LoneCrusader
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by LoneCrusader
-
-
13 hours ago, TechnoRelic said:
I do not see Matt A. Tobin as say:
"The Enemy of 'Old Boys' Who Insistent on using Windows XP OS"
Let 'us' (RT) move toward Matt A. Tobin, rather than away from him.Then, I'm sorry to say, you insist upon remaining willfully ignorant of past events.
I wasted several hours of my day digging up these old links. I know they won't change your mind, but here they are for the record. Almost all of these were linked in the previous thread for this project, so there's no reason you shouldn't be aware of them.
----------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Tobin heaping praise on those who spread disparaging FUD against Windows XP:
https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=13060
NOTE - I was banned from their forum for daring to disagree here. I was later reinstated by Moonchild, but he still refused to answer most of my arguments.
Good riddance; I never went back.Directly plotting to sabotage code against XP & whining about "us":
https://freenode.logbot.info/binaryoutcast/20190223#c2019477
https://freenode.logbot.info/binaryoutcast/20190223#c2019486Threatening to withdraw his code repo with the intent to "hinder" us XP-users:
https://freenode.logbot.info/binaryoutcast/20190225#c2024612
https://freenode.logbot.info/binaryoutcast/20190225#c2024789Trashing XP/users:
https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=16241&start=240#p167582Targetting Fedor2 and his "friends":
https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=169823#p169823Trashing Vista/users:
https://github.com/MoonchildProductions/UXP/issues/817#issuecomment-433252852Acting like an a$$hole to BSD developers (those he refers to as "poor a$$ Linux developers"):
https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86----------------------------------------------------------
I will waste no more of my time debating with anyone who simply chooses to ignore anything negative that has been said before, just because "nice things" are happening now. The passage of time does not erase past wrongs, or make them any "less wrong." Sometimes it is possible to make peace, and there's nothing wrong with that. But making peace with someone does not imply that they are suddenly to become a "friend" that you wish to deal with or work with.
6 hours ago, Mathwiz said:Admittedly, there's zero benefit to me from new branding. At best, we'll get some spiffy new icons, and new artwork in Help / About, but the core functionality of our UXP-derived browsers isn't changing.
The difference I see is that this time, @Matt A. Tobin is offering to do a good portion of the necessary work. And I don't see that we're sacrificing anything; if we are, please enlighten me. I'd be much more dubious about this if I though we were losing anything concrete .
I suppose I see this as an issue of "principle." Sure, some will not see it as "concrete."
I'm very glad that Mr. Tobin seems to be developing a better attitude. I'm impressed by the fact that he's now willing to make some small contribution to the project. However, I find it distasteful that someone who has gone so far to cause trouble in the past is now going to "make choices" for something to do with this project that he has previously disparaged at every opportunity. He trashed the project and its users over and over, his behavior was ridiculous (see links above and the previous thread), and now you guys want to let him be the one to put a face on it? Really? After all roytam1's hard work and time spent, after all the criticism he faced, and now that same person is to be the one who names and brands the project? What an insult. Has anyone taken into consideration that roytam1 does not need, and may not want, Mr. Tobin's help? By pushing for these changes you are effectively railroading him toward a "peace settlement," and placing him in a position where he's being expected to "collaborate" with someone who has been a constant thorn in his side for however long now. I could only speak for myself, and it's irrelevant here because it's not my project, but if I were in roy's shoes, my answer would be a resounding and unequivocal NO.
0 -
19 hours ago, Goodmaneuver said:
I would assume you would need NUSB33e.exe (not sure if latest) installed to view the USB drive. This version is for Win98SE only, the following applies to the NUSB33e driver. When buying a new HDD the GUID Partition Table will have to be changed to Master Boot Record. The size limitation for MBR is 2.2TB per partition. Up to 4 primary partitions can be made or use extended partition if more are required. I would format a new drive on later OS. The large USB drives usually have a USB to Sata Adapter inside the box and Logical Block Addressing would be used for the raw sector accessing. If more than one computer is required to access the drive then a network drive could be considered for convenience. See here https://msfn.org/board/topic/178190-windows-98-and-nas-network-attached-storage/?do=findComment&comment=1160247 Why if used for backup only, the need for one drive? I think your asking how will Win98 go without patching. WinME without patching could access a maximum size of 32GB on USB so any partition larger than this can not be used. I have USB to IDE adapters and large size partition access was fixed with the updated files. I am not well informed about 98.
