Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

16 Good

Profile Information

  • OS
  • Country


  • Country Flag

Recent Profile Visitors

3,525 profile views
  1. I have that board sitting on my benchtable at the moment. I can confirm what Feamane said. After all is said and done, it is a matter of preference, both choices are ok. That is not happening very often with W9x ... :-D
  2. >>ragnargd : Thank you for taking the time to explain a lot of things, i really appreciate it!! My pleasure >>The JMB is a pain, it does not detect drives connected with IDE>SATA converter etc. I used such adapters, but stopped it, as i had problems to fixate cabling and the drives, quite often resulting in instable or non-booting systems. >>I am using adata SU650 drives 2 of them. 1 is 120gb for 98 and 240 for windows xp, 120 is divided into 40-80 and the 80gb one i am using to put data, drivers, >>games dump so if i want to format again, that is there with the 98 setup and everything. Looks like a sensible distribution, i'd keep that. >>The sata drives work fine and boot very fast but show in compatibility mode. There is no compatibility mode >>in BIOS for drives to put them into IDE >>but i am not facing any disk issues so i dont know if i want to do anything? your suggestions? Its showing in fifo mode in device manager in 98. >>with xp its all working fine. Only under 9x the JMB was a problem for me, with XP it was fine. Most people here try to get rid of the compatibility mode, but if it has no negative impact for you, just keep it. For me it was a problem, as my optical drives went invisible once even one drive on the machine was in compatibility mode, so it stopped me from playing some games that depended on a optical drive. If you don't have that problem, just change nothing. Do you have any specific problems? >>Processor i am using is c2d E8400 for this build and i have more as stated above, even p4 at 3.0 and 3.2. The problem i have in processor is it showing as 2.4 ghz instead of 3.0 As i said, that is not a "problem", but the limit of your hardware, namely the limited frontside bus (FSB). But, at the same time, the C2D is still fast enough even at 2.4GHz, so just ignore the issue. Your machine is no less stable, and even produces less heat. I ignored that issue as well in the end. >>My 6600 GT was working fine and i swapped with 6800 vanilla, it performs a bit better. As i have now 2 pcs of 6600GT, 1 6600 vanilla and 1 6800 vanilla, i am pretty set on this series >>(reason why i chose this is because easy install as its native 98 drivers blocked artificially perform flawlessly and also back in the day i was drooling to get a 6600 but dint have the time and money) >>i got 33000 marks in 3d marks 2000 with it. all games run fine and no crashes so far touchwood! >>Also, no external power connector on these cards as they are PCIe and only agp models of these need external power. I can relate to your arguments, so, if i were you, i'd also keep it at that. >>I got 2 of these asus boards from refurbisher and they are in good shape. so sticking with them for the 775 build. Sounds good. >>Meanwhile to get really native old windows 98, i purchased 2 boards of socket 370 and pentium 3 processors again 2 pcs along with half a dozen graphics card lot with riva tnt 2 pro >>and mx400 and 9200 and then got radeon 9600 along with 6600nvidia agp. i plan to build this new system for just windows 98. >>I do not have ide disks so thinking about ide to cf card adapter as its native ide. your suggestions? i dont know if my sata>ide converters will work but i will try those too. I have no experience with cf adapters, and, as i mentioned, did not have good experience with any other adapters. At this, you will probably be the first to find out, and here at MSFN we hope you will report... ;-) (search the MSFN forum, there are mixed experiences with CF, but from long time ago, many CF kind of worked, while others did not. But those that worked tended to be slow, and very often too small. If you have the hardware already, just try. Before you invest money, better read). >>in the end i want to have these 2 machines, 1 high performing and 1 older native 98. Most of my old installations died because of hardware failure. So, i refrain from keeping old hardware for nostalgia, as rather sooner then later they perish, and i don't want a broken heart... ;) I try to work only with hardware that is as new as reasonably possible. But don't let that be an argument for you. I stick to 98SE, as it is the most compatible for the old games, and that is my (only) motivation. >>Appreciate your reply! I appreciate you efforts on W9x!
