LoneCrusader

With 7-Zip or WinRAR, etc.

I only have 2 nVidia cards in all of my computer parts stockpile... I always used 3dfx (long ago ) and ATi cards, so I am not very familiar with nVidia... I believe later versions of the nVidia Control Panel do not work on 95 at all. I seem to remember something about the 77.xx (??) release of ForceWare being the last version that works 100% under 95, but I can't remember where I got that information. The later drivers may work, but the Control Panel itself does not. Many of these may be unrelated, but besides DCOM95, and DirectX8, I always install the Winsock2 update, the Windows 95 Y2K update, Dial-Up Networking 1.4, Internet Explorer 5.5 SP2, and Windows Media Player 7 (or unofficial 7.1). Should be able to get MSCONFIG from here...

Done. It matches.

EDIT 06-10-2013: THIS LINK IS NOW TO THE OLD VERSION 2.0. SEE THE NEXT POST, OR THE FIRST POST OF THIS THREAD FOR THE NEW VERSION 3.0. Due to reported problems with MDGx's website , Drugwash has kindly provided a new download link for FIX95CPU. This will be in effect until we find out what is going on...

Thanks for hosting those files. I will add the link to the FIX95CPU thread until we know what is going on. I have thought about trying to make a backup of the website, but I have no experience with such things at all. We do need to hake some proactive steps though, just in case... and even many of those old, broken MS links are valuable now because some of them still work in the Wayback Machine and others may give the specific names of package files that could be lost otherwise...

I have also been concerned about MDGx, he did not answer the last couple of emails I sent him (2 or 3 messages over a span of about a year) so we may need to look into making some kind of archives in case his site goes down... The files inside FIX95CPU.ZIP should carry a date of 4/16/10, and the README should say "Version 2.0." USBSTR95 was only issued in one version AFAIK, and 12/2007 is correct I believe.

USBSTR95 is a little "disorganized" as it was left in a Beta state before PassingBy left us. However, USBSTR95 contains the BEST CURRENTLY (PUBLICLY) AVAILABLE USB Storage Drivers for Windows 95. I know this for a fact, because I have spent literally DAYS combing DriverGuide, old FTP servers, and the like searching for better drivers. I have even contacted the manufacturers of early USB Storage Devices (such as Phison and Apacer) and requested any older 95-compatible drivers they may have had (no luck here of course, all claim to have never supported it, despite some documentation I have found that claims otherwise... ). The only "issues" with USBSTR95 are 1)unnecessary files included, and 2)a later version of EjectUSB exists than the version in the full package. The drivers themselves have limitations, but this it not the fault of USBSTR95 or PassingBy who created it.

I believe they are all fine. Only (usually) on a much newer system would you have to do a lot of worrying about these settings.

If you use the two official USBSUPP packages, do NOT use my XUSBSUPP update that I linked. They should not be mixed. XUSBSUPP, while itself "unofficial," merges ALL available official USB-related updates into ONE installation. (Includes USBSUPP.EXE, USBUPD2.EXE, and 4 or 5 HotFixes)

(It's like a hot potato , pass it on ) jaclaz BTW, off-topic, but after finding this I finally understand the "de La Palice" references.

Eh? I assume specific to non-US keyboards. Should be Ctrl+Alt+Del on US ones.

Off the top of my head without doing any specific searching... Try F1, F2, and the other function keys if those don't work. I seem to remember a machine once that needed CTRL pressed along with the Function key... If none of that works you can always try holding down a key while the machine boots and see if you get an error. Usually the error will ask you (and provide the proper Keys) to enter SETUP (the BIOS) or proceed normally.

Hmmm.. so many reasons, but it can just about be summed up with these: -Because we feel like it. -Because for our purposes, newer versions of Windows have nothing whatsoever to offer us that we cannot do with 9x. -Because we utterly reject the idea that a computer (or piece of software) needs to be updated every ten minutes or so. -Because it annoys arrogant people who think we're crazy. -Because people like this ^ say it can't be done. And to quote a post I saw once on a different forum:

Try pointing the Driver dialog to C:\WINDOWS, C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM, C:\WINDOWS\OPTIONS\CABS (if it exists), etc etc. The installation may have pre-copied the files to the proper locations, but the INF file is requesting them to copy again. This happens sometimes, even with Microsoft's own USBSUPP updates. The installer may also be unpacking the files to a temporary foler under C:\WINDOWS\TEMP, so check there as well...

