Jump to content

ragnargd

Platinum Sponsor
  • Posts

    335
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    100.00 USD 
  • Country

    Germany

Everything posted by ragnargd

  1. From my experience with these splitter-cables, it also depends on the chipset of the MoBo: Very often only Laptops have a working implementation, as it was there where space on the sides was scarce, and these cables provided a way to use them on the desktop, with a big keyboard, mouse and monitor attached. That was before docking-stations came up to be the latest. rloew commented on this as well, having made the same experience (and then adding some arcane knowledge, as usual). In the end, the cables i had never enabled me to install on a system on which i could not without, so i finally got rid of them.
  2. You, Sir, are a scholar. I did not even know these parameters exist... ;-) Without PCI-bus, that would mean no soundcard, as the Audigy2 is PCI. But, well, it is at least worth a try for scientific reasons... ;-) btw: I just read "Exploring "SETUP /P I;S=detectbus" and Grub4Dos: 8½ times Win98se on USB-drive". Well done!
  3. I found an interesting link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgIF8uG-2G0
  4. While i can only second everything MrMateczko has said, look for threads started by ruthan, who reported (partial) success with Unraid and W98SE. Use the search-function.
  5. In a Nutshell: I was not able to rund Windows 98 SE on a Gigabyte GA-970A-DS3P. Reason (probably): Despite the chipset, being well-known for its compatibility, some other onboard components map memory into the space W98SE cannot control, resulting in access violation or (even worse) memory corruption. Details: As my ASRock 890FX Deluxe5 is slowly dying (i already lost two of them), which i attribute to the enormous heat the voltage regulaters produce for my 125W TDP FX-8350, i have to find an alternative. Ready for use lies my trusted ASRock 970 Pro3 R2.0 beneath me. I don't know any board exept for the 890FX Deluxe5 that can provide PCIe 8x on the second 16x slot to make XP or W10 usable for performant full-HD gaming, but x4 on the second 16x slot on the 970 Pro3 would still deliver reasonable framerates (about 15% loss against 8x or 16x) with, i.e., a GTX 970. But then i stubled across the GA MoBo. I did not consider it at first, as the revisions known to me (1.0, 3.0) did not support neither my FX-8350 nor my FX-4320, but, lately, i found out that the Revision 2.1, which is only sold in Europe, does support both. As the GA MoBo resembles the ASRock 970 MoBo in most details (chipset, PS/2 ports, USB, you name it), even providing a better layout (having one more PCIe 1x slot free, and providing a better thermal position for my Audigy2), i bought one fresh from the shop, hoping for the best. How did i test? I did my usual routine, with components successfully used several times on other MoBos: - I switched everything off (LAN, Sound, USB, UEFI, and everything else i could) - put in a trusted bar of 1GB DDR3 (working fine in both my ASRock Boards with W98SE) - a 256MB NVidia 7600 GT PCIe, passively cooled, sporting a VGA interface - and a SATA II SSD (formatted, and filled with all files needed for installation) Upon installation, i was immediately greeted with "out of memory", which already hinted to components using ressources that will conflict with W98SE (normally, a compatible system works without any modification with 1GB installed, although rloew reported cases where even this was too much. I did not find 512 MB bars for DDR3 in shops). At first, although i did not have more that 1GB of memory installed, i used himemx.exe with the usual routine, which already got me a reboot further in the setup. But after the second reboot, memory violation stopped me from reaching the desktop. I then used rloews memory-patch, at first on its own, then with the /M option, and finally with SPLIT8MB.EXE in autoexec.bat. All to no avail, sometimes (with drivers injected) i got to the desktop, but experienced severe memory corrution (display-artefacts, corrupted fileallocation tables), or simply got access violation before getting to the desktop. What i also did: I successfully tested the MoBo with the HalfLife 2 "Lost Coast" benchmark on XP and W10-x64, to make sure the board is intact. I also repeated every step with W98SE on my ASRock 970 Pro3 R2.0, and got a rock-solid system If you can think of any step i still might try, please tell me, but otherwise, i think that pretty much is it. Verdict: I still think that the AM3+ boards working with W98SE are more or less a lucky, but freakish incident.
