cov3rt

there may not be an "official" 9x driver for the mobility radeon x600 but somehow i got it to work through my experience and setup. i am 100 percent sure i used the mobility x600 on the dell latitude d810 and it was working fine as previously mentioned in my postings so you don't have to worry about that part. yes, the dell latitude d810 can have interchangeable graphics processing units, some come with the mobility x300 i believe and some come with the mobility x600 which again, i am 100 percent sure i used the x600 in the d810's i had and all of them worked fine, it was just a little tricky to get it working at first which my previous posts explain the reasoning to this, the part i was unsure on wasn't on whether i used the mobility x600, it was which specific device i choose in the inf file when installing the driver for the mobility x600 as there were several different mobility x600 models from different brands and / or ven / dev listings. i just had to figure out which one worked and finally found the right device. i'm not familiar with the vbios part. the only difference i can tell you is that the zd8000 uses a different AND possibly more updated mobility x600 chip that isn't supported on 98SE than the one found on the dell latitude d810 that is and this is why you couldn't get it to work, as there IS a difference in the hardware ven / dev. a similar comparison is found in the linksys wpc11 wifi cardbus adapters, versions 4 and newer don't seem to work on windows 95 which are based on the rtl8180 chip, although in this case, they have the same pci / ven / dev, only the chipset is what seems to matter. i tested version 1 of wpc11 which has the weakest performance of the wpc11 models but worked fine on windows 95 osr 2.5.

for the dell latitude d810 laptop i used with the mobility radeon x600 gpu, i believe i used the following graphics device below from the "c8_19079" inf file to get it working, i do not have the system anymore. "ABIT RADEON X600XT 128M" = RV380_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_3E50&SUBSYS_0001147B however, just now, after downloading a package for the hp zd8000 laptop's graphics driver, i noticed that it did not mention the ven&dev i provided above, also i checked the catalyst 4.11 package i had for 9x that i used for the above device and it did not mention any of the devices below, even without the subsys portion. im not sure on catalyst 6.2, i don't think i used that ever for mobility x600 devices, i renamed that catalyst folder to include radeon express 200m so i probably used it specifically for the radeon express 200m but not the mobility x600. it's possible your graphics device is a newer version that doesn't have a 98SE driver or maybe there is a supported driver we haven't found yet? "ATI MOBILITY RADEON X600" = ati2mtag_M24, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_3150&SUBSYS_3082103C "ATI MOBILITY RADEON X600 " = ati2mtag_M24, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_3150&SUBSYS_3082103C

i see, but i think it would be more accurate if there was a 3DMark 2001SE done for the geforce go 7300 or some game benchmarks in comparison to the ti 200 or other cards with up to a few years apart in release to see which one is really faster. an example of this was a benchmark showing the ti 200 or ti 500 agp being as fast as the geforce 6200 agp. however, the point of comparison would be leaned towards slightly older games which is actually a better way to compare video cards as it would show the true performance of the gpu when compared with another one either older, newer or similar in the time of release, which is why texel / pixel account doesn't always determine how fast a gpu is. that being said, i suppose the ti 4200 agp universal with 128 MB video memory would be my best choice as of now for performance to cost ratio, they are selling them at a reasonable price on ebay in new other condition if anyone wants to buy them, i couldn't find any other graphics cards that were fast, reasonably priced, new AND supported agp 2x/1x ( agp 1.0 slots ).

really? the geforce go 7300 has about the same performance as the geforce3 ti 200 with the only real difference is dx9 support? man, i wish there was actually a more proper passmark system, when you go on the videocardbenchmark.net, it has a poor way of comparing video cards, it doesn't actually put down the best or worst per say in performance, it has it's own way of determining how "good" a gpu is, for example, the ti 4600 has a passmark of 5, where as the geforce go 7300 has a passmark of 49 even though the ti 4600 is still technically "Faster" as it's faster in all comparisons with the ti 500, and even more so when compared with the go 7300 and ti 200. how bout the fx 5700le apg with 256 MB video memory? is that card any good? i tried to ask about this but didn't get any responses specifically about this gpu, and what about the ti 4200 with 128 MB video memory?

