LoneCrusader

While I don't believe the search should be abandoned, I was able to track down this mysterious 8.1.0.28 version. And it is Windows 2K/XP only. So the Lenovo page is incorrect in claiming 9x compatibility, with that version at least. Release Notes Version 8.1.0.28 A package claiming to be a "Beta" version of the 2200 drivers seems to also be 2K/XP only. Beta Package

The 3.6 version includes a file (SYSDM.CPL) from Windows ME that has been determined to have strange effects on 98SE systems. There is an entire thread devoted to this with my (and others') unsuccessful attempts to pinpoint and correct problems. Also, some contents of that particular file, pertaining to CONFIG.SYS (used under 95/98/98SE but eliminated under ME) have been removed that were present in the 98SE version. The effect of this (or lack thereof) has yet to be determined.

You will likely get a wide variety of opinions in response to your question. This is a matter of deep division and disagreement, even amongst those of us who are still regulars here. I personally do not use or recommend ANY "Unofficial Service Pack." I recommend that users become informed about the specific updates they need, and apply them separately. Yes, this can become a tedious process, but it's essential for learning if you plan to continue using Windows 9x systems. There is no "one size fits all" solution because, INEVITABLY, something will be included or a choice made in an unofficial pack that the author or main users consider vital, but others may not want, or consider useless. Now, to try and answer your questions. 1.) It is the most active and the most recent. However it has also generated controversies and has unresolved known issues with USB devices. The "old" USP was created and maintained by Gape up until version 3.0 Beta 4. At this point, Gape disappeared and the project became inactive until PROBLEMCHYLD took it upon himself to update it. PROBLEMCHYLD has worked long and hard to try and get the USP to a "finished" state, and I admire his work, even if I disagree with choices that have been made. (I'm not trying to single out PROBLEMCHYLD here, I have also agreed with some of his changes, and I disagreed with many of the things about Gape's version as well, hence one of the reasons I do not use or promote "unofficial service packs.") The "512MB RAM fix" can be added without the USP. It also depends what "version" of this fix you are referring to. There are tweaks that may enable you to use up to ~1.5GB, but despite the wide reports of success with this, I have NEVER personally been able to make these work. Now, if you are referring to RLoew's RAM Limitation Patch, which needs no tweaks, and allows use of up to 4GB of RAM, then it is a different matter, as it is not free, and is not included in any unofficial package. Also, the RAM Limitation Patch and the older versions of the USP have issues when used together, due to "tweaks" applied by the USP. (Observed this on a test machine of my own.) 2.) External USB Device Support is virtually nonexistent on a fresh install, but can be made very comprehensive with NUSB. I recommend installing NUSB version 3.5. (note 3.5, not 3.6). Once NUSB is installed, many USB devices are supported, including flash drives, hard drives, and optical drives as well. 3.) Any hardware that old will have no issues under 98 and there shouldn't be any with the unofficial updates either. 4.) This one I cannot address personally, as I do not use the USP. You may well have encountered some of the known issues, or as yet undiscovered issues. We would need a substantial amount of further information to even guess at a cause or a solution. Also it is worth noting that a virtual machine may frequently behave differently than a real machine.

No problem, and good luck!

He may also need to disable "Silent Boot" or similar settings that would hide that list, especially on OEM computers.

Ok, here goes lol It's best if you remove all devices again, put the hard drive back in the old computer for this, and uninstall the Demo RAM patch. Once this update is installed, there is a chance that it may enable you to get past the issues you were having with the newer machine, because it installs a newer VMM.VXD kernel that has a bugfix for newer processors. I can't say for sure if it will help or not, as we were never able to determine the source of your error, but it remains a possibility. So, once you have XUSBSUPP installed, if you still want to try the newer machine again, simply re-install the Demo RAM patch and remove devices again for a new test. If it doesn't work still, you can always put it back in the old computer... again... lol. Notes for anyone else who may be interested in or download this: This package is experimental! It renders ALL earlier official and unofficial USB Support packages for Windows 95 OBSOLETE and should NOT be used with any of them! See the enclosed XUSBSUPP.TXT for further information. XUSBSUPP.ZIP - 901.0 Kb

