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

7 Neutral

About cov3rt

Profile Information

  • OS
    none specified
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

2,525 profile views
  1. cov3rt

    Windows 95 support and software information 2019

    thanks, i was able to download the setup of the program and it's other contents from that site, i can confirm that it installs on windows 95, however, i did get that same error of mismatched components and that the program cannot start, but this may have to do with previous corrupt installation traces of other hmonitor versions / corrupt uninstall and related issues. i think if i were to load it on a fresh system that didn't have any version of hmonitor previously installed, that it would install and launch up and work as it should. so i am gonna just assume it works 100 percent on windows 95 and i'll put it as possibly the "best" and latest version of hmonitor on windows 95, at least through my experience of testing.
  2. cov3rt

    Windows 95 support and software information 2019

    well i've had a difficult time not only trying to find specific hmonitor versions, but also getting it to work on windows 95 in general, so i tested, it would install but gave an error of missing powrprof.dll and would not open, and would install but not open at all, installs, doesn't open. i was hoping that i could find, but unfortunately, i could not find it anywhere on the internet. perhaps it could somewhere in the bunch of 1000+ ftp pages on one ftp site, but that would be impractical to find if it's even there by searching hmonitor, where as hmonitor.zip only yields like 3 pages. also strangely, the that did install earlier that i tested and launched up ( even though it didn't show all temperatures, only hdd ), when i tried to retest it after the bunch i tested above, it would give that same mismatch hardware component error that i got it NT4 when i tried to install in all sense, it seems that you shouldn't tinker with this program by testing different versions, although i did test the other ones as i mentioned in my earlier post and did not encounter any errors. so for now, i think would be "best" as in it "should" work within the right circumstances, , , and if applicable, to use older versions on older hardware, perhaps they may work "better" such as lasting longer if it's the whole trial-ware thing or more stable, although the system i had of testing for windows 95 was the hp v2665us that is clearly unsupported and very much so, i suppose i'd get better results on an ich4 board and older.
  3. cov3rt

    Windows 95 support and software information 2019

    thanks, although i was looking for someone who already had a NT4/95 system to test them for me too, thanks to you, now i have Hmonitor V (Released 03.02.99) and Hmonitor (Apr 2004). i uploaded v3.1.0.1, luckily under 512 KB. i found also,, and, but all of them are over 512 KB. was the newest version i found that appears to have the older windows installer 2.0 package so it probably will work on windows 95 and NT4? as the other ones are msi based which may not work on windows 95, but i hardly know much on this, maybe someone can chime in and clarify what i am addressing. i am trying to find the newest version that has the windows installer 2.0 package, december 2002 is good with, but i'll want something a little newer as the laptops that i may use or experiment with may fall in the mid 2003 range or so. is april 2004 and uses i think the msi package installer, so hopefully there is something in between that with the older windows installer 2.0 package? Hmonitor V (Released 03.02.99).zip
  4. cov3rt

    Windows 95 support and software information 2019

    does anyone have an available updated windows 95 system? i was wondering if they could test out that custom firefox 3.6.28 version meant for NT4 on it to see if it works or not, also for the above^ post, when you say this particular version of firefox 3.6.28 worked on 98SE, was it on a kernelex based system or non kernelex? because if worked on the non kernelex based system, then i'd speculate that it probably would work on windows 95 too? also, i was wondering if anyone can test / confirm if any hmonitor ( hardware sensors monitor ) works on windows 95, i am unable to upload them, winrar compresses the two versions i have to around 700 KB, so still too big to upload. i would have wanted to use / test a earlier version of hmonitor, particularly "Hmonitor Lite V. August 18, 2000 526K" ( would have been able to compress it probably and upload it too ), however i have been unsuccessful in finding any download link anywhere on the internet regardless of using waybackmachine or not, and i couldn't find a source indicating what the difference is between the lite and pro version, i have only noticed the lite version in the 3.0 family, but not in the newer ones. it seems strange to me that not one person has uploaded the program anywhere, whether this is because of some legal reason or if the program just flat out sucked and so it wasn't something being thrown around a lot, that has been unclear to me. what i did notice is that version installed and worked on my 2k system, although since the program was considerably older than the laptop i had of testing ( dell latitude d630 ), it didn't support any more temperatures than the hdd, but i also found that the design is a bit confusing / awkward, you have to close / exit the program at first on the window for it to load, right before it mentions that it's limited use, up to a month i believe, but it doesn't say exactly what happens after that point. https://web.archive.org/web/20000815213120/http://www.hmonitor.com/
  5. cov3rt

