LoneCrusader

Can we get a "Forum Home" link somewhere at the bottom of pages? I had gotten used to having it there to click on when I had read to the bottom of a thread.

Thanks for the help so far. Unfortunately now my whole project is sidelined, when I started up my machine that I use for my projects I'm faced with this: One or more of your disk drives may have developed bad sectors. Press any key to run ScanDisk with surface analysis on these drives. So now I get to have fun moving all of my work to a different hard disk and making some backups before I can get back to experimenting.

The way it's written that page seems to be directed at Windows 2000 and XP only, or is this one of those pages they have "edited" to remove relevant 9X content? I've been looking into that, found some relevant info with Google, but any help would be appreciated. Right now I am working on integrating several updates into Windows 95 C OSR 2.5, figured I would start there and anything I learn should apply to 98SE as well. So far I've had some success, managed to integrate the Windows 95 Y2K Update and DCOM95 by adding them to SETUPC.INF, and replaced the forced IE 4.0 install in 95C with IE 4.01 SP2. I may also have found a solution to "slipstreaming" my FIX95CPU processor update, if I can manage to keep the newer files from being overwritten by other updates.

I'm in the process of trying to create semi-slisptreamed or updated install sources for my various Windows 9X versions. I know some of you who've been here a long time may feel that I am trying to re-invent the wheel but this is just for my own use and knowledge. Mainly I was wondering if there are any known issues with installing multiple updates and/or hotfixes that require a restart and only restarting once. If these updates/hotfixes set something that is supposed to be done during a restart, does installing another update/hotfix supersede and erase the settings of the previous one, or just add to it? Will everything that should be done during the restart for each update/hotfix still be completed properly? MDGx or anyone familiar with this please chime in.

While I have not tested xrayer's solution, I can vouch for RLoew's patch. I have been using it since January 2009 and have never had a single issue with it. Basically, you install the patch and forget about it. There is no tweaking, testing, setting MaxPhysPage or anything else. The patch patches Windows system files, so AFAIK it is completely chipset/processor/hardware independent.

I can confirm this, I read the same post and tried it for myself. I don't know if it will solve Andrew's original problem, but Firefox 2 will work perfectly on Windows 95. Specs for the system I tested it on, and steps taken: (Of course some of these are not/may not be required, included just in case.) - Windows 95 C OSR 2.5 - IE 4.01 SP2 installed for the Desktop Update. - Dial-Up Networking 1.4 Installed. - DCOM95 and DirectX 8.0a installed. - WINSOCK2 installed. - IE 5.5 SP2 installed. - WMP 7.1 installed. - USBSUPP, USBUPD2, and USBQFE installed. I did not use the registry hacks described in the other forum, or 50comupd.exe and SPEU.exe. Not saying these 2 updates might not be beneficial, but they are not absolute requirements. Install Firefox 2 same as you would on a 98 system, unchecking the DOM Inspector and Quality Feedback Agent as described, and deleting the two files "nsSearchService.js" and "nsSafebrowsingApplication.js" files from the Firefox\components\ folder as described BEFORE attempting to launch Firefox. One of the posters there claimed that Firefox 2 would crash on the first run. This did not happen any of the times I tried it, however it may be related to allowing Firefox to import settings from IE. I always tell Firefox "Don't import anything" because I use an Addon, PlainOldFavorites, to use all of my IE favorites instead of Bookmarks. Also worth nothing that Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 seems to function properly on 95 without any complaints, although I have not tested it extensively.

7-Zip It's a free alternative to WinZip, WinRAR, etc.

I'm sure many of you are (or were ) familiar with this, and I hope someone can shed some light on it for me. After installing Windows 95 C OSR 2.5, on the first boot, a "Windows 95 Setup" box comes up and does a forced install of Internet Explorer 4.0. I would like to know how to stop this (other than closing it with CTRL-ALT-DEL), or better yet, modify it somehow to use IE 4.01 SP2 instead. I WANT IE4 installed because of the Desktop Update, but I would like to eliminate a step in the whole install/update process. Also, I wonder if it would be possible to set other things to install like this, like DirectX 8.0a for example? EDIT 10-24-2010: Trial and Error has led to a solution, the forced install is caused by a single line in OHARE.INF: HKLM,"Software\Microsoft\Active Setup","OSRInstall",,"%1%\ie4setup.exe /C:""ie4wzd.exe /P:WC /M:2 /S:#e""" This line can be edited to allow more user control over the install, or completely removed to eliminate the forced IE4 install. Also, simply copying the IE 4.01 SP2 updated install files into the 95C install source directory and overwriting the IE 4.0 ones will solve the problem as well.

