Jump to content

LoneCrusader

Moderator
  • Posts

    1,483
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7
  • Donations

    3100.00 USD 
  • Country

    United States

Everything posted by LoneCrusader

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Motherboard chipset drivers are not absolutely necessary for a system to run. They are just text files that identify motherboard components by the specific manufacturer's names. Having them can reduce the number of "unknown devices" in the Device Manager and reduce the number of devices given "generic" names, but other than this they don't do much. My unofficial Intel Chipset driver package should handle all Intel chipsets up to at least the X79, so you're covered on this. As far as everything else working "fully," the answer is yes so long as it has a 9x compatible driver. In order to use SATA ports instead of PATA you will most likely need rloew's SATA patch. On some boards it is possible to set the SATA ports to operate in "Legacy IDE" mode, but not all support this and it is not 100% guaranteed that it will make all of the ports/drives work under 9x, and if the setting gets changed for whatever reason it can lead to crashes. There are no 9x drivers for any HD Audio device, so any of these devices will not work. Some onboard gigabit network cards have 9x drivers, some don't. If it's a RealTek or Marvell chip then you have some hope; if it's Intel forget it. The main thing to look for is a third-party (Gigabyte/MSI/DFI/etc) board based on an Intel chipset that uses an AWARD BIOS and doesn't have too many onboard devices or anything too fancy added on. Onboard video is useless so I would rule out boards that have it. Be sure it has at least two available PCI slots, one for a sound card and another for network just in case. More PCI slots if you use/need other addon cards for whatever reason. If possible look for a board that uses a RealTek or Marvell Yukon network chip, as these have 9x drivers and may save you from having to add a card. Order rloew's RAM patch to enjoy up to 4GB of RAM under 9x. Install 98SE using "SETUP /p i" if you have problems with ACPI (usually shows up as crashes during SETUP or onboard devices not working properly). That's about as far as I can take you until you choose a board or start your project. Debatable on that front; I wouldn't recommend the USP to someone unless they were familiar with backing up their system before attempting it and subsequently knowing how to verify that everything still works as expected once it's installed. I'm not trying to start an argument here, but some of the files contained in it do not work as intended with all systems; the later versions of the 2K USB2 stack drivers in particular.
  4. The Intel 9xx series boards do NOT have Windows 9x drivers. The motherboard chipset devices can be handled by my unofficial Intel Chipset driver package, but there are no Windows 9x drivers for any of the onboard hardware such as Video, HD Audio, or the Network card. The Intel D875PBZ is the LAST Intel-branded board and the 875 is the LAST Intel chipset that carries official 9x support. I have a lot of experience with 9x on "post-9x" Intel boards and if at all possible I would advise you to AVOID Intel-branded motherboards later than the D875PBZ for Windows 9x systems at all costs. The proprietary Intel BIOS tends to not get along well with Windows 9x and is worthelss for actual customization of any important settings. Third party boards based on Intel chipsets are OK, but look for those that use AWARD BIOS preferably. If you want "everything" to have 9x support out of the box, then I suggest you find a motherboard based on the Intel 875 (or 865) chipset. It will however limit you to AGP for a video card. ATI X850 XT PE/NVidia 7800GS are the last compatible cards. The ATI X8xx series has issues with some old DOS games. If you accept that some tweaking, trial-and-error, and some non-free third party patches may be required, then you can look for a newer board. Accept that you will need rloew's SATA patch and RAM patch, along with a 9x-compatible PCI add-in sound card and you will be able to use a much larger variety of hardware. Many newer boards will work using these, but you will need to carefully select a board that has a Network card with 9x drivers (unless you want to use a PCI card for this as well) and preferably uses AWARD BIOS. NVidia 7950GT is the last confirmed working PCI-E video card. These come in 256MB and 512MB versions; the latter models may require another patch from rloew.
  5. @AnX Just wondering if you ever tried what I suggested here to fix the media metadata issue? (Quoted below to keep info together in this thread.) Try this. Windows Imaging Component (64-bit) A little piece of the OS that was left out of x64 for whatever reason. I had to add it to my XP x64 "MediaPC/HTPC" that I built recently. I don't know if it directly addresses the problem you mentioned but I had to add it for something I needed... Ugh I must be getting old lol my memory is fuzzy!