    Windows 95 support and software information 2019

    update, i was able to download firefox 3.6.28 for use on NT4 with this link - "http://roy.orz.hm/gpc/files1.rt/fx36vc71-20171108.7z", although it mentions "If complains about missing MISIMG32.dll then copy from Windows 98 to browser folder (OLD) Use v2.0.0.22pre" i could not really make sense out of this, copy from windows 98, where from windows 98? and what is (OLD) USE v2.0.0.22pre mean? by browser folder, i would assume it means the main directory to which firefox.exe is located. the only reference i have so far of the msimg32.dll file is from my windows 95 archived files that is version 5.0.2218.1 which is apparently the newer "kernelex" version, although from what i researched in another thread, it's ok to be used in non kernelex builds. i had kept this file for opera builds, but apparently it should also be in the firefox directory? although it says to copy it "IF", does that mean i can still place it there even if it doesn't complain about it missing? also, should i be using the older or other version msimg32.dll? i uploaded the msimg32.dll that i currently have which is 5.0.2218.1 in case anyone wants it. Msimg32.zip
  6. cov3rt

    Windows 95 support and software information 2019

    this definitely helps, however, the retrozilla version i have is still different, i see mostly the 2.1 version of retrozilla with tls 1.2 being mentioned, however the one i use on windows 95 is the 2.2 version with tls 1.2, perhaps it's a variant or a customized version of "rz-suite-v2.2-bin-20180708.7z"? i know it's the 2.2 version because the browser / file versions lists it specifically as retrozilla 2.2, however upon checking just now, the version 20180708 listed above is the same version as the one listed in my package, only file size being a bit different, which i think has to do with the way i compressed the package or other factors. i couldn't download firefox 3.6.28 for NT4 - "https://o.rthost.cf/gpc/files1.rt/fx36vc71-20171108.7z", the download link didn't work, it would seem that it would be better than retrozilla 2.2 with tls 1.2 that i currently have for my NT4 archive, can anyone confirm that this newer web browser indeed works on NT4 and if it's better than retrozilla 2.2 with tls 1.2, and / or whether it supports tls 1.2? i do not have any systems currently to test NT4 with. also, i was wondering if there is any reason to use the older retrozilla 2.1 with tls 1.2 vs retrozilla 2.2 with tls 1.2?
  7. cov3rt

    Windows 95 support and software information 2019

    i'm sure that the browser you linked is superseded by retrozilla 2.2 with tls 1.2 support ( i mentioned 2.1 before in other places but this is in fact the 2.2 version i am referring to and works on windows 95 as i tested it ), although download link for this specific retrozilla version is scattered / hard to locate, i do not have a link for it, i only have it in my archive. i wish there was a simple way to find it, but unfortunately, i have not been able to do so, i remember downloading it in one of the pages of the thread for a updated version of retrozilla for 95 / NT. also, opera 10.63 wouldn't be a bad choice i suppose, however from what i remember, it was a bit buggy in operation and did not support as newer functions as retrozilla 2.2 with tls 1.2 did, i think it outright just crashed for me at one point endlessly and / or just didn't work right so i discarded it from consistent use, though i believe a recent source mentioned something to do with the whole tls 1.1 or 1.2 support, im not sure which one, but with opera, they are supported but that would you need to manually enable it for it to work, perhaps maybe i enabled these related settings, maybe it wouldn't be as buggy and / or would function better? who knows? i wish there was a simple way that can both quantitatively / qualitatively compare these web browsers and say which one is "Better", in terms of a combination of compatibility, stability, etc. so far, retrozilla 2.2 with tls 1.2 is the only that has offered all of these for me so it's been the best so far. i don't have the exact build version.
  8. cov3rt

