cov3rt

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.

it seems that everest and sisoft sandra software conflict, i had to uninstall everest 1.51 to install sisoft sandra 2001. im seeing which one is better to keep, this sisoft software is really neat, i dont know if i looked into everest completely but it seems that this sisoft software is better in features provided, except that with everest, you're able to have a broader view of specs in one window and it has support for newer hardware, im having a little problem too with the sisoft crashing too right now on drive benchmarks which was the basis of the thread.

update if you type SiSoft Sandra 2001 in filewatcher and download the SiSoft Sandra 2001.zip file, it gives you the appropriate utility i believe as i just installed it on my main system and it mentions it was for windows 95 and 98. i guess i'll test this on windows 95.

the oldest version of crystaldiskmark i found only works on windows 98SE and newer, i tested it before, i couldn't find any atto disk benchmark for windows 95, google did come up with one person saying to use SiSoft Sandra 2000, i went on the official site and used waybackmachine and found SiSoft Sandra 2001 se which was one of the last disk benchmark tools provided by them to work on windows 95, i couldn't download the links though, the name is "san750.zip" i believe, though san752.zip might work too, according to one person, san811.zip required w98 and newer so i could try to find san752.zip in the meantime.

i was wondering if anyone has experience with hd tach 2.61, the benchmark tool that does read testing in the free version. i feel like im getting very poor speeds. i tested recently some hard drives and even an ssd today, many of them were on 440bx chipsets, i looked into pio vs dma modes and the drives i used always had dma checked in device manager, with also the 64 KB option selected for direct memory access controller. i noticed that based on hd tach 2.61, i got no more than 27.9 mega BITS per second on any of the last tested drives, the 27.9 mbps came from the western digital blue 160 GB hard drive, one of the last and fastest pata hard drives too, but i got only about 3.5 MB/s max. i tested a supertalent 8 GB ssd today and got about 20 mbps, which is about 2.5 MB/s, slower than the western digital hard drive, which i find weird because there shouldn't be any reason that its slower in ANY way. i make sure to always apply the early 440bx patch in all builds which always helped with performance, i would get even slower numbers if i didn't apply this patch and just went straight to the newer chipset update which i apply later on.

does anyone know why the unofficial flash 7 spoof doesn't work anymore on windows 95, i tested several times in the past recently on different builds using opera 10.10 and firefox 2.0.0.20, and even the unofficial opera 10.63 version for windows 95, but it simply woudn't work, like before, it would bring up a big play button in the middle of the video and then you can play it, even though it was limited to 240p, it worked fine with sound. so i was wondering if anyone has tested this, i brought this up randomly in other posts but didn't really get a definite answer. could it have to do with something firefox / opera interally changed in ALL of their browsers which prevents it from working on windows 95? i also was wondering if anyone also had specific experience or problems with cardbus controllers / drivers conflicting with mini pci cards / drivers, because for instance on a dell inspiron 8200 that i used for windows 95, i was not able to get cardbus and mini pci cards working ( in terms of device manager reporting no problems ), at the same time. if i took away the mini pci card which was specifically the dell truemobile 1150 mini pci card, one of the few mini pci wifi cards to work on windows 95 btw, then i could then plug in cardbus cards, but i don't know the exact details on what worked or what didn't and how. so basically the hardware id "104C&DEV_AC42" conflicted with "104C&DEV_AC50" which is what the dell truemobile 1150 card uses before being detected, so you need to install the "104C&DEV_AC50" driver which then brings up the 1150 card and then you still the driver for that. in other words, you can't install the "104C&DEV_AC50" which is the laptop's pci cardbus bridge driver if you plan on using the 1150 card, you would have to remove and / or disable it in windows and / or the bios, then you can use the 1150 card. i was wondering if it's possible to remedy this, like somehow remapping addresses, etc, which i did try to do, i tried to allocate a free resource to the "104C&DEV_AC50" device, restarted the computer, but it wouldn't boot in windows, i had to go into safe mode to remove the pci cardbus bridge with the "104C&DEV_AC50" id so that the 1150 would work. there was an actiontec mini pci wif card that didn't pop up with that cardbus driver with it and that was supposed to work on windows 95 according to the instances of it mentioning windows 95 in the inf file but i couldn't get it work with the few selected drivers i tested, it did however work on windows nt 4.0. i have not found a mini pci wifi card that works on windows 95 that doesn't need an extra driver such as the "104C&DEV_AC50" to be installed beforehand. im not a fan of cardbus wifi cards because it doesn't really look nice in appearance and for security reasons, someone can just take remove it easily from the laptop.