  6. Usually, many chipsets only work AFTER installation, once drivers (i.e. NUSB) have been installed. Many boards that are unusable because of a lack of PS/2-ports would become usable if their usb-ports were accessible during boot/installation. Very rare, unfortunately, only have seen this with old boards where it was USB 1.1, that also emulated PS/2. Do you know if this works at boot-time already, or while installing?
  7. I had one nForce2 and two nForce3 boards. All of them ran hot, were prone to BSODs on every OS i threw at them, and if the part you have bought is old, it may be damaged from the excessive heat of that chipsets already. And to add insult to pain, for nForce2, i did not like what i experienced on DOS (although for DOS-games, I always use DOSBox on a modern PC). A waste of money and, what hurts most, time. The newest, latest board ever produced that officially supports W98SE is this one (even used ones will be a few years old only): https://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/775i65G R3.0/index.asp Drivers are stable, the board is stable, the chipset does not run hot, and you can use SATA II SSDs. Add an Audigy 2 PCI and an Intel PCI Gigabit NIC, and it is pure fun. Have a look at the nice list of supported CPUs: https://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/775i65G R3.0/index.asp#CPU And you hit two for the price of one: It runs perfect with XP in dual-boot, i.e. with a quadcore Q6600. (And it is supposed to run W10 32bit fine as well, but don't sue me on that) Setup with 512MB of RAM, use rloews RAM limitation patch, update to 2GB of RAM. Just my 2ct...
  8. Damn. I can't search for chipsets like Z77 or Z68, even though i can see the term in threads and topics... anyway... Can anyone report in very briefly on his/her experience with W98SE on x77/x68/x67 chipset boards (Sandy Bridge/IvyBridge, Socket 1155)?
  9. Hi, i'm at the moment experimenting with my shiny new Windows Server 2016 Essentials. For some reasons, i do not have the option to run a hardware raid, so i have to use the Microsoft Software Raid (tm). I use six drives a 1TB (Intel p660 NVMe PCIe). Ok, using Software Raid 5 obviously is not a problem, let's ignore this, that's not what i have in mind. I'm talking about Raid 6. Well, there is no such thing... Or is it? One option is "Storage Spaces", which is supposed to allow parity for TWO failed drives. Unfortunately, Microsoft seems to always need another, third drive, for so-called "global parity". This is a waste of one expensive drive... but for one singular server, "global" parity is not needed anyway. Could that be configured to not use that "global parity drive"? And if: How? Does anyone have some experience with storage spaces? Can it be used on Essentials in the first place? Another option is BTRFS for Windows: https://github.com/maharmstone/btrfs Anyone into such experimental things? (P.S.: Yes, i do backups, twice: MS Backup local onto a USB-Drive, and important files into some encrypted cloud-storage. Just in case you're asking...) Cheers, Ragnar G.D. P.S.: The Server (using 28W in idle): - ASRock Rack X470D4U2-T2 https://www.asrockrack.com/general/productdetail.asp?Model=X470D4U2-2T#Specifications - Ryzen 3 1200 - 16GB Ram non-ECC - 2x SanDisk Ultra II 240GB, running as Raid 1 (SATA-Onboard FakeRaid) for the OS - 2x Asus HYPER M.2 X16 CARD V2 https://www.asus.com/Motherboard-Accessories/HYPER-M-2-X16-CARD-V2/ - 6x Intel 660p NVMe 1TB, two each in the Asus cards, two on the MoBo - linked to a MikroTik 10G Switch (passive cooling, 8-port SFP+ with some Transceivers for RJ45, 1 port 1Gbit RJ45). Yes, i have machines that eat/feed 10Gbit of bandwith with their NVMe drives... ;-)
  10. Small clarification (on the NVidia iCafe Drivers 368.81 and 368.91 for XP) The XP-64bit driver may (or may not) support some 10x0, but they are not listed in the files. @Burd claims success with inf-modding. The XP-32bit definitely does NOT. Inf-modding was tried by several users, to no avail. Thanks to @Dibya for pointing out...