    My experience installing Windows 98SE

    if i suspect a system isn't operating particularly well, such as no indication of battery status, i just end up starting from scratch and installing with acpi disabled, the "Setup /p i" command does this and most of the time, the systems run fine like this, with usually just the battery status not working, although it's possible some device(s) may not be detected in device manager, i really wouldn't know much of this in detail as it's something i test on my own on a specific system, and usually i'll update my archive to include installing with acpi disabled or if it ran fine with the default acpi enabled which is normal setup command, then that would be a bonus, although, the normal setup for allowing acpi will not always exactly install acpi, at least through indication of device manager, and even if it does, it doesn't guarantee battery status, although there may be some third party battery status software out there that may do this on 98SE / 9x systems, i have not been able to find a specific one yet. i noticed the battery status not showing and acpi entries not evident in device manager being more common in windows 95 which makes sense because acpi support in windows 95 is more premature.
  9. so it seems that poweriso isn't even supported on windows 95 at all! i tested from versions 2.0 - 4.9 and all of them when trying to run the installed program linked to a missing export of either getfileattributesexa or setthreadexecutionstate. i didn't test older than 2.0, but it probably wouldn't work, and even if it did, it wouldn't be worth using since imgburn and winrar would already be doing all the work anyways at a better state, 1.6 and older are too old. poweriso 6.0 is listed as supported on one of their sources. i am not sure if this is an error, as one of the threads here also lists it as "supported". i did a quick google search and from their site, they list 98 and NT4 as supported, 95 is not listed. so for now, the winrar option of making sure iso is selected, via lonecrusader's suggestion probably works best + imgburn for me, however, for some weird reason, i can't seem to access winrar 3.80 in it's current state in my w95 system, the program executable is missing but everything else is there, or at least, it seems like something is missing, i'll have to give it a check real quick, maybe uninstall and reinstall may fix the issues i am having. update! so i uninstalled and reinstalled winrar 3.80 and it didn't change it's state of files in the program files portion, maybe this is just the way the program is? i think i was comparing it to version 4.11 from that i use on 2K. although before reinstalling it, when i viewed iso files, they would just have the normal microsoft white icon as if there were no third party unzip tools installed, but after reinstalling it with the iso file association which was already default when i first installed it, this time, now it actually shows the iso files with the winrar book icon, in both states, you can still extract the iso file, but one may think that with the default microsoft icon, they wouldn't right click it because they'd assume the iso file can't be extracted due to some setting / something missing. it seems inconvenient to have to reinstall the program to identify the file in winrar icon, however, i am changing this in my files to reflect it as the typical user or some people may not notice this ( including myself )
  10. ok, so i couldn't get hwmonitor to work on windows 95, it gives the error "the hwmonitor.exe file is linked to missing export kernel32.dll:IsDebuggerPresent.", it seems that this dependency is only in NT4/98SE and newer, though this helps as i can test it out on NT4 as i haven't yet. it seems that it's related to visual c++ 2005 from google search, although NT4 doesn't "fully or officially / properly" support visual c++ 2005. there was some people who managed to get some applications or visual c++ 2005 to install on windows 95 with some modification, however, the instructions and information for it were a bit limited and beyond my capacity, so i decided to not go further into that route or unofficial fixes. i still wanted to see if i can install visual c++ .net 2002 runtimes on windows 95, that is, if such an update exists. wikipedia lists visual c++ .net 2002 released sometime in 2002, i did manage to find a package with just the two msvcp70 and msvcr70.dll files which was listed as being from visual studio 2002, however, i was looking for something official to download, and if there is, the official update probably included other files in it. i also copied these files from my 2K system that i tested earlier, they were dated 1-5-2002.
  11. thanks for the info, i did read somewhere yesterday suggesting something similar related to the iso file association with winrar, i'll take a look at those settings in winrar you mentioned. although i did add PowerISO 4.9 in my archived contents already which leads into another question. it seems imgburn and PowerISO 4.9 are similar in functionality, they can mount / burn iso images, PowerISO 4.9 can extract iso images, although i am not sure if imgburn can do that, that was really the main reason i went through all this research, was simply for detecting / extracting iso files. so my question is, is it ok to remove imgburn and replace it with PowerISO 4.9 ( which is about the same size of the program of roughly less than 2 MB ) to have all or almost all of the functionalities of imgburn, if not more, or is there something more obvious that imgburn has that PowerISO 4.9 doesn't. PowerISO 4.9 is a little newer, released i believe 11-15-11 and imgburn was released 4-10-09, so that makes me assume in one sense that PowerISO 4.9 has more compatibility or functioning than imgburn
