rloew

The problem in Windows ME is definitely different. I traced down the last System Message received by NVCORE and bypassing it did not help.

Shutdown works with this variant on my main system with 82.69 and a Geforce 6600GT. Will test the other PC tomorrow. This is so awesome. Thx. If you are saying that "32 75" does not work but "24 72" does and you are using 98SE, further testing is required. "24 72" affects many System Messages so it may have unwanted side effects.What works for you needs to be narrowed down.

I just ran some tests. Apparently the problem is different in Windows ME. This Patch does not work for ME. I have Edited Post #1 to indicate this. I ran some more tests looking for an alternative but did not find any obvious ones.

I did not test it with ME so I have no idea if it would work for me either. There may be more System Messages beyond 36 to test.

Well, it all depends on how old one's nVidia card is: please do re-read this, this and (maybe) this. So the patch to 77.72 may, in fact, be useful. None of your links actually say that the 77.72 Driver has a Shutdown Problem with any Card.Just in case someone finds a use for it. The corresponding Patch for the 77.72 Version is as follows: 144: 14 -> 23 2D394E: 2E 1A E7 FF -> C2 05 00 00 2D3F14: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 -> 3C 32 75 02 B0 52 89 44 24 04 E9 5D 14 E7 FF Drugwash probably could use this to verify his Patcher at the low Version end. The code in this portion of the File seems to have little if any changes between 77.72 and 82.69.

I already Patched 77.72 as I used it in some experiments. I did not post the Patch because as far as I know 77.72 is not susceptable to this problem.

@Schwups: Are you using ME or 98SE? I only tested it on 98SE. You mentioned a Cursor. I assume you mean a DOS Cursor. I get a Black Screen with no Cursor. I don't think the resolution is being changed back to 640x480 either. If you want to experiment, try changing just the 32 to one of the following, boot Windows, Shutdown (not Reboot or Boot to DOS), then try the next. 24 thru 2F, 34, 35 or 36.

You are correct. The destination of the Jump is 174BD0 not 174B00. The Font setting for my DOSBox makes 'D' and '0' look similar.@Schwups: Your problem may be different from mine. Resetting from the hung screen left me with Dirty Flags in my Hard Drive.

Downloaded, Analyzed and added to Post #1.

It shouldn't matter as long as the Patch ends up in WINDOWS\SYSTEM\NVCORE.VXD.If it is not working, try changing the second and third bytes of the long Patch from 32 75 to 24 72. If this works let me know.

I don't have it. Your link isn't working, everything is ghosted out. I'm interested in the entire package, not just NVCORE. You can E-Mail up to 25MB per message to my Hotmail Address.

The last Windows 9x official NVidia Video Driver Version 81.98 and the unofficial Version 82.69 both hang during Shutdown when used with 6xxx or 7xxx Video Cards. I have analyzed the problem and it appears that one of a couple of System Broadcast Message Call never returns. I have developed a Patch to bypass these Messages. This Patch is for Windows 98SE and Windows ME. It has not been tested with Windows 98FE or Windows 95. Since this Patch only affects Shutdown Functions, it should not have any affect on normal operations. Boot to DOS seemed unaffected on the one machine I tested. I have not tested Suspend or Hibernate as my test machine didn't support it before. I have not tested 82.16 or 82.69, but other people have. The Patch is applied to the WINDOWS\SYSTEM\NVCORE.VXD File as follows: Version 81.98: (Revised 07/29) 144: 24 -> 3B 31F35E: 9E 55 E5 FF -> C2 05 00 00 31F924: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 -> 3C 04 74 08 3C 25 74 04 3C 32 75 02 B0 52 89 44 24 04 E9 C5 4F E5 FF Version 82.16: (Revised 07/29) 144: AC -> C3 31F6E6: E6 54 E5 FF -> C2 05 00 00 31FCAC: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 -> 3C 04 74 08 3C 25 74 04 3C 32 75 02 B0 52 89 44 24 04 E9 0D 4F E5 FF Version 82.69: (Revised 07/29) 144: C8 -> DF 329802: DA A7 E4 FF -> C2 05 00 00 329DC8: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 -> 3C 04 74 08 3C 25 74 04 3C 32 75 02 B0 52 89 44 24 04 E9 01 A2 E4 FF Revised 07/29/15 to include third System Message for Windows ME

I'm sorry - are you running a Program that will take five months to complete ON WINDOWS 98? Are you sure it can stay up that long? Yes and No. There is no way I could guarantee even having power for five months.The Program saves it's intermediate results roughly daily. It passed the halfway point a few days ago.

Are you runnnig windows 98 on more than one core? Seems you are in for a 9x version of ReactOS...haha, no not that...better with the real thing, though modified... Windows 98 only runs on one Core, which can be any one of them. I wrote an API to use the others.

Possibly. I don't remember. I know it wasn't Intel. I would have to dig through a lot of stuff to find the answer.

I have one from that era that could switch between 8086 and Z80 so it could run CPM80 as well.

@Nomen >> If you have a newer Motherboard with Native Mode SATA, it's likely there is no 9x driver for it. > Again I ask just how far you can go running win-9x on a motherboard made after 2006 or 2007? Quite far. See my Computer descriptions in Dencorso's >1GB Thread. >If we are talking single-boot OS, running win-9x natively on any system, why would you want to struggle with many drivers missing, ethernet, sound, video, usb - when there are many older boards available on ebay for almost nothing and you can build a system with pre-2007 hardware. Performance. I am currently running a Program that will take five months to complete. Based on smaller runs, it would have taken 40 years to run on 2004 Hardware. USB works in every Computer I have tried. So does Firewire if provided. Ethernet was fine until at least 2010. I did find a Driver that worked with 2014 hardware but at limited speed. USB Ethernet is an option. USB Audio is a fairly simple solution to Sound if you do not want to use a Card. Video was the first to go but PCI-E Cards can be used. >If we are talking dual-boot OS (say, win-7 / win-9x) then you run 9x in a VM and no need to bother about driver issues (but you will have poor performance, possibly poor video resolution, but you obviously have some dire reason to run 9x so you have little choice here). I run Multiboot 95/98/ME/XP/7/8/Linux. I have never used a VM. >> If you want to buy an Add-on Card for it, you can. But they are more expensive, take up vauable PCI slot space, >> and waste the Motherboard Controllers. >Many boards have many PCI slots. PCI slots are not "valuable" the way I see it. Apparently you haven't looked at a newer Motherboard. They are mostly or entirely PCI-E. No AGP. Two PCI if you are lucky. >Any motherboard that has on-board SATA controller that you can't find 9x drivers for will be a motherboard that will be an absolute pain to run 9x on and certainly not worth the effort when you will almost certainly not have drivers for many other important motherboard sub-systems. Motherboard SATA goes back to 2003 or earlier. I don't think there were 9x Drivers for them back then either. >> I heard the same kinds of arguments about my High Capacity Disk Patch and RAM Limitation Patch. >Again, win-9x is very happy to run with 512 mb ram, and you can push that to 1024 mb very easily almost all the time without needing special patches. Depends upon what you use it for. If you just browse the Intenet, you don't need much. My RAM Limitation Patch is my biggest selling product. >I don't know what the high capacity disk patch is or why someone would need it, but sata hard drives between 160 gb to 1 tb are very common, cheap, and most likely would meet the needs of 99.999% of people running win-9x today. Without my High Capacity Disk Patch, you were limited to 137GB so none of the Drives you mentioned would work. Only years later did LLXX give away her version. So you need my Patch or hers. >> My customers clearly do not agree with you. >I'm a win-98 "power user" and I certainly can get by very easily without any of your patches. Anyone investigating the use of win-9x should be aware of what their options are, and some of those options involve setting up systems that don't need your patches. Power is relative. You an easily build a limited system without patches. I never said you can't. You will have a Computer that runs slower, has less RAM, little or no RAM DISK space, only one useable core and a moderate sized Hard Drive at best. I have already filled my 4TB Hard Drive and am experimenting with 6TB Drives.

Probably have?If you have ancient hardware, you probably don't need my SATA Patch. You can always use an IDE to SATA Adapter. If you have a newer Motherboard with Native Mode SATA, it's likely there is no 9x driver for it. If you want to buy an Add-on Card for it, you can. But they are more expensive, take up vauable PCI slot space, and waste the Motherboard Controllers. I heard the same kinds of arguments about my High Capacity Disk Patch and RAM Limitation Patch. My customers clearly do not agree with you.

quick question but can windows 95 also use sata drives like ide devices the same way that you would do in windows 98 if you simply select the ide compatibility / legacy mode option in the bios? i dont care if the drives are limited in performance, as long as they appear in device manager as one detected dvd burner and one hard drive without any issues, that is all i need. If you can select Legacy Mode rather than Native Mode for your SATA Drives, Windows 95 will not know they are SATA Drives and will work fine.If not, you will need my SATA Patch. When I said "limited in performance" in my earlier posts, I meant "Compatability Mode" which means "Device Manager will show it as Uninstalled" and Optical Drives will not be detected. I haven't tested Windows 95 with AHCI yet, but I dion't think it will be any more of a problem than Windows 98.

PS/2 Mice and Keyboards work with Windows 95. Neither USB Mice nor Keyboards work with Windows 95. Only a major Patch that Lonecrusader and I developed can run USB Mice or Keyboards.

My High Capacity Disk Patch works with Windows 95 and ME as well as 98.

Some sites explicitly block specific browsers. Others bring up additional material, often advertising, that fails. For some reason IE6 shows the "Unavailable Page" message when this happens. I have found that blocking the offending material, using my HOSTS File, can often give me access to the desired page. Some https sites have switched to newer safer protocols that IE6 cannot support.

HDSDOS appears to be written to obtain Hard Drive information. Apparently it has been updated to be able to do so through an AHCI Controller. SATA cards with Windows 9x Drivers generally use the SCSI Interface, probably to avoid any issues with ESDI_506.PDR. None of the Cards I have tested offer any option to change Mode nor do they identify the Mode they are in. If they are providing a Driver then there is no reason to support different Modes. I did some more research and determined that the Odd Address Writes that caused the Corruption I saw were in one of my TeraByte Plus Patches. This may be another reason why others haven't reported Corruption. There are still at least two Odd Address Reads in Virtual Mode that may cause problems in some cases and EMM386 still doesn't work, without my workaround, due to Odd Address Read issues.

You are safe from this bug in Real Mode. An even more poorly written AHCI BIOS is another story. I discovered the nