LoneCrusader

Could you post the Instructions in a .TXT file? I did not have 95 or 95A to test either, however rloew confirmed that the new method for the B & C patch does not work on the older systems because WININIT cannot be called manually. I kept v1.1 in the package for anyone who might want to experiment with it on the older 95 versions, or who may have not got the 1.2 disk inserted before the IOS error is displayed (WININIT is called before/during this). There is no 2.1GHz "IOS" error, it is the "NDIS" error. To reproduce it, all you need to do is try to install 95 on a >2.1GHz system using only the AMDK6UPD.EXE files, and leave out the NDIS.VXD from DUN14-95.EXE.

Copied CDFS.VXD from 98SE (Which had a version number of 4.10.1998, guess it was not updated for SE?) and substituted it for the Windows 95 one (4.00.1112). This resulted in the DVD Drive showing up as a "Removable Disk" like a USB stick in 98SE w/NUSB, and when I clicked on it said the drive was not formatted and it asked me if I wanted to format it. EDIT: Obtained CDFS.VXD 4.00.1113 from MDGx, (Last version I could find a reference to for 95) this did not correct the error either.

Well, I'm back again everyone. After using my new DVD for several days, I have only discovered two odd problems. I have found no problems with booting the DVD or with JO.SYS, etc. I have found no problems accessing the DVD is DOS with MSCDEX or using any of the DOS tools. I have found no problems with the DVD in Windows 98SE or Windows ME. However, I am having a strange problem with the DVD in Windows 95C. In Windows 95, and only 95, some of the names of the files and folders are truncated (not like DOS with a ~, they just stop), and some of the characters in the names of the files or folders are changed, ( ex. & , ! , and a Space changed to _ ). I have previously used a CD in Windows 95 that contained these exact same files and folders, with the exact same names, and they were properly displayed. What would cause it to be different now? The second problem - VPC 5 will not capture the DVD or the ISO at all, but it functions in a real environment.

Yes, it can easily be added to the floppy and even the script, provided one already has a copy of PATCHMEM. I was mainly addressing the distribution issue.

R. Loew Electronics Consulting

How about MegaUpload (or anything other than stinky RapidShare)?Had DUN14-95.zip already tucked away... edit - oops, sorry - I see new link above... Heh, yes, RapidShare is very irritating. I only link to it until MDGx gets a chance to update the patch on his site, which he did last night.

Yep. The only limitation is the lack of drivers for 9X.

This is all very interesting I'm open to any suggestions for improvement, but I don't want to bring any moderators down on our heads. I was not around before the UBCD project was removed, and I don't know much about what happened. Feel free to PM me or email me from my profile if you wish.

I can't speak from experience on the VPC issues, however I think he is referring to VPC7 for Windows 7, not VPC2007. The MS AMD Patch works for many processors besides the 350MHz. I used it for years on AMDK6-2 550MHz systems before being forced to upgrade to 98 because of a game I wanted to play. It is also required for Pentium 4 processors, and I have used it to successfully install 95 on a P4 2.0GHz system. Above 2.1GHz, Windows 95 will crash with the NDIS error referenced in the first post. MS claimed there was no fix for this in 95, but issued a HotFix for 98FE that contained an updated NDIS.VXD. It just so happens, the NDIS.VXD contained in the DUN14-95 update also fixes the error. MS neglected to mention this. The reason for this particular project is that you cannot boot into Windows (not even safe mode) to install the MS patches. Windows will crash on the first reboot during setup. This project manually copies the AMDK6UPD files and the updated NDIS.VXD into Windows so that Windows Setup can continue normally. It may be possible to use MSBATCH to install DUN14-95 during Setup, (as discussed with BeatZero above) but you must first be able to continue setup, if the updated files are not copied after the first reboot, Setup will crash. And, if the updated files are simply placed in the \WIN95 folder before setup, or copied before setup, WININIT.EXE will crash and not properly compress VMM32.VXD.

Thanks for the feedback. Spread the word in the virtualization community that 95 is now working again. DUN14-95.EXE is too large to fit on a floppy disk, so there is no way to have it on the same "Disk" as the batch file. One solution to this might be to use an ISO editing program and add DUN14-95 to the bootable FIX95CPU.ISO so that it would be in the root of the CD image and could be accessed from there once the Windows desktop has loaded. However this would require recapturing the ISO image, as you must release it after the patch is applied to allow Setup to continue. I considered doing this, but I felt things were getting a little redundant, since I had to include two versions in the new package, and both versions contain copies of DUN14-95 in their ZIP's. While I agree it would be convenient to have the CPU and RAM fixes combined, RLoew's RAM patch is not free, so it cannot be distributed in such a manner. It is the only method of installing more than 512 MB of RAM on a 9X system that I personally recommend however. I have been using it for over a year on my 98SE system with 1.5 GB of RAM. If you decide to purchase a copy, it is worth every penny.