  3. Well, i had the Asus P5B Deluxe, looong time ago. As it is quite some years ago, take my "hints" with a grain of salt... and your board is a bit more limited than the P5B Deluxe, being a tad bit older, as far as i know. The Audigy and Audigy 2 are the best choice, bar none. Check the Device-ID of the LAN, maybe drivers exist. My P5B board had a W9x-compatible LAN. I used Windows 7 on that board as well, but gave it away thereafter. I read of people using a P5B Deluxe with Windows 10, but that board had an ICH8R, while yours has the ICH8 (without "R"), which is a problem under W10 (many modern SATA-options are not supported). If i were you, remembering how cumbersome it can be to run W10 on such an old system, i'd stay with XP and W9x, or, at best, consider a modern 64bit Linux system. Experiements to consider: (1) CPU: I ran my P5B Deluxe with an Intel C2Q 9550S, which was the latest and most advanced Socket 775 CPU. That one would only run with FSB 1000 instead of 1333 on the P5B-VM SE, but that is true for your C2D CPUs as well, correct? Under XP a C2Q will be a bit more responsive, which might, or might not, help some games when run on XP, while, of course, that won't make a difference on W9x... As you don't use the internet, there is no need for Antivirus Software (not that it would help much, given the loss of support from most vendors). More cores were important for that, as Antivirus taxed those systems a lot. So, in the end, having just two cores on XP will probably still suffice. (2) Storage: Using a plain SATA II HDD of a maximum of 128 GB (even better: 32GB) might give you a hassle-free start on W9x. SATA III devices can be a problem, sometimes, see below. I use IDE-SSD on IDE-ports for ever - i think transcend still sells the Transcend Industrial PSD330 32GB, IDE (TS32GPSD330) -, which make such a system so much more fun. You would need an adapter, though, as they have a 44-pin IDE port. If that is a good idea, is an entirely different question, for this reason: To get rid of the "compatibility mode", i vaguely remember to have disabled the SATA-ports of JMicron JMB363, at least the SATA-ports, first, but it might have included the IDE-ports as well. Reason: I don't think there is a "good" driver for the JMB 363 for W9x, if any exists at all, and that controller is prone to send your system to compatibility mode, even without any device attached. You don't have SATA-ports on the JMB on your board, as far as i can see at Asus. Might be worth a try, if nothing else helps (many SATA DVD-drives won't work in compatibility mode), at the price of loosing the IDE-ports. I think that using SATA-SSDs is possible, although i would try this with a cheap exemplary, not bigger than 32GB, as some are definitely not compatible with that chipset anymore. I have some SATA II SSDs lying around that worked, and at least one SATA III SSD that didn't. On more modern controllers, like on AMD 970, all SSDs (including the mentioned SATA III example) work under W98SE, but that is not your situation. I used a PCI controller with combined SATA I and IDE support for such scenarios. Experiment at your discretion... ;-) (3) GPU: Another experiment worth the effort, once your system is stable, is using NVidia GPUs of the 7xxx series instead of the 6xxx series, which are either much faster, or, at the same speed, produce less heat (and use less power, but ignore poweruse, as you won't use that system often enough to make that count). They are therefore much easier to handle (i.e. some don't need a PCIe power cable), and can all be cooled passively with good aftermarket coolers. I prefer the 7600 GT 256MB, which combines the speed of a NV 6800, no PCIe power cable needed, passively cooled with ease. But only consider using the 7xxx Series, if your monitor is Full HD, as only at high resolutions that speed advantage is worth the effort. On the other hand, you use an inf-modded driver anyway, so it might not be too difficult for you... and under XP there are games that will make good use of anything up to a GTX 980 Ti, so "Faster is Better" (tm) under XP... :-D I played i.e. Half Life 2 and a heavily modded Stalker on that P5B Deluxe system, and also BG2 with a widescreen-mod. All of that ran better on XP than on W9x, for several reasons, but that is something you can find out yourself now... -------------------------- Generally speaking, i sympathize with your intention to use that system for old games, as that mirrors my interest in W9x. Have fun!
  4. soggi.org is a real treat. Thank you!
  5. Could you do me a favour, and look up the Vendor/Device-ID of that NIC?
  6. For the Intel Pro CT Desktop Adapters, the cards sold nowadays are of a revision (from years 2012-2014) that is not supported by the old drivers (latest year 2006) in any way, i really tried hard, they just don't work together. I now try to find old revisions of the cards. Most were used as onboard-chips or add-in cards on serverboards, but there never have been many in circulation in 2006 in the first place. I found pictures of those old Pro CT NICs, they do look different from those of today (much shorter PCB, and very often only available as low-profile). I don't expect to find any anytime soon, so unless some show up, i will stay with the Pro 1000 MT PCI, which are quite ok (and better that the realtrek PCIe chips at the moment).
  7. @Goodmaneuver The MoBo and cards show no extraordinary temps, and there are no problems with the board, it runs absolutely fine, no issues at all. And with Intel NICs, everything works like a charm. Only the Realtek NICs have problems, showing abysmal performance. I have found out that many realtek cards have some performance problems on W10, of which most can be dealt with by setting parameters, while others will be dealt with by microsoft-updates. It seems to be fairly common: https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_10-hardware/realtek-pcie-gbe-family-controller-very-slow/f42884d5-37fa-45d7-89a0-552f81ab1671 So, after all, it really is a problem of the drivers and parameters. These didn't get much love from realtek lately. --> The latest Windows Version together with the latest Realtek driver brought about 50% with the W9x-compatible RTL8139x --> 80MBit, and whooping 100% with the onboard RTL8111E --> 100-200MBit. Still fail, but at least they gained some ground against the Intel Pro 1000 MT PCI (which is restricted by the PCI-bus). For the time being, i will just stay with intel, that solves these problems. Anyway, thank you very much for your help, it is highly appreciated!