like i said, there was someone who mentioned they got a geforce 7600gs agp universal working on a 440bx, quickly going by the passmark scores on videocardbenchmark.net, 9800xt is slower than a geforce 6800xt and the geforce 7600gs is faster than the geforce 6800xt, and the part of blizzard breaking it for 98, it does seem that it doesn't work properly for quite some time, a problem where exiting the game causes some resource problem or other issue which restarting the computer fixes it, but other than that, it does still work fine when already launched, this was the last time i checked like a year ago or so. but i did forget to mention a very important thing, there is a big problem which probably has to do with the patch possibly, it seems that you can't manually install warcraft 3 on a 98SE system with the discs, for some reason, only reign of chaos will install but frozen throne throws some errors when trying to install which i haven't found any solutions, something like it can't find an appropriate installation path, also downloading the digital version doesn't work either, it just doesn't save or want to download, the only way to get warcraft 3 working based on my experience with frozen throne on 98SE is to install the game on another 32 bit system like windows 2000 and transfer the entire program folder to the 98SE system and it will work from there, with only that issue i specified earlier, but battle.net will work, you can go play dota or whatever. i suppose it would just make more sense to wait to get a pentium 4 board with isa slots at a decent price with agp 2.0 or 3.0 support, making upgrade options and usability easier which i have been trying to do but i've had a hard time finding any close to an affordable price for new condition. another option is slightly newer boards that may or may not support core 2 architecture that can possibly come with pci express slots with or without isa slots, but usually the ones that have all of these, core 2 architecture, pci express and isa slots are often a lot more expensive than even the pentium 4 boards that just have isa slots, no core 2 architecture support with or without pci express. and then there is another option of newer boards, pentium 4 or newer without isa slots with agp 2.0 or pci express and use pci sound cards with reasonable dos support, but this may lure away potential buyers because they really really want or need a system with isa slots and that one missing feature can really scale down the value of the entire computer tremendously so you end up spending all the time, money and effort to build a super duper system that is pretty fast and with good quality components but missing one important feature that can basically make it worthless to the very few that may be interested in buying it. although there are good pci sound cards out there with reasonable dos support like the yamaha pci sound cards, although i haven't found any new ones yet lol, im not sure if it will cut it for most people or enough to get an attraction for sale.

well it seems the pny 7600gs agp universal is one of the fastest cards that was tested working with the unofficial drivers on a 440bx motherboard and possibly might work on the M6TBD motherboard, a user on vogons had mentioned they got one working on another 440bx motherboard. im not sure if he even had to use any patches, but nevertheless, it should be able to work properly with rloew's patch(s) if needed. i would have purchased this card by now to use for later but too expensive for my budget and for applying to a computer, requires selling it a value not really affordable for some costumers, it's being sold new for about $225 on amazon right now, i mean you can at least sell it for like $100 but i suppose they paid a lot for the card themselves, who knows? the only other decent card i found that i mentioned previously was the fx5700le 256 MB agp universal for a little less than $25 new, more worth it generally, but possibly not enough to play warcraft 3 smoothly with a pentium iii coppermine at 1 Ghz and 768 MB system ram. someone on vogons mentioned they still got lag on warcraft 3 when using an amd athlon xp barton at 2.5 Ghz ( which is a LOT faster than a pentium iii coppermine at 1 Ghz ) with 2 GB system ram and voodoo 5 graphics card. i can see the voodoo 5 bottlenecking a bit if it was maybe the 64 MB version but if it was one of the 128 MB versions as indicated by wikipedia, then i would have less hope of seeing a coppermine 1 Ghz pentium iii doing well with less system ram, even if i were to use a faster gpu with a minimum of 128 MB of allocated video memory, it seems the cpu would still be the limiting factor. the voodoo 5 6000 128 MB may possibly be equivalent to a geforce3 ti 200 in overall performance, which the ti 500 is equivalent to about a ti 4200 and the fx5700le is probably not too far off from all these cards, slightly lower performance than a ti 4200 i think and a geforce 6200 agp is about equivalent to a ti 500 so the only other card probably significantly better would be the fx 5900 but those draw too much power and not practical in my opinion to be used, and of course the previous cards i mentioned, geforce 6800 universal and geforce 7600gs agp which are hard to find in new condition at a decent price. this is the problem with upgrading on 440bx boards with agp 3.3 keyed slots and pci cards are sort of useless because they are limited to 266 MB/s on 440bx boards in the conventional 32 bit pci slots which is only agp 1x speeds and you're taking up pci slot resources when you can simply use a agp card with the same if not slightly better performance for the same money or possibly less.