this was exactly the information i was looking for in your last two sentences, so it does appear there is some picky BIOSes from 2002 and on / some 8xx / 9xx series intel chipsets that do no properly handle lba-48. rloew, i believe i read the information in your site to this specific patch, but when would i need to apply it? for instance, if i had that virtual memory becoming disabled problem and c: drive running in compatibility mode, would applying the full version of the patch after having this problem already there solve the issue so that i can have the higher capacity drive without having to scale down to that 384 MB ram limit i mentioned, is it a windows patch or something i would have to apply through a boot disk or other way like through dos command prompt?

interesting you brought this up because i always seem to have this weird issue with partition sizes larger than 32 GB in both windows 95 and 98 / 98SE systems that would make virtual memory disabled after a certain point of updating the system and couldn't really find any solutions to this other than limiting the setting in the notepad file "system.ini" to "maxphyspage=18000" which then would get rid of the virtual memory problem of being disabled or the c: drive not working properly, also "minfilecache=0"and "maxfilecache=0" under vcache in system.ini ( this step is probably not absolutely needed but i still do it ), i don't think the lba48 part was the problem because most of these systems should have supported these drives ( 2002-2006 laptops or hardware ) and most of the hard drives weren't even larger than like 120 GB, most of them were like 40 - 80 GB, yet i still had this weird problem. this wasn't so much of a problem in windows 95 since 384 MB of ram is still a pretty good amount for windows 95 and regardless of having a hard drive less than 32 GB, windows 95 still had problems with freezing / crashing or running weird if you tried to limit the ram to more than 384 MB ( in maxphyspage ), although what is more weird is on earlier builds, i had windows 95 running up to like 920 MB of ram or so with drives possibly more than 32 GB partitioned or lower, but for some reason, i couldn't get it to work like that anymore, makes me feel like there might be some uncessary update or updates that are were not needed that i may have added in my update archive list that messes up windows 95 osr 2.5? it would probably be too much work to find out why, but it was something to just point out. i do remember applying the unofficial service pack but still getting this messed up problem, virtual memory not working / disabled and c: drive would be running in ms dos compatibility mode. i wonder if ACPI may have to do with this too as i did have resource related / weird problems with ACPI enabled on some systems too. i know for the dell latitude d810, in order to run windows 98SE properly without it acting weird, at least the problem where if you try to go to safe mode, but don't do anything else, or even try to change anything through msconfig like preventing office 2000 from starting, upon restart it would just hang endlessly and going to safe mode and trying to change back the settings made no difference. you would need to run the dell latitude d810 with ACPI disabled by running "setup /p i" after format of hard drive and copying of files in dos prompt.

well i got vlc to work, at least partially on windows nt 4.0 server, it appears that you would need to select FULL setup for it to function properly, version 0.8.6h was able to play mp4 videos fine, although the quality wasn't the best, but that is a different issue where google should be able to care of possibly. i mentioned partially working because i was not able to get youtube videos to work using one of the url boxes supplied by the vlc settings, it gave an error of some sort. i tried to install klite, 3.45 wouldn't install, mentioning it needs directx 8.1 or later installed, so it's meant for 98SE, oldapps lists it for windows 95 too but the information i just mentioned would contradict that because windows 95 only supports up to directx 8.0a, anyways, the codec packages 2.97 and 2.87 wouldn't even load an mp4 file on nt 4.0 server, tested without vlc installed, since i wanted to see if windows media player or winamp would be able to play them but it mentioned errors having to do with ddraw.dll or dynamic entry point error, etc. it seems like the codec package might be more problematic than good, i'm gonna test vlc 0.8.6h on w95 without klite and see how well it does, im not sure if i should even install klite 3.45 on 98SE, perhaps just test vlc to see how well i can get it to work, i'm really more interested in getting a higher quality video playback on vlc than being able to play videos or music from the internet because youtube on 98SE works anyways, up to hd playback with firefox 3.5.19 with kernelex, adobe flash player 10.3, etc.

