cov3rt

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.

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 2.4.4.0 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 )

ok, so i couldn't get hwmonitor 1.0.5.8 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.

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 2.4.4.0 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 2.4.4.0 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 2.4.4.0 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 2.4.4.0, if not more, or is there something more obvious that imgburn 2.4.4.0 has that PowerISO 4.9 doesn't. PowerISO 4.9 is a little newer, released i believe 11-15-11 and imgburn 2.4.4.0 was released 4-10-09, so that makes me assume in one sense that PowerISO 4.9 has more compatibility or functioning than imgburn 2.4.4.0.

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.

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 2.4.4.0 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.

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 1.0.5.8 which was released in 2007, i could not locate the more "stable" 1.0.5.9 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 1.0.5.8 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 1.0.5.8 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 1.0.5.8.zip

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

when you say the dma buffer size, are you talking about the amount of cache memory that normally comes on storage devices, for example, the typical 1 TB hard drive these days would have 64 MB of cache memory? i may have missed these "tweak" in the past, but is it also the setting in device manager for direct memory access controller as i do always set this to the max 64 setting, do you know what the reason is for not being able to set more than 60 MB for the setting? i personally always used 44000 for the minimum and maximum file cache ( for 1 GB systems ) with "maxphyspage=40000" and never ran into problems for 98SE systems. hopefully i am right on this but please someone correct me if i am wrong but i believe the these two file cache sizes just need to be a minimum of 1/24 of the ram, and because some problems tend to arrise with large vcache and being unnecessary in my opinion, i simply set it to the lowest possible and this seems to also "fix" another unknown weird issue that arises from having the "Defualt" settings, that's a long story and i don't really want to go and explain it. i may be wrong on this but it almost seems like this vcache aspect may be similar to superfetch or prefetch in the newer windows, only for 98SE, it has also a problem vulnerability, and on faster systems, it would seem unnecessary to have a large one in general.

like i mentioned previously, originally the laptop comes with windows xp, i am not sure on the exact service pack, but it is mainly for xp, i was never able to check hp's / compaq's site in the older days when they may have had it up on their actual site. i was hoping someone had the knowledge to fill in the other questions i asked. i simply wanted to install NT4 on the laptop so i can test some things specifically for NT4.

i did have similar problems with other systems i tested with the mouse cursor ( if installing NT4 on them ), but eventually i got them to function right, however, with this system, it just freezes non stop and prevents me progressing, so far i was able to get the plug and play file to install and automatic logon, however, once i try to go to wordpad to check some stuff out on my checklist file, it keeps freezing and i have to keep restarting and it goes back to the same problem, and it would freeze at different areas too. but i guess you asked a different question, i did try 98SE and 2K, the system did not work well with 98SE due to lack of support / proper support for the igpu or other related functions, with 2k, i think it ran fine for a certain point but i couldn't get the gpu to install, radeon mobility x200m. the default os for this particular laptop is windows xp, i never tested it on that, i'd assume it would work fine, but i have no reason to use windows xp, i specifically installed NT4 on this laptop so i can test stuff out for NT4, it's the only spare laptop i got right now to test with. i noticed a weird thing when i used the original configuration option, it worked "Better" and didn't freeze up as easily so i was able to install those two updates, however, picking that option again and testing it without it made no difference afterwards, it would still freeze up with minimal usage or opening things / clicking things with of course the mouse cursor and randomly opening the properties box in a cycle. i think that perhaps i didn't install the OS properly or it got corrupted during install, because i removed one piece of ram during installation ( not literally during ) but after it froze where i had to shut it down, i removed 1 GB from 2 GB, so i used 1 GB for the remaining installation.

i am trying to test windows NT4 server sp1 out on a compaq presario v2665us laptop and i was able to install on a 3999 MB partition in NTFS format, however, not that i am inside the OS, it keeps freezing in a timed manner, and before doing so, the mouse cursor moves weird and jumps around in a certain way and then i have to keep restarting the computer in order to see if i can test anything, so far, i have only been able to install winrar. also, i noticed it freezing during the installation and starting beeping too, that was with 2 GB of ram, when i removed 1 GB, and then it seemed to help it not act funny / freeze. i also noticed the message for plug and play os in installation did not show up, at least, from what i looked at my archived files, it mentions that as being part of the install process. im gonna see if i can work with it again and see if i can manage to install the plug and play file "PNPISA.INF", maybe possibly copying it to the desktop first or something like that. also i was wondering maybe if the problems i have anything to do with using the earliest NT4 server version, sp1 that is, at least, that's what it says right now. i suppose using NT4 server sp3 would be better or more stable? but i can't seem to find it anywhere on the internet, the only ones i found so far were ones being sold on ebay for example.

