Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


Azvareth

Member
  • Content count

    15
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Azvareth

  • Birthday 05/13/1968

Profile Information

  • OS
    Windows 10 x64
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

250 profile views
  1. It is something with the link and the Firewall - I think , I installed a plugin in firefox that "fixes" google links , and now it works with the firewall on (for now at least). But only in FireFox... But there is something with the FW that let some urls (with garbage?) be opened and prevent some other urls, perhaps when a redirection to a new host is done on the target url? problem is - there should be som settings in there. Is there any tool someone is aware of that may expose the FW blocking settings and display it in a better list format with target ip-name visible and to what rule it may be connected to? I did find some program called Windows Firewall Control, and that provided some kind of list. However I could still not find any entry, I did find some destination IP blocked by me, but if any of those IP adresses where blocked by the FW then the link should not have worked even with the extension I enabled in firefox? unless something is adding weird things to the google (and duckDuckGo) links in the search result page? Still nothing that suggest such a thing is found in the FW...
  2. ehmmm this is very strange? Several days I had problems with that website, I had to turn of the firewall everytime when I tried to access it... but now, when I tested ping, it did respond, when I tested the link I provided in my own post, it worked, I provide this links as provided to me by google, I suggest though that anyone interested, do a search for themself instead of trusting my links. when I searched on google for "geforce drivers" https://www.google.se/search?num=20&newwindow=1&source=hp&ei=Eb75WoKXMMqbsAGmyZ6QBg&q=geforce+drivers&oq=geforce+drivers&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.1016.4472.0.5268.16.15.0.0.0.0.82.1116.15.15.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..1.15.1110.0..0i131k1.0.CU3uXcqOwmg and tested the topmost link https://www.google.se/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjBp9am1IXbAhVuyKYKHRMSAJwQFggnMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.geforce.com%2Fdrivers&usg=AOvVaw0_M0ltc2QZ1AyTIJWwcZQe When I use those links as presented in my browsers, I can NOT surf to geforce with firewall ON (or sometimes when other sites reference geforce.com) but if I disable it, I can. weird...
  3. Hello. I have stumbled upon some strange phenomena I recently encountered when trying to download drivers to various nvidia cards and their target OS (not win 10). Everytime I try to access https://www.geforce.com/ my browser get blocked. This behaviour is the same with IE, Edge, FF or chrome. But if I disable Windows Firewall, I have access. Then all browser go to https://www.geforce.com/ - yes the site redirect me to https://www.nvidia.com that works with or without the firewall but that is not the point, the problem is that I could not find any entry in the firewall itself that explain this behaviour. And I like to be in control of what addresses I can or can't go to (as long as it is not illegal) with my browsers. Does anyone now what is going on here? Has anyone else encountered something similar? and most of all, What settings to change? //thanks
  4. Memory limit installing W9x/ME, and various...

    Ok... nothing worked, got the HD destroyed everytime Win10 did write on it. Win9x also only detected the first partition (after a while) so I dumped it, gave up so to speak on this machine... Just as a quick sidenote (I know this section is not for XP) : I tried XP (thinking of using apps in w9x compability mode), but it only recognized the boot disk, all other HD's were "gone" as far as XP was concerned. Also graphics driver for MB did not work. network and sound where no problems after some research... So I quit it for now... //Thanks for the help, I appreciate the files you have given links to and the usage.
  5. Memory limit installing W9x/ME, and various...

    @LoneCrusader Sorry if I sounded a bit "annoying" in my previous post, it was a bit to late for me and perhaps I was a bit to hungry. Or some else excuse... Today I am much more relaxed. I have no problems if people wish to earn money for their work, but I don't think many would buy, not for such old soft and hardware. For example: Yes there are still a lot of Windows 9x keys lying in peoples homes - as in mine, but I figure most of the people interesting in W9x simply download some ISO (with key) and install it into some emulator, PCEm is fine for real hardware emulation. Then they download some old game, like carmageddon play it a while. Then they move on, not paying a dime for anything. It is not about who is selling, it is about who is buying... or to cite megadeath: "peace sells, but whos buying?" I will check out the rowle.. .something package / solution stuff, when the time is right... I still have some other issues I need to figure out first. These are: Should I use older hardware, if so which one? Have to check the attic. If not, figure out why my drive (whole disk) remove itself when trying to installing unofficial SP3, giving diskwrite error, then it is gone (tried it two times - same error). Have to restore it (without data loss) with some partitioning tool with subtool "partition recovery wizard". I also need too figure out if it is possible to solve why drive is going in DOS mode or something, despite windows installer installed IDE drivers for that machine. The graphic problem was solved, found an ATI x850 that seems to work, sounds like a jet at bootup, but fan spins down quite fast so it is managable, and the driver works too. The memory problem is sort of solved by alternating between HIMEMX and LIMEM using HIMEMX when all is working OK and LIMEM when problems occure, it seems that HIMEMX is more stable to the system, I am not sure but it "feels" like it. I also found a DLINK WiFi USB card DWL-G122 C (also lying around - yea I am a horder ;-) don't throw anything that works), the drivers installed fine as well, but no stable connection between the router and NIC... I got to MSN IE start page once, perhaps some setting I don't understand yet. The sound is still untested, but all lights on the sound devices (both in computer and external) say it works. So... I did not meant to be rude, I was just tired...
  6. Memory limit installing W9x/ME, and various...