The ones on the desktop aren't the problem, it's the icon on the tree view inside Windows Explorer. I could not get it to change no matter what I set the desktop icons to. Proper 98SE version is circled in the picture below:

I'm no expert on the uSP, and I don't use it myself, although I have tested it before. I also do not care for some of the icon changes, and I asked a similar question (quoted below) a while back. The icons are changed because the uSP installs different versions of EXPLORER.EXE and SHELL32.DLL (both from ME I think). The icons are hard coded into these files. I ran an experiment once by making a copy of the original 98SE SHELL32.DLL and renaming it to something else, then going in to change the desktop icons and pointing to the old file when prompted for a location. This will fix most of the icons, but I was unable to fix the Recycle Bin icon inside Windows Explorer. dencorso suggested a solution in the quote below, but I have yet to experiment with it. The easiest way to do it is this: keep the old version of explorer.exe renamed to any other extension (.ori will do OK) in any convenient folder of your liking or even in c:\windows. Then right-click the desktop and find the tab that shows the especial icons. Select the icon you want to change and point it to the old icon in the old explorer file. If this generic explanation is too vague, I can give you a step-by-step one as soon as I'm using 98SE (but, at the moment I'm on XP). While we're on this subject, I have a question. I have been trying out some of the various "updates" that are available here on a test 98SE system (USP, 98SE2ME, etc) in preparation for the new system I'm building. While I love the idea of adding new functionality, I (in most cases) do not care for changing how my system looks. I might be able to get used to some of the Windows ME desktop icons, but there's one specific thing that really irks me... I do not like the Windows ME Recycle Bin icon. I know how to change the ones on the desktop with the same method described here, but that does not change the one on the tree view inside Windows Explorer. Is it possible to change this?

Just looked at that page myself a few minutes ago.

Ah yes, you are correct. I remember now, and also from your link I recall the different setting that was required, this particular chip ran at 95MHz FSB, so the clock multiplier had to be set at 6x instead of the usual 5.5x for the 550MHz chips. It was a real puzzle until I realized that the 2x multiplier was actually "rewired" to be 6x on some Super Socket 7 boards. Dug up one of my old Favorites on the subject Here.

Ah, trying to preserve an AT tower. I don't blame you, I had collected a bunch of nice AT towers for future use at one time myself. But even so, there is still hope. Take a look at the Gigabyte GA-6VA7+, also Here and Here. It's a Baby AT Pentium III board. I have yet to be able to get hold of one of these however, talk about rare!

The SOYO board that I referred you to will use up to a 3.06 GHz Pentium 4 with Hyper Threading Not to mention the fact that all of the drivers for this board also work with systems back to Windows 95 (with the one exception of USB 2.0). There are a multiplicity of Pentium III boards that support ISA, including some from Intel. The MOBOT website has a very good search system, you can look around there. I must confess I am unfamiliar with this issue.. Somewhere around here I have an AMD K6-2 570MHz chip, AFAIK it was the highest rated one, and very rare. I never actually used it on a daily basis, only experimented with it a couple of times. It POSTed properly on a Shuttle HOT 591P motherboard, I remember there was an odd setting that I had to figure out, as it required a different frequency than a 550MHz chip.

I have several computers with that same motherboard.. I used to collect them on eBay At that time I was still stuck using Dial-Up Internet, and insisted on being able to use my US Robotics 56k ISA modem if I upgraded my hardware further. This led me on a search for newer motherboards that supported ISA. There are several Pentium III motherboards that have ISA slots, including the DFI CB60-BX and CB61 and if you really want to bump up your hardware, there is always the SOYO P4 I845PE ISA. I have several of these boards, and I have never had a problem with any of them. Too bad SOYO no longer makes motherboards.