Okay thanks, that would be great. USB support for the (old) W95B computer would be better than trying to work with either CD's or floppy drives, to get data to and fro. That is all assuming this protection error can't be fixed, as I will then have to put the W95B HDD back into the old computer, 350 Mhz CPU. Will then see if I can get a KVM that supports 3 computers; a tad bit easier. Peter Peter, if you're still following this thread I have created a preliminary version of the "merged update" that I was referring to. It contains all of the official Windows 95 USB updates merged into one installation package. It doesn't contain any unofficial items yet, (including USB Storage drivers) as these are still incomplete. I've had it done for a while now but hadn't seen you around. I should have posted before... but anyhow, if you're interested in the update, just let me know and I will post a link to download it.

Sure about that? Microsoft Windows 98 Service Pack 1 (SP1) The file is named WUCSP.EXE but MDGx's link is dead.

This package is incompatible with my FIX95CPU update. It rendered one of my test systems unbootable. I do not recommend using it. These issues have been documented in the FIX95CPU thread.

Wow.. my OSR 2.5 CD is dated 12-01-1997 12:16 PM (GMT, shows as 7:16 AM in EST). Not mentioned on the list... I didn't know I had something unique.

@PROBLEMCHYLD Here's a LOGO set for users who also have the 98 Plus! package installed. This way they can have the "Second Edition" text and not lose the "Plus!" text. Courtesy of bphlpt & myself. You can add it if you wish, or if not it can remain linked here for anyone who wants to add it manually. 98PLUSSE.ZIP - 86.9 Kb

Yes, but the bug also affects USB Mass Storage Devices. I haven't posted a screenshot of this, but I encountered it in one of my tests. It's not just limited to Host Controllers. Ah yes, lol, I should have made the Latin connection since the previous text was in Latin.

so you should have been sure that it's neither Windows 95A/B/C, not either the original version or Windows 95A, because the retail floppy disks/CD-ROM were never updated except when Internet Explorer 1 was released. Yes. And I said this in my slipstreaming instructions: but nonetheless, I'm happy that you got it to work, and it's not worth splitting hairs over. Welcome to MSFN. I do have a copy of 95 Original/RTM now, but I've had so many other projects going on that I haven't had any time to devote to experimenting with it.

Something that was changed about SYSDM.CPL between 98SE and ME has introduced a bug when the file is used with the older 98SE. The index numbers of all the Icons related to this bug (and their DLL locations) have remained the same in both OS versions. I believe the use of the Tape Icon is a random effect of the bug; I don't believe the Tape Utility has anything to do with it. -The bug does not exist under ME, whether the Tape Backup utility is installed or not. -However, the bug does exist under 98SE, whether the Tape Backup utility is installed or not. (Icon 19 instead) -I have compared all of the files related to the Tape Utility from both systems. They are identical. As far as "wrongly coded device ID," it would make sense if it only affected a specific piece or specific type of USB hardware. It also affects Mass Storage Devices which are installed with a generic driver and without specific ID's. I believe there may be no solution to this issue. I can't see how we're going to fix a bug that we can't pin down, especially since we don't even have a program that can be used to work on .CPL files. Without knowing what was changed, we're playing Russian Roulette trying to hit on the issue. es grata EHGO? = Entente Halieutique du Grand Ouest??

No problem. Yes, the VIA issue is a real PITA. If only the driver stack files had different names, then fixing the .INF's as discussed would cure it.

I would be interested to apply the fix/patch for 95B, to support USB drives please. Peter -Any luck getting past the protection error? Microsoft made one heck of a mess with the USB updates for Windows 95. As long as you know what to do beforehand, then you should be OK. If not, it can be extremely confusing. There are two official USB Support packages. The first of which (USBSUPP.EXE) had two versions issued (first version was bugged and should NOT be used). Then USBUPD2.EXE was issued to correct bugs in the first package. Finally there were several "HotFix" files issued that further updated the drivers. Then, on top of that, there are semi-complete unofficial packages to support USB Flash Drives (which may be superseded in the near future.) I have been planning to merge all of these updates into a single package to simplify things. If you're willing to wait a couple of days, I will try to get it assembled. If you want to go ahead and wade through the mess, I will walk you through it.

