LoneCrusader

This is only to run an experiment, you don't have to use or keep the resulting 95 installation. You don't even need the hardware drivers. All you need to do is find out if you can boot to the desktop after install (and installing USBSUPP) without getting the NTKERN error. If you do get it, then NTKERN may a bug with AMD that doesn't show up with Intel. If you don't get it, then you will know that it is related to the VM software.

Behavior when running under a Virtual Machine is sometimes unpredictable and is not always the same as behavior on a real machine. Can you try a native Windows 95 install on your AMD machine, just to rule out any discrepancy? I have no personal experience with AMD processors beyond the old K6-II era. I moved to P4's and have been using them since. I will ask rloew to comment on this, as he uses AMD almost exclusively...

Verify that the NTKERN.VXD being used on the AMD machine is version 4.03.1213 as contained in FIX95CPU. It SHOULD be, provided FIX95CPU is installing properly. However, NTKERN.VXD is not even used unless the USB Supplement is installed. When the USB Supplement is installed, it sometimes overwrites the NEWER version installed by FIX95CPU with 4.03.1212, which has a bug. This bug is documented in FIX95CPU's README.TXT. All that this fix solves is the frequency issue. Your own results show it works perfectly at 3000 MHz, so the issue you're having with the AMD Athlon X2 4850e is *obviously* not related to the frequency it's running at. Actually it could be, if NTKERN 1212 has overwritten the 1213 installed by FIX95CPU. This is a documented bug as I pointed out to Darth1701. However, IF this is the case, I don't see how/why it is being overwritten on one machine and not the other...

Once again, you are looking to start a fight that you know you can't win. Contradicting yourself make you look even more..................................... Sigh... Hardly a contradiction. Some files may work under certain conditions = not 100% compatible. 100% compatible = all files work under all conditions....

No, I'm not wrong. I said some NT files may work under certain conditions and not work under others. Some may work perfectly. Some may not. If an NT file works some or most of the time, that's great. You act as if I'm against using any NT files. I'm not, and I said so above. The point is: There is NO WAY TO BE 100% SURE an NT file works under ALL conditions. There are too many variables. An NT file may work fine for X program, but not for Y program. An NT file may work fine for programs A, B, C, D, and E, but not for program F. It is physically impossible to test all programs that depend on a given file. Such things require extensive testing beyond what one person can do. I know this, I'm a "project author" too. I hope that every single NT file you have in your SP works under ALL conditions. But there is no way to be certain of that. Now, you may not have seen any problems. There may not be problems. All the files you have added may work fine until another variable is added to the equation. What variable? Lets take KernelEx for example. KernelEx was designed to run on a standard Windows 98/ME installation. It expects certain conditions to exist. If those conditions have been changed by the addition of another Unofficial file, then KernelEx may not work properly. Is this your fault? NO. Is it the KernelEx developer's fault? NO. It is simply a side-effect of mixing two unofficial packages. And as usual you revert to personal attacks. Which means you are unable to debate the real issue.

The latest browsers wasn't designed for Win98, but I don't here you lecturing the Opera and Firefox users. This is why we don't see eye to eye. You always complaining about the NT files etc... They work on my system and hundreds maybe even thousands of others. Just cause you want to live in the 98 days, doesn't mean others do. Get in tune dude. The pack is UNOFFICIAL AND FREE. WTF is you crying about. You DON'T have to use it. Us geeks are not living by the Microsoft standards. Now spin the @#$% off, before I run you over. The latest browsers wont run under 98 without KernelEx because they are DESIGNED FOR WINDOWS NT. The fact they are DESIGNED FOR WINDOWS NT is the reason we NEED KernelEx. We NEED KernelEx because NT is NOT 100% COMPATIBLE with Windows 9x. .. HENCE ... FILES FROM WINDOWS NT ARE NOT 100% COMPATIBLE WITH WINDOWS 9X! How hard is this concept to grasp? You either can't handle this concept, or purposely refuse to understand it. All you can do is take unwarranted personal offense and behave as if no one knows anything but you...