  6. Apparently it doesn't show up under XP x86 because SP3 adds SHA-256 capability. Since there was no SP3 for XP x64, then it must be manually added by HotFix. Thanks to sdfox7 in this thread I was able to Google-fu a solution. Google is now working on IE8 under XP x64, and my game that depends on it is no longer choking out on the white loading screen. It may be very interesting to play around with the files from the two HotFixes I listed there that cured the problem. They are available in x86 versions as well, and I don't know whether or not older versions of Internet Explorer may be able to benefit from them as well... Possibilities, anyone? A very interesting idea if one only had the time to devote to experimentation with it. Reminds me of when I considered setting up a web server for the sole purpose of running SquirrelMail to access my Yahoo Mail to avoid the new forced interface. It seemed possible but I never had the time to get around to it.
  7. Thanks for the info; now that I knew some specific issues to Google for it led me to a solution. But no, not all of these sites will remain broken now. XP x64 users should install KB2868626/MS13-095 and KB3072630/MS15-074. The latter may entirely supersede the former but I installed both and now Google is working on IE8 under XP x64. It also fixed the other issue I had which got discussed elsewhere in an unrelated thread. I don't know whether older versions of Internet Explorer might also benefit from these updates... possibilities anyone? These updates are also available in x86 versions. EDIT: It may or may not be relevant that I had previously spoofed the IE User Agent to IE9 on this system. If the two updates I listed don't fix the issue this tweak may also be required.
  8. do in USBSTOR.inf? On other USB Mass Storage drivers for 98SE, this registry key is missing. The flashdrives work correctly with and without this registry, so why it is there? That entry (along with USBSTOR CB and USBSTOR CBI if present) is to be used for specific Mass Storage Devices that do not correctly report which Mass Storage Protocol they are using. This is most likely a non-issue for any modern device and only a leftover form when the protocol was being developed. I don't know of any devices that actually require it. You will also find these sections along with a short description of them inside my XUSBSUPP for Windows 95.
  9. Google does NOT work on IE8 under XP x64 for some reason, while it does work for others under XP x86. I noticed this during a separate issue I was working on. Very strange and annoying.
  10. The onboard Marvell Gigabit LAN chip has a provided 9x driver according to the Gigabyte page for the board. Some boards of this era have Audio chips that are supposedly switchable between HD Audio and AC'97, I have a board that claims this, but have never tried to use the Audio on it yet. Check the manual and the BIOS settings to see what's available.
  11. While I would love to see this happen I highly doubt it would even be given any serious consideration. We just had a battle with the PaleMoon developers over the ins-and-outs of Windows XP support, which they have all but threatened to drop (again) if too many people using a "hack" they disapprove of try to get support. Also I read a post over at their forum once by someone who wanted to run PaleMoon on 2K, and he was given the standard Microsoft-esque response (old, outdated, insecure, bla, bla, bla). I can only imagine the rubbish that would be said about supporting 9x.
  12. It is forbidden to request downloads of copyrighted software or to discuss means of using them illegally on this forum. But here you may be able to learn how to create such an image yourself. Good luck! Es prohibido solicitar descargas de software con derechos de autor o informaciones sobre su utilizción ilegal en este foro. Pero aquí Usted puede aprender como crear la imagen deseada por si mismo. ¡Buena suerte!
  13. True. Here's hoping... lol Apparently my first post got lost in the shuffle along with the other one. A bit fishy, but all's well that ends well I guess...
  14. That post removal was the last straw, I had to register and say something. I did try to reply after the post disappeared. Mine has also disappeared or was never approved, one or the other. If nothing else, here is the best quote from that post, preserved for posterity. It sums up the whole issue of XP compatibility in PM up from beginning to end, from dropping support in the main code line to the POSReady block: "...have gone from really liking PaleMoon to simply hating it less than all of the other options..." well said, whoever you were!
  15. That kind of stuff will encourage people running old browsers with vulnerabilities! That's absurd! Essentially Moonchild just made himself and PaleMoon into tools for Microsoft. Repeating the official Microsoft talking points... "unsupported" "insecure" "dangerous" "hack" and other rubbish. The decision of a user to choose this OS or that OS or to modify said OS in any way whatsoever should be none of his concern. Build the browser for XP, and if any reported bugs cannot be reproduced on a normal XP setup, then don't spend time on them. How hard is it? He claims that it was not intended to "target" anyone, but a poster over there made a good point about the fact that why has this suddenly become a problem when it wasn't before? Of course this was "dismissed" with vague claims about unspecific "strange problems under XP" rather than answered. LATER EDIT: And now they have resorted to deleting posts that criticize their decisions. A very well written post was just removed.
