyte GA-X48T-DQ6 and the Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5. Yes, they have the HD Audio problem, but you say the VIA board has HD Audio as well. Now, as for meeting the "criteria" in this thread, many of these newer boards DO meet it if you accept the conditions I stated in my earlier post. Namely "accept that you will need to add an Audio card and buy the SATA patch" - once these things are accepted as necessary, then in many cases the rest of the drivers are available. My Chipset INF package handles the chipset devices and some of the popular onboard Gigabit Network cards have a 9x driver. So provided one chooses an Intel-based board based on these points and compares it to your VIA board we're back to the only point this VIA board has in it's favor - a free SATA driver. I'm sure there are plenty of good VIA boards out there. I just don't see anything special about them that would make me choose VIA over Intel. But everyone has their own preferences. I would recommend VIA as a second choice though, as NForce/ATI have major bugs under 9x.

DFI LanParty 875P-T(and 865PE-T) along with the MSI 865PE Neo3-F come close to that, although they're still DDR1 and 800FSB. However I would be willing to wager that these boards with a build maxed for performance would still outperform the VIA boards you mentioned in a raw performance matchup. I like the idea of an AGP slot, but let's face it, there isn't any advantage to the AGP slot at this point because no "later, more 9x compatible" cards exist for AGP than do for PCI-E. The last compatible cards for both slots, both ATI and NVidia, are the same cards. From what you said, it looks to me like the one and only "advantage" one would get from such a board is a manufacturer provided SATA driver. With the Intel chipset boards one can usually set Legacy IDE mode or spend a measly $10 on rloew's SATA patch and poof, there goes any advantage whatsoever to a VIA board out the window, and opens up a far greater range of newer Intel-based boards.

The 6800 Ultra 256MB is the last card officially supported under 9x by nVidia. However it may or may not also suffer from the same shutdown bug as the 7xxx cards, I don't know. Technically, the 7800GS WAS officailly supported, because BFG provided a 9x driver for it (82.16). So long as you keep the RAM under 256MB the 7xxx cards only have the shutdown bug, which is fixed by a free patch. The ATI cards I named have drivers in the last official ATI package, although ATI only claims support up to the 9800 XT.

Last/newest working cards for 9x without help from rloew: AGP: nVidia GeForce 7950GT 256MB (if you can find them, EXTREMELY rare) or GeForce 7800GS 256MB, ATI X850 XT PE 256MB (has issues with some DOS games) PCI-E: nVidia GeForce 7950GT 256MB, ATI X850 XT PE 256MB (has issues with some DOS games). 256MB and smaller cards will work without patches. The fact your card is 512MB is most likely causing the problem; only a handful of 98 machines will successfully load the driver for a 512MB card without issues. Some will, some won't, and there doesn't seem to be any logic or pattern to it. It has something to do with how the motherboard handles MMIO, but a discussion of that is way over my head.

That's an interesting way to see it. In my experience, nothing that is made today lasts, or is even designed to. I have systems from 1993 with their original hard drives, still humming away. Today, manufacturers build junk that ensures you have to keep filling their coffers (and their shareholders coffers) on a regular basis. You made a good point here; newer is not always better. I can think of one reason to prefer a newer board in this case however. Many of the last 9x compatible Pentium 4 boards were made during the height of the "Great Capacitor Plague" and develop problems as such. I have a stockpile of SOYO P4-I875P Dragon 2 Platinum's for building 9x gaming machines, and ALL of them develop bad capacitors sooner or later. This seems to have been corrected in later systems.

I don't have much experience with VIA, but VIA also seems rather "unimpressive" so to speak. Why should it be any better than Intel? I believe Intel chipsets much newer than the VIA ones you specify are usable with 9x given the conditions I already listed above. More input from VIA users on the subject would be good though... Good catch on noticing the AMI BIOS Josey It appears to have an AMD chipset. This may or may not cause issues; I have no experience with AMD chipsets but I would definitely wait for input from someone who does and who has run 9x successfully on a board that uses one. I have a much older board (Intel D102GGC2) with an ATI (which was purchased later by AMD) chipset that is HORRIBLY bugged when trying to run Windows 9x (rloew can attest to this, I sent him one of the boards just to see if he had any better luck). I assume (hope) that the later AMD chipsets do not have these problems, but it's something to keep in mind. Chipset and BIOS seem to be the essential deciding factors in whether or not a board gets along well with 9x. All cards based on the 7950GT should work fine. 256MB versions will all work without glitches; 512MB versions may require rloew's nVidia patch to work properly and access all 512MB of RAM (some systems will still boot and load the driver with a 512MB card, some don't. In both cases only 256MB is accessible without the patch). The 7950GX2 1GB (dual 512 7950GT's mounted together in SLI) card (last of the 7xxx series) remains in a gray area, but getting it working fully under 9x doesn't look promising. I got a system up and running with it, and had a driver loaded, but only one of the dual parts of the card was working (so only 1GPU and 512MB works) and the other part reported errors. If no other issues are present, then this card might be nice in a dual-boot system with XP since XP can use the full card, but it would also cause available system memory to be reduced from 3GB to 2GB, which is a really bad tradeoff with no benefit to 9x. I haven't looked into the issue for many years as I haven't got around to actually setting up an everyday use system on a board with HD Audio yet, but in my older system builds (in the days when you could still get a motherboard without a bunch of onboard junk built in) I always used the Sound Blaster Live! X-Gamer cards. These should still be a very powerful card for Windows 9x. Welcome, as always. I've been there and seen that on other forums myself. It always boils my blood, especially when they start asking you WHY you want to do this or do that, as if it were any of their business or as if you don't have a legitimate reason (in their mind) for using your computer as you see fit.