im not understanding, your first post indicated two different types of patches, one universal one that limits 512 MB video cards to 256 MB and another to allow full size of 512 MB video cards. but i guess it probably doesn't matter anymore because you said the 8 series nvidia aren't properly supported, patch or no patch. with that being said, if i i do still try to use the geforce 8400 gs 512 MB pci card, what sort of problems would i encounter with it not working properly, i guess that's a more straightforward question, though my previous post explains in question form of what can go wrong if i were to do what i wanted to do and what would needed to be done in attempt to get it working with the specified specs, 768 MB system ram + 512 MB video card, 8 series or not 8 series, in other words, if it were to be more simple, 768 MB system ram + a supported 512 MB video card like the geforce 6800xt universal agp?

i know the patch is mainly for geforce 6 and 7 series, but has anyone tried the patch with any of the 8 series? i wanted to try out the geforce 8400 gs 512 MB pci video card ( regular pci interface ) on a 440bx motherboard, i don't think there are any 7 series regular pci graphics cards or agp universal that would work on the 440bx, i believe geforce 6 series or newer updated the electrical system and even if the card was universal and fit, it still wouldn't work because they use different voltages, leaving options limited for mid - high end graphics cards. i believe the geforce 6800xt agp universal was one of the few exceptions that worked but those are very rare and expensive if found and most are used and im looking for a new gpu. the bios of the M6TBD motherboard can manually allocate up to 256 MB of video memory for the agp aperture, if i were to use the 8400 gs 512 MB pci version, which patch would be more appropriate? the motherboard should support up to 1 GB ( 768 MB system ram + 512 MB video card limited to 256 MB video memory ), but i don't want to get a 512 MB card where im forced to run lower system memory because there can't be anything done for any probable resource problems due to surpassing 1 GB, even with the patch(s). i suppose installing 512 MB system ram first would be the trick with the 512 MB video card, install the patches that can limit the video memory to 256 MB, than i can install another 256 MB of system ram to have that 768 MB system ram + 256 MB video card combo? i put the link below of the specific card i would use. the fastest i found new that is was the fx 5700le agp universal but that's still a little slow for a 98SE system where i would like to run games like warcraft 3 smoothly with a pentium iii and minimum 512 MB system ram, the fx 5700le is better suited for a mid - high end windows 95 computer. https://www.amazon.com/PNY-nVidia-GeForce-Graphics-VCG84512SPEB/dp/B001D72NE0

there were a few different ethernet adapters used in the dell latitude d6xx line, as well as the dell inspiron 600m which are nearly identifical, i know this for a fact because on some of the earlier builds i did with the dell inspiron 600m and i think maybe the latitude d600 with windows 95 osr 2.5 installed, they used a compatible windows 95 driver for the broadcom ethernet controller which i think was the only available driver for windows 95 for that specific broadcom adapter version, anyways, in more relevance to 98SE, the different adapters shouldn't matter because all of them have 98SE drivers so you wouldn't have to worry about that part. i compared that 5.10.0.4691 driver you listed with the one officially listed from dell's site for the dell latitude d620 obtained from the windows 2000 section and they both mention most of the same major devices in the inf file except that the older driver doesn't list "HDAUDIO\FUNC_01&VEN_8384&DEV_76A0" which is found in the newer dell latitude d620 driver, so it's possible that the d620 specifically uses that or it's possible it can use one of the following and not limited to the one i just mentioned. honestly, i feel like there is more luck finding a mini pci wifi card or cardbus wifi card that can have direct wpa2 support with the software utility it uses or one that works with wsc gaurd 4.0 ( wpa-aes to connect to wpa2 networks ) than successfully finding an audio driver for the d620 for 98SE, but who knows.

ok but why firefox 2? firefox 3.5.19 is a lot better to use with kernelex and supports java, with adobe flash player 11.1.102.63 non IE, youtube should work fine, unless of course you're system specs are very low end, though i haven't tested a 98SE system in a while so it's possible things have changed.