Here you go LOGO98SE.ZIP - 105.0 Kb

I'm not aware of any bootable Windows 95 CD's, for PC's without Windows or otherwise. But it's simple enough to create your own bootable CD. Anyway.. If you are using a "For PC's Without Windows" CD then it must be 95/95A rather than 95B/95C because the B/C versions only exist as OEM CDROMs. I have seen some errors reported using FIX95CPU with 95/95A. I did not have a copy of 95/95A to test with when I created FIX95CPU, so the results on those earlier versions may not be ideal or exactly the same as 95B/95C.

@PROBLEMCHYLD You do know that the startup & shutdown logos will lose the animation in in the bottom bar if edited with Paint or a similar program? You need a utility to restore the animation after the edits, such as XrX AddBar. I can fix them for you if you've not already done this...

So I used GIMP Portable, a free app available here - http://portableapps.com/apps/graphics_pictures/gimp_portable - and did a cut-and-paste of the text Windows is shutting down. I exported the new image, GIMP's version of "save as", to LOGO3.BMP, and that was it. So there was no choosing the Font or letter height/spacing or anything. The background was such that the paste didn't show. (I'm lazy, so I took the easiest way out. ) I appreciate the kind words though. If you have a similar simple request I'd be glad to give it a shot, but no promises. I'm no larryb123456 after all. Send me a PM if you like, to not clutter up PROBLEMCHYLD's thread. Ah I see. I was going to request a slight variation in the location of the "Second Edition" text (closer to the "Windows 98" text, similar to how the "Microsoft" text is, but maybe not right against it...) and to have the same "Second Edition" text added to the Windows 98 Plus! logo. I don't think that can be done with copy and paste though, as it would leave a "rectangle" around the text visible in the background.

Nice job with these logos. (I assume there is a Startup one as well as the Shut Down one?) I have tried and tried to create similar ones myself, but I never could seem to get the right Font, letter height/spacing, etc etc. Are you accepting other logo requests by any chance?

No, not quite. Windows 95 CDROM's are not bootable. My slipstreaming instructions were directed at those who wish to modify their installation source. If you're just going to copy and re-modify it each time you install, why not just use FIX95CPU as-is?

Cold or Warm boots should not matter in this case. Drive configurations might be an issue at some point, but I don't think it has anything to do with the current problem. Couple of other questions for the record that may make it easier to figure out what is going on... - Did you have any of the USB Support updates previously installed on this Win95 HDD? (MAJOR changes to several core system files, so we need to know whether we're working with pre-USB 95B or post-USB 95B.) - What are the specs of your motherboard & integrated hardware on it? Brand, Model, etc.

What is the "Explorer" message and Blue Screen you're getting? Strange. The only failure listed is on an attempt to load VSHARE. However, VSHARE was reported successfully loaded earlier in the file. I believe this has gone out of my realm of experience. Maybe rloew will have some suggestions. Don't give up yet.

If you want to use the 2GB of RAM, you will need to get the full version of the RAM patch. That's really the only option for using that much RAM... As you see, it is working and allowing you to get to Safe Mode. Very odd that you cannot boot in Normal Mode though... I'd say that there's a possibility there are still some issues caused by old drivers. Go into the BIOS on your motherboard and disable any Onboard Devices that you can, such as Audio, LAN, USB, Modem, etc, and see if it will allow you to boot into Normal Mode without errors. If so, then we can work on reenabling them one at a time and finding drivers to try and straighten it out. I'm not sure what else to try, other than while in Safe Mode, go ahead and install DUN14-95 and see if the BOOTLOG.TXT for booting in Normal Mode still reports errors (if so post it here). Other suggestions, anyone?