DOS itself is not affected by having 4GB of RAM, but certain DOS programs may not run with more than 2GB of RAM. Drive Image 2002 (PQDI.EXE) and the DOS4GW.EXE DOS extender that is packaged with many DOS applications and games (WarCraft, WarCraft II, etc) come to mind, I had issues with them. There are solutions available, including a "limiter" driver for CONFIG.SYS from rloew for running in pure DOS and a special addition to the RAM patch for DOS programs running inside a Windows DOS box (DPMI). DOS programs would need to be checked on an individual basis for the issue but these solutions are universal. I'm not aware of any issues with the 945. I've only tested one board in that family though, the Intel D945GCCR. It required rloew's SATA patch and an extra patch to EDSI_506.PDR if I tried to use a CDROM as the first drive on the IDE channel (SATA HDD on SATA1, IDE DVDROM) which violates some archaic limitation set my Microsoft. I personally would choose the GA-965P-DQ6. I have one of these boards with partially set-up 95C OSR2.5 and 98SE systems on it. I have both OS'es up and running with all chipset devices identified, rloew's RAM patch and SATA patch, running a 512MB 7950GT PCI-E video card using the 82.69 driver and rloew's NVidia patch. I set this machine up to test my chipset driver and to help rloew test the NVidia issues, so I haven't proceeded further with trying to install other drivers or cards, but it seems to get along fine with 9x. No USB3 for 9x, sorry. But it may work under 2K using blackwingcat's projects and should work under XP if you need/want to dual boot these systems with your 9x. That's pretty much got it covered. Onboard video is useless on a newer board so you don't need a board that has it, but I don't guess it hurts anything if you just disable it. No problem. You're welcome!

Parallel ports are handled by the built in Windows 98SE drivers, same as PS/2 ports or Serial ports or USB1 ports.

Wrong, i915 has 98SE/ME drivers. Technically yes, a 9x INF does exist for the i915 chipset in the last official Intel package but it does NOT cover any other 9xx chipset (not even the 925). Also, Intel did not provide a working USB 2.0 driver for Windows 9x on ICH6/9xx chipsets or provide a working SATA port driver for 9x, so it seems more of an oversight that a 915 INF was included rather than a real attempt at support. Garbage AMI BIOS, there's one strike for starters. Why would the onboard USB2 be limited to 1.1? Makes no sense unless you try to use the chipset-limited OrangeWare driver rather than the 2K drivers from NUSB. I have run 9x tests on both an Intel D915GAG an a MSI 925 Platinum board. Both I would label as "undesirable" for 9x; the Intel board has ACPI issues and does strange things with RAM allocation while the MSI board has the same issues and only allows 2.75GB of RAM to the OS, even with 4GB installed. If you want "all 9x compatible," go with an 865 or 875 chipset board. If you want something newer, there's no reason to choose something below the 965 chipset.

You may have some good possibilities there, but I have very little experience with AMD over the past 10 years or so. The last time I built and preferred AMD systems over Intel was back in the K6-II Super Socket 7 days. Since the P4 I've only used Intel except in some rare situations for testing purposes. If you chose to run an AMD machine, I'm afraid I can't be of much help when it comes to chipset compatibility knowledge. rloew and others will be of more help in this area. I would advise staying away from NForce chipsets though; every one I have tested with has had some problem/bug or another when trying to run Windows 9x. Finding a new"er" board with a FDD connector isn't that hard really. Most third-party manufacturers added a FDD connector to their boards for backward compatibility; only Intel really pushed for its removal. It seems to have vanished now from "current" systems, but many fairly recent systems still have it. There are plenty of Intel based systems to fit the bill as well. Here are some examples; you'll need to see if you can find sources to buy them if you're looking to find them still "new." MSI 875P Neo-LSR Gigabyte GA-G1975X Gigabyte GA-965P-DQ6 Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3LR MSI 975X Platinum MSI P965 Neo-F There are many more like these, you just have to dig around the manufacturer's websites for other boards in the chipset families you're looking for. DFI also made good boards although I'm not as familiar with them since the old AMD Socket 7 days I mentioned before. The MOBOT motherboard database is sometimes useful as well if you know how to get it to produce the results you want.