LoneCrusader

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.

When any devices lacking drivers are detected during 9x installation, they are added to the Device Manager as "Unknown devices." You will not be prompted to install any drivers for them. To force redetection and get a prompt for drivers, you will need to manually remove any "Unknown devices" from the Device Manager and reboot. You don't have to physically remove it each time for this. Also you could verify which .INF file is being called when the drivers are detected on the CD, and then copy it along with any other files listed inside of it to the HDD or a Floppy or whatever you prefer. But, you will still need to take the steps I gave above.

The only "case" that needs to be made is the preference of the user. You don't know why the OP wants do do it... I don't know why you would care if he does?

According to the CPUID Version History page, a 1.57 exists for 98. Versions after this have no 9x listings or comments... I clicked on some of the other builds linked on your link at OldVersion.com. Version 1.32.0 is listed working on 95 there. Version 1.33 is listed as NOT working on 95. So, given the only build between these is 1.32.1, and I have used that one on 95 myself, it would seem to support that version being the last one working on 95. Further experiments should be made, but 1.32.1 is a good place to start and should work for identifying the OP's machine.

BAH, Double Post. I'm seeing a lot of errors with MSFN tonight. SQL server errors, "Driver" errors... and sometimes the Font on the page changes when I refresh it. What's going on? @dencorso Please delete this or move it to this thread. EDIT: This error is displayed at the bottom of the page when I get the "changed Font" refreshes.

I'm not certain those versions work under 95. I haven't tested them (or if I did I don't remember) but I used v1.32.1 in this post and I believe I was using the last 95-compatible version at that time...

erpdude8's Unofficial Service Pack is incompatible with my FIX95CPU update. Installing it on a FIX95CPU system will render the system unbootable. You will have to choose which update you want or need most. If you need FIX95CPU, then you can't use the USP as well. If you don't need FIX95CPU, then you can opt for the USP instead. The Microsoft USB Support updates have been superseded by this. XUSBSUPP.ZIP - 901.0 Kb This package installs every official updated file pertaining to USB under 95. Do NOT mix it with the original Microsoft ones. (And probably should NOT mix it with the USP either... ) Firefox - first be sure to install WINSOCK2 and any other update packages you wish to install. Then: Firefox 1.5.0.12 runs natively on Windows 95. Firefox 2.0.0.20 can be made to run on 95 by doing the following: Download and run the 2.0.0.20 installer. Select custom install. Choose NOT to install the DOM Inspector and the Quality Feedback Agent. When Setup completes, do NOT launch Firefox. Find the following files and DELETE them: "nsSearchService.js" and "nsSafebrowsingApplication.js" Now run Firefox. (These instructions are taken from this original thread, but the OP there takes many unnecessary steps.) EDIT: See this also. YouTube with Flash 7/Win95

Welcome to MSFN!

The Rage 128 should have complete 95 support. The errors you are seeing with the nVidia card MAY only be the "nVidia Control Panel" that runs in the System Tray. You do not NEED this in order for the driver to work properly. You may be able to simply disable it with MSCONFIG as suggested, and get rid of the error. DX8 is DirectX 8. It is an update for Video/Audio "effects" under Windows. Usually required by games, etc. Version 8.0a is the last version that supports Windows 95. You should install it before attempting to use ANY "newer" video card such as your FX5200 because many of the newer cards require this to be updated. Download and install these: DCOM95 (required for DX8) and then DX8.

I'm assuming this issue is still limited to the AMD machine? Or does it happen on the Intel machine as well? I use VMware Workstation 7.0 on a Intel P4 system and I have never encountered any problems using 95C...

No, a .CPL is not completely "identical" to a .DLL. And in any case, the problem here is that we do not know WHAT to fix, even if we had a tool to fix it.

If the driver itself is working, you're in good shape. Try what SomeGuy and cyberformer suggested: Remember though that MSCONFIG does not exist in 95 by default. You can copy it from a 98 machine or extract it from the Q239887 Hotifx which is named 4756US8.EXE. The Microsoft links at MDGx's are dead now...

Sure it is, if you know what you need to hex edit in the first place!