awww, wow, just when i thought youtube would have worked properly in a straightforward manner on firefox 9.01, now apparently it requires all sorts of other complicated / custom modifications, excluding the font fix which i have not tested yet, hmmm...., i may have to just go directly to using windows 2000 but i'll have to see. i still don't understand this whole compatibility thing, like why do they have to change all these browser settings, why can't they leave an option for backwards compatibility? is it simply a security reason or more important reasons, like d***, i still can't get over when youtube still worked on windows 95, even though i believe it was limited to 240p quality.

realtek 8185 supports wpa2 with odyssey client 4.56 and works on dell latitude d600, ebay sells rtl8185 for fairly cheap, i have not tested 8180, supposedly it was supposed to have a working windows 95 driver but i never got it to work on windows 95, though it was a pci card version i tested, i never tested the 8180 mini pci card version for 95 or 98SE. the broadcom wireless mini pci cards do not seem to work very well so i tend to avoid them if i can.

this may not be what you are looking for but if you wanted reasonable performance for light usage on windows 2000, the dell latitude d630 may not be a bad candidate, certainly nowhere near the performance of the original specs and other people mentioned here in this thread. you can use 1.2mm copper shims in between the gpu and main chipset with new thermal paste for all them including the cpu of course to not forget, and temperatures should be ok, the reason why i mentioned the dell latitude d630 is the majority of newer laptops or decently fast laptops do not have the ability to run windows 2000 because of sata drives, although, there are ways to get sata support through sata drivers integrated such as nlite, but it can be confusing or difficult to do, the d630 has sata compatibility mode in bios to allow running on windows 2000 sp4, this is what most laptops do not have and it's difficult / not very practical searching laptops one by one to see which one may have such a setting or not. i do want to make the notice in case you didn't know that the d630 has somewhat of a faulty nvidia chip, this is where the high temperatures mostly come from i believe as i have tested this myself, but i am not sure if the faulty part is simply because of the heat and / or some other problem.

this is interesting, makes me want to reconsider testing 98SE again with firefox 9.01 and the font-file modifications you mentioned, i made a mistake though on mentioning youtube playback not working, video playback still works as you mentioned as i just tested firefox 9.01 on windows 7 64 bit, however, because i had those earlier font problems on 98SE, this made me not use firefox 9.01, even though the video playback did still work. for the font related problem, i did not find that "MICROSS.TTF" file in my windows 7 system, even though youtube worked just fine, maybe that's a 9x specific file or something? i guess i'll just have to test a 98SE system hopefully in the near future.

i had the same issues you had pretty much, i was using firefox 9.01 earlier on 98SE when youtube was also working not too long ago but not only does youtube not work anymore but also those other issues you mentioned started showing up, basically making the web browser almost completely broken, i do not remember the exact functionality, but one huge problem was the "encoding" that causes letters to be typed in strange characters in certain sites such as youtube, i was told to check if one of the settings was set to true and it was, yet i still had the strange character problem. this caused me to switch back all the way to firefox 3.6.28 and it worked "ok" without the strange character problem, however, it is pretty limited in functionality such as not being able to print anything on the web browser ( i have never tested this myself, however on the kernelex page on firefox, it mentions the printing related errors ), and youtube of course doesn't work. honestly, at a quick glance so far, i see no nostalgic or other functional reason / purpose to use 98SE in this state, i would rather use windows 2000 with the extended kernel with firefox 31.8 esr web browser or windows 95 osr 2.5 with retrozilla 2.2 with tls 1.2 support, although this thread is mainly for 9x and another user mentioned to try keeping it relevant, i don't see what's wrong with mentioning these things, it shouldn't really have to matter where the information is located, if someone is googling the matter for example, then they will find it wherever it is, also, i noticed when trying to run that kmeleon 74 with goanna 2.2 or even the normal version, it would load into a black screen on windows 2000 so i am not sure what's up with that because last time i tested it on a different system, it worked fine. i had to switch back to firefox 31.8 esr due to this which required installing the extended kernel, however, firefox 31.8esr apparently doesn't load every html5 or all youtube videos for some reason, that's why i had tried using kmeleon 74 with goanna 2.2 earlier because it didn't have that same problem when i launched the same video that didn't work on firefox 31.8 esr, but who knows what the problem is, it's difficult enough finding out what the problem or culprit is when technology keeps changing.