quick question, are you using windows 95 or windows 98/98SE?

did you ever get the sound or other drivers to work on the dell latitude d620? i was thinking an easy and cheap solution would be to just buy one of those usb sound cards that act as a replacement towards existing sound cards, some people use them when the internal sound card goes bad, though im having a hard time finding out if the ones that mention 98SE really in fact support windows 98SE as there is sometimes false advertisement, most of them say they don't need drivers and use chipsets i never seen in older cards such as cmedia 108. i haven't looked at older drivers, the few inf files i looked at indicated many different pci ven devices so it would have taken too long to find out if the majority of them were supported on 98SE or not. one usb card im possibly looking at trying is the one in the below link, there was also a zalman one sold on ebay but was more expensive for the specific one i looked at, it used a different chipset. https://www.amazon.com/uxcell-External-Virtual-Audio-Adapter/dp/B004FE6UCE/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1479068643&sr=8-6&keywords=usb+sound+card&refinements=p_72%3A2661618011

glad you got the gpu to work at least, im assuming you used the forceware 82.69 driver for the nvs 110m? wifi won't be a biggy to get working, worst comes to worst, you'll have to use a different mini pci card with wpa and aes support but which can still work with wsc gaurd 4.0 to connect to wpa2 routers, i haven't seen any mini pci wifi cards with direct wpa2 support on 98SE, the only wpa2 ones i know are the regular pci based ones for desktops such as the dwl-g520, the specific version was revision b. ethernet driver is supported for 98SE, i don't know about the other drivers. the chipset is ich7-m which isn't officially supported from intel but i think you can still get chipset drivers to install and work fine, i remember there was a unofficial ich7-m chipset driver support for 98SE but don't know where to get it.

not sure if this would help, but if you can, i would try to wipe the hard drive and reinstall the operating system without acpi enabled. you would do this by running "setup /p i" in the dos command line after formatting drive and copying cd contents to hard drive. there may also be some driver automatically installing that shouldn't like a power management driver, this might be more complicated to find out but try to see if you can the former first. i know i had a similar problem on one laptop to which i installed windows 98SE, i don't remember the exact one but i believe it used some nvidia chip / power management driver that prevented setup from fully installing. it's surprising what sort of things you need to do to get these older operating systems to run on these newer laptops, but they'll run fine afterwards, at least reasonably well. the dell latitude d830 is a good example. it has this weird bug where the display cuts out very dimly when initiating certain updates in windows 98SE like the unofficial service pack where you have to use your phone's flashlight very close to the screen to see the writing and information and progress from there. i noticed this on two dell latitude d830 laptops so im pretty sure it wasn't a problem with the laptop physically. also you need to install with acpi disabled like i previously mentioned. this laptop would be better to use for 98SE than the d630. the dell latitude d630 is very good for windows 2000 though as it supports the intel gpu driver and all other drivers.

i actually looked into this in the past too, from what i researched, the scitech snap audio drivers were very limited to what operating system it supported and hardware in general, a quick google search just now indicates that it was ported to windows nt 4.0 but no mention of other operating systems. below is some information i got from another forum of the readme file from apparently the scitech snap audio driver : This is a list of the various audio chipsets that have been tested with this version of SciTech SNAP Audio. They can be used with any applications that use SciTech SNAP technology directly. AC97 Controllers ATI SB200, SB300, SB400 Intel ICH2, ICH3, ICH4, ICH5, ICH6, ICH7 nVidia nForce, nForce2, nForce3 HDA Controllers ATI SB450 Intel ICH6, ICH7, ICH8 there was a file called "snapaudio-dos-1.0.1.exe", though i don't know what operating systems it supported, also it seems there are no longer any more links for downloading the file, there was some serial that you were supposed to register with it to i think which also seems to be non existent or part of the problem? i honestly rather stick with the t43. the best ( fastest ) ibm laptop i looked at that can properly support windows 98SE was the t43p model, though they are rare and expensive when found. is there any particular reason you want to use the ibm z60m? because if your goal is simply to have a fast laptop without having dos sound support ( which most of these laptops don't anyways ), then i would just use the dell latitude d810, it only comes in mobility radeon graphics, not the gma 900 that the z60m can come with sometimes. there is some things you have to do to get it work properly but it's probably one of the fastest laptops i had that can have "full" support for windows 98SE. there is also the compaq presario v2000 models that are not bad. the only laptops i found with dos sound were 440bx laptops of course, the maestro 3E only supported wolfenstein 3d and not dukenukem 3d. the maestro 2E had sound effects and music in dukenukem 3d using default soundblaster settings, but i didn't test any other games. i also think driver version matters, i tend to use older driver versions when possible.