  11. >> @Dibya Your best bet is to get a gtx970 Unfortunately, that is exactly the card i have, and which blackscreens under W10. I have two, actually. And a 710. All to the same effect. Since Windows 190x Yes, the 1060/70/80 cards are not mentioned in the NVidia driver-files, no matter what the internet says... https://drivers.softpedia.com/get/GRAPHICS-BOARD/NVIDIA/NVIDIA-GeForce-iCafe-Graphics-Driver-36891-for-XP.shtml#download https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/nvidia-geforce-icafe-expresso-368-91-whql-desktop-driver.408957/ @jaclaz You have always been there when i needed you... ;-) ------------------- So all in all, the 1070 will be my forever-card in my Gaming-rig, as i assume it will take some time unless the 1070 bows before any game at 1920x1200 ... ...but i'm still at a loss on my triple-boot machine... any ideas are welcome. Well, since the latest driver by NVidia, the GTX 970 is - finally - working again. Chapter closed. Until the next either NVidia Driver -, or Windows Update-Nightmare. Whatever... (What can I say... Windows XP and Windows 98SE on the same machine run rock-solid... :-D ) Thank you for all your support! Cheers, Ragnar G.D.
  12. @Diby @halohalo: Thank you for the tips. I just got a GTX 1070, and will try that one. If possible, with the nvidia icafe drivers on xp. I will report...
  13. Sorry for reanimation, but there you are... :-) ...at the moment, i have problems running my GTX 970 on my Windows 10, which is triple-boot with XP and W98SE. It runs fine on XP, but W10 just blackscreens. Seems to be an issue between driver, W10, and MoBo. Whatever. Does anybody still have a link to that driver? AMD killed it on their page... Do you still have that modded inf-file? I consider using a R9-nano, until i sort that problem out with my GTX 970, but it has to work with XP... and the other (supported) options, 280 and 280X, are to hot for my machine, and would, especially, grill my soundblaster. The nano looks like a good option, performance-wise, heat, video-ram... What do you think, is it worth a try?
  14. My machine in the list of "most modern systems" is still running. Without him, that build wouldn't exist. I renamed its Netbios-name to rloew. P.S.: I will go though my mails now - i'm pretty sure there is another contact, a Ms. C. C. Anderson, being some kind of "Distributor". If there is family left behind, i think instead of considering his work "abandonware", i'd rather think it is MSFN-spirit to at least ask that contact, if still buying his stuff would support whatever there is of his relatives. Any suggestion how to handle this?
  15. The Sweater is ... ugly... not... This is Dona Sarker, Chief of Windows Insider: Can't access Twitter from here, more perhaps later... Or do research for yourself... :-D
  16. Nice work with the player (crashes on me, but, heck... maybe i'll test IDA Pro on this... yes?) Still "No Virus No Voulnerability" is a myth, and t's proven wrong here on msfn.org. We found working, actual malware for W9x. And i know what i'm talking about.
  17. I'm slowly building a collection of w9x-games (182 and growing), but unfortunately, this is not among it yet. Can you see a log in the games base directory?
  18. I have a lot of the Pro/1000 MT PCI, and never had any problem, using the latest drivers available, on W98SE, XP and W10. I'd send you one for free, but i suspect customs would make this more expensive than buying a used one in the US...