NUSB 3.3 is not the last version, but the newer NUSB 3.5 doesn't really include anything useful unless you intend to use USB Composite devices (that require USBCCGP.SYS). IIRC, NUSB 3.5 does also include SYSDM.CPL from Windows ME, which will allow USB storage drives to be "autoinstalled" without prompting like on later systems rather than prompting for you to search for a driver, but has the side effect of displaying "Windows Me" in the System Properties rather than Windows 98 and causes an icon bug in the Device Manager.
To make the "sizes of new external drives" bit much more simple: Do not exceed 2TB. 1TB and below is even better. Exceeding these limits requires more patches.
There is no such thing as a 32GB limit under Windows Me. And the same Windows Me USB storage driver is used for 98 in NUSB, so therefore there's no such limit there either. Where did you get that? (There's an old MSKB article out there with rubbish about 32GB partitions under 95 OSR2, but that's not true either.)
7 hours ago, tillewolle said:How do I check BIOS? and what means USP3 and Kex? Is it needed to make them compatible?
Your system will be LBA48 compatible, don't worry. This was only a concern on older systems. I did see that your motherboard has SATA ports; if you want to use them with Windows 9x you should probably use rloew's line of patches (PATCHATA, PTCHSATA) on ESDI_506.PDR rather than BHDD31. This would allow you to use all of the PATA (IDE) and SATA controllers at once if desired.
You do not "need" USP3 or KEX, unless you plan to run something that requires them. USP3 provides various updates, official and unofficial. Some of these may be useful. KernelEx allows you to run some newer programs that were written for Windows 2K/XP and don't work on 98 out of the box.
It really depends on what you want to use this 98 machine for. If you're using it for retro gaming, etc. and don't plan on trying to use it online or for "experimenting" then you don't need much beyond vanilla + BHDD31. If you're going to use it for "experiments," then you may want some of these unofficial packages. But be aware that the unofficial packages are not always intercompatible.
6 hours ago, Goodmaneuver said:An IDE to Sata adapter overcame these obstacles from my memory of such up to the OSs limit of 470GB at the time (my ME system still is AFAIK for IDE).
An IDE to SATA adapter will not overcome a BIOS limitation, but it isn't a concern here anyway. You mention another arbitrary limit of 470GB.. I don't remember there being any such limit. rloew offered a patch that's needed at 1TB, but AFAIK there's no limit below that when it comes to the actual filesystem. I vaguely remember a limit related to SCANDISK.. but as long as you don't run SCANDISK on or attempt to defragment a partition larger than ~470GB, then there shouldn't be anything to worry about.
0 -
I doubt this post will be very popular, but it needs to be said, for better or worse.
It appears to me at this point that everyone is jumping on the renaming bandwagon, despite the fact that it doesn't seem to be an issue of any concern for roytam1, whose project this is, and who does virtually* all the work (*props to those who report bugs and help track issues). I'd like to remind everyone that roytam1 started this as an individual project for his own use, and was kind enough to share it with the rest of us. He has continued to provide "New Moon" along with various other additional utilities, including regular updates and fixes for each, on his own time and with no personal gain from it. He probably never thought it would become this popular, and probably never had any intention of creating an entirely separate "project," especially since he's doing it all by himself in his spare time.
And now what do we have.. everyone pushing for things to be changed, just to make nice with the selfsame people who have been so critical of his project and have done their best to cause trouble in the past? Wow, talk about peer pressure. I noted once before, quoting someone else, that those who keep pushing for the changes were in effect doing the work of those who sought to cause trouble. Honestly, I'm still inclined to see it that way. How does a name change actually benefit any single one of you (meaning actual users of the project) who's pushing for it? (Rhetorical question, I don't really expect answers.)
I will never understand the "peace at any price" mentality, no matter how many times I encounter it. But now it appears there will be "Peace in our time!" So be it.
2 -
11 minutes ago, Matt A. Tobin said:
There is a whole loose associations of drones out there that all day long and everywhere they can they repeat the mantra of "Old and Insecure" about Pale Moon and allied projects.
