LoneCrusader

Both, and also a third HDA driver, CMUDAX.SYS from this package. http://download.msi.com/dvr_exe/CMI9880Ch_PI001.zip Also tried multiple versions of the Realtek driver, going back to very early versions. All versions die in BSOD's. Debugging led nowhere (my debugging knowledge is very limited, but I had a lot of help from rloew ). The Microsoft HDAUDIO.SYS only works with the controllers specified in it's original INF (ID's embedded in the file), so it's not really generic. I have an Intel D915GAG motherboard and a MSI 925X Neo Platinum motherboard that both have early HDA controllers that are supported by the Microsoft HotFix and work with just KB888111 under 2K. We were able to get to the desktop under 98SE on the D915 board and using the HDAUDIO.SYS without crashing; but the driver just doesn't work. No audio output whatsoever. If we could just turn up a copy of the "IHV Enabling Kit" mentioned in the other thread it might get us somewhere, but otherwise we have nothing to work with. Microsoft provides sample AC'97 driver code but I have yet to see a single instance of sample HDA driver code. Theoretically, a card with Vista x64 drivers should still work.. I assume Vista drivers can still be used under Windows 10; I know I have used Vista drivers under Windows 7 for some machines I've worked on for people. I've got some Chinese PCI-E cards that use an older 9x-compatible audio chip that I bought on eBay for use in systems with no PCI slots; IIRC I successfully tested one of them a while back, but I haven't put one to use on anything close to a daily basis. Also it's possible PCI-E has issues under 9x.. (there's another thread about it). I see the Win3x HDA driver has been provided - let's see how that goes. If another solution is needed I'll try to dig something up.

I got past the DLL error; somehow the registry entry I mentioned was keeping it from loading. My INF is working, loading the SDBUS.SYS driver with WDMSTUB.SYS (or loading SDBUS by itself if rloew's WDMEX is present), but the device still has a Code 2 error in the Device Manager. No WDM functions are missing, so an existing called function must be different under 2K than it is under 9x or there is some other problem. Another issue here is I have no way to really test the SDBUS.SYS driver even if it did load without an error. The FlashMedia card reader on the laptop works under 2K/XP without SDBUS.SYS being loaded. Thanks for the info! Still doesn't explain how the Known16DLLs entry was created at some point and now isn't created again when I follow the same process, but it's moot anyway.

Unfortunately no. Many, many hours or work by rloew, myself, and MERCURY127 have yielded no working solutions. HDA uses an initial "BUS" driver that loads the HDA Bus and enumerates the actual HDAUDIO device. rloew did manage to get the 2K HDA Bus driver to load and enumerate the audio device with WDMEX, but the drivers for the actual audio device itself always fail, despite not having any missing WDM functions. A very annoying mess. I think I do remember seeing a report somewhere of a working DOS/Win3x HDA driver. Might be possible to use it somehow as was done with the DOS LAN drivers...

I believe I came across those files but I didn't examine them further at the time because my laptop uses a Texas Instruments controller and the other packages I found provide a "generic" driver. I may revisit the issue... When I get an opportunity I will take a look and try to make a 9x-compatible INF for the Ricoh drivers that you can try.

I'm not sure what the problem is with that driver. I did notice that all of the INF files have "Signature=$Windows NT$" which normally indicates that it is not 9x-compatible. It may be missing a WDM function or some other oddity that causes it to claim it needs NTKERN. Slightly OT, but I've seen some wildly ridiculous claims about NTKERN.VXD and other files "not being installed." All these files are placed by Windows SETUP! Try this version.. the INF has the proper "Signature=$CHICAGO$", may or may not help. Always remember to download the file, not the "Update Utility" but you're probably already familiar with that. https://www.driverguide.com/driver/detail.php?driverid=816509

Hello again! :) I've abandoned this experiment for the time being... I have not found any situation where a working SDHost controller will be of any benefit under 9x. The FlashMedia reader in the laptop I'm working on works under XP without the SDHost driver loaded so I'm not certain what purpose it serves. Also, the drivers for mounting "disks" from the SDHost bus link back to HAL.DLL and would require major rewrite/wrapping back to IOS.VXD in order to even use them with the 9x drive architecture. If you want to take a look at this all of the files I tried to use are contained in the linked packages. I did find later that the pictured DLL error was caused by an entry existing for the DLL file in a "Known16DLLs" section of the registry. I did not create this entry and I've not been able to figure out how it came to exist. Deleting this entry removed the error, and I can't make it reappear. However despite being able to "insall" the driver now, the SDHost controller just shows up with a Yellow Bang error in the Device Manager and does nothing.