well i tested a dell latitude d810 with windows nt 4.0 server installed, applied all necessary updates, ( SP6a, individual updates, etc ), but it too did not allow playing of youtube videos in opera 10.63 with flash 8 installed, i did it through the registry hack way mentioned on a site and followed the instructions properly, interestingly, this method worked last time with a different laptop, so im beginning to think that maybe there is some sort of universal setting in these web browsers they changed to prevents users from using legacy systems such as 9x / NT 4.0, explaining why i couldn't get the flash 7 spoof to work on windows 95 not too long ago, i even tested the flash 7 spoof on windows nt 4.0 server, placing it in the program plugins folder and it still didn't work. opera turbo enabled vs disabled made no difference either in allowing youtube videos to play, also tested VLC on nt 4.0 server and i don't know how others were able to get vlc to work in 9x / nt systems with the same exact versions mentioned on several sites but when i try to put the url in the section needed, it says it can't open it..., but yeh, this youtube problem is just killing me .

well i started from a clean install again, tried both firefox 2.0.0.20 and opera 10.10 later on in the build after updating everything and youtube still wouldn't bring up and allow playing of videos. this was with the flash 7 spoof npswf32.dll files in the appropriate plugin folders. interestingly, i also still got fatal exception errors more or less the same way from before and even a invalid page fault as a new one. hopefully youtube not playing videoes is only a problem in this particular setup, i would like to test out a different windows 95 setup soon, most of my previous builds were laptops with newer hardware ( chipsets such as 845mp, mz, 855pm ).

^Thanks for the heads up, although i didn't need that dll file anymore, avast 4.8.1368 installed and worked fine when i used a different installer, for some reason the original installer or package wasn't the right one or somehow modified. im still bothered by the youtube videos not working though, from the thread mentioned below, sdfox7 mentioned that you would need to first install a version of flash 7 if you want to flash 7 spoof version to work, but i never had to do this with the other builds i had, i just had the flash 7 spoof dll file in the appropriate plugin folders of either firefox 2.0.0.20 or opera 10.10 / 10.63 and it worked fine. also i noticed opera 10.63 not working anymore, similar if not exactly the same problem that andrew T had with the opera crash logging message which im deciding to just revert back to using opera 10.10 through the classic setup version, i like to use both firefox 2.0.0.20 and opera 10.10 because firefox runs quicker on some sites but opera 10.10 seems to display pages more properly than firefox does, although i can't remember to be exact if i was comparing opera 10.63 and firefox 2.0.0.20 or opera 10.10 and firefox 2.0.0.20. im unsure on whether or not to include avast in my archived cd contents and builds because none of the builds i had acted weird like this system did, and i feel like the AV program just takes up resources and slows things down more than helping out with anything. i think i might also downgrade to java 1.3.1 which i think is the last officially supported version of java for windows 95, i've been using java 1.5.0.05 for a while now but somehow i feel like java 1.3.1 might work better? plus it takes up like half the space too ( the setup program ).

i was able to uninstall the old avast 4.8 and installed it again, though this time, i used a different installer, it seemed like the previous one wasn't specifically for windows 95 or it was modified somehow or maybe some other reason, regardless, the one i have installed now ( 4.8.1368 ) is apparently the last version supported for windows 95 and works, i have a 59 day license only but im trying to see if i can just type in one of those serial number key generators to see if it can make it unlimited or longer. i did a quick normal scan of the hard drive and it didn't detect any threats, i might do a thorough scan maybe sometime later though.