I've seen them in action.
But this does logically flow to another subject, one of my "pet peeves" if you will. Pale Moon faces this type of denigration itself, yet it's developers continue the cycle and pass this same denigration down to XP (or other legacy systems) users, who only wish to be left alone, and not have things broken "on purpose." As I said it would be long ago, now we're all in the same boat here, whether we agree with one another or not. We all need this same platform. It would be nice to stop arguing about it incessantly. I know you only speak for yourself, but maybe it's a start. If the rest of the Pale Moon crowd would lay off the condescending attitude, then maybe something constructive could come of all this.
Personally, I'm mostly indifferent to the name changes. I tend to favor keeping them as-is, but in the end it doesn't matter. I'm just firmly opposed to changing it based on threats, intimidation, or just to appease someone who's being a pain. If those things do indeed come to an end, then maybe it should be considered. I'm not advocating in favor of it; the decision lies solely with roytam1, and I will continue to support him whatever he decides.
1 -
One point; the point of which is not to argue, but for the record:
19 minutes ago, Matt A. Tobin said:...rookie mistakes...bad decisions...poor imitation...
When you make statements like these about a project, who in that project would really want to take you seriously? Why would they want to take your advice?
HOWEVER-
22 minutes ago, Matt A. Tobin said:...but you ARE more that that.. With all the builds you guys produce from all over the spectrum..
Finally, some small bit of respect. Maybe there is hope.
0 -
40 minutes ago, Dibya said:
Yes it is a 4pin power connector
Edit :
Sorry for my messed up cables .
I am sorry .
No problem. I just couldn't see if it was connected. Since one appears to be loose looks it looks like the power supply provides double 4 pin connectors which are required on higher-end motherboards like the X79/X99/X299 and probably others.
0 -
23 minutes ago, dencorso said:
I don't think being confrontative helps any, I'm sorry to say. I do think ignoring Matt's offer (as in hiding one's head in the sand) leads nowhere. And his offer *was* ignored, while very minor issues continued to be discussed. There's much to gain and nothing to lose in accepting it. My 2¢, of course,,, but this is one occasion I think keeping silent a real bad choice..
10 minutes ago, sparty411 said:I really don't see why it is such a big problem to create an original logo/name. @Matt A. Tobin is extending the olive branch, THEN SOME, and being flat out ignored.
Given Mr. Tobin's past statements, behavior, and attitude, I don't blame roytam1 for ignoring him. Why deal with someone who has gone to such lengths to be a general pain in the arse? I see no incentive whatsoever to take him seriously. What happens the next time he "gets angry" and decides all of this is beneath him? What guarantee does roytam1 or any of us have that this "olive branch" will not simply be jerked away again on a whim? What guarantee does roytam1 or any of the rest of us have that Mr. Tobin will not decide to do something that will cause problems in the future?
I judge people based on what they do, not what they say. So far Mr. Tobin hasn't shown much of anything but contempt for this project and its users. Maybe he will change.. but methinks some of you all are far too trusting, too soon.
----------------------------------------
16 minutes ago, Matt A. Tobin said:Ok.. I just a few posts ago offered to help him simplify his entire process with a unified application repository as well as doing all new branding for four applications WHILE still maintaining the profile directory path already in use. I offered to do ALL THE WORK to accomplish this.. So I don't take to kindly to your assumption of my level of sincerity.
I can totally understand wanting to put off doing branding as long as possible.. Hell I only JUST completed my Official branding for Borealis Navigator as I am planning to make a release of in the near future. I also know how difficult it is to come up with names and logos that are effective as well, though I have an easier time of it than actually implementing it.
The fact is it does still cause confusion and lead to the wrong conclusions from people.. Not a month goes by that at LEAST one person wants something for a "Pale Moon for Windows XP" or whatnot. They don't understand the difference between what roytam1 is doing and what WE are doing. Users using these unofficial builds on Windows XP do nothing for us but take up our time and sabotage our efficiency with dealing with support questions from users who don't know any better. It is hard enough to accomplish when they are using our products.