Glad you got it working! Adding a hardware ID isn't hard, you can just use Notepad to edit the INF file, find one of the lines that has a PCI VEN & DEV entry, such as %*WDM_AC97AUD.DeviceDesc%=WDM_HEAVENLY, pci\ven_8086&dev_266E&subsys_0938103C Then, copy this line and paste the copy back into the INF under the original line like this. %*WDM_AC97AUD.DeviceDesc%=WDM_HEAVENLY, pci\ven_8086&dev_266E&subsys_0938103C %*WDM_AC97AUD.DeviceDesc%=WDM_HEAVENLY, pci\ven_8086&dev_266E&subsys_0938103C Then edit the copied line to match the device you and to add, for example: %*WDM_AC97AUD.DeviceDesc%=WDM_HEAVENLY, pci\ven_XXXX&dev_YYYY&subsys_ZZZZZZZZ If you don't have the SUBSYS or other data just delete everything from the end of the DEV ID to the end of the line. The VEN&DEV are sufficient. It only gets complicated if there are multiple different install routines for different devices in an INF. If this is the case you need to pick the target section (in this example WDM_HEAVENLY) that is the closest match for your device. I assume the HP provided WDM driver does not provide SB Emulation. (Shows up as another Audio device in the Device Manager with the main card.) I noticed this as well on my ZD8000 laptop. I hadn't tried using any DOS programs yet, but I did notice that when I used the Realtek VXD drivers I mentioned, a SB Emulation device was installed. Maybe another reason to use the VXD drivers (or a more generic WDM driver)... You can try this to use the VXD drivers if you want. Download this package and use WinRAR/7-Zip to extract the contents. https://repo.etfovac.com/autopatcher/0001-VXD_A406.exe Open VALCX95.INF in the \Win95 folder. Add this line to the [Realtek] section. %ALCICH.DeviceDesc%=ALCAUD, PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_266E Save the modified INF and then use the Device Manager to manually install the driver from this folder. The installer will not run under 98SE. WDMEX.VXD (along with WDMSTUB.SYS, but WDMSTUB is much less capable) extends the available WDM driver functions under 9x to include functions only available under 2K/XP. It can load some drivers that otherwise do not work, but it's not a miracle cure either. Many drivers are just incompatible, even if all of their functions are satisfied. If the Broadcom driver farfigs11 linked doesn't work I will dig for something else. For the wireless card, just look around on eBay for a ZD7000 or ZD8000 Broadcom WiFi card to swap out. I think I saw a couple listed in the $5-$10 range.

