cov3rt

i know this thread is very old but i didn't want to make a new thread on working out the issues i need with a particular system. i have used via 4in1 version 4.43 on the laptop im working with which is averatec 3200 on windows 95, i believe it uses the kt, kn or km400 chipset or some via chipset, anyways, the problem is that although the 4.43 driver package does install important things like the agp 3.0 driver where i can get the gpu driver to work, etc, however, it doesn't seem to update the ide driver, or if it does, it shows the name as via hard disk controller, but doesn't show any date or updated file driver, there is other issues with it too. another issue is the cardbus devices will not properly work / configure. installing the drivers gives a code 29 error in device manager and i know the drivers are for windows 95. i've tried researching this issue, saying it may be a bios or allocation issue, however i couldn't find anything in the bios that would affect this. i've looked up pci routing as it seemed to explain similar issues i was having or possibly the same issues which the pci bus handles such as code 29 error with cardbus devices, unfortunately, applying the changes given by the website did not change anything. i also had problems with the usb controllers, which i seem to have with other computers that also used via usb controllers with dev 3038. it will install the controllers, but will give a yellow exclamation mark and it wont install the drivers, it just shows the controllers in yellow markings in device manager. back to the cardbus issue, it is dev 6972 and ac50 cardbus, the 6972 is the one the laptop internally uses and the ac50 is a supplement to the toshiba e5d7 mini pci wireless adapter im trying to use, in other words, to detect the toshiba card, the ac50 cardbus driver has to first be installed and properly working which it doesn't. i was gonna start fresh again, wipe the hard drive and install with ACPI disabled this time, im hoping maybe combining that and applying some other changes, i may be able to get the system to properly work or configure things better. one of which to be specific and why i replied to this post is to patch in the updated irq driver which i was gonna ask if anyone knows how to that as i don't know how to do that. i feel as though this could be the reason why everything in the system isnt running the way it should, being that i always install chipset drivers first, then the unofficial usb update ( xusbsupp ), and so on.

thanks for the detailed info, i dont remember where i checked to see if fable uses opengl but i noticed i had made another thread a while back for this same exact topic and i had mentioned that wikipedia had mentioned fable as using opengl, but i guess that was wrong information at the time and i actually did not find it after doing a quick google search of list of opengl games on wikipedia, and the dependency walker tool apparently shows it as not using opengl at all like you said. guess il just try fable tlc on 98SE. the experimenting was really to find a nice rpg games with good graphics that works on windows 95, there is dark age of camelot that is similar to wow, the initial system requirements mentioned windows 95 but im not sure if the newer versions / updates will allow working on windows 95, and if its ok to get a little off topic but i really wish they made a game engine level editor for "project igi: im going in" which does work on windows 95, with the exception that you can design the levels or maps in a updated way that allows directx 8.0a capabilities, since the original game only supported directx 7.0, despite looking so realistic and just as good, if not better than some directx 8.0 games.

i had researched fable the lost chapters and noticed that it uses opengl, i was wondering if you can bypass the directx 9.0c requirement it has someway and make it run still on older operating systems such as windows 95 that only supports up to dx8.0a but fully support opengl. i had researched and a source had mentioned that fable requires a minimum of directx 8.0 pixel programmable pixel shader 1.1 which directx 8.0a does support, 8.0a supports up to 1.3 pixel shader, so with that being said, is there any way to bypass the error it gives of the directx 9 dll file, like tricking the system in thinking it has the updated directx 9 file or some other way, or is it more complicated than this? i have tested this myself a while back by copying the fable program into the windows 95 pc and trying to run it, and it just threw the directx 9 error.

where exactly do you go to apply these changes? is there a similar setting for firefox 2.0.0.20 or seamonkey95? i'm trying to get youtube working again on windows 95 but don't know where to go to apply these changes. does one also need the flash 7 spoof for this?

man, enough people are having difficulty running youtube on 98SE and im trying to get it back running on windows 95 :(, man, it was nice having youtube work on windows 95 before, even if it only played at 240p settings, i never understood why it was limited to 240p settings though, i haven't found an explanation for this.

i use odyssey client 4.56 on my 98SE builds and it ran fine the last time(s) i used it. if only they came out with odyssey client for windows 95 that allowed a way that can connect wep only wifi cards to be able to connect to wpa2 encryption. im sure it shouldn't be that difficult to make a software that can do some sort of conversion process from wep to wpa to wpa2 to allow very old legacy hardware to connect to wpa2 settings. windows 95 doesn't even support wpa or does it?

i like windows 95 more, simply because of it feels more nostalgic while still being able to do some modern things with it, but it's harder to get to work with certain things, for example, on 440bx chipsets, at least from my experience, usb drives simply do not want to work on most laptops, on desktops, the problem is less of a problem and usually they will detect fine but for most laptops with 440bx chipsets, everytime i plug in any usb mass storage device ( with the xuspsupp update ), they all just show as unknown devices with no driver to install and have them properly work. also i have not been able to get youtube to work in the 240p settings that you use to be able to get it working in, i've tried many methods, i tested most recently the "&nohtml5=1" setting in each video on opera 10.63 ( unofficial ) and it wouldn't work in either opera turbo enabled or disabled, neither would it work if i tested it with the flash 7 spoof file in the program plug ins folder or if it wasn't in there. i also tested with the gstreamer folder deleted with or without the flash 7 spoof and with or without opera turbo enabled and still wouldn't work :(. windows 98SE in general offers more usability, performance and stability but i feel though it is not as nostalgic as windows 95. as far as installation order goes for updating the system, i can only say for 98SE, this is what i use, set option in folder options to "Show all files" and smooth edges of screen fonts , edit the system.ini settings to have the proper maxphyspage and minfilecache and maxfilecache settings, install winrar, internet explorer 6 sp1, unofficial service pack, directx 9.0c, inf update, unofficial usb update, mdac 2.8 sp1, gpu driver or other drivers, but don't install wifi driver yet until the end, fidenu31 ( intel processor frequency id utility 7.1 ), adobe reader 6.0, java 1.5 update 22, office 2000 and it's updates, .net framework 2.0, kernelex and it's latest updates, adobe flash player 11+, optional stuff such as vlc player and make sure to select full setup for vlc player, other updates from the unofficial service pack can be installed if not done so already, although i had a problem with the ntfs driver messing up the system so unless you really need this or know what you're doing, don't install this or other stuff like performance tweaks, etc.

^i agree with pretty much all the things you said, besides, why use a power hungry card like the 7950gx2, even if it was possible to have support for both gpu chips, it would run hot and use a lot of power. heck, i would rather use something like a 7600 gt instead of the 7950gt. it would definitely be nice if someone were to get modded working drivers for the radeon x1xxx series as you can have a cooler running lower wattage chip compared to the older chips.

i would agree on this, if you are worried about some games preferring no more than pentium iii speeds, not running well or problematic, there is some programs that can limit cpu speed, something down to like 200mhz or lower which may help with compatibility with some dos games or possibly disabling of cache with the cpu to also help with compatibility or functionality with a specific program or game. some of the newer games that work on windows 98SE require fairly high specs to run smoothly on high settings such as fable the lost chapters, far cry 1, etc. i would love to give you build options / suggestions to parts, pm me if you want with price / budget range, etc.

has anyone actually tested and confirmed youtube working on 98SE? i just tested it yesterday on firefox 3.5.19 with flash 11, pentium m 780, 1 GB ram, geforce fx go 1400, i typed "&nohtml5=1" at the end of the video web address and it wouldn't work like it used to a few weeks back when i last tested. have they changed another thing in the web browser to prevent us 98SE users from getting youtube to work? i also noticed firefox 3.5.19 crashing and asking to see if i wanted to disable flash, adobe reader and some other options, it was running slow and unresponsive at the time i tested yesterday for some reason, maybe it's ff 3.5.19 specifically and perhaps firefox 9.0 would work better? reason i use 3.5.19 specifically is because it is the newest or one of the newest web browsers that still supports java and i've been longing to keep that because if there are many websites that require it somehow, then it would definitely help obviously, although if there really is much of no use for it, i may just remove java completely from my archived 98SE contents and just add in a newer web browser. anyone know what sites or things really require or use java? i know pingtest.net asks for it, speedtest.net only needs flash player i think.

i know the thread is mostly on kaby lake but im hoping even cannonlake can work "fine" on windows 7 as that's what i would like to use as my next system possibly. the windows 7 experience scores would be nice to see :).

i wasn't sure where to post this, i thought of posting it in the general forum but i guess i couldn't do that if it was technical in any nature so i thought of posting it here since i also plan on using windows 7. so anyways, i was just wondering if anyone knows any good looking laptops with decent performance for what im looking for. im mainly looking for a white or beige colored laptop ( not a fan of the high contrast black and white scheme ), and need the performance to be at least of intel 45nm processors or amd 45nm processors. im mainly looking to play world of warcraft on it on lowish medium settings smoothly. monitor size can be as low as 14 inches, although i prefer 15 - 16 inches, but not 17 inches. i would need an optical drive as well. you can throw in 13 inch laptops in there too if they have optical drives. i have found many used sony laptops on ebay but most of them are either in rough condition, not worth the price ( you can find black or other color laptops for a lot cheaper with the same specs or better ), or just dont really look nice. the only laptop i had found that really stood out in looks was the asus f8p limited white leather edition, although the performance is still a little low and i have yet to find any to buy at all to compare with other laptops in price / appearance. i am not sure on price range, im already on a pretty low budget and being that you can get new low end laptops for like 300 dollars or so, i wouldn't want to spend more than like half of that. other than that, the newer laptops in my opinion look uglier, and of course carry the extra cost to them as well. i dont 100 percent have to get a white or beige colored laptop, if there is a black colored version or similar model, i might be ok with it if the price is good, so you can suggest or give some alternatives, although i have searched many laptops, there may be something i haven't came across currently in price or in general.

perhaps modifying the maxmtu settings of windows would allow faster download/upload speeds, this was something i had experimented with a while back but i don't remember what i did and if it helped or not. i guess il just have to experiment again myself.

thank you for the response, however, i dont think you properly answered my question. you mentioned "the prescott would be the better choice due to the better specs you mentioned", but im not sure what this is implying, im not sure if i can conclude from this to see in what ways it would be better, as being faster is obviously a goal in itself, but does it specifically allow youtube to run smoothly if i were to swap out the northwood and replace it with the prescott? again, this is a laptop, i had given the manual url below for its specs, the part of using prescott 775 and ddr2 is a bit irrelevant, because im just talking about the laptop at hand, if we were talking about the socket 775 boards, then i would be aiming for a cedar mill 65nm pentium 4 ( if pentium 4's are the only supported options ), but obviously thats a different story. one big reason why i made this thread specifically was to see whether having sse3 vs sse2 would allow loading websites quicker or load possibly more content and smoother playback of youtube videos or videos in general on the internet that would otherwise benefit from sse3. the instructions are apparently important because i remember when using pentium iii or processors that only had up to sse instructions, some web content or information wouldn't even load at all, limiting what you can do, so even though a pentium iii tualatin at 1.4 Ghz may be faster clock for clock against for example a northwood pentium 4 at 1.6 Ghz, the instructions limit what you can do / and as a result, make it slower or not fully functional for the intended purposes as i had mentioned.

would anyone if whether or not a prescott pentium 4 without hyperthreading would be faster than a pentium 4 northwood without hyperthreading at the same clock speed of 3.06 Ghz if using youtube playback on firefox 12.0 ( last official version to work on windows 2000 )? reason why i ask this specifically, other than my previous knowledge on prescott vs northwood efficiency is to see whether the lagging im getting and unplayable framerates has to do more with the simple combination of a slow pentium 4 northwood at 3.06 to begin with and only 1 GB ram on windows 2000 with mobility radeon 9100 with 64 MB video memory, or is it possible that sse3 instructions are really needed to make up for the slowness im experiencing in the videos taking long to load all information, comments, and playback? so my direct question would be if i could get smoother playback if i upgraded from the 3.06 Ghz northwood with 130nm architecture, 512 l2 cache, and only sse2 instructions to the 3.06 Ghz prescott that has 90nm architecture, 1 MB l2 cache, and sse3 instructions. and yes, i know that many people say that the prescotts are slower in general and the extra l2 cache is supposed to make up for the slowness of the architecture, but im just asking again a direct question, will it be faster with the prescott and fix the choppy unplayable frames im currently getting with the northwood, or will it not? i feel like the sse3 instructions would help with this. the laptop seems to have very limited upgrade choices, i know there are up to 3.46 Ghz mobile prescotts and 3.33 Ghz, however i don't even know if the laptop would support higher than 3.2 Ghz for prescott with HT. http://www.ncst.com/sites/default/files/pdf/Archives/Laptops/Compatriot MN Series/compatriotMN_nbc118ts06_09.pdf

anyone know if there is a windows 95 driver for the audio device with hardware id of "PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4341"? i've downloaded a package, for both the w95 and 98 folders, they reference to cmi9738 for the audio device next to the hardware id, however, only the 98 package shows "PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4341". the hardware id links to AMD ATI® IXP150 AC97 Audio Controller from a quick google search. im not sure if the chipset of this laptop im working with is even supported for w95 or if it was mentioned anywhere in this thread or elsewhere, so im also trying to see if there are working chipset drivers for the laptop, gpu drivers, or other drivers. for example, i've been able to get the mobility 9000 and 9600/9700 to work on w95 before, however this laptop has a slightly different model, its the ati mobility 9100. the laptop has a current installation of windows xp so i was able to get some info beforehand, though i dont have the laptop just yet to see all hardware ids and devices. i've found an earlier chipset package of gart9x, it mentions "windows 95" inside the inf file text and also has vxd files in the package, so i would assume it might work. interestingly, for the ati mobility 9100 or radeon 9100 in general, i've found many many different hardware ids. this was somewhat a similar problem with the radeon x600 or x700, where only certain hardware ids are supported under 98SE apparently. i think lonecrusader was the one that mentioned he couldnt get any drivers to work on his mobility x600 or x700 on one of his laptops, and so i was using him as this example. i also researched and found out that apparently the radeon 8500le is literally the same exact gpu at the radeon 9100 or very very close, just differentiating mostly in transistor fabrication mostly. i was thinking of taking one route of possibly using the official 8500le w95 driver to install it for the ati mobility 9100. other options are to use "PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_5834", "PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_516d", or "PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_514d". all of these apparently had official windows 95 drivers or proper packaging with vxd files that would otherwise support w95. another thing is that the hardware ids also sometimes change based on the operating system, ( this was the case for the ati m6 or radeon 7500 when tested on 98 vs 95 ) so its possible that windows xp showing the ati mobility 9100 as "PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_5835" is really the "PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_5834" that is provided in these w95 packages i have, therefore providing a possible working driver. the laptop either comes with up to 100 mbps ethernet or 1000, im hoping its the 100 with realtek 8100 as it will have a w95 driver and i was hoping to get w95 installed on this laptop from the start. the chipset i think is rc300m or sb200, i couldn't find much info on this particular chipset. please let me know if i should progress this topic into a separate thread or if its ok to get answers directly in this thread.

there was a separate thread on a user getting the nvs110m working on i think the same laptop or similar model for 98SE using 82.69 driver, so yes, it does work, however, i would aim for laptops with the 128 MB version of the nvs110m as i think the dell d620 only has 64 MB of video memory?

winrar 3.80 was the last i got to work on my windows 95 osr 2.5 systems, newer versions did not work for me, although i don't remember which exact version(s) newer than 3.80 that didn't work, although you listed 3.92 as working. i use version 3.80 on 98SE as well. xnview 1.82.4 was the last version to work on windows 95 osr 2.5, i personally have xnview 1.11 in my archived contents as its more lightweight and the first version to support screen capture, however, its obviously less advanced in features than 1.82.4.

hi, do you know what exactly the "Visual C++ .NET 2003 Redistributables" does? does it update important files in the system? i did a general search up of what it microsoft visual c++ was through wikipedia, but i just wanted to know more specifically if its something that is recommended to install on any w95 system excluding anything else that it might need to function completely, but just the package you had put down, its only about 1 MB.

interesting, i didnt know there was a adobe reader 5.1 version for w95, i thought 5.0 was the last, however i just checked now and for adobe 5.1, it doesn't mention as windows 95 being supported, i checked 5.0.5 and does mention windows 95 as being supported. "ar505enu.exe" was the filename for the adobe reader 5.0.5 that i downloaded from oldversion, however from adobe's official site, it lists it as "a5u1tl.exe" for the 5.0.5 update. whats the difference? adobe's site says you need 5.0 already installed to install 5.0.5. i compared the two files and the oldversion one is smaller, only about 8.5 MB or so, but the one from adobe directly was about 13 MB. i renamed the adobe reader 5 when i first got it from the past that i have been using up to this point, im sure its got to be the 5.0 version exactly because the oldversion i just downloaded right now to compare was the same size, at 8.41 MB. anyone have experience on which versions they use exactly? honestly, i dont care if the 5.1 doesnt work, at least if i can get the 5.0.5 one that is only 8.5 MB or so, then it will still be a upgrade in compatibility and fixes, without sacrificing much of any space but the 13 MB one is significantly bigger and wouldnt want to use that one. here is some other stuff that works on 95 osr 2.5: . aida32 3.94.2 . hd tach 2.61 . imgburn 2.4.4.0 . sisoft sandra 2001 . speedfan 4.28 . cpu-z 1.32.1 . msn messenger 5.0 ( not sure if it works properly still )