I gave you a totally unique concept for branding of applications all built by one person using one platform codebase and offered to do the work. I would have thought this would be great since it is obvious roytam1 has no problem whatsoever using other people's names, images, and work to produce what he wants. After all if I had called Borealis and Interlink Neptune and Lonestar respectively with their own artwork as the Unofficial Branding then he would be using it. How is this any different?
So I am left with ONLY two conclusions both of which REALLY suck.. He is too lazy to change it of which I have offered to do it for him OR he is deliberately trying to damage us by continued association of which he and all of you don't believe anyway and I really don't want to believe is true anymore even if it is cause it is depressing.
SO LET'S DO A THING AND FINALLY SORT THIS.
Most of what I would say at this point I stated above... I will state once again that I think your claim of this project damaging yours in some way is one hundred percent rubbish. In this, your disdain for this project still shines through. And that reason alone is enough for me not to take your "offer" with more than a grain of salt. But in the end the decision is roytam1's. And I will probably reserve further comment until this is "decided" one way or another.
0 -
I would think the system would throw an error beep or some type of notification if it's not connected; but - is the 4-pin CPU power connector to the upper left of the CPU connected? I can't make it out clearly in the picture.
0 -
11 minutes ago, Matt A. Tobin said:
Well if you don't pick something... and keep using generic branding then it will never be a real project. Real projects have names. I don't care what you call it but as long as you keep calling it by OUR unofficial names it is going to cause confusion with users and I will continue to rail against it until the heat death of the universe because YOU are damaging US.
Show me you want to be taken seriously, that I should respect your accomplishments, or accept my help and then I AM INVESTED. Beyond that.. I dunno what else can be done because you aren't US and you have nothing of your own thus far. That leaves you in limbo and it is sad. It literally makes you lesser than a Firefox rebuild. They at LEAST have names.
Here we go again... so much for the offer to be "friendly and helpful." Just like last time it doesn't appear to be very sincere.
And the idea that roytam1 is somehow "damaging" you is ridiculous on its face. Whether you like it or not, he's generating more users for the projects you're involved in. He just happens to make these projects work for platforms you have abandoned, thereby proving your decision to abandon them was arbitrary and unnecessary.
0 -
19 hours ago, tillewolle said:
So, easiest way to patch it afterwards?
If the installation went OK, and you're seeing no other issues, then yes, just verify that you install the update before attempting to add more data to the HDD.
As noted USP3 may have already provided the fix (I don't use USP3, so I'm not familiar with all its contents).
The point jumper makes is also true; however I doubt that a board this "new" would suffer from a lack of 48-bit LBA support.0 -
Once again:
On 11/20/2019 at 1:56 AM, LoneCrusader said:Forget Catalyst 4.11
There's nothing special about Catalyst 4.11. The only thing significant about it was the fact that it added BETA support for some Xxxx series cards.
"BETA CATALYST 4.11 release for RADEON X300, RADEON X600, and RADEON X800 AGP Series"
This support remained in the later non-Beta releases, no doubt with improvements!
0 -
On 12/15/2019 at 3:24 AM, ~♥Aiko♥Chan♥~ said:
...I figured I could originally work around the ram by manually setting ram limitations..
You don't have to limit RAM to boot into DOS. rloew's RAM patch runs from DOS...
Run 98 or ME SETUP; when the system asks to reboot the first time you want to stop it here and reboot to a DOS prompt rather than letting it continue to the second phase. Run the WININIT command to pack VMM32.VXD. Then run PATCHMEM. Then reboot as normal and let SETUP complete.
On 12/15/2019 at 3:24 AM, ~♥Aiko♥Chan♥~ said:...dead-end of no SATA CDROM or Drive Drivers...
Google GCDROM.SYS. Add to your bootable disk. For AHCI-only controllers you will need rloew's AHCICD package.
On 12/15/2019 at 3:24 AM, ~♥Aiko♥Chan♥~ said:...In theory, would it be possible for me to simply install Windows 9x on a virtual machine, install required drivers there, then convert to my physical machine?...
Maybe possible, but IMO it's best to develop a more universal method as I've described above. Building your own customized installation CD (and method) would alleviate many of the annoyances of manual installation.
On 12/15/2019 at 3:24 AM, ~♥Aiko♥Chan♥~ said:...I successfully had my Windows ME partition copied to the flash drive and...it sorta boots. The system won't boot past the main menu; I believe this is because my boot device itself is a usb device...
