LoneCrusader
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by LoneCrusader
-
-
On 10/14/2019 at 4:11 PM, JonnyGators said:
Meanwhile, testing in virtual, I've found the repair seems to not work for OSR1. It appears to be doing an OSR2 repair and getting the MS-DOS error.
I should note, I'm not entirely confident that my ISOs are properly labeled. My retail and OSR1 both make me enter dashes and OEM when entering in the key though, so that seems right. But, my retail copy comes with a version of Internet Explorer (of the era of the floating windows icon in the sky, before the big blue e), and from what I read on wikipedia, retail didn't come with any version of internet explorer. So....not sure about that. But, anyways, my iso that is labeled retail does the fix correctly, my iso that is labeled OSR1 doesn't. Obviously, no rush to look into that, as I'm happy playing around with my "retail" iso for my purposes, but figured you would want to know that.
There does appear to be a problem when applying FIX95CPU to a full OSR1 installation from CD/scratch. RTM installations later manually updated to OSR1 should not be affected.
FIX95CPU tests for the existence of FILEXFER.EXE to determine whether the version of 95 being patched is RTM or OSR2... FILEXFER.EXE does not exist in RTM, but does in OSR2. Apparently it exists in OSR1 as well. Looks like I will need to find another file to test for to make the determination. Anyone who may have further input on this please chime in.
On the other hand, if you're not getting anywhere with 95 RTM or OSR2 either on this machine I'm not certain what other problems may be in play. OSR2 should definitely work, even if the others don't.
0 -
On 10/11/2019 at 9:54 PM, JonnyGators said:
The video card is an ati radeon 9200 series all in wonder pro. It's an AGP card. From what I've read, earlier 95 versions don't support AGP, but treat it like PCI, which suggests to me it could work. But, in my testing even OEM2.5 gives me the same problem, so I don't think it has to do with AGP. But, looking at the amd site for drivers, I can only go as far back as 98 for a driver for the card. So I could be out of luck with the video card.
For troubleshooting purposes, I obtained a retail 95 CD, and have tested the install process there. The fix doesn't give the dos version error. But, I still get the restart issue, so I'm still stuck. Videocard, and processor, seem to be the best culprits at this point.
It's been a long time since I've used it, but I have an AGP Radeon 92xx card here that I previously used before I moved up to the 9800XT years ago. I know a working driver package for this card existed for 95*, but I don't remember any specifics of it. It should be possible to get this card up and running under 95* though. I doubt this card is the problem, *but once again my experience is based on OSR2.
ON the other hand... after seeing you said "All-In-Wonder"; I do vaguely remember noting years ago that the system requirements on one of those older All-In-Wonder cards were different from the system requirements for the exact same normal Radeon 9xxx model. If you happen to have any other AGP or PCI video card, it may be worthwhile to do a test run with it instead of the All-In-Wonder. We can't say for sure this IS the problem yet, but if you have a way to test without it it could help rule it out.
On 10/11/2019 at 9:54 PM, JonnyGators said:This is something of a nostalgia machine....I wanted something to put my turtle beach santa cruz sound card and all in wonder agp video card in, since I've not been able to bring myself to toss them all these years, and figured.....I should use them, or get rid of them. I chose the only option, obviously. So I picked up the same mobo and processor as my first build, and figured, may as well have a bit of fun and do more than just an XP build, and did the 98SE dual boot to have something I can do some old school gaming on. But, with some IDE drives kicking around, I figured....may as well have a little windows 95 fun as well. My first PC purchase was a 95 machine, and I remember it having IE with an animated blue sky instead of a blue E, which makes that IE 1 or 2. I figure, the guy that built it would have probably had access to OEM 1. It also came with plus installed on it. So....could have been retail, could have been oem 1, if I get one of those to work I'll be happy. I remember in college I used to use netscape on it, and one day I noticed, well, some people have the big blue rotating E....maybe I should install that. And my roommate told me I'd regret it. And sure enough.....I regretted doing the IE update for the rest of the life of that computer, completely possessed the machine as I put it at the time. And he laughed, and laughed. And I tried to uninstall it. And he laughed more. It's a funny story that I think anyone I try to tell it to fail to really understand.....so I figure, maybe I should try to demonstrate it.
But I guess if my hardware just can't do 95, I can always try to re-create that experience in a virtual environment instead. Or buy an older box.