thanks for the information. i will make the necessary changes in my docs based on these values and numbers.

i didnt have any hanging issues with the unofficial sp 3.56, at least in the most recent tested builds, there is a confirmation dialog to ask to keep new or used files in conflict which i always select no when this happens for any updates but this is a universal thing which can happen when installing drivers, etc. the things that i would like to be different or would find better is if there was a lighter version of the unofficial service pack, for the most recent or newest ones, such as removing office 97, ntfs update, windows 2000 / me themes, the tweak ui and performance tweaks, and some other unnecessary things. i feel like the folder icons dont look good after the unofficial service pack update, even after unchecking most of the optional stuff, it still changes the way folder icons look and i havent found a way to change it back to the original icons, also, it seems that you cant view all pages in the web format after the update, even if choosing the web format option in folder options, it seems to show pages in classic way? other than that though, its a convenient way of installing many important updates, as well as directx 9.0c, etc.

hi rloew, can you explain why i should use 44000 and not 4300 for maxfilecache for 1 GB systems? would the minimum for both the minfilecache and maxfilecache not be 1/24 of your system ram? i thought 4300 was about 1/24 of 1 GB of ram? that being said, the systems i ran recently with the 4300 settings ran fine, however i suppose they could have run better with higher settings? one thing i noticed i didn't seem to have was the weird virtual memory problem of it becoming disabled and having the main partition running in compatibility mode, i feel like it was fixed by using the 4300 settings, because before, when i had used "minfilecache=0" and "maxfilecache=0", on every system that had a main partition larger than 32 GB, it would cause the virtual memory becoming disabled problem, unless ram was limited to 384 MB, who knows? how do i calculate the numbers for min and max file cache? i know that for maxphyspage, 40000 = about 1 GB, but 44000 apparently uses different conversion in the min and max file cache?

im not sure why the gigabyte boards would have a problem with nvidia adapters, all of the regular desktop geforce 6000 series gpu's have official windows 98SE drivers, i would use the oldest one possible, forceware 66.94 should be good, although i've heard up to 77.xx can be used without modification and works properly still, although there IS a shutdown patch for the 81.98 driver, i dont remember if it fixed this AND the utility problem i believe it has, i would still try forceware 66.94 first and make sure its the 9x version. the most recent unofficial service pack is 3.56 i believe. you do not need to limit ram to 511 MB, up to just under 1 GB can be limited and still the system will work fine, the "minfilecache" and "maxfilecache" settings are what are just as important. i set mine to 4300 for both settings which is about the minimum you should put for 1 GB systems and my systems have been working fine with this recent setting. "maxphyspage=40000" should be a good setting for the ram limit. i also set the option in folders to show all system files and smooth edges of screen fonts, also you can delete the favorites menu from the start menu, make sure to allocate dma memory in device manager for direct access memory controller as well as enabling it on the drive, you can also check the setting for write cache enabling on drives in the performance menu and set the drive performance to network.

it seems networks speeds are limiting performance from applications from the internet, the speeds im getting are a lot quicker than the op but should still be faster, for ethernet, on my 24 mbps service, i only got about 4 mbps upload and download speeds, interestingly, when i tested with wifi very close to the router, it was 4 mbps on both upload and download as well, i would have though the ethernet would have been significantly faster but they were like the same speed. this was all tested on the dell precision m70 laptop. i can watch youtube videos up to 720p hd settings fairly smoothly, although could be a little smoother, and i don't think it's the hardware that is the limiting factor as the specs are pretty high end on the laptop, but rather the network speeds being the bottleneck. for some reason 1080p hd doesn't work on youtube, it just gives an error on firefox 3.5.19 with flash 11.