Look, I really do not want to argue. You and I do not see eye to eye, and I can accept that. But stop acting as if I am attacking you or "knocking" your project. I am simply pointing out a POTENTIAL issue. It IS about a file being new. The fact that it is "new" means that it comes from a NT version of Windows, which is NOT 100% compatible with Windows 9x. The fact that a file is from Microsoft is irrelevant, becuase Microsoft is only interested in supporting Windows NT. If the file can be used under 9x to gain new functionality, that's great, and no one is complaining about that. The problem is that this "new" file WAS NOT DESIGNED for Windows 9x. It MAY work properly uner ALL conditions, it MAY work properly under SOME conditions, and it MAY NOT WORK AT ALL. There is no way to know whether a "new" file works under SOME or ALL conditions without extensive testing beyond the capability of any one individual. It is POSSIBLE that the files in the SP can cause issues. I did not say they ARE, I said they MAY. Hardware is irrelevant in this particular situation. I have no doubt that KernelEx also has issues. I know it does, because I had problems when I tried to use it before as well. This issue MAY be only related to KernelEx, but it MAY be exacerbated by the newer files, and it MAY not. The point is that the newer files introduce another unknown "variable" to the equation.

+1 I really detest Opera... It would be nice if it were possible to pick up the last sources from Firefox 2.x or 3.x and keep it modified/updated it for 9x, but that's far beyond my ability... Yep...

I need to point out something here. I'm not trying to start or restart an argument, and not trying to offend anyone, so please don't take this wrong. Just something to think about. Myself and others have pointed out before that there is a possibility that the various added files in the SP that come from later versions of Windows may not work well under 98SE under all conditions. There may be various hidden bugs and/or other dependencies or "inter"dependencies on components of those later systems that are not present or behave differently under 98SE. Mixing these later versions of files into 98SE, while at the same time running an "overlay" that is supposed to emulate those later versions of Windows may simply be causing these hidden issues to surface, when they might not surface otherwise. The 9x and NT codebases are significantly different. Files not written specifically for 98SE may exhibit strange behavior under certain conditions. I'm NOT trying to say "DONT' USE THOSE FILES," we should be thankful for any later file that can be used in the right situation under 9x. However, one must keep in mind that they were not designed or tested for use under 9x.

See this page on creating INF files... INF files control the packages created by IExpress. Links for IEAK (IExpress) included on the page.

My response was not necessarily directed at you only, it was meant for dencorso as well. It seemed, and the OP obviously took it this way as well, that your responses were to the effect of "you've been given an answer, don't bother trying something else or asking other quasi-related questions." I know you both well enough to know that is not what you meant, but it could be inferred based on the tone of the posts. I agree that the "should still work on 98SE" statement is questionable, but there's no harm in trying. I would also like to see a better, more comprehensive solution to this issue (not to mention the added bonus that a better "generic" driver could be used in Normal Mode on newer systems with no official drivers.) If the file in question was ever provided as part of a redistributable or downloadable package, I must disagree with your statement that we cannot provide it (or at least link to the original package). Back on topic - has anyone tried using the VBE9X driver in Safe Mode? It has some limitations, the worst of which is the inability to use DOS boxes unless they are run in Full Screen mode, but may be a better "overall" solution.

I see no reason why Mikl should not be able to continue his questioning here, or his experiment... From what I read in the other linked thread, the "solution" given is far from perfect or universal, so I don't understand "resistance" toward trying something else...?

Welcome to MSFN! You're definitely in the right place for all of your Windows 9x pursuits.

CONFIG.SYS has nothing to do with USB. The reason I feel the removal of the CONFIG.SYS references may be important is that since Windows ME does not use CONFIG.SYS, using the ME version of SYSDM.CPL may break the use of CONFIG.SYS on 98SE. This would need to be tested thoroughly.. I don't have any machines that use special CONFIG.SYS entries, but there may be many users who do, especially on older hardware.

@ Drugwash & PROBLEMCHYLD I have sent you a PM.