Anyways, thanks for the tips, and I'm up for more troubleshooting/experimenting if you think you can get this to work. But if not, it's cool.
I understand completely.. my first machine had DOS and Win 3.1, but my next machine had 95 OSR2. I always preferred it.. hated 98FE with a passion. For a long time I refused to use 98SE because it changed IE from 4 that I was used to to 5 that had some minor difference that annoyed me (and now I can't even remember what exactly). I only moved to 98SE years ago when I hit this very CPU bug on my new P4 3.06GHz build. At the time I didn't know how to fix it, but at least I revenged myself on the problem years later.
It may take me some time to dig further into this.. I've got some issues coming up this week that will prevent me from getting much done, but I've not given up.
In the meantime, if you have the opportunity you can try some test runs with different conditions and see if anything changes.
-Try a different video card if you have one (even one without 9x support).
-Try disabling all onboard devices you can in the BIOS of the motherboard and reinstall. If it works, re-enable them one by one until you see the problem.
-Try to get a BOOTLOG from the system.. this can be tricky as it's a hidden file and frequently gets overwritten. Bet way is to choose Logged boot from the menu, let the system crash, and then retrieve the file with another OS. This may give some idea of what exactly is crashing, although I'm not the best at deciphering them.0 -
On 10/10/2019 at 9:59 AM, JonnyGators said:
I'm using an ASUS p4c800-e deluxe motherboard with 3.0GHz Pentium 4 processor.
A motherboard made in 2003 I believe, which puts it right in the XP era, but ASUS does provide 95/98 drivers for the board. Although as I found setting up 98 it requires proper configuration. I have it set to legacy mode to use IDE and not the S-ATA ports.
My intent is a multiboot machine that does 95, 98SE, XP. So far I do have a dual-boot 98SE/XP setup (on a solid state s-ata drive, to use when the bios is set to use the secondary ide and s-ata. But for the purposes of setting up 95, it's set to not use the s-ata ports, and I have a 8GB drive setup on the primary IDE that I'm attempting my 95 install on)
I do have the board maxed out at 4GB of RAM (which nothing will ever use all of it on since I can't run a 64 bit OS on there....but the documentation points out once you use more than 1 stick of RAM it only supports pairs, so I can't just throw in 3 sticks and expect that to not cause problems. I guess I could have done a pair of 1 and a pair of 512....but, I had 4 sticks of 1 kicking around, and they all test out fine)
I did have to modify the system.ini and apply another patch to get the 98SE to work properly under those circumstances. Even after that, I ran into problems where once I started installing drivers, I'd lose the ability to open a command prompt (error about not enough resources), which I believe was due to too much memory even though the system.ini was modified. I found another patch (will need to dig that up again) that resolved this issue in 98SE....but this isn't all that relevant just yet, because for troubleshooting purposes I do have a stick of 256 that I'm using when trying to setup 95.
Looks like a nice board. I've never used ASUS myself, but it's very similar to many systems I've worked with so it should work for what you're wanting to do.
For testing purposes and troubleshooting the current problem we should probably stick with the setup you've begun, and keep RAM at 512MB or below.
However, I will point you to a few fixes that will make your life easier, especially since you're multibooting with XP. With the recent passing of my good friend and one of our most knowledgeable members here (rloew), his software is now available to the public. Make all 4GB of RAM, your SATA ports, hard drives larger than 137GB, and TRIM capability for FAT32 usable under 9x with the patches found here.
I see you're already having some of the classic issues with large amounts of RAM (unable to open DOS boxes etc). This MAY be contributing to the problem as well (unless you're always at 512MB or below when experimenting). The patch I linked will eliminate that, and the need for system.ini modifications and other "tweaks."
What video card are you using? This may be significant as well. I've seen 95 fail to boot on some newer systems with a particular video card but work on other systems with the same video card. In this case these machines were newer than the one you're using but it's still a possibility.
19 hours ago, JonnyGators said:Ok, not sure if this helps, but....from experimenting tonight, I'm finding the patch doesn't exactly work completely correct when I try it.
I thought at some point last night I got the patch to apply without getting stuck on first attempt, but perhaps not. Tonight, here is what consistently happens.
I do the first part of the install, no problem. On reboot, insert diskette with your fix.
Diskette boots, runs through the process, then at some point after applying something to the registry, it gives an error about wrong ms-dos version, and tells me to wait, something about it may take a few minutes. But, it never advances at this point.