I've never tried this myself, but IIRC, when Windows loads the USB driver stack it loses communication with itself (because the former "HDD" it was using as mapped by the BIOS disappears) and can't recover. This can be fixed by disabling the specific USB controller where the drive is attached in the Device Manager, but this requires trial and error with Safe Mode to find the right controller.
On 12/15/2019 at 3:24 AM, ~♥Aiko♥Chan♥~ said:I've noticed while launching Windows ME on my old laptop, keeping a flash drive plugged in during boot would completely cause freezing upon boot. If anyone has a solution, please tell me!
The laptop BIOS may not properly handle bootable USB devices. Have you been able to boot with other USB drives? Different hardware can produce different results here. I've created flash drives that should have been bootable before but only worked on certain hardware, while others created differently worked everywhere.
1 -
3 hours ago, Goodmaneuver said:
I have these updated VXDs only; Ifsmgr; Vnetbios; Nwlink; Vnetbios; Vredir; Vserver & Cdvsd. VXDs are not compatible between 98 and ME.
That's all well and good, but how is this helpful to the OP?
And, that being said, many ME VXD's ARE compatible, but they must be patched (downversioned) in order to load under 98. And, once again that being said, there's no reason to start trying to transplant a bunch of ME VXD's to 98 just to be doing so or just because they have a newer version number. If it's not broken, don't fix it.
3 hours ago, Goodmaneuver said:I run Paragon NTFS for 98 and 200GB IDE drive having XP on it is displayed and writable correctly.
How does 98 handle files larger than 4GB on the NTFS drive? Adding NTFS support to 9x unfortunately does NOT break the 4GB barrier. Unless someone has some good testing results to the contrary, this sounds like a situation ripe for causing data corruption.
4 hours ago, Goodmaneuver said:...You can copy over updated VXD and SYS files while off line or on line which will be effective next boot. Run the update for 137 bit drive access while on line. Then can do a 1:1 sector copy of your drive off line. Then boot up new copy to get MBR updated, do a disk check but it should be OK because it was a 1:1. Then with the drive off line, resize it. When running on line first time do a disc check to update the MBR and show new disc free space....
Why would you create all this unnecessary work for yourself?
4 hours ago, Goodmaneuver said:... My KEX 4.5.110 build stops playing a DVD after about a 20 minute interval with PowerDVD6 and KMP, later KEX builds no problems with IDE DVD access. The USB DVD does not stop. I have updated Cdvsd.vxd but did not make any difference.
Why do you need KEX to watch a DVD?
0 -
Let's try to keep the discussion here on topic and relevant to Windows 9x. This is not the place to be discussing anything and everything from XP to Windows 10, especially things which will never remotely be compatible or useful to a 9x system. These newer operating systems have their own forums. I realize many users (including myself) create multi-boot systems, but discussion of the other OS'es should go in their respective forums.
0 -
On 12/10/2019 at 8:20 PM, jumper said:
Possible additions to the driver include rloew’s i686 + my finesse sse exception handling, and Wdmex code.
KernelEx and WDMEX have completely different targets; KernelEx is for programs and WDMEX is for drivers, which are totally different beasts. I'm not certain it makes much sense to attempt to combine them (but I'm no programmer, so maybe I'm missing something).
Now if you mean DLLHOOK, or the lesser-known "UNICOWS WRAPPERS" package, then it makes much more sense. I had hopes that with the "WRAPPERS" package that we might even be able to get roytam1's PaleMoon 26.5 build for Windows 2000 to run under 98, but I never seem to have time to work on making the attempt.
0 -
23 hours ago, tillewolle said:
- Installed 98SE from CD to a regular 10GB HDD
- Installed BHDD31.ZIP for LBA-Support.
- Converted to Fat32 via Fat32 Windows-Tool
- Cloned HDD via CloneHD to 250GB HDD. (Still 10GB partition)
- Expanded Partition to 100GB with gparted by swapping disks to another machine.