  12. this may or may not be helpful / relevant to your problem, but do you use / have you used TCPOptimizer 2.0.3? i have noticed that i always had to use the "optimal" setting to get faster download speeds on 95 and 98SE computers, for some weird reason by default, the download speeds are a lot lower, usually painfully slow ( like as little as 80 KB/s ) unless i use this program and use the "optimal" setting which then it jumps up all the way to like 500 KB/s, i never realized such a program can provide such a quick easy fix like this.
  13. I was wondering if anyone knows what the best free lightweight software there is for windows 95 that can extract iso images. i've always had winrar 3.80 in my builds, however i had noticed that it couldn't detect iso files. i was hoping i could find an additional program to allow specifically reading and extracting iso images. i looked at many different programs being listed, magic iso, power iso, win iso, ultra iso, also there is 7-zip 9.20 as being mentioned as supported in another thread, and daemon tools 3.47 in another source, however, i didn't really like the ui of these two, and i don't know if daemon tools 3.47 only mounts iso images or can also extract them as imgburn can already do this and i already have this in my archived files for windows 95, please correct me if i am wrong. basically i am looking for a program that works like winrar in that it automatically can detect the type of file, if it's zipped or compressed of course, it will show as a rar file, and it's fine if the iso files are shown in rar, as long as it can actually detect them as i couldn't get them to detect with winrar 3.80, i read something on ultra iso "free" version being limited to 300 MB but this was unclear ( sourced from wikipedia ) as in which exact version(s), obviously i would want to have the best most compatibility software that is free and most stable and most lightweight.
  14. since i felt like it wasn't necessary to create two seperate topics for this, i thought that it would be ok to talk about it in one thread. i wanted to know if it there are any older versions of hwmonitor that work and can be made to work on windows 95 / NT4. the oldest version i found via download was which was released in 2007, i could not locate the more "stable" for download. from what i researched, there were even older versions somewhere in 2006, however, i could not find a link / filename to download as such, wayback machine didn't work for older hwmonitor versions from the official site as i checked that. my reason for wanting to use hwmonitor is because i like the user interface more than speedfan which is one of the closest things to it and it may function better or worse, depending on what's needed. i would be using it as either an alternative or additional level of usage. since i am noob with some stuff, i was hoping someone could chime in and do a small favor if possible, and that is to use dependency walker to let me know if it can be supported or not in 95 or NT4 and / or what would be needed / what's missing so that i can download whatever files are needed if applicable. i did try using dependency walker 2.2 x86 myself and apparently hwmonitor uses a msvcrt.dll file of 7.1 origin, where could i get this file or similar if there is any? also, something possibly relevant is visual c++ 2005 express or pro, from what i researched, some sources mentioned it being compatible with windows 95, although compatibility for NT4 from one thread was uncertain or unclear, but for the 95 one, the person mentioned 95 as being supported. there was a downloadable iso, but i don't want to download such a big program if all i would need is a couple of runtime files or dll's. i was also requesting if anyone can upload a copy of a older hwmonitor version, i uploaded below, i renamed it. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/15910974/c-program-compatible-with-windows-95 https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1330852/where-to-download-visual-studio-express-2005 HWMonitor
  15. interesting, i wish i had this information earlier, although i still do not understand a lot of things, for the device manager part, do i still need to initially set it to 64k or can i just edit the system.ini and it should take care of the DMA aspect from there, but i would still need to manually enable dma on the storage device?, ( although unofficial service pack 3.64 automatically enables DMA on storage devices too ). is there a particular reason why past 50 MB or so, there are diminishing returns? diminishing returns as in, you don't gain AS much benefit but still there is some benefit? can you also explain to me what the pagebuffers means? how do i know what is the best setting. maxphyspage and minfilecache and maxfilecache are straightforward, however i am not understanding these other modifications. also the site below lists 1-256 as a range for the dma value, is this just a random range they put, because 256 would only be 256 kilobytes, less than one MB only, or am i calculating it wrong? i also noticed a 32 bit setting, i forgot exactly where i got the info and / or what it does and where you put it, are you aware of this setting? http://smallvoid.com/article/win9x-16-bit-dma.html so i researched more and noticed a source saying the dma buffers for windows 95 should be less than 16 MB, does this apply to windows 98 too? my question altogether is are there any compatibility problems with having more than the 64KB setting from device manager and / or what would be the best setting in system.ini that wouldn't cause compatibility issues and would operate the "fastest", also factoring in that "32 bit setting". i don't want to use any "tweaks" that would be detrimental or cause compatibility issues. i use those specific vcache and maxphyspage settings in my builds because that's the most reliable way that seems to work i suppose. https://www.dell.com/community/Desktops-General-Read-Only/I-O-subsystem-error/td-p/319016