  16. Interesting how this issue is playing out over at the PaleMoon forum. Moonchild and Tobin are defending their position citing what Microsoft thinks about this or that and claiming that they made the decision because they don't want to support "Frankenstein" versions of Windows, and basically telling people if they don't like it they can find another browser. What a load of .... I mean, so what? A simple notification that the POSReady configuration is not supported and that any bugs reported that cannot be reproduced in a standard Windows XP system will not be addressed should be enough to satisfy their supposed concerns. Then enter the "fanboys" who will defend them no matter what, and have nothing useful to say, only rubbish like "run Windows 7." And now apparently they are silencing dissent by actively locking threads about the issue and directing everyone to read what Microsoft has to say about it.
  17. And for those who have no intention of removing the hack just to satisfy Pale Moon, here are two links for direct download of the offline installer of Pale Moon 25.8.1.(Atom/WinXP): <Link1> <Link2> You know, I had really started to like PaleMoon before they dropped XP compatibility in the main build line. What a load of rubbish that was to begin with; if there is nothing in the code that prevents it from working under XP, then the choice to not build the code in an XP-friendly environment is nothing but outright laziness (or arrogance/distaste for the right of others to use the OS of their choice) on the part of the developers IMNSHO. And now, apparently they are furthering their arrogance by deciding whether or not it is "dangerous" for users to modify their operating systems as they so choose. Why should Moonchild care (and what business is it of his anyway) what variety of XP users want to run PaleMoon on?
  18. In my case, what it boils down to is that the developers of the game in question (League of Legends) could care less about their players who still run the game on Windows XP. Their forums are literally plastered with reports of the problem (a never ending white loading screen when trying to access part of the in-game online store), which are never even graced with a response from a Moderator or Developer. The problem is not always specifically limited to XP, but it seems to come and go and it seems that the "recommended fixes" found here and there from other users work for the later systems. It may also be a problem that I am running the game under XP x64 instead of regular XP x86, but who knows. The game works, I just can't use parts of the store. So when I need to do so I guess I will just have to log in on a Vista or later machine. Back on the IE9 Spoof front, I noticed that when I first implemented it and opened Internet Explorer 8, Google (my homepage) started to load properly for a split second and then reverted back to the "cannot display" rubbish. So apparently there is some other "secondary" way that these sites are detecting the browser version besides reading the User Agent.
  19. Maybe! Check the Marvell driver package here. PCI-E video cards work as well so long as they have a driver (82.69/NVidia 7xxx family).
  20. I've never yet seen an ASUS board that played nice with Windows 9x. As far as I know they use AMI BIOS as well, not AWARD, which is more 9x friendly. But some members here use ASUS, so I guess it depends on personal preference and the luck of the draw. I prefer Gigabyte first and then MSI. Not had much experience with ASRock or others. When you look at the specs for the motherboard you choose, be sure to check the exact brand and specs of the LAN controller. Certain RealTek and Marvell chips have 9x drivers, but not all. If it is Intel, then forget it, they dropped 9x support ages ago. It's possible to get a 9x compatible LAN controller, but there's no getting around the sound issue. You will either need a 9x compatible PCI sound card or a "USB Audio" device which I have no experience with.
  21. Try this. Windows Imaging Component (64-bit) A little piece of the OS that was left out of x64 for whatever reason. I had to add it to my XP x64 "MediaPC/HTPC" that I built recently. I don't know if it directly addresses the problem you mentioned but I had to add it for something I needed... Ugh I must be getting old lol my memory is fuzzy!