Interesting experiment; oddly enough lately I've been working on getting 9x up and running on an HP laptop as well. I'm using a ZD8000, so there are some differences, but what I've learned so far may help. First, the official HP driver package for this laptop for Windows 2000 includes a driver folder for 98SE. The INF file in this folder has an entry for the specific VEN&DEV&SUBSYS of the card in your screenshot. Did you try this official package? Choose Windows 2000 here (if given the option for this, always choose 2K rather than XP as 2K packages are more likely to be older and/or contain 9x files also) https://support.hp.com/us-en/drivers/selfservice/hp-compaq-nx6110-notebook-pc/449877 Or use this direct link. https://whp-aus2.cold.extweb.hp.com/pub/softpaq/sp30501-31000/sp30130.exe Now in the case of my laptop, the official HP audio package worked on 98SE as well, despite not claiming official support. However I noticed a lot of stuttering with the startup sound and decided to try other options. I tried the 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) but these drivers didn't work with my card. I found that installing the Realtek AC'97 VXD drivers for Windows 95 by manually adding the device to the INF seems to work better than the WDM driver for my specific card. If the official HP package or one of the others linked does not work, I can upload a package for you to test. Second, if the WiFi network card is a MiniPCI card like in my ZD8000 you should be able to swap the Intel card (no 9x driver for this one) for a compatible card. The Broadcom WiFi cards from the ZD8000 and ZD7000 can be made to work (requires manually mixing 2 driver packages). Third, the Modem can probably be made to work with an INF mod to a generic SoftModem driver package. I got a driver installed for mine using this method and therefore removed the "Unknown device" from the Device Manager, but I've had no need to verify that it actually works. I'll examine the official 2K/XP package on the HP site and see if it uses the same drivers as the one in my laptop. Finally, the TI CardBus controller may be an issue if you intend to use it. This device seems to be slightly different among different laptop models so I'm not sure if yours is like mine. I've managed to load the TI 2K/XP driver for the FlashMedia reader device portion of this controller on my laptop using rloew's WDMEX.VXD, but I've not been able to get any card inserted into the reader to mount as a disk. EDIT: Forgot to mention that the "Motherboard resources" conflict is a common issue on newer ACPI systems. It doesn't cause any issues that I know of, it's just annoying. The only way I know of to avoid it is to use "SETUP /P I" to disable ACPI completely in Windows 98, which didn't work for your system. On my ZD8000, SETUP will not finish if I DON'T disable ACPI, and I also had to disable PCI Steering on the PCI bus in the Device Manager in order to get a usable system. The ZD8000 uses a 915 chipset as well, however it's a Desktop chipset, not a Mobile one, and therefore not limited to 533FSB and 2GB of RAM.

This may not apply to Windows ME and therefore may not be of any use to the OP, but here's a heads up to anyone using 98SE - Realtek's A405 and A406 AC'97 WDM packages use an ALCXWDM.SYS file that is missing a WDM function under 98SE, namely MmMapLockedPagesSpecifyCache. Therefore A405 and A406 are probably never going to work on a vanilla 98SE system, no matter what audio device you have. You will need WDMSTUB.SYS or rloew's WDMEX.VXD to provide this function. The A404 version does not appear to have any missing functions. (If anyone can check Windows ME and see if this function is available there we can clarify whether or not ME is affected by this.)

Polls can be done. Just switch to the "Poll" tab after you click "Start New Topic." As for splitting the thread, dencorso will have to decide on that. My forum mod powers aren't global. I remember at one time you actually provided XP x64 compatible builds of Pale Moon when the official version was no longer supporting it. Based on our first encounter several years ago now I knew you had, shall we say, a "condescending" attitude toward older systems, but I never understood how you could go so quickly from providing those unofficial builds for unsupported XP x64 to being so vehemently opposed to anyone who even mentions retaining compatibility for NT5.x... But I digress, and if I continue this will be way off-topic, and pointless. Anyway, I'm glad to see that you're taking a more constructive approach. I just hope it is truly in good faith. Maybe something good can come of this, and we can avoid any more unwarranted negativity, here and elsewhere as well. I never dreamed there would be occasion to say this, but thanks!

Interesting. If you find any working links for versions we haven't covered here, please post them. I never really expected to find a wireless client supporting WPA2 for 95 from the beginning; it would be great to find such but I'll settle for WPA. At this point I really just needed to verify that the WiFi card driver I loaded under 95 was actually working, so a client capable of just running under 95 and listing available networks is one step in the right direction.

I remember this; unfortunately I didn't save the file at the time. Hopefully someone kept a copy or the user will return; I think he wrote some other tool that may have survived the forum crash. I've been trying to extract older copies of Odyssey from the Wayback Machine with no luck. Most of the links lead to a registration form which of course doesn't work and never resolves a download link. However I did manage to get these pages which give the original file naming conventions for older versions prior to the ones we have (and possibly later ones as well). No luck using them on Google either though. https://web.archive.org/web/20050924193348/http://www.funk.com:80/odyssey/user/odyssey/client/ https://web.archive.org/web/20030805064057/http://www.funk.com/odyssey/user/odyssey/client/

Well, now if it's all over but the re-naming.. I'll resubmit my previous suggestion as shortened by Destro - "Lunaris" for your version of Pale Moon; or maybe at this point "LunarFox" would be better since you now have to work back to Firefox from Pale Moon rather than the other way around (plus it should make for an interesting icon! lol). And possibly "Draconis" for Basilisk?