i just noticed now that even though the hd tach 2.61 utility gives the abbreviation of mbps, it also says megabytes per second and not megabits per second so i guess the numbers would be about right, just under 33 MB/s....that is if it is calculating mega BYTES and not mega BITS per second. though, the slower speeds by the ssd and western digital blue still don't make sense, i don't see what would be hogging resources if it was a resource problem in those builds. the ssd was a bit old but from what i researched, read speeds generally stay the same on ssd's and don't become affected by age, it's the write speeds that seem to diminish by wear.

yeh, there's definitely something weird going in. i just tested a pretty old 6 GB bm dada 26480 hard drive on a 440bx laptop and it had a faster read speed ( 28.9 mbps ) than the western digital blue 160 GB i tested which was 27.9 mbps and that drive was new. only the access times differed where the western digital blue was obviously faster, of course the ssd i tested which i mentioned from before did have a lower access time as expected, the read speed was even lower than both of these drives. i hope someone can give some more insight on these weird benchmark results.

i noticed from toastytech.com, the information posted on the flash 7 spoof for windows 95 mentioned that as of may 2016, the flash 7 spoof no longer worked so apparently they did change something in the browser and it wasn't just me when i couldn't get the flash 7 spoof to work on windows 95 recently, though there was no detailed reasons of why the flash 7 spoof doesn't work anymore. i really hope someone can fix this problem again or at least find out the cause.

on 98SE, for the realtek 8139 ethernet. i remember using the driver version "5.621.0304.2005" and it was working fine. i think the newest version to work on 98SE is "5.707.1030.2008", i believe i tested this though i am not 100 percent sure if it worked. you can try either or if you haven't used these versions.

you can use wsc gaurd 4.0 utility with some wifi cards to connect to routers today that use up to wpa2, you can do this by selecting the wpa option with aes encrpytion, typing password, and connect with a supported wifi card. problem is, you have to experiment and find which cards work or don't work. the cards below were NOT supported by wsc gaurd 4.0 - . cisco mpi350 mini pci card -PCI\VEN_14B9&DEV_A504&SUBSYS_500014B9, PCI\VEN_14B9&DEV_A505&SUBSYS_640014B9 . rt2500 or ms6833a mini pci card - VEN_1814&DEV_0201 the Rosewill RNX-G300LX pci wireless card mentions windows 98SE as supported but i don't know 100 percent if it would work with the modern settings used in routers today as i never tested it myself. there is one pci wireless card in specific which was mentioned from somewhere with wpa2 support on 98SE, the name of the file was i think "DWL-g520_drv_revB_Version-4.40-wpa2" and the version of the driver i think was "4.1.2.723". this one probably has direct wpa2 support but i never tested this card either.

i'm been looking at several games in the past and was interested in the idea of creating or contributing to the development of a video game. i was looking at doing something unique like creating a directx 8.0a compatible game that can look just as good in graphics and realistic aspects and perform as good as games today or ones that are newer than directx 8.0a requirements but which also works on windows 95. but to be more specific, i wanted to have a game that's even better ( graphics, realistic sense, gameplay ) than all of the past directx 8.0a games that were made and ran on windows 95. this includes return to castle wolfenstein, stars wars jedi knight ii jedi acamedy, etc. one game that specifically caught my eye was project igi: im going in. i wanted to make a game like this possibly, but a directx 8.0a version instead of 7.0a which was limited in some features. it could even be the same engine but a modified one, only problem is, im obviously a noob to all this, i wanted to see what game engine the game uses but i couldn't find out the specific one or if it can be downloaded, it was linked to the flight game joint strike fighter, but i couldn't really find anything on this. im not really a fan of the unreal engines, at least the older ones, the features in the games look a bit like cartoons or not really that natural looking. return to castle wolfenstein uses apparently the id tech 3 from a google search, which looks more realistic and natural looking. another game of interest is fable lost chapters, gameplay was nice, but it was a directx 9.0 game with graphics being not that good, the terrain and animation for some areas would look almost like 2d images and unnatural. i wanted to create a game almost identical to fable but which looked more realistic, natural looking, possibly better gameplay and to be directx 8.0a and work on windows 95. i guess a specific question would be, which game engine would suit my needs, i would like to create an FPS and / or RPG game, my thoughts link back to the game engine used in project igi: im going in, but modified in a way, or possibly id tech 3 modified, but probably not any unreal engines. i can probably download the id tech 3 game engine but what about the joint strike fighter one used in project igi: im going in?