well i disagree with your statement entirely, with that being said and relevant to your criticism, the file version for the retrozilla application file in my retrozilla 2.2 with tls 1.2 packaged web browser is 1.8.20180.5282 for those that are experimenting and have the same version file in their package.

i don't know the exact version i am using, i have it renamed to retrozilla 2.2 with tls 1.2 support and it worked on my recent testing on windows 95, it works better than kmeleon 1.5 versions and better than firefox 2.0.0.20, as well as better than opera 10.10, and IE 5.5 SP2, i never really tested the unofficial 10.63 on windows 95 that much, half the time it wouldn't work right i think and so i never kept it. the retrozilla 2.2 with tls 1.2 package i have is better in that i haven't really noticed it malfunctioning or freezing, it actually loads all or almost all web page content and quicker in doing so than other browsers i tested, this was with a pentium iii, i didn't do as much progression testing, i only used one site to download youtube videos and it worked fine, as well as wikipedia and image searching through google. i suppose with the added sse2 instructions in more modern cpu's like pentium 4 northwood, it would load sites better and offer better functionality. there still was some sort of certificate related error of accepting certificates, but i don't know if this was from a older version of retrozilla i tested or if it's a common problem in almost all of these older browsers, including the 2.2 with tls 1.2 support one. hopefully i can test another system and see if the same problem occurs, it's unfortunate the packages of these web browsers are just scattered without one knowing exactly which version to use and / or which is the best for their operating system, etc, it's been trial and error for me.

i've never used a virtual machine, as such, it would create the problems you explained for one. i always use a 98SE boot disk with 98SE os burned iso on another disc, although the specific boot disk i have is somewhat a modified version, i do not remember what i did to make it, however a normal 98SE boot disk should work ok for most basic partitioning, etc. so i use 98SE boot disk and launch fdisk, wipe any partitions not needed, create a new one, exit, reboot into fdisk again, now i can select the e: directory, then once in the e: directory, i type cd win95, you may have to retype it twice or three times , then i type format c:, then after it formats, i do md c:\win95, then copy *.* c:\win95, then i switch to the c: directory, specifically c:\win95, then i run setup from there. below is detailed installation instructions i made for myself below: . put in 98SE boot disk in optical drive and allow it to load or be selected from boot options . boot from cd rom, when the start up menu appears, select start computer with cd rom support . go to fdisk by typing fdisk in the command prompt and select yes for large disk support . clear all partitions that are not needed or create a specified partition and make it active after it you created the exact size . reboot, put back 98SE boot disk and make sure fdisk has the specified drive active . exit from fdisk and now that you are back in command prompt, you should be able to go into either the "d:" or "e:" drive . for custom builds that do not use the original windows cd, the optical drive directory will be most likely "e:" so type in "e:", then type "cd win98", or if it is windows 95, type "cd win95", it should then read "e:\win95" or "e:\win98" . you can then go ahead and type "format c:", press "Y" . then after format completes, press enter and then type "md c:\win98" or "md c:\win95" and then press enter . then type "copy *.* c:\win95" or "copy *.* c:\win95" and press enter, this will copy install files to "c:" drive . then you can change to the "c:" drive and run setup by typing "c:", press enter, and then type "cd win98" or "cd win95" and press enter . then it should read either "c:\win95" or "c:\win98" and you can then type "setup" and press enter or a different command of setup depending on the system, some systems may require running a certain setup switch such as "setup /p i" . the setup should now load and should not need the cd anymore unless specified, i like to keep it in for the first setup phase and remove it right after the 1st phase restarts, for windows 95, some systems with fast processors such as pentium 4 will need you to load fix95cpu version 3.0 right before the 2nd setup phase to allow fully installating of windows or else a windows protection error occurs, this update also fixes other things

it's interesting, in the past, i used to copy all these requested files into the same folder when the wizards asked for certain files, but this obviously wasn't the right way in doing things and was very impractical because it required knowing exactly what files were needed in the first place. i am not sure on the process for tcp/ip, does that mean you already have the winsock 2 update or are you just seperately configuring tcp/ip? i never had to manually install tcp/ip in windows 95, all i had to do was install the winsock 2 update and restart the system right after. in any case, if winsock 2 is installed properly, for the wizard problem, i usually type "c:\windows" or "c:\windows\system" for it to find certain files as the files in these folders are also usually the newest and latest. you can even use the find wizard to manually locate the requested file and see where it's located, although in some cases, such as upon restart, you won't be able to access the find app, since it only shows the wizard, in this case, you'll just have to use either the two areas i just listed or some other directory, i actually have to do this in certain chipset inf updates where it requests a certain ide file which i have to point to "c:\windows\system\iosubsys".