*** UPDATE 2-23-2010 *** FIX95CPU.ZIP Versions 1.1 and 1.2 Released! Less typing required, and a bootable ISO is now included for VM users. The First post in this thread has been updated and describes the differences in these two versions. Get the new version here: FIX95CPU.ZIP

I'm an avid eBay watcher as well when it comes to these things, hopefully we don't end up bidding against one another sometime, haha. I have not attempted using a 512MB card myself, so I'm just relaying info that I have read elsewhere. Also, I remember a post by rloew, our resident RAM expert , where he was experimenting with a patch to support 512MB graphics cards in 98. I don't know if any further work has been done on it, and I don't have a 512MB card to experiment with. If you find a way to get it working, do let us know.

Welcome to MSFN The system you have built is quite similar in specs to a system I have under construction, and I have used ATi Radeon 9800 XT's in several of my systems for some time. 9800 XT's have 256MB of RAM, so having a 256MB card will not bother your Windows 98 system. 512MB cards apparently do have problems, but I do not have any experience with this. 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. However, I will be very anxious to see if you get them to work, because I will be using them soon with my new system. (Soyo P4I875P Dragon 2, P4 3.4 GHz EE Gallatin, 4GB Kingston HyperX DDR400 RAM, ATi Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition)

Wow.. I guess I should not be surprised, considering that it is Microsoft, but I can't believe that they would have removed the ability to use a floppy drive from a virtualization program. That is beyond ridiculous. IMO, Just another step in their campaign to erase all memory of DOS or DOS based Windows systems. Anyhow, welcome to MSFN and I'm glad my fix was of some help to you. I am actually working on another update to FIX95CPU.ZIP, using some suggestions and info given to me by rloew during the RAM patch testing discussed above. The new update will further minimize the required typing, and should eliminate one of the restarts for 95B and 95C users. And based on the information you have given me, I may include a bootable ISO that contains the patch. Thanks for the feedback!

Confirmed, no more annoying mouse-over popups! I'll second this.

Glad to hear it's working ok now.

Woohoo! For those who may be interested, we successfully tested up to 4GB of RAM with Windows 95 using RLoew's new patch. Here are a couple of screenshots from the testing.

I don't claim to know everything about maintaining a forum or website; in fact I know very little about it. I mean no insult of any kind, but I have a question that I think may sum up some of the feelings that a lot of us are having. Was this "change for the sake of change" or was there a specific set of problems that could only be addressed by this upgrade? What exactly does "IPB 3" improve? What new functionality is added? (And I'm talking functionality, not eye candy.) What does this new version have to offer to the average user that the previous one did not? If this newer version does not greatly expand the usefulness to the average user, then why change it? Especially if it decreases functionality to a portion of the user base? It would have been less work for you admins as well.

Thanks, but no thanks. I would use Linux before using an NT-based Windows. This is not the place for a discussion like this however.

Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 users can also use Internet Explorer 6 (different Service Pack levels). The newer browsers (Windows Internet Explorer 7 and Windows Internet Explorer 8) do not run very well with older computers that have 512 MB of RAM, so for those using a newer browser may be at too great a performance cost. The old forum functioned decently. This new forum does not work well.Reverting back to the old forum is preferred. Note: I use Internet Explorer 6 with SP1 on Windows 2000 Professional with Service Pack 4. You're using a nearly 10 year old browser that is not even close to standards compliant, doesn't properly display .png transparency. Wasn't even written to understand 90% of what is considered standard web design practices today. and we will not go back to 2.3 (old forum) version. One thing i can do about it is to map IE6 to lofi skin. I understand you guys are working on things, and that you need time to sort them out. But I can confirm that the forum behaves much slower in general than it did previously. I may be using an old OS, but my hardware is not lacking. Win98SE, FF 2.0.0.20 - P4 3.06GHz, 1.5GB RAM

Hmm, sounds like an interesting Addon. I will have to see if they still have versions that support Firefox 2. Seems to be fixed so far.

A bunch of people here have... I can confirm this. Every time I visit MSFN I have to login again, even if I have checked the "Remember Me" box. Even if I logged in 5 minutes ago, if I close my browser and return, I have to login again. (Win98SE, FF 2.0.0.20)

Screen Cap: EDIT: Smaller Image.

Ok, now there's a new one. When you edit a post it gets moved to the bottom of the thread, out of order. EDIT: I guess not. I could have sworn my last post got moved down one when I edited it, I guess I must be too tired

If you keep the site up, I'll keep donating. Hopefully others will too. Yes, I decided to pitch in a bit as well. I'm not showing up orange though yet, haha.