The Incorrect MS-DOS version error may very well be significant.. I have always used OSR2 or later for anything myself. It's been a long time since I've even looked the package over (I slipstreamed the fixes, so I no longer have to use the diskette) but I remember specifically having to use SETVER in the script in order to have compatibility with the original version of 95. I reworked the last version of FIX95CPU to be compatible with the earlier releases of 95 (DOS 7/FAT16 as opposed to DOS 7.1/FAT32; originally my package only supported OSR2) but it really had very limited virtual machine testing done on those systems. Now that I think about it, OSR1 may not have been tested at all. The original release and all OSR 2.x were tested, but I didn't have a copy of OSR1 to test, and I assumed the DOS version would be the same.
I'll see if I can find a copy of OSR1 to examine... I'm not certain how different it is from the original release. Depending on whether or not a new set of .CAB files was built, or whether another method is used to apply any updates it may be doing something unexpected. It's possible it may be overwriting some of the files applied by the patch (although I think this is unlikely); or OSR1 may introduce something else that causes a problem that did not exist under 95 RTM but was fixed in OSR2... there are several possibilities.
0 -
3 hours ago, JonnyGators said:
This is cool.....unfortunately, not working for me. PC still reboots when trying to resume the install. What next?
We need a little more information before anyone can help you.
What are the full specs of the computer you're trying this on?
Were any errors reported during the installation process?
Are any errors reported when the machine reboots?
0 -
WinRAR 3.93 is the last version with official 98-ME support.
It's been a long time since I visited this issue, but IIRC, the installers for 3.93 and down to somewhere in the 3.7x range (this seems to be very close to what the OP said about 3.80, so all 3.7x builds may work) crash when run under 95. The program itself MAY still work under 95 up to 3.93 IF the unpacking and installation process were done manually, but I never tested this.
0 -
I've been mostly offline for a couple of weeks and I return to find this. There aren't even words to describe the shock. I was just thinking that I haven't spoken with him in a couple of months and I should see how he's doing... and now I'll never be able to do that again.
I was probably closer to him than anyone else here. I considered him one of my best friends. Unfortunately I never had the opportunity to meet him personally (although if I'd ever had occasion to go to New York we hoped to do so), but I've spoken with him on the phone and we have exchanged hundreds of emails over the years. He was always helpful and knowledgeable and never failed to help me with whatever issue I asked him about, from the small and insignificant to the overwhelming. I can't count the hours he probably spent helping me; fixing bugs, developing drivers, explaining arcane subjects so that I could understand them enough to help him... I always hoped that real life would eventually afford me the time to spend learning about programming and reverse engineering and that I would have his wisdom there to guide me along the way.. and now it's lost... Oh God this doesn't do things justice but I'm at a loss for any more words right now.
Rudy, you will be missed.
0 -
It sounds as if the "product type" ("SKU" in the more recent Windows versions) of your copy of the upgrade does not match the product type of the key you have. Are you certain they were bundled together?
I'm assuming you have a valid, legal Product Key for your Win98 upgrade in this situation. You can find the information you want here, but it is intended for research and informational purposes, not as a means to circumvent licensing requirements. Otherwise this discussion cannot continue; we cannot promote "bypassing" licensing requirements, even for such an old system. Just keep this in mind for any further discussion.
0 -
22 hours ago, bluebolt said:
The point is, in no instance is USB function achieved. Not with factory-standard / vanilla W2k Pro, nor in any known package. If anyone has information otherwise, I am wide open to it.
Let me be sure I'm understanding the problem... If you perform a factory vanilla installation of 2K Pro with SP4 on such a system, USB2 does not work?
I assume these problem systems also have no USB1 controllers showing up in the Device Manager as well?
If the above is the case, then chances are the problem is that the file USBD.SYS is not being copied during the installation of USB2 controllers. This file is not listed in the copy sections for USB2 controllers in USB.INF, but the USB2 drivers are still dependent on it. It is only listed in the copy sections for USB1 controllers, which at the time the INF was written, would also automatically exist on a USB2 system. On newer systems with no USB1 controllers to install, the file is not copied. This issue also affects Windows 9x.
Verify that USBD.SYS exists on the resulting system. If not, then copy it manually to SYSTEM32\DRIVERS, reboot and see if the problem is cured.