Microsoft made changes to the way USB devices are detected and enumerated between Windows 98SE and Windows ME. (Info taken from MS documentation.) I just want to be sure we're on the same page here... The USB devices will install without a "problem" with the 98SE SYSDM.CPL's. The only difference with the ME SYSDM.CPL is that it will automatically install a driver for a USB Storage device, without prompting the user. The 98SE versions will prompt the user to search for and select a driver, even when it has the driver in WINDOWS\INF already. (Unless the device VID&PID is in the INF, as I pointed out.) Assuming we are on the same page, it should be interesting to check out the USBSTOR.INF from WUPG98.

I have discovered another POTENTIAL solution to the problem this project was supposed to address. At the moment, it is buggy, requires further testing, and may be impractical to implement as part of a "project." The purpose of adding the Windows ME SYSDM.CPL was the fact that it will automatically install the drivers for USB & USB Storage devices WITHOUT prompting the user to select a driver. I have found a way to cause this auto-installation under 98SE, but it suffers from a strange bug. If the following conditions are met, then 98SE will automatically install the drivers for a USB Flash Drive: -USBSTOR.INF is placed in WINDOWS\INF -The SPECIFIC VID&PID of the Flash Drive is listed in USBSTOR.INF EDIT 6-20-2013 LATER FOUND THAT THIS BUG HAPPENS UNDER VIRTUAL MACHINES ONLY. Now, here's the problem. If a Flash Drive has been installed using this method during a Windows session, then any subsequent attempt to install another Flash Drive that does NOT have its VID&PID specified in the INF (and therefore uses the Generic INF lines) will cause a "You Must Restart" dialog along with a Yellow Exclamation Mark error on the "USB Mass Storage Device" entry in the Device Manager. Rebooting before attempting to install a "generic" Flash Drive will prevent this bug. EDIT 6-20-2013 So, theoretically it is possible to achieve the auto-installation without the ME SYSDM.CPL. However, it would require an enormous amount of work creating a comprehensive INF list of VID's & PID's that would need to be continually updated with new Device entries.

Windows 95 OSR2 supports, but does not install the TCP/IP protocol by default, so it does not know how to to obtain a DHCP address. You have to add the protocol to the Network options screen during the install. You should be able to add it manually in the Network Control Panel.

You can't always expect someone here to have a 100% definite answer to your questions. Everyone here will help you as they can, but it is ultimately up to YOU to experiment some. If you're not prepared to run the experiments, then don't complain that someone else hasn't done it already, or isn't doing it for you.

Here's a special version, with the red, just for you I think the Red-on-Blue doesn't look good in this situation, but everyone's got their own opinion. 4PC(text).bmp

One problem I see is that everyone else is trying to use the original banner and edit it. While this is possible, it is much harder to avoid distortion, and would require a lot of pixel-by-pixel touch up. I can create plain "gradient" banners to use as starting points if anyone wants this. You can add text to them, save, and then re-open them and reduce the color depth to 16 colors once you have it like you want it. This results in a much clearer image... Here's a couple of examples...

Normally I'm all about maintaining the original look when it comes to the Windows 9x UI. But this is one case where I have tried, and tried, and tried, and TRIED to reproduce the proper Font style, size, and spacing of the original. I have tried every possible variant of the Arial font family, and no matter what I do, It NEVER looks like the original. I finally gave up on Arial because I don't like how the "W" looks. In this case I used Tahoma.

Bitmap 161 is not used by Windows 98 at all. The Bitmap 157 is used in Safe Mode as well. Bitmap 161 is used by Windows 95 when it uses this same version of EXPLORER (IE 4 Desktop Shell). See here for my woes with this.

I decided to try my hand at this as well. I can't get the red color to look right though, it clashes/bleeds too much with the blue. It would look good on black though... Here's my attempt, without the red. DBLBDB98se.bmp

I can assure you that people like Hu$tle do not speak for me, or the greater part of this community. There's always going to be some immature id!ot who thinks you have nothing better to do than sit around and worry about what they want. For every one like him, I'll bet there are ten happy users out there who respect you and appreciate your work.