    Silly evil crap.... Nothing works with this MB... no backwards compability whatsoever If I am using the /LJ switch (with LIMEM) I got one error saying not enough memory and everything halts... Changed the mouse, did not work, changed from one andersson to one lenovo (both cheap and newer models) same problem. Stupid Windows 10, after update yesterday (I have no control what MS like to do with this computer) I can't write to my FAT32 Windows 98 partition anymore, well I can, but when I come back in Windows 98, it cant read it, some sector error. if I boot into Linux, and simply copy that file or folder to a new one and then boot into Windows 98, I can read that file or folder, so it must be something with Windows 10. And I am running the higher half of SATA in IDE mode, so CD/DVD and the W98 disk is mapped to this. Graphic cards driver... don't know, I have an ASUS NF?66-D128 something similar, what I read was that it should be the same as 6600GT card? but drivers don't seem to work, I managed to install the driver, but windows refused to boot after that. had to revert from backup, I will try one ASUS EN8500GT as well, if there is drivers for it, because it has VGA out and I only have one spare VGA monitor for now... That is the reason I don't have tried the Quad FX yet. Otherwise I will go thru my pile of ATI cards, and see if something may work. As a sidenote, I manage to get the Mach64 card to work in W98, but on this MB it was problematic with BIOS settings and Linux refused to boot at all with it present, and I could not enter BIOS settings when that card was primary. If it continue to mess with me, I think I will test one older MB (have 4), with 486 or early Pentium - not sure what I have... (but I know some have ISA slots) - if I am to build a true retro machine, perhaps one should go back to the roots all the way. perhaps this thread should be renamed to something like "various problems installing W98" instead... Anyway I have a question. I have an old ATI Radeon 7000 but... it has been inside an old PPC PowerMac (G3 Windtunnel), as far as I know, an equal GFX Card for PC will not work in MAC before it is reflashed, is it the same way around on Windows? must it be reflashed before it will work? Is windows using internal code from the GFX Card itself or does it only rely on drivers to talk to the card?
  7. Memory limit installing W9x/ME, and various...

    Hmmm... not sure what you are getting at. First: So from my perspective, I am not building a workstation and I am not really a gamer either, I am just doing this for fun, and it is my hobby to test all kinds of stuff, and what a computer could be used for. One point of that is, and I am sure you understand if you have read my posts and my references to flea markets. Is that it must be as cheap as possible. However it MUST be done on real hardware in my case, everything works in VBox or VMWare, so some investement is neccessary, but I hope to reuse as much old stuff I got in this project. second: I don't beleive in turning this into some Amiga thing, Amiga was something else, a milestone in computer history, Amiga stuff do cost much money today, and the Amiga community is perhaps not bigger, but has a better software library and a deeper ? knowledgebase, that few can compete with - and is still usable if you have an accelerator. Yes, I did own an Amiga before I jumped on my first PC, a P90 with Win95 so I am "biased". Therefore I don't think you can make money on a Win9x machine / OS. Not much anyway, it should be for some specific usage with software that still is mandatory for that person/organisation. The rest of us? not so much (my opinion only). Stuff for the OS itself should be free, if not, then it is better (my opinion again) to create a suite of everything needed on top of Win9x and sell it as a bundle so the end user pay for one product and then got a working machine instead of: ohh to get that to work, go to this adress and buy this... and then later discover that, ohhh if you need that to work, then go to this adress and buy that. to last figure out, there is no way that could work. Actually, if all files to make Win98 usable today was pay for only, I guess rloew solution would be obsolete in that case. Third: It might be that I could build a perfectly older system (based on early XP hardware) and that I might consider bying some solutions if neccessary, but not before I know if I really need it, and I can make the system work. Im my case there is only one application that I would like to use that not exists as newer version to my knowledge, and that is something called DOP (Digital Orchestral Pro), and the only reason I would like to have it is because I used it on my first P90 in combination with nTrack if I remember correctly and my electric guitar and Roland AMP, I could not record the guitar with the sequenced music playing along, I had to have the tempo clicking, and remeber the chords I sequenced before and play the guitar "blindly" from memory. No I never became a rock star, but it was "fun" and for the hardware resources I had back then, quite impressive results despite of that. It would be fun to clone the setup and see what one could do today with it, when we have been spoiled with so fast computers and so many applications. if you wish to know how something produced at home, on an old W9x machine "could" sound like -just out of curiosity perhaps here are three links of music I did and found on one of my old backup CD's burned back then, still working but yellow. http://recover.novallie.se/HEA1-DOP.mp3 http://recover.novallie.se/HEA2-DOP.mp3 http://recover.novallie.se/HEA3-DOP.mp3 sequenced in DOP saved as WAV, then a lot of effects to remove the "midi" sound as far as possible, then guitar was mixed in with nTrack. Ok I was a young guitarist and this was 1998 or something.... dont judge. So that is the reason I am interresting to build a "new" old machine. Ok I will check if the mouse is the culprit. I tried the LAN drivers, and it does not seem to work (downloaded the Win9x version on the site) Will test the Quadro driver as well...
  8. Memory limit installing W9x/ME, and various...