hmm..., gtk radiant 1.2.11 wouldn't even launch actually on windows 95, so i lied about it working earlier. maybe it's just this specific system i am using, it gave an illegal operation error, also the 1.2.13 update almost seems like a full version and not really just a update, when i installed it, it had a separate program directory. 1.1.1 only seems to support quake 3, i didn't bother installing it. the change from 1.2.11 to 1.2.13 made no difference, launching 1.2.13 separately still had the illegal operation error. interestingly, "GtkRadiantSetup-1.3.13-raven" installed and launched up with no errors, also "GtkRadiantSetup-1.4.0-raven" installed with no errors and launched up. i haven't tested 1.5 or newer, however, i suspect it may be a problem the newer i go, even if they install and launch. i suppose using a newer gtk radiant would be better if it can have better support for things, so as long they are stable and windows 95 can support / handle these features.

hi, i was wondering if anyone has had experience with using gtk radiant, i have googled a bit on it but it's a bit complicated for me to figure out what i need to do. basically what i have in mind is to make some maps using a supported game such as return to castle wolfenstein. the operating system i want to use is windows 95. i have been hearing from the forums that gtk radiant 1.2.11 / 1.2.13 are more "stable" than gtk radiant 1.4 or 1.5, i have not tried to install 1.4 or 1.5 on windows 95, i tried "GtkRadiantSetup-1.3.13-raven" and it installed and was able to run without any errors, although i didn't actually test it as i had no game to test, i just launched the program. i also got gtk radiant 1.2.11 to work in the past, and up to update 1.2.13 works, but no actual map editing or testing, only installation of the program itself. for me, my biggest concern if this makes sense is whether or not what i can do within the map editor itself will be supported fully in windows 95, i am fairly novice to any of the things in map creation, definitions of things like vertex / pixel stuff, etc, although i do have a general idea of what they would mean or translate into. i have used warcraft 3's world editor and like it a lot, even though my expertise on it is very basic, i would have installed it and used it again, however, the game has gone through many changes, combined with windows 10 and my specific system changes, i do not think i can run it properly, even if i do try to reinstall it. being that windows 95 only supports up to directx 8.0a officially, i was wondering how well i can construct maps using the features offered in gtk radiant, for example, gtk radiant 1.3.13 runs and supports wolfenstein: enemy territory but windows 95 does not support that game as it is a directx 8.1 game, i was gonna use RTCW possibly. i want to know what are the factors that would affect how well i can make maps look, and / or stability of the game level editor itself, also, as a somewhat off topic or broad issue, i was wondering if anyone has installed or experimented with directx 8.0b as it is supposed to be supported on windows 95, i wanted to know if installing it would allow increased functionality, such as better vertex / pixel shader operation, etc. i made a thread on this a while ago, however, there wasn't really a definite answer to confirm 100 percent on how to install directx 8.0b, other than simply copying over one of the files, there is also the 8.0a SDK package and it's complicated for me to know what to do with that.

please if you can post the hardware id of the audio device and NIC, for the gpu, you would have to use the one mentioned by ABCDEFG, i uploaded a copy below to download, which may or may not work because it does not have all the packaged contents, install the gpu driver by manually changing the the vga display adapter, use have disk option and point it to the package and select whatever is listed i believe, reboot if needed and you should be able to set the resolution up to 1024x768 with 32 bit color. vbemp9x (128MB).zip

thanks for the info, i WOULD put back windows 2000, however, as i mentioned before, i can't get the d*** thing to work with the gpu, it causes a black screen upon reboot after gpu driver install which i suspect has to NOT do with the gpu driver but a problem with detecting a monitor as the system does not have a monitor upon installation. the vbemp driver for windows 2000 works, but then the system is very limited in performance and functioning because vbemp is just a cosmetic solution. i have not found any solutions through google on how to fix this issue. the monitor in the properties section is greyed out for the list of modes and you can't change it, so the sony 1024x768 lcd monitor driver posted on the driver page for driverscape is useless if i can't actually change the monitor or install a monitor.