If USBD,SYS does exist on the resulting system, then verify that USBHUB20.SYS exists on the system. It seems to be called in both a copy and delete operation for the same USB2 Hub installation routine.
If anyone can verify these conditions one way or another I may be able to sort it out...
22 hours ago, Tommy said:This thread was originally my goodbye to Windows 2000 thread until these two bright individuals led me on the correct path. I really thought this system would not be able to run it and that I'd have to jump ship to Windows XP x64. I still have it installed on another drive but with Windows 2000 literally working perfectly at this point, despite using Realtek Onboard audio which isn't as bad as I thought it would be, I'm able to use everything I need and still use Physical Address Extension.
No problem.
I'd just like to get to the bottom of this USB issue since I've seen it reported before and I can't understand what the problem is. It should be simple to fix!
1 -
I've seen this USB problem mentioned before, and once again, I ask: How does your Windows 2000 even have any references to "Intel C610/X99 series chipset" or "Z68" or "X79" or X58" even? Unless you are using a modified installation source or are running an Intel Chipset INF update after installation these should not exist!
The Intel Chipset INF updates include garbage do-nothing INF files for later Intel USB2 controllers under 2K (and for Intel USB3 controllers under XP). All these files do is name the controller with it's proper Intel designation, and link back to 2K's USB.INF, but use the UHCI (USB1.0) install section instead of loading a proper USB2 (EHCI) driver. They do NOT properly link to a USB2 driver (.SYS file). (Examine the [USB_2K.NT] (2K) install section versus the [USB2.NT] (XP) section in one of these Intel USB files, I used "patusb.inf" for example.) However, since these Intel INF files are dated newer than any existing USB.INF file under 2K, 2K chooses these garbage files by default and complains if you want to use the older-dated standard driver.
13 hours ago, win32 said:I wonder if deleting the offending chipset USB driver installers (wellsburgusb.inf, cougarpoint.inf etc.) from the installation media would force win2k to install the generic drivers in setup?
Should work.
If anyone really wants these controllers to be given their specific names, then someone will need to add all the Intel USB2 VEN&DEV ID's and their corresponding proper names to 2K's USB.INF, linking them to the proper EHCI driver install section. See NUSB for 98SE's USB2.INF for reference. This will also have the effect of making the updated USB.INF file have a newer date than the Intel ones, which should make 2K use it by default (although it may complain it's not signed, not sure if 2K does this like XP and later).
0 -
17 minutes ago, ED_Sln said:
For the 64 bit version, it seems, there was no update.
Weird. The KB Article seems to only refer to 32-bit (although it may have been edited as such, never trust MS to leave KB articles alone); but the Security Bulletin clearly identifies 64-bit as being affected as well. Methinks something is missing here..
EDIT: Ugh, the KB# is apparently different for x64. The Security Bulletin also says .NET4 is affected; there are probably individual updates for each .NET version affected on each architecture.
1 -
2 hours ago, Mcinwwl said:
- Do we want to archive Powershell 1.0? links are still on-line, but we have PS 2.0, so is there any reason for that?
I would say yes, all updates and packages are important, even those that have been superseded. Non-superseded ones are a higher priority obviously though.
2 hours ago, Mcinwwl said:- Links for KB2978114 (Server-2003 only) are all dead, and Wayback Machine finds nothing in archive. Can we somehow lay our hand on those files?
Huh?
0 -
10 hours ago, aoresteen said:
My current project is building a DOS & Win98SE box for games. Mobo is a Socket 478 3.0GHz P loaded with 2 GB RAM. I'm still fighting with drivers for it and I hope to have it stable soon. 7th Guest, the Myst games, Dark Fall, Crystal Key ect are the types games I like.
I'm looking forward to learning here and maybe I can pass on a nugget or two.
Welcome to MSFN!
Regarding your project game machine, you should not encounter this with 2GB of RAM, but if you go above 2GB you may encounter issues with any games that run inside DOS boxes (WarCraft, WarCraft II, probably others I'm not familiar with). If you encounter this, rloew has a patch for this issue as well (DPMI memory limiter).
I have a stockpile of high-end P4-era hardware myself, and I've had a couple such gaming machines "under construction" for years now. I never seem to be able to find the time to fool with them, or to be able to put together a group of friends for good old LAN gaming anymore.