for the desktops, the two i tested were nearly identical, for the cables, i used new 80 conductor ide cables so i guess that would be the high speed ones? the other system recently tested was a laptop, it was a gateway solo 9300 with windows 95 installed, 450mhz cpu, 256 MB ram, 8 GB ssd, chipset drivers were installed, although the access time was more or less accurate for an ssd in hd tach 2.61, about .3 ms, the mbps was only about 20 mbps compared to a desktop system that had the same speed processor at 450mhz, but used a western digital blue ide 160 GB hard drive formatted to 7.8 GB due to the board's limitation, this system did about 27 mbps from hd tach 2.61's reading. 440bx is limited to 33 MB/s for the ATA specs but i didn't even get a 1/4 of that, so i was wondering if hd tach 2.61 is just designed in a way to indicate lower numbers or if im not doing something right. the systems i used weren't slow, they were actually fairly quick, the one with the ssd actually played a mp4 using vlc player on windows 95 smoothly on the gateway solo 9300 laptop that only had a 4 MB gpu and the other specs i mentioned earlier, i actually tested other laptops before that weren't 440bx, but newer chipsets like 845pm, and i think some of them with old mechanical hard drives only indicated like 3 mbps in hd tach 2.61, but those like i said were old and worn out probably a lot, affecting their speeds and most were lower end drivers too. i guess im concerned in one way if it's worth it to buy ssd's in the future or just settle for mechanical hard drives and not worry about the hd tach 2.61 numbers that much. but yeh, i was kind of stunned to see that 20 mbps score on the laptop with ssd though, the ssd on the laptop was used though so there is a small chance that it slowed down a lot from previous use, it was a 8 GB super talent ssd which i can't find on supertalent's site so it probably had a lot of use perhaps, who knows. i guess one way to really find out is to test a new ssd on both a desktop and laptop, ( same ssd on both systems would be best ). oh and those two desktops i mentioned earlier were all built from new parts. i haven't tested in dos. do you mean where it gives you the option to boot into ms-dos mode from the shut down menu?

you shouldn't have to mess with anything for the ethernet assuming the driver is working. only thing that may need to be done is to run "winipcfg", release ip address and then renew the ip address for the ethernet adapter and it should work, these are just the basics though.

i tried atto disk benchmark 2.34, not really what i was looking for, apparently it only does sequential speeds according to one website and im mainly looking for random read / write, specifically queue depth 1 with access time.

honestly, although sisoft sandra has more features than everest, i like everest more, it seems more stable and also shows hard drive temperature. also i like hd tach 2.61 more than the hard drive benchmark of sisoft sandra 2001, sandra's benchmark result for the hard drive seem a little vague, i think it mentioned like 197 MB/s for the ssd which seems too high, but also none of the other areas scored around that 2.5 MB/s that hd tach gave, and i know they are two different utilities, but i just don't like sandra's that much. hd tach 2.61 did perform weird for me up to this point too but im gonna keep it still. however, i looked into the aida32 utility and the last version is almost exactly the same program as everest and everest basically replaced aida32 the same year i think, aida32 did not need to be installed through the windows setup, i placed the unzipped program in program files and was able to use it with sandra in the same system so now i have a utility specifically for information and hard drive temps, and the other (sandra) for cpu benchmarks or other information not specifically provided by aida32 with of course hd tach 2.61 and also speedfan 4.28 in the same windows 95 system.