  8. Hi, macx1227, welcome to MSFN! Myself, i ran a E8400 with W98SE, and also a C2Q 9550S. Unfortunately, CPUs are (usually) not the problem, so that does not say anything. Chipset and mainboard-layout are paramount. Your PC has the Q43 chipset, if i'm not mistaken, and i found these data (sorry, German only): https://www.tiger-technik.de/Mainboards/Intel/Sockel-775/HP-Compaq-6000-Pro-SFF-MT-Mainboard-531965-001-503362-001-Intel-Q43-DDR3-m188::1630.html http://www.webdatenblatt.de/cds/de/?pid=6d32df853078772 Are these correct, basically? (Mainly, is the screenshot correct? - if not, can you send a screenshot of the MoBo layout?) Cheers, Ragnar G.D.
  9. @MrMateczko: I will try both, but later, as i don't have time at the moment. Btw: Cool, this is the newest Intel-Driver for 9x/ME, mine are older. Thank you! @Goodmaneuver: I already tried your tips. This didn't change a thing... here. But as i had the feeling, there is some wisdom in what you reported, i tried it on another PC (some ASRock iCafe MoBo) showing strange behaviour, i already lost a GPU. And guess what: It helped me detect the problem, here the PSU being the culprit. Wow! Probably saved my hardware. So: Thank you a lot!!!
  10. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-raspberry-pi-xp-linux-raspbian-professional
  11. [had to correct this, the "listdevices.txt" was misleading, only exactly ONE driver supports GTX 970 and GTX 980. Other GTX 9x0 / Titans were mentioned in later drivers, but were not in the inf files.] Interesting find while explicitely searching for drivers older than those on the NVidia-Site, but after the launch, on www.forum-3dcenter.org http://uk.download.nvidia.com/Windows/344.11/344.11-desktop-winxp-32bit-international.exe More infos: https://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=556959 I tried it, and my GTX 970 was detected and runs fine (no SLI, though, even though it is active, and detected on W10 64bit). Excerpt from ListDevices.txt: NVidia mostly lists drivers AFTER this one on their site (there may be one or two more inbetween containing the 970+, but i did not detect any more. Jaclaz?). Oh, and one further insight: There exist inf-files for OEM cards (i.e. nvmii.inf for MSI) that indicate later drivers (347.25, 347.88) support these cards as well, as long as they are from said OEM. (look i.e. here: https://forums.laptopvideo2go.com/topic/30969-modding-nvidia-oem-inf-files/ ) Using these may be possible, but as these may have other settings (assuming OC, requiring better cooler, etc.), it is always a bit risky. If they can be used for your card without inf-modding, you just pinpointed a driver tailor-made for your card, congrats... Starting with version 350.xx, 970+ are neither mentioned in the listdevices.txt, nor in inf-files. I suspect, this has something to do with XP 32bit dropping out of support with Microsoft on April the 8th 2014, so NVidia possibly joined the bandwaggon here... or was "encouraged" to do so by Microsoft, and only OEMs that were complied to deliver drivers for a certain time got some support. But thats just guesswork... For modding inf-files to have 970+ GPUs use the GTX 960 drivers, which seems to be working well, search on MSFN (maybe later i'll link to those threads - give me some time...). According to an analysis of the later drivers, of which the 368.91 (iCafe) seems to be the latest, while 368.81 is the latest generic, remember, that there exists more than one GTX 960, so choose well: NVIDIA_DEV.1401 = "NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960" NVIDIA_DEV.1406 = "NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960"
  12. I had a look at this thread on guru3d again (Jaclaz find): https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/nvidia-geforce-icafe-expresso-368-91-whql-desktop-driver.408957/ A user named maur0 sayeth this: >> what driver is more good this or 368.95 hotfix? >>17/07 368.91 >>20/07 368.95 >>3 days older So there may be even a hotfix... But the only thing i located was from microsoft update (in a cab file) for W10 32bit... i guess something like that doesn't necessarily even exist for XP, so don't hold your breath... Ah, btw, I pulled the XP 32bit iCafe-driver 368.91, as per the guru3d thread, both from nvidia china, and softpedia, and guess what, neither the 10x0 are in the inf, NOR are the GTX 970/980/etc. ! (the drivers are identical) If you want to use the GTX 970 +, you have to inf-mod, eos. The only decision you have to make is wether you take the .81 or the .91 as your base. (i did NOT succeed 100% with the .91 driver yet, but that may be due to my limited skill-set, i get exceptions, and SLI is not working) I just found this one: uk.download.nvidia.com/Windows/344.11/344.11-desktop-winxp-32bit-international.exe Supports GTX 970 and GTX 980. Works. No SLI detected by the driver, though (which is active on W10). Somehow, NVidia is inconsistent with their support-politics... Now, look at this:
  13. Nice find! Truly bizarre games... And that's exactly what i'm after....
  14. I might try. But for my curiosity: Why and what is that supposed to help with? Only certain NICs are slow, not all of them, and i don't ever overclock...