+1 I certainly would not be in any hurry to appease anyone who comes in here making ever-more ridiculous demands and who displays such overt hostility toward your projects and this community on other websites. But you do as you see fit; if you feel that it's best to do whatever you can to settle the issue then by all means proceed as you have been. The absurdity of all of this is mind boggling. Most normal people who write a piece of software or code wish to be credited for their work, and here instead we have Matt Tobin who is so disgruntled by the fact that someone else dares to revert some changes he made to a piece of open-source software that he didn't even write in the first place that he throws a temper tantrum, removes his project code from the public, and screams like a child until someone gives him what he wants. And what does he want? His "name" removed from these forked builds, because he might accidentally have his name associated with "us", the unwashed, the untouchables, the Luddites; in other words those who dare to disagree with his worldview. Sad.

Nope. Delusions of grandeur. Guess what. A judge or jury would be the one "deem reasonable" in this case if it ever came to court. Aside from that, given in this case that you are already perfectly able to and actively "digitally distributing" the executable form, then I don't believe any judge or jury would look favorably on you purposely creating arbitrary "obstacles" in the way of accessing the source code, which could be construed as an "attempt to alter or restrict the recipients’ rights" as prohibited in Section 3.1. Also, returning to the first point, given that literally thousands of open-source programs (and even entire operating systems) today are perfectly capable of providing digital distribution of their sources, I see no reason why a judge or jury should entertain the idea of providing an exception for you. And, even in the end, if you were somehow able to pull that off, I'll pledge $100 right now toward the cost of creating more work and annoyance for you. Remember me when you're making trips to the post office.

Hmm.. let's see. "Not doing a good job" could easily be defined as "breaking things that already work." For example existing code support for older operating systems. Nice and simple. I fail to see how roytam's software is "abused," give that he is actually fixing things you or Moonchild have broken, on purpose. See above. No one claimed they are official. In fact the About dialog in these builds clearly states they are not. "Not doing a good job" again..? See above. I'd like to see some proof of this supposed "massive confusion." If there is any confusion, it must come from those who are clueless in the first place. You cannot fault roytam for users who are too ignorant to read the About dialog or to deal with any issues here, where the builds are linked, rather than going to you or to the official PaleMoon forum. Also I'd love to see even one example where you or Moonchild or anyone else in your "group" has "cleaned up a mess when something goes wrong" that addressed the first single issue that affected these older operating systems or users of the unofficial builds on these systems. It sounds more to me like you're just a butthurt jerk who is having a tantrum because someone is making your toy work in places where you don't want it to. If you don't like it, write your own closed source program and stop "abusing" Mozilla's existing code. Without Mozilla's existing code, which once again I will remind you already provides compatibility for the systems roytam is targeting, and which you have intentionally broken, your pet projects would be nonexistent.

Thanks for taking a look. I remember having some issues setting up XP on the X99 system and ended up transferring an install from an X79 system for what I was doing at the time, but it's been a long time since I've had an opportunity to do anything else with it. It may have been unrelated to ACPI. If one could determine what ACPI changes, if any, beyond what you're doing would be necessary to have Windows 2000 working it would be a big step in the right direction. Going back further would probably require setting ACPI to a very "early" state (not sure what you're having to change, so this is all speculation anyway).

Thanks again!

Start with this.. Probably not all of the updates available but hopefully someone else can fill in any that are missing.

Can you modify the BIOS for my X99 board? I'm very interested in the possibilities of this. ACPI issues are a major stumbling block for other older operating systems as well. If it's possible to correct some of this with BIOS modding it may solve some compatibility issues.

Thanks for the reply. If you want to share Odyssey 3.0 I don't see any problem with it so long as 1) it is a file that was publicly available for download, and 2) you do not provide a license key or any other means of circumventing the evaluation period (assuming it's an evaluation/trial copy like the version previously linked here). It's possible that Odyssey 3.0 or an older version of one of these other clients may work under 95 despite not claiming official support; it's worth a try. Also, as noted earlier, the various WiFi client applications MIGHT be usable under 9x with KernelEx or a DLL wrapper/redirector since they're not drivers. Probably the older they are (closer to the end of 9x support) the better the chance, but it's a toss up anyway with no answers except trial and error.