  22. It's possible to get Windows 9x running on fairly modern hardware. I've been experimenting some in this area for a while now; I've made it up to an Intel X58 Chipset motherboard but had to sideline further experimentation for a while. Your main issues to overcome will be the following: If you are serious about attempting this, then first I advise you to purchase rloew's RAM and SATA patches. It will eliminate a bunch of headache and give you a head start on other problems. Modern motherboards frequently use ACPI that does not get along well with 9x. This seems to be largely dependent on the type of BIOS. As previously mentioned, AWARD BIOS seems best based on my experience. Avoid newer Intel-branded motherboards (third party (Gigabyte/MSI/etc) boards based on Intel chipset are fine) because their BIOS is useless and they don't play well with 9x. I don't know anything about UEFI as yet. Be certain that your motherboard allows setting the SATA controllers to Legacy IDE PATA mode unless you purchase rloew's SATA patch. If you have it, then you will need to be able to set the controllers to Native IDE SATA mode. AHCI mode does NOT work with Windows 9x. Drivers for Windows 9x on newer hardware are virually non existent. This leads to the following points. Unless you want to run at 640x480x16 or use the experimental generic VBEMP9x driver that doesn't provide 3D acceleration, then you will need to choose a video card that is supported under 9x, as far as I know the last/most powerful ones that work properly are the ATI Radeon X850 XT PE 256MB and the NVidia GeForce 7950GT 256MB/512MB (patch from rloew needed for full use of 512MB or larger cards; also the 7950GX2 1GB card is an unknown at the moment, it works with the last NVidia driver but reports errors and doesn't use its full RAM). Since most likely no 9x drivers will exist for the onboard hardware, you will need slots available to install a 9x compatible Audio and Network card on top of any other cards you may use. No HD Audio drivers exist for 9x. Some Gigabit Network adapters are supported, but only a handful. Hopefully this gives you some info to start from.
  23. I ran across a page a while back that barely mentioned the 9x build but it had a download link. The 9x package doesn't seem to actually contain the driver file though, "uniata.sys" that is present in the NT packages is not present in the 9x package and no other "expected" driver file types (VXD/PDR/etc) either. So the package is either incomplete or requires it to be manually compiled. I don't remember the link but the file name is "driver_9x_39g1.rar".
  24. Small update... I managed to get IE8 spoofed to IE9 under XP x64 using a slightly modified version of the .REG file linked on this page. (The file may work as-is, but I added some lines to it first based on dencorso's earlier entries and this page. Also discovered this tool in the process, essentially a "User Agent Switcher" for IE.) Neither of these solved the problem however. I have a feeling it is directly related to the inability to use Google, Yahoo, etc in IE8. Anyone had success getting around this on any version of Windows or IE 6/7/8?
  25. Interesting that the original link is gone. The package in the original was a .ZIP while the one you found is an .EXE. I haven't tried to unpack it but probably the same content anyway. I did an examination of that page along with several others. I think I managed to put it all in mostly good order. Since no one else has offered any suggestions on this point I guess I'll go with what I have. http://downloadmirror.intel.com/23061/eng/inf_9.4.0.1027_readme.txt Version: 9.4.0.1027 as mentioned in the top post appears to be more recent (September 02) than Version: 9.4.4.1006 (August 01) What Target should we be searching for? Edit:Then there's SuperMicro's ftp://ftp.supermicro.com/CDR-X10_1.03_for_Intel_X10_platform/Intel/INF/Chipset_v9.3.2.1020/Releasenote_9.3.2.1020.htm with History and changelog from 2012-2014And Intel's link for Intel desktop boards. There also exist versions: 10.0.13, 14, 20 WHQL, 22, 24, 27 and v10.1.2.10 WHQL. It appears that each version released by Intel is "extrapolated" based on some database they have and whatever commands are given. Some of the later versioned packages do indeed have files with earlier dates inside than files from the earlier package versions, however I'm not certain how much difference this makes. Sometimes the content is identical; sometimes there are small changes that have no effect on the necessary data (i.e. sections named "Intel_PCI_DRV" instead of "INTELPCI_DRV"); sometimes there are small changes in the device descriptions; and sometimes there are actually some new device VID&PID's added. One has to just compare the files to see what (if anything) has changed. Apparently some 10.x versions are not totally useless. I don't know where the change happens. The 10.x versions in this package do have device descriptions but I haven't figured out whether they have any newer devices or not yet since the format is completely different. Thanks for the updated ZIP. Did you happen to compare the newer files inside to their older counterparts to see if there were actually any additions? It would be nice to have a quick method of checking a batch of given files against my versions to see if any VID&PID combinations exist in a newer Intel package that are not already included. Of course this wouldn't handle situations where the descriptions change but given the later 10.x changes it probably won't matter as they are no longer even providing "descriptions."
×
×
  • Create New...