    Hi again... Ok... I did go almost completely with MrMateczko's solution a posts up... I reserved a ~126 GB partion and moved the rest of the data on the 700GB version, installed DOS71 then added HIMEMX and installed Windows as normal. I still did have mouse problems during install but I guess it is before W98 loads USB drivers for mouse... I also had to dump HIMEMX and go with LIMEM, and simply replacing himem.sys. mouse problems comes back when a failsafe mode is needed, but navigate with keyboard works. Do not know how to handle LIMEM switches yet, so I go with 128MB ram for now, I guess that is quite plenty anyway. Unfortunatly my MB only have one PCI slot (but two PCI-e) so I am quite limited to what to install into it (sfx card or nic). I have one USB sound card wireless transmitter, and it seems that W98 liked it, have not tested yet as it is late, and it is plugged in 24/7 to my stereo (found on fleemarket to). However on some pirated and modified Windows 98 install CD's - and not used by me, as I go with legit CD's from the era. I found some drivers for nVidia Quad FX 1000 and Quad FX 2000. So I think I will try a longshot and see if one of them perhaps may work with my Quad FX 1700. However I am suspicious, as that card did not get any drivers to W98 as far as I am aware. (but I "think" I have a couple of GeForce 6600, and a 6800 lying around somewhere, and that may be supported) Anyways, I would like to thank you for your support. The machine is up and running with Uni-Vesa drivers (vbemp9x) and I am going to test all tips and links posted in this thread (after a backup of this working system). //Thank you
  9. Memory limit installing W9x/ME, and various...

    Do you have some usage manual to it? what switches and what parameters the switches use?
  10. Memory limit installing W9x/ME, and various...

    Yes I need it, so I would not rewrite any MBR - I do not wish to install one, I use GRUB2 to boot everything. /IR Bypasses detection of system CMOS/BIOS and does not update Master Boot Record (MBR). But I may do the 700MB variant. I guess that I can load it from GRUB, so I do not have to use BIOS Bootman, but it is no big deal to use it if I must. Win98 did start (using HIMEMX) so there where something glitchy with the installer and Explorer.exe Yes and No, after the SUWIN error, I created (as far as the setup was concerned) a copy of my drive (the disk where created with Windows disk management and was VHD) , a small C: with DOS71 and a larger and a D: where win98 should go, I mounted the drives in VBox, installed DOS71 onto C: (from CD image) then I mounted a CDImage into VBox with win98, booted VBox from DOS71 and then accessed the CD image from that DOS and started the installer with correct switches. After the first reboot requester from win98 install, I shut down VBox and transfeered all files to physical drive/partition and continued the setup from there. No ps/2 mouse, but the mouse worked in Win98 as expected, when setup was done. could perhaps be that the inital setup was done with an emulated PS/2 mouse. Anyway I will try a new setup, and test the LIMEM thing as well, will report on it later. The graphic switch is great but on the computer my son stole. I have not these switches in my mainboard BIOS... //I will be back later for more help (i guess)
  11. Memory limit installing W9x/ME, and various...