  15. Hi, my Gigabit-NICs are not fun. My "compatible" realtek and broadcom NICs work, but deliver just about 50MBit, which is abysmal performance for NICs calling themselves PCIe Gigabit (on all W10, XP and W98SE). Is suspect incompatibility between the drivers and the Mobo (ASRock 970A Pro3 R2.0), as even the onboard Realtek (that only works on XP and W10) delivers just about 50MBit. I remember quite a bit better performace under W7 on otherMoBos, delivering about 450 MBit (I don't remember on which MoBos, though, i suspect those MoBos are long gone). (Other HW: FX-4320@stock, NV 7900 GTX 512MB PCIe, SB Audigy 2 Platinum PCI, 4 x 4GB DDR3 1333, W98SE on Sata III 60GB SSD, XP and W10 on Sata III 120 GB SSD each) Of course i tested with other NICs in the same PCIe-Slots: - An Intel 1000 CT Desktop PCIe 1x works about right under W10 and XP, delivering 936 MBit - an Intel Aquantia NBase-T PCIe 1x (by StarTech) delivers blazing 2.5GBit (the NIC is too expensive, though) - an Intel Aquantia NBase-T PCIe 4x (by Asus) delivers trail-hot-blazing 4-6GBit in the electrical 4x PCIe slot, saturating the SSD (my Fileserver with its M.2 Raid5 can deliver 8GBit). And my trusted Intel 1000MT PCI ist just held back by the PCI-bus, delivering about 220MBit (which, as you think about, makes the realtek and broadcom PCIe look even worse). I will stick to latter, as, by all means, from all NICs working under all three OS, it has the best performance on that MoBo. ------------------------------------ A little research on the "Intel CT Desktop Adapter": I showed a little confusion why i did not get that adapter to run, as there seems to be a driver for W98SE. Reality is, of course, not giving in to what i think, no matter what i try. Here is the inconvenient truth: There has never been an "Intel PRO/1000 CT Desktop Adapter". If you find a product by that name (it happens a lot), it is a wrong label. There WAS an "Intel PRO/1000 CT Desktop Connection" or "... Network Connection", having a driver for W9x, but that is an entirely different thing! That "thing" is purely an onboard adapter, and is connected to the CPU by a DMA-technique called "CSA", chipset (probably!) is Intel 82572EI. It provided Gigabit, by using a direct connection to the memory controller hub of the then-new Springdale- und Canterwood-chipsets (at about the year of 2003). There were some popular P4-Gamer boards using that OnBoard LAN. But there never was a "Desktop Adapter" of that type, not for PCI, nor for PCIe, and, basically, never could have been, because CSA was (probably) not meant for that, and, for sure, never happened. Since 2008, Intel produces an "Intel CT Desktop Adapter", GigaBit, PCIe, but there is no "PRO" in the name, it has the Intel 82574L chipset, and isn't even remotely compatible to the old driver-set from 2006 for W9x. It somewhat belongs to the Intel PRO set, as Intel says itself, but that just adds to the confusion. That one is a fine PCIe GB Adapter, and you CAN probably get that one run with W9x, by using the DOS-Driver (see the sticky), but that is an entirely different matter. Cheers, Ragnar G.D. ------------------------------------- ignore the rest down here, this is just for documentation purposes... ;-) ------------------------------------- What unnerves me, is, that i don't get the Intel 1000 CT to work under W98SE, even though it nominally has drivers for W98SE, and the drivers "semi-detect" the card. I see that Ruthan had no luck with them either, while back in the days spaceheeder got it to work on W95: https://msfn.org/board/topic/141402-windows-95-21ghz-cpu-limit-broken/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-948852 Peter mentioned them here (while i found them in the list of infs in the latest ProSet sofware for W9x): https://msfn.org/board/topic/85037-new-intel-1-gbit-ethernet-cards-and-w9x/?tab=comments#comment-575835 Does anyone have one of them running nowadays? I see there a different variants of that NIC, maybe the part i bought is not covered by the driver any more. Anyone? ------------------------------------- Cheers, Ragnar G.D.
  • Create New...