Yes, yes. I remember how much I hated Windows 98 when it was first released. I had been using 95B OSR2, and had never used 95/95A, so when I heard people complain about 95 and say 98 was such an improvement, I was like "you people are crazy." I had a friend who had a 98FE machine and it was constantly crashing just with simple and everyday things that I had no issues with. He called me up for the first time in years a few months back and he was surprised that I wasn't still using 95, haha

@larryb123456 - I can assure you that you have nothing to worry about in giving this patch a try. I have worked with RLoew before on a couple of projects, and his knowledge and expertise are invaluable. Follow the backup instructions dencorso gave you and give it a shot.

I agree with your point, was just pointing out that the issues do have a solution. Yes, I always just start work on a new system with 512MB of RAM installed. I know that some members here have been able to use more than 512MB by adjusting this or that setting or by using the USP, however, in my own experience none of these ever worked. RLoew's patch solves the problem in seconds and no more tweaking, hassle, what have you. Its the only method I recommend. As far has a typical user having > 512MB of RAM, it depends on what they expect to use their system for. The average computer user would probably not be willing to go through the process of setting up a Windows 9X machine today, so most people who are attempting this are not "typical" or "average." If the user intends to use their computer for gaming, I can definitely say that > 512MB of RAM is very beneficial, even for games that were originally released for Windows 9X (WarCraft III comes to mind here). I can also say that on one occasion before I installed > 512MB of RAM on this machine that I managed to crash the system by using up all of the available memory... on one single webpage with one window of Firefox open. It was some news article with thousands of comments, so not something you run across every day, but it is easily resolved by a RAM upgrade. IMHO, if your motherboard can handle it, by all means upgrade RAM to the max.

Although I do not believe that it is related to the OP's problem, it's worth noting that all of the problems that 9x has with processors > 2GHz have been solved. MS issued a fix for Win 98 FE {Here}, and I have created a program that fixes the issue for Win 95 {Here}. I can also confirm that I was never able to install vanilla Windows 98 SE with more than 512MB of RAM onboard. It should be possible using RLoew's patch and the associated method however.

The ATi Catalyst 6.2 drivers are the last official ones for Windows 98. Although ATi's driver search for 98/ME will not lead you to it, this driver package contains drivers for the X800 series up to the X800 XT Platinum Edition. I have not used these myself, so I cannot vouch for their operability. Have a look at this thread. I have a computer under construction that I plan to use a X800 XT Platinum Edition card in, if I can ever get the time to work on it.

No problem. I used 7-Zip to make the archive to begin with though...

Excellent! I will have to give it a try on a 95 install when I get my test system back up and running again. Following this same logic, I wonder if it is possible to use the same method on 98SE to defeat some sites that already want you to upgrade to Flash 10?

****UPDATE 4-23-2010**** Version 2.0 Released See the first post in this thread for a complete description of the changes. Get the new version here: FIX95CPU.ZIP

I use swap files instead of swap partitions on all of my Linux installs (the only exception being my first experiment with Linux). And, it is possible to move the Windows swap file to a different partition as dencorso pointed out. So what you are wanting should be possible, provided Linux and Windows don't have a problem using the same file.

I wonder if it would be possible to spoof the flash version reported to the website, just like how the User Agent Switcher can report a newer version of Firefox? I have a feeling this is a "false incompatibility" they have introduced. Anyone got an idea how to do this? EDIT: I did some searching and experimenting here on my 98SE/FF 2.0.0.20 system. (I recall seeing a website where someone had managed to get FF2 running on 95) I don't have a 95 test system set up at the moment. I downloaded a FF2 compatible version of "Flash Switcher" and it seems to work under 98, even though the author's website said it had only been tested under XP. I used it to switch my Flash version back to 7, and it did so without running an Adobe installer, or if it did use one, it was "silent". (Possibly might let you do an end-run around the OS version requirements for a newer flash version? ) Then I visited YouTube with Flash 7 and got the message you described. A quick look at the source code for the page yielded this: It would seem that it you can manage to get Flash 8 running on a 95 system, it would pass the compatibility check. I will run some further tests as soon as I can find the time.