    Small update... Did not work out so well to install it... Did start setup from DOS71 with SETUP /IR /P i (and to be sure) /Pi Got error early in the setup, some SUWIN error, so I tried different BIOS settings... did not work. Finally I created a virtual disk in Windows disk manager. Mounted them there to. Used a third part app to partition, format and set the flags correctly I then detached the VHD disk, mounted them in VBox and run the installer from there and let it go until the first reboot. There I closed down VBox without finishing the setup. Then I mounted the drives in Windows diskmanager again and transfered the virtual files onto the physical drive (only changing to HIMEMX) instead of HIMEM, rebooted and continued thru the setup. Seemed to work like a charm, except for the mouse that moves irratic and is useless for the moment. but when the installer should load Explorer.exe, it failed, showing the same error I remember long time ago when resources was out, a white requester with thick black text that it could not start. Any clues to what is happening? yes I know, not much info, but I have not memorised or written down the errors exactly, yet.
  12. Memory limit installing W9x/ME, and various...

    Hi Thank you for the reply... 1. BIOS is in "both" modes - I don't know how it works - but it does, I did test with a hackintosh wich requires UEFI if I remeber correctly (AMD) thing just to see if it worked and it did, then uninstalled and removed, and DOS boots fine as well, however I am using GRUB2 as a bootmanager for everything. 2. Thanks for that switch thing, did not know about that, I did some research about switches because I do not wan't Windows 98 to destroy my MBR or something - at http://www.thpc.info/how/switches9x.html, so I guess I need to write SETUP.EXE /IR /P i ? (the other approach would have been to map that partion in VBox as a raw disk for direct access)... that would have solved the installer memory problem as well I guess. 3. Actually.... it does "sort of", after I wrote my post, I did try it (I kicked my son from that computer) I had the cards mounted, allready. In windows7 the Mach64 card was marked as not working in device manager, while Geforce G100 did so I went to BIOS and switched settings from detect PCI-e from first to detect PCI first and behold, the PCI card was the active card, but only working in generic VGA mode (no drivers for Win7) but it worked, however now the G100 was marked as not working... I don't know if it is possible to solve with manual IRQ settings or something... as that is over my level for now. At least it is possible to swap without fiddling with cables and hardware. 4. I think I go with the BIOS settings, at least for now. I might change my mind later. 5. LAN drivers would not be an issue, but I will not use Windows 98 to surf the web directly, no good browsers left... and that got me thinking, how could a community like AROS and ICAROS desktop (based on Amiga 3.1 OS) have a relative good working browser called Oddesy or something... and Windows 98 does not? never mind, just thoughts. Anyway, I have an unboxed LAN 10/100 card with drivers included, box says it works with 98SE, 2000 and XP mark is SWEEX, bought at a flea market for ~ $2 dollars, hope drivers is on CD and not floppy - however I have floppy drives in the attic :-) . Audio is a complete other problem, I have a spare Soundblaster XFI something edition as well, but I do not know if it is compatible - have to do some research. //Thanks for the help.
  13. Hi! Me: Old member, but not really active until now... I have started to build a W9x system, I used an Athlon 3800+ CPU, A8V-E SE MB, 4GB of RAM, Quadro FX 1700 recently swapped to an GeForce G 100 (don't know what is best) - was planning to use it in combination with an ATI Mach 64 VT2 (PCI) card...., Soundblaster Audigy 2, and one 120 GB SSD mapped in bios as an IDE (I think), anyway I installed Win 7:32 on it, then MSDos 7.1 and was planning to install Windows 98 SE from there. But my son stole the machine to be used as a youtube watching equipment, so until I can get a new youtube machine to him, it is gone... So now I am back on my main machine CPU: AMD A8-7650K Radeon R7, 3.3 Ghz MB: Gigabyte F2A88XM-HD3 (P0) MEM: 16 GB OS: Win10 64Bit, Linux Mint and MSDOS 7.1 in a multiboot system HDD1: Corsaire Force GS - 128 GB partition (1:System Reserved - 682 MB, 2:Win764 - 108.7 GB, 3:DOS7.1 - 2 GB, 4:WIn9x - 7.7 GB) DOS&Win9x is FAT 32 (logical) the other NTFS + 1 HD for Linux and various data (1TB) Ext4 + NTFS + 1 HD for Music (700GB) - NTFS I have not yet installed my Win9x/me system and here is where my question is starting to unfold... First: Is it a good idea to install Windows 9x/me on a machine like this will it "work"? My DOS works so I thought that my Win98 will Work to Second: I have read everywhere that Win9x installers don't like to much memory, is there a way to bypass that ? - I searched your forum and did not found any good topic about it. Third: Is it possible to attach the Mach64 VT card (VGA) and use it in combination with the internal graphics so that I output Mach64 to monitor VGA input and R7 internal GFX to same monitor DVI input and switch between those cards with monitor input selector? (if you understand my thoughts). Fifth: What about sata drives, do I need to change it to IDE mode in BIOS or does it work with some drivers loaded in DOS mode, and DOS71 do work on SATA HD at least, so I guess Win9x should to...? lastly: are there any other limitations with the HW itself that could cause problems? thanks in advanced... (no, there is no option to build yet another retro machine, I got a wife)