  19. Just in case: Where is the difference to the Intel Pro MT 1000? Can't find anything worth mentioning...
  20. A *much* better card from 2002 would be the ATI 9700 Pro 256MB AGP. DX9 is better than DX8, and the card was just faster. I'd say, the best GPU of that time, and the start for AMD making history. I'd always, unless under dire circumstances, choose a card that supports at least DX 9.0(c)... why settle for less? Same price on ebay anyway... But i had that Dell (long time ago), and found it to be suspectible to thermal damage, as ventilation is pretty bad, and the P4 is generating a lot of heat on its own. Even the GF 4Ti (which i own, as well as the ATI 9700 Pro) might easily prove too much for that case for thermals. As building a W9x-PC might mean long hours of working in a tight space, I'd look for a big-tower case with ample of space, rounded edges, and such, and a PSU at the top to help with ventilating the case, and, of course, a side-window, to show the fruits of your labor. Look for i.e. the venerable Chieftec CS-601 with windows-panel (i have three of them, white, blue and red - call me a fanboy...). Use a Soundblaster sound card, any for PCI will do, but 2002 means Soundblaster Audigy 2. SBs have the lowest CPU-utilization, it helps with games a lot. And at that time, their sound quality was unprecedented. $5 at ebay, there is no reason not to. It has good sound even with Windows 10. If you use just W9x, a P4 is just fine for the 2002 are, as it is reliable, and cheap. For dual-boot with XP, i'd always vote for a dual-core CPU at least (any, AMD or Intel, and a 4-core would be even better), it's just that the first consumer-Dual-Cores came up 2005, not 2002. So P4 it is. I made an excption here, and took the AMD Athlon 64 3200+, fitting Socket 754, from 2003, as it has just a better energy-efficiency than the contemporary P4s (and not even speaking of Athlon XP were we... well... hot... crap... burned away three MoBos of mine), and the boards from 2003 used the more comfortable DDR-400, and already had SATA. And i hate the cabling of IDE, for practical, and thermal reasons... but that's just me... btw.: SATA1 is from 2002, so it's cool here. (In 1999, i bought my first ABit BP6, using a Dual-Celeron, technically Pentium-III-class, but you will have a hard time finding these in working condition for a reasonable price - starts at around $120 atm. Mine are long-gone - i had three. I had the maximum of 3x 256 MB on board, and it rocked with W98se as well as Windows 2000. But that's long before 2002, so don't bother). Well, 2002/2003 WERE good years! :-D
  21. Thank you all. Seems my board is FUBAR, and the seller will most probably refund me. I'll have to find out another time...
  22. Hi, the following problem is not related to a specific hardware, this specific setup is just serving as an example... be patient... At the moment, out of boredom, i'm fighting with an ASRock ConRoe865PE. (Just sent it back, as the BIOS does not keep data (even with a new battery), but the trader has spare boards, so i hope to have one running in the next two weeks.) But. The board has a funny IDE/SATA-configuration. You can have a "compatibility-mode", where only IDE-channel1 or 2 with two devices is active, and the two sata-channels are emulated via the other IDE-channel. You can install the intel-driver, all is fine on w98. Then, there is the "enhanced" mode, which means, you have both ide-channels, and can connect four IDE-devices (like, i.e., two IDE-SSDs, and two DVD-Roms), and have the two SATA-channels as well, for, i.e., XP and W10. Unfortunately (and ASRock tells us), the latter config will "not work" (in practive: make w98 hang), once you connect devices to these sata-ports. (So, you *can* use "enhanced mode with w98, with four IDE-devices, as long as you don't connect devices to the sata-ports - the ports don't initialize, and W98 doesn't detect them as a result, and so doesn't hang) So, as a result, if you want to use w98, you can have only four devices, even though you have six ports, and if two are meant for XP and W10, those will necessarily run in IDE-mode, either from IDE-devices, or from SATA-devices. Meh. (If you find this confusing, maybe read the manual of the board. It *is* confusing...) It's just that i *absolutely* *want* to use six devices... and i *want* to connect and use the sata-devices for XP and W10 in sata-mode, *not* in ide-mode... Why can't i make the SATA-ports invisible to w9x, as it is not supposed to use them anyway, while still keeping them activated in BIOS?!? < Ragnar G.D. stomping with both feet onto the ground like Rumpelstilzchen(tm) > So, what can be done? I want to have a solution, that resolves devices making w98 hang during installation, for ALL hardware. I don't know if this can be done, but let's propose a theoretical solution as a Gedankenspiel. Let's assume there is hardware that, when activated in BIOS, makes w9x hang, as, assumed, during driver detection w9x assumes this is a known hardware, errs, applies an init-method that does NOT make sense, and, whoops, the system hangs. Incompatible SATA-ports, incompatible USB-ports, you know the drill. Now, let's assume, that we apply a fix to the windows-installation CD, that is, we create a custom Install-CD. We provide drivers for known *BAD-EVIL-BAD* hardware, which does install NOTHING, or some "dummy-drivers", for these devices when detected, so the installation can continue, and the system lives. And afterwards, the *BAD-EVIL-BAD* hardware doesn't even have a yellow exclamation mark, but a driver named "WeirdDefunctHardwareYouCanTuseThis". Well. Is that even possible?
  23. Hi, i have nice Icons on my Desktop. The blue facing arrows showing NTFS-compression make them fugly. And nooooo, i don't want to disable NTFS-compression to get rid of those Icon-overlays. There was a hack with "implementing" a registry-entry, but since the newest build this is said not to work. Any ideas?
×
×
  • Create New...