All of the files relevant to this Sound issue discussion ARE ZIP's... The PW3041.ZIP file from jaclaz's earlier links is a WDM driver stack for Windows 98 & up ONLY, so it is irrelevant unless you simply want to archive it for use on 98 at some point. The correct file you need is this one (crystal_CS4280.zip) from submix8c's last link. And it is a ZIP. No problem B)

Get the .exe version. The MSI version will probably require Microsoft Installer 2.0 to be installed (not a problem because it works on 95 but it's yet another update to install )

Any driver package that claims to require DirectX 8.1 is NOT for Windows 95. Some of them might work anyway, so it was worth the effort as I advised earlier, but 8.0a is the last version working on 95. There ARE drivers out there for this device that WILL work on 95, because I have Radeon 8500 drivers for 95 and the Radeon 8500 is quite a bit newer than the chip in question.

I have seen previous reports of the "two PCI.VXD bus types" error before and wondered how it could be solved...

Download them and archive them just in case, but you don't NEED to install them unless you are having a specific problem with the BIOS. It CAN be risky to update the BIOS, I've never seen any problems myself, but maybe I've just been lucky...

Hmm... Sounds interesting. I will have to experiment with this. Link in previous post fixed, and here again for reference: SYSDMCPL.ZIP - 156.9 Kb Of course it comes with the same disclaimer I've said before - this file is experimental and MAY cause unexpected behavior, especially regarding CONFIG.SYS if you have any special settings specified there. It has not been tested under such conditions.

Yeah, they go through. And if you go back and post again, of course you get a double post which is what happened the other day. Here's the really ODD thing - When you click to post, and get the error above, returning to the Main Forum page will display the forum and topic you posted in as having "new" posts to YOU - when YOU made the post!

Still acting up today with the same issues. Screenshot of the "Driver error" below.

Do you actually get an error when you try to install them, or does it just say that in the documentation somewhere? If the documentation just makes this claim, I would try installing them anyway. I highly doubt that there is enough difference between DirectX 8.0a and 8.1 to keep a driver from working... If you do get some kind of error, see if there are any earlier versions of the video drivers.

OK, fair enough. I'll make a few short points below, but despite the technical aspects, this really is a "subjective" issue based on the preference of the user. My personal affinity for Windows 95 comes from my early computer experiences. I never used 95 RTM / 95A, so my first experience with 95 was OSR2.x, which is essentially a whole new version unto itself, without the bugs of 95RTM. I had a 95OSR2.x machine that never gave me problems and ran everything I threw at it. A friend of mine had a 98FE computer that was a pile of junk and was crashing constantly. Because of this, and because I eventually used 98FE for a short time, I came to dislike Windows 98. Keep in mind that this was based on experiences with 98FE, and the fact that 98 was somewhat slower that 95 on the hardware of that period. I eventually encountered the 2.1GHz bug on a new system I wanted to build (and didn't know how to fix it at the time), and this, combined with the fact I could not run WarCraft III on 95, forced me to step up to 98SE. Since then I have come to appreciate 98SE. It is more stable than 98FE (in the same vein as 95OSR2.x fixed the problems with 95RTM) and as such I find it an acceptable replacement for 95 OSR2.x for most of the things I use my computer for. I do devote a fair amount of time to working with 95, but this is because I was forced to abandon it unwillingly, and out of a sheer determination to use it because the "mainstream" says I shouldn't. I've been quite the 95-diehard for most of my time though. I actually refused to purchase or use ANY USB device WHATSOEVER until sometime in 2009, simply because the devices did not support Windows 95. Other users here have different reasons for preferring 95. Many of the 95'ers hate the Windows 98 / Desktop Update shell. I prefer it myself; however I always run very powerful hardware for 9x, so I am never bugged by its supposed "sluggishness." Now for a few quick technical points. You will have to follow dencorso's advice and do some digging if you need more than this. -Windows 95 OSR2.x is faster than 98 & up and can do MOST but not ALL of the things 98SE can do. -Windows 95 OSR2.x USB Support is almost nonexistent and USB2 Support is not available. Firewire/1394 is not supported either. -Windows 98SE is supported longer on "newer" hardware; and is capable of "better" supporting "even newer" hardware that does NOT support 9x. -Windows 98/98SE/ME are supported under KernelEx & the Revolutions Pack where 95 is not. This is a factor if you want to run newer programs. -Most of the unofficial bug fixes found here for 98 & up have been ported to 95 in some form, so they are fairly equal in this respect. -RLoew has added 95 support in some form to almost all of his various patches, including but not limited to the RAM, 48-Bit LBA, and SATA patches.