0 -
On 7/16/2019 at 7:50 AM, Usher said:
No, WSUS Offline doesn't download updates for WEPOS, WES09 and POSReady 2009, they don't contain XP in their names. Older WSUS Offline versions downloaded updates for XP Embedded, but these updates were filtered out starting from 9.2.2 build. However, you can still download version 9.2.1 and use it.
WSUS Offline downloads current WSUS database, but it also create its own database (which may provide links for third party tools, custom, non-public updates or whatever the developer finds appropriate). It's possible to run the program from Windows 7 and download needed files even when MS start to use only SHA-2 hashes - probably as long as the updates are available in Update Catalog. The program provides static links, so it will be possible to re-download some files ever later, when they are removed from WSUS database and catalog but still exist on download servers.
I took a look at this tool and it seems very impressive. This video is nice for anyone who's not familiar with it. I'm not sure I would ever use the "automated installer" part of it, but it seems to be a great way to build an archive of updates even if one uses them manually. However obviously it depends on how thorough the person building the database was... and whether or not the links in the database still work. Also probably doesn't include any updates that were not offered on WU or the Catalog (assuming some of these exist) such as anything in a "HotFix by request" category. At this point I suppose we only have The HotFix Share for anything like that...
It seems one can somehow write custom Update lists; for someone familiar with the tool it might be possible to modify the working list from this thread to work with the tool.
1 -
On 7/15/2019 at 6:09 AM, greenhillmaniac said:
BTW, I've seen demand for it, so I'm thinking of posting my Vista update repository that holds all of Vista's x86 and x64 updates from the beginning until its EOL (April 2017). Useful if you want to update your system offline without using WU. It's completely separate from this repository I'm updating every other month. Is there any interest?
I've just spent the better part of two days fooling with getting fresh installs of Vista x86/x64 SP2 installed, connected to WU, checking for updates, then manually downloading all the listed fixes from the Update Catalog, and I still have to install them and recheck for anything new afterward. What a nightmare,
lol. I guess it wouldn't be so bad if the service weren't (possibly) about to disappear, and if I didn't have other OS'es that need the same treatment before time runs out. Such a repository would be a great benefit, and it's good IMO to have a separate repository with official pre-EoL Vista updates along with the repository of post-EoL fixes.
On 7/15/2019 at 2:22 PM, hydro2duo said:http://files.56k.party/vista64/sp2/
I have the installer (all language) for SP2 plus the platform update, I'm also looking to add a few others specifically for x64 on this server before moving it to a OneDrive or MediaFire folder eventually
Feel free to tell me specifically what KB's to archive, I also included those in /fixwu needed for SHA2 code signing support for the next waves of 2008 SP2 updates
I think the Platform Update file you have is considered a "Supplement" to the Platform Update. I've not been able to figure out if the Platform Update was ever issued as a single package, because its KB number (971644) does not exist on WU, or whether it's just four component packages counted together (971512, 971513, 971514, 960362). Anyone with knowledge of this please chime in.
0 -
13 hours ago, heinoganda said:
There were different variants for the MP10 and MP11
Yes, this is important. We don't want any MP10 (or MP9) updates to get left out because the MP11 updates have the same KB numbers etc.
Same goes for IE6/IE7/IE8 - all need to be preserved, not just the latest update for the latest version.
0 -
On 7/12/2019 at 5:11 PM, Mcinwwl said:
We nearly have it. I have it nearly all, just to update txt file, download everything and test. As for file possession, there is at leas one person in the forum that has more than me
Looking forward to seeing the updated list.
I could swear I saw a list here before somewhere that someone (heinoganda maybe?
) posted that had links for all of the POSReady 2009 updates, but now I can't seem to find it. Did this exist or am I confused?
On 7/12/2019 at 5:11 PM, Mcinwwl said:Vista and Server 2003 are out of my scope.
Server 2003 is important because there are and/or may be more useful things in it that might eventually be backportable to XP (replacement USBPORT.SYS to go along with the 64GB RAM patch, and STORPORT.SYS are two good examples). I tend to think of Vista in the same way; it's closer to XP than Windows 7, so maybe there are useful things there. Also in the case of Vista, the fact that it has so few users now makes it even more likely that its updates will really go into the "memory hole." XP's files should survive, and Windows 7 will as well, but Vista is more "endangered." Given our group of Vista diehards here I'm surprised no one seems to have at least some kind of list..