A person can probably find common ground with any other person on at least something. Sure, no problem.

I actually had an "extended discussion" with Moonchild some time back and attempted to point out just how illogical his position was in regard to older OS'es. It of course fell on deaf ears and he ended the discussion without even attempting to answer any of my points. I tried to get across to him just how irrational it was to be committed to preserving an older "browser interface/UI" while at the same time being determined to discard support for any older operating system as soon as possible. With one hand he pushes the "latest and greatest" and insists people should "upgrade" and not use "outdated" operating systems; and with the other hand he promotes an "outdated" browser interface now built on "outdated" code and now using "outdated" addons (in the eyes of the same people who push similar "latest and greatest" rubbish), purposely breaking the already existing support for older systems that was already in place. How one can contort themselves into such a strange position and consider themselves as having a reasonable standpoint on the issue is beyond me. When PaleMoon eventually starts bleeding off its users who subscribe to the flawed logic of "latest and greatest"; or when those remaining are left without options for addon/plugin compatibility and compatibility with the "modern" web, then I've got a feeling those of us here will have the last laugh, and can tell Moonchild and company "Welcome to the party, pal!"

Does anyone happen to have a link for an older version of the Odyssey client that works under Windows 95 OSR2 (assuming this did exist at one time)? Even an old URL one can use to start somewhere on the Wayback Machine might be helpful... And/or, has anyone attempted to use the other Wireless clients discussed here under 95? Also, what was this thread's original title? It seems to me it should be restored; there's a lot of valuable information here. I may have been the one who removed it per the authors request (IIRC, it's been a while!) back whenever , but we need to strike a balance between such requests and any loss of information therein, especially given how fast such legacy resources are now disappearing.

Lots of background information to this experiment; mostly irrelevant (other than the fact that I solved a long-standing problem with this laptop that I had mentioned here and I had been unable to solve previously; maybe more on this later in an appropriate topic). To make a long story short In the process of trying to set up Windows 98SE on a laptop I ran into some missing driver issues which in turn resulted in me experimenting to see if I can get a Windows 2000 driver stack for a "SDHost controller" device to load under Windows 98SE. The Windows 2000 compatible files can be obtained from these sources (3 versions available; probably others somewhere). https://www.driverguide.com/driver/detail.php?driverid=1697704 https://www.driverguide.com/driver/detail.php?driverid=1720873 https://support.lenovo.com/pa/en/downloads/ds003184 After unpacking these files and examining them for missing exports I found that the initial driver SDBUS.SYS is missing 5 WDM functions that are covered in the last WDMSTUB.SYS (from NUSB3.0e IIRC). The SFFDISK.SYS driver is missing another function, "IoSetHardErrorOrVerifyDevice" which is not covered; but that won't matter unless the first driver can be successfully loaded. I modified the INF files to be Windows 9x compatible (including adding the correct corresponding lines for "NTMPDriver" and loading WDMSTUB.SYS with the SDBUS.SYS driver; note WDMSTUB and it's INF mentions are unnecessary if one has rloew's WDMEX package installed). (Also Note .SYS files also require changes that are part of rloew's WDMEX package; he may elaborate on this if he so chooses.) Attempted to install the driver. The Add Device wizard crashes out on the "coinstaller" DLL file SDHCINST.DLL, and I get the following error. "Setup cannot load the installer (sdhcinst.dll) for the SDHost hardware being installed. Contact your hardware vendor for assistance." I removed all references to the DLL file in the INF and the same error still happens, so the Add Device wizard has no other knowledge of the DLL file and thus the .SYS file must be calling it directly. (However this is a new "Class" of devices and it may be going to this file for [ClassInstall] properties; does Windows 98SE support a [ClassInstall32] section as used in the 2K INF?) Has anyone ever seen an error like this? The 'net seems to know nothing about it (obviously excluding the specific DLL name and "SDHost" text from any search as these aren't going to produce 9x-relevant results). I examined the DLL file under 98SE with Dependency Walker and no problems were reported. What could be causing Windows 98SE not to be able to load this DLL?