  14. yes I saw that.. And it is a great approach.. But again that would not let any application of user choice run in a second thread (as someone wanted to)... I was perhaps in misstake as I thought I read somewhere that Windows 9x would not run at all with more cores then two, good to se there is no limits. But if any application should be able to run inside another core, then there would need to be some sort of mechanism that maps win resources, memory and perhaps win api to that core, so a process on that core could call the first W9x core's system API, kind of like an system debugger a la softIce on that core breaking out and do some remap for certain tasks (as I said I am a lamer and do not know the internals, just guessing on how it possible would work)... However this is a big task and I do not think it is something that would happen even if it where possible... perhaps redesigning DOSBox as a virtual machine running in other cores?. Anyway I like the idea I read about the API implementation you have, is it available for free or do it cost something where if available could one (I?) read more about it?
  15. I know this is an old post and perhaps should not be reactivated but... I think I need to share my thoughts as well. If a bios (that is software in a chip) could program in some way a NT machine to not "see" a second (or more?) core, then this might be able to do at startup in dos before win9x start as well and therefore it might be possible to run Win9x (on one core) on a "newer" multicore machine... If this theoretical "thing" (above) that prohibit w9x to see other cores, also have an API, that stand alone applications could call and see, dont ask me how cuz Im a lamer, then that core theoretical should be able to access all memory range outside of W9x knowledge I guess. Problem is, such an API or whatever, would need to have some sort of memory manager that coexist with w9x to register allocated mem, devices and stuff processed from that core, this must be registered and known by w9x system as well. Secondly, you would need to have some sort of taskmanager to taskswitch processes on that core. Seems like a big job. And in the end. it looks like it would be an early NT system hacked together from 9x, perhaps it is better to let w9x be just w9x, you might wish to do the first "bios" thing though, but still there might not be drivers for such a new computer anyway. So to something that may look like a review of my machine, well it is but I have a point I would like to adress below it. My test machine (and for nostalgic reasons) today, a Dell GX60 with Celeron 2.4 GhZ 1 core CPU, 1GB physical mem with 999Mb usable memory (31% used at startup) and no swapfile active, Internal Intel 82845G Graphics (dedicated 8MB of ram to that), ethernet (internal), sound & joystick, 200GB HD part(10, 25+, 150+)gb. This machine is running Windows ME with all KernelEx stuff and updates to allow it to run somewhat updated internet related software. It was not an easy task to find drivers to get it to work - as the machine was designed for XP by Dell. Can't imagine newer hardware would be any easier, thus rendering the topic obsolete even if it is possible, more or less. The machine speed? Works great with local applications, but when it comes to webbrowsing, it will not handle the burden, even if using k-melon. other networking apps like torrent client ABC is fine Games: HALO, AoE, Swat3, Half Life 1, Doom, Centurion and such works great, no lag, fine graphic speed Development: Visual Studio 6, Delphi 6 PE working perfectly and fine Office: MSXP and MS97 did not work well here none of them, had to turn to OoO 2.4 smoth and fine here ... and a lot of other things, like WMP 10 streaming from online radio tuner, great with no lag, playing local files works great as well. Point is: are there really a need to use one or more core(s) with w9x? specially as said before, computers with that many cores might not have drivers for the rest of the hardware. Even if - as also said above, it was possible to lock out cores from W9x but still have a faster CPU speed. The solution if one wan'ts more core's might be to move onto w2k? personally I did not like that myself and would actually go for w2k3 (or XP) and strip it down as much as possible... but then it is even more OT then before, so see solutions mentioned at the beginning of post. Well thank you for interesting reading, no need to flame me, I would most likely not read it, I just stumbled on the post and wished to give my point of view.
×