1 -
On 7/10/2019 at 11:43 AM, VistaLover said:
As for previous Vista updates, a more ominous rumour is flying around, that dedicated XP and Vista MS Update servers will be permanently shut down; see the relevant XP thread:
XP die-hards have already started archiving XP updates from the Catalog, Web Archive and elsewhere, for future usage; haven't seen a similar effort undertaken from Vista communities; but I personally think we should be OK until Jan 2020, when both Server 2008 SP2 and Win7 SP1 reach Extended Support EOL; but I might be wrong...
If any one of you Vista diehards has anything resembling a complete list of Post-SP2 updates (and hopefully their links!) I'd like to see it. I've been trying to collect everything for XP, but I'd like to see the same done for Vista and Server 2003 before this potential deadline falls, and I don't think I'm going to get there in time doing it manually.
0 -
So, did everyone finally decide on a definitive, complete list of files + links?
I've been working on collecting things myself, but it's very slow doing it all manually. Not to mention the fact that it also needs to be done for Sever 2003 and Vista as well before time runs out...
1 -
I will never understand what motivates people to try to appease other people who are disagreeable, arrogant, condescending, and clearly would never reciprocate such efforts. As VistaLover said, full rebranding would not change a single thing about how "upstream" views this project or its users, and those who are now pushing rebranding again are only echoing MCP and Tobin's agendas. Apparently Tobin doesn't even need to come back here again to keep the subject alive. Why would anyone here spend the first second attempting to do anything they "demand?"
2 -
Let's not start this whole name changing bit again. There is nothing to be gained from it, and only more work to be created.
There's a relevant point in another thread (that thanks to the lack of a proper BBcode editor in IPB I can't just copy and paste here
) about how this may affect addons and related applications, requiring them to be modified to recognize the resulting renamed binary.
0 -
On 5/29/2019 at 1:37 AM, ~♥Aiko♥Chan♥~ said:
Looked through MSFN forums to find this that claims to support "ICH7 chipsets 945/946/975/955/31/41." Although, I have no idea if Lone's chipset drivers are superior.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070726211535/http://windows98.ic.cz/chipset/intelinf.zip
My INF files cover these chipsets plus many newer ones. I did get some of the original inspiration from xRayer's work though.. discovered the "drivers" are just INF files, so then it was easy to port the data to a 9x-compatible INF.
0 -
I keep hearing all these reports about WU/MU not working with SP3 + IE8...
Just a couple of months ago I was still able to use Windows Update with bare SP3 + IE6. All I had to change was to enable TLS in Internet Options...EDIT:
Oops, forgot to mention that three manual updates are necessary as well. See this thread and my link there. I'm getting old and forgetful, lol.0 -
On 5/4/2019 at 1:58 AM, Tommy said:
I tried that too, doesn't work. Apparently it has something to do with signatures of some sort. I'm surprised though that even older Firefox versions are affected this way.
Weird. It worked for me. Only 2 of my Addons were affected, Adblock Plus and Classic Theme Restorer. It may vary depending upon the Addon(s) or versions of said Addon(s) in use?
0 -
7 hours ago, DrWho3000 said:
Using Win XP SP3
Then why post in the 9x forum? Topic moved.
1
I'd just like to get to the bottom of this USB issue since I've seen it reported before and I can't understand what the problem is. It should be simple to fix!
)
Then why post in the 9x forum?
Windows 95 2.1GHz CPU Limit BROKEN!
in Windows 9x Member Projects
Posted
So, I assume you're saying that MFC40.DLL does not exist in a clean installation of 95RTM or 95A (OSR1), and does exist in a clean installation of 95B/95C (OSR2.x)? If so, this sounds like a winner. Thanks for your help!
I'll try to verify this myself as well, but my workspace and testing systems are a wreck right now. Even 95 VM's are not working on the machine I'm using now. Not to mention that I haven't worked on FIX95CPU or used it myself in over 6 years (I slipstreamed the fixes so I never have to use the manual version anymore), so it may take me a while to implement the change and push out an updated package.
In the meantime, anyone who needs to use FIX95CPU on a KNOWN OSR1 installation can rename FILEXFER.EXE on their HDD to something else before FIX95CPU installs, or delete the line referencing it in FIX95CPU.BAT on the FIX95CPU floppy. NOTE the latter of those options will make the FIX95CPU floppy useless for OSR2 installs!