- Installed Network drivers for PCI-Card
- Installed Windows 98 SP3 v3.56
- Installed KernelEx & UNICOWS
- Installed other handy tools... Firefox, WinRar, Apache2Triad (for easily swapping files via ftp), TweakUI
Recently: Installed ATI Catalyst Suite 6.2 to Support my R9250 and tried the whole DirectX and AC'97 things.
Why would you install Windows 98 to a FAT16 partition to begin with?
(I assume this based on you saying you "converted" to FAT32...) You should start with FAT32 to begin with...
You can enable 48-bit LBA from the beginning if you create your own install CD or copy the contents of the \WIN98 folder on the CD to a folder on your hard drive and run SETUP from there (i.e. C:\WIN98CD)...; simply extract ESDI_506.PDR from BHDD31.ZIP (or patch your own ESDI_506.PDR with rloew's patch) and drop a copy of it into the \WIN98 folder of your new CD or into the folder on your HDD where you copied the SETUP files. SETUP will then use this ESDI_506.PDR instead of the older unpatched copy inside the .CAB files. This would allow you to combine the first 5 steps...
Install using the command "setup /p i" (note the spaces) from your 98 CD or from the folder on your HDD. This will force 98 to use the older APM standard rather than ACPI (ACPI causes many issues on newer systems not designed with Windows 9x in mind). Running automated setup from the CD just runs "setup" without the switches, and thus leaves ACPI enabled.
Always install any official updates and packages and drivers BEFORE adding unofficial ones, especially KernelEx.. Usually I install DirectX right after SETUP has completed, and before I start installing drivers.
0 -
4 hours ago, Dave-H said:
"WDM_A406.rar"
3 hours ago, tillewolle said:Installed this one and now I get the yellow exclamation mark on "Realtec AC'97 Audio for VIA(R) Audio Controller" in Device Manager.
3 hours ago, Dave-H said:Cannot start code 10" for instance
On 3/24/2019 at 12:33 AM, LoneCrusader said:...Realtek AC'97 WDM packages (4.05 and 4.06 contain a function that is not present in 9x and do not work, despite claiming 9x support; 4.04 is compatible)
The Code 10 error in the Device Manager is common on WDM drivers that are missing a function.
0 -
On 11/21/2019 at 4:23 AM, JasonSlaye said:
Well the laptop is a Asus V6000 model V6X00VA , V6VA-X02P.
Its a laptop for Windows XP with a Pentium M 2GHZ, with 2GB ram with a ATI mobility Radeon X700 128mb.
Under Windows 98 with system.ini i limit the ram and the vcache to 512mb (1FFFF).I put a dx diag from my XP session, I will reinstall windows 98 with the command you tell me i thought install with the Unattended Boot CD for 98 would fix most of my issue.
By the way i got glitch graphic even with the C8_*.inf file
Edit:
So i did a full reinstall of Windows 98 with the command "Install /P i" (cause french version replace setup by install), then i put back drivers i got available (sd, ms,xd cards, lan , sound) and also i unchek steering in the pc bus
then i run the driver installer its go decompress the file in the ATI/Support folder then in ATI/Support/6.2/Drivers i put my modified INF with only one line added the one you told me.
Then i make a restart and i got this screen :
...
I remove back the driver, install the cpanel, force windows install back the driver then still get this screen with windows working behind (keyboard, sound everything work in except the screen).
2GB of RAM may be a problem here; try using rloew's RAM Limitation Patch instead. The various ram limiting "tweaks" never worked for me.
I can't make out the picture very well; I assume it's just a black screen? IIRC this happens to my X600 laptop when I try to load the drivers under 95. Never found a solution for 95, but at least 98 worked in my case.
What resolution was attempted/did you try to set for your desktop? It's possible the Mobility X700 or your laptop's LCD panel may not properly support some resolutions. Custom resolutions can be added to the INF file as well (adapt for your card's INF file/section and desired resolution obviously); it may be best to add one for the default resolution chosen by the drivers working under XP and reported in the DXDIAG you posted.
Beyond this I'm not sure what to try next. SciTech Display Doctor might be of some use.. It worked on my X600 laptop under 95 but broke Plug & Play in the process.
4 hours ago, Goodmaneuver said:I do not know how to get XP INF's to load into registry. The CL means that is Vista driver only I think could mean Win7 as well. I just renamed %Windows NT% to %CHICAGO% & WinME liked it. *I forgot*. Now it is just a try, the files in https://dl.dell.com/video/R128573.EXE are Dependency Walker friendly to WinME. So extract them into Program Files\Ati Technologies\Support\Mobile really only need files in the XP_INF folder. The only other files missing are the Direct Draw installation which can be obtained from early Vista or LongHorn which too is friendly to Kernel32. I have only checked LH_5048 - LH_5552, have no copy of original Vista any more.
Jason, please do not quote me on this & do not reply just yet as I want to update this post. I posted this for an update and for other readers. Will be several hours before I edit again.
What do you possibly hope to achieve by loading an XP driver INF into the registry?
First of all, as I've already pointed out, 2K/XP/Vista/etc display drivers DO NOT WORK under 9x. As far as I know, despite the fact that other devices can use WDM (.SYS) drivers, display drivers under 9x MUST be .VXD drivers. I can't remember the source of that, but I read it somewhere years ago, and I have yet to see any evidence to contradict it.
Dependency Walker is for user-mode programs, not drivers, which are an entirely different beast. The proper way to check a 2K/XP WDM driver for 9x compatibility is to use WDMCHECK by Walter Oney or DISPPE32 by rloew on the file while running under 9x.
Aside from all that; even IF it were possible to load a .SYS display driver under 9x, the NT-style INFs do not have the correct sections and registry entries to properly load such a device driver under 9x.
0 -
What's the Manufacturer/Model and specs of the laptop you're using? This will help us figure out if there may be other issues contributing to the problem.
Most likely you will need to first install Windows 98SE with ACPI disabled (SETUP /P I) if you have not already done so. When I tried with ACPI enabled on my laptop I got an unrecoverable series of crashes.
It's been several months, and I don't have the machine readily accessible at the moment,
but from what I can remember you should only need to uncheck one option box to disable PCI steering. Other changes may produce different results and these may vary yet again according to the hardware in use.
Your changes to C8_30314.INF should have been sufficient; you don't really need to change anything else but you will have to point the Update Driver wizard to the 9X_INF folder manually rather than depending on Catalyst Setup. I would just use one line and truncate the entry to just ""ATI MOBILITY RADEON X700 Series" = RV410_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_5652" eliminating the REV, SUBSYS, and CC codes, as these get really super device-specific for no reason as they all point to the same section.
Now, C9_30314.INF does NOT have all of the required sections to install a RV410_ENU device. This may be the reason for the crashes if you were using this INF at this point rather than your C8_30314.INF, which does have all of the required sections. Simply reverting to your C8_30314.INF may work; if not, or if you experience crashes/instability, start over using 98SE with ACPI disabled as above.
0 -
IMO, you've mixed too many parts together for starters.
If you're using rloew's RAM patch you should not need HIMEMX, and unless you have some specific reason for using it, you most definitely don't need EMM386. Nor do you need to limit MaxPhysPage... (what is burnmem.sys?
) When using PATCHMEM, you can forget about all of the "tweaks and workarounds" used by those without it.
re: Slow Boot due to unrecognized Machine Type... I've seen this problem once on an AMD machine. Newer systems don't handle Gate A20 in a 9x-friendly way. Setting /MACHINE:1 on HIMEM.SYS in CONFIG.SYS may solve the issue.
I've not used rloew's AHCI driver yet, so I can't address that part specifically... If you have the option on that board to use Native SATA mode (may be labeled as "IDE") then it should work with his SATA patch, but I doubt that option is still present. Maybe someone who has used the AHCI driver can comment on this.
Newer motherboard manufacturers no longer care about optimizing their BIOS code for x86 operating systems. They assume everyone will be using x64, so they don't bother to optimize the MMIO RAM allocation to make the most memory available to x86. I had an X99 system where only 1873MB of RAM was available to a 32-bit system when 4GB was installed; this later increased to 2910MB after a BIOS update but I never could manage to get their tech support to understand the problem. A good BIOS modder might be able to help with this, but they're hard to find in my experience. Newer video cards usually use a "memory banking" method to avoid tying up all of the 32-bit RAM.. since your 780GTX is XP compatible it should do this, but who knows what the onboard Intel HD Graphics will do.
I've had 9x up and running on my X79 and X99 systems. I have an X299 system that has yet to see any experimentation with any OS... I detest onboard graphics to begin with, and the fact they're no longer supporting XP rules chipsets using them out completely. The "X" series boards and processors may cost more, but it at least rules out one set of legacy compatibility problems.
0 -
20 hours ago, JasonSlaye said:
I dont know if this post will be read again but man, i got a asus laptop with a mobility radeon X700. I try your solution but i may fail, i find catalyst 4.11 but not sure its a good one.
...
The color is still limited to 2 or 16 color. If you read my message can you help me or make me a package with your driver for this graphic card ?
This problem (Mobility X600 in my case) drove me nuts for a long time on a laptop I was trying to get up and running with 9x. Despite scattered reports of people getting Mobility X600/X700 chips working under 9x, no matter how many times I tried or how many different Catalyst versions I tried, nothing ever changed.
Forget Catalyst 4.11, use the last 9x compatible package. 2K/XP WDM (non-.VXD) Display drivers do not work under 9x, so they won't get you anywhere either.
If you're having the same problem I did, then this should cure it. Disable PCI Steering on the PCI Bus under Device Manager. The reinstall the ATI Catalyst package if necessary. Manually choose an X700 device from the list, or add your specific VEN&DEV to the INF if you wish.
0 -
-
I've had to use MTP a handful of times with a smartphone and XP and myself found it to be profoundly annoying.. so much simpler to have the media mounted as a drive rather than a device. Not to mention pure USB Mass Storage Mode allows for much greater backward compatibility with OS'es. Just my opinion though.
1 -
This particular subject is of interest to me as well... several times I've considered getting a smartphone and every time I always choose not to because of this or that reason. Apparently now I may be forced to because they claim my network is changing and my old flip phone will no longer work.
This particular issue is one of my major peeves. I believe it is still possible to achieve "USB Mass Storage Mode," but from what I understand it requires using a rootkit on the phone/taking root control of the Android OS. I've tried to read up on that process, but what small amount of info there is is not conducive to those who are new to the subject. It doesn't help that now it seems those who want to use this mode are beginning to be "looked down on"; i.e. more people are wasting their time asking "why do you want to do this" rather than actually providing any useful information or solutions. Also, it appears one just has to blindly "trust" whatever tools are available for the rootkit operation.
0
First of all, as I've already pointed out, 2K/XP/Vista/etc display drivers DO NOT WORK under 9x. As far as I know, despite the fact that other devices can use WDM (.SYS) drivers, display drivers under 9x MUST be .VXD drivers. I can't remember the source of that, but I read it somewhere years ago, and I have yet to see any evidence to contradict it.
but from what I can remember you should only need to uncheck one option box to disable PCI steering. Other changes may produce different results and these may vary yet again according to the hardware in use.
HD + AC97 audio & beyond the 137GB/128GiB barrier
in Windows 9x/ME
Posted
Of course NUSB is not for Windows ME, because Windows ME already has a native USB Storage driver! The SAME USB Storage driver that is used, by NUSB, to provide the functionality under 98SE!
Yes, it uses a different method of access than IDE. But the fact that a 32GB USB Stick was not available then does NOT mean that it or anything larger will not work.
Then somewhere, you have a hardware problem. Or user error.
Yes. Because Windows 98 does not have a "native" USB storage driver. Hence the reason for the creation of NUSB, which borrows that driver from Windows ME.
Can't comment directly on most of this. Maybe there were adapters that could overcome BIOS limits, but I'd like to see some examples of these. I'm not aware of any "adapters" that have drivers. A drive connected to a SATA adapter would appear as an IDE (PATA) drive; which is the point of the adapter to begin with. Now if you are referring to an add-on Controller Card, then this might make sense.
A limit on a RAID controller would fall into the same category as a BIOS limit. This has nothing to do with the OS. There is no such limit in the FAT32 filesystem, or in Windows 9x at this size. AFAIK, once you patch for the 137GB barrier and 48-bit LBA, you're clear up to 1TB.
---
There are many long-established threads here that deal with these issues. They have been hashed and rehashed by all of the "experts." Please do read them, and inform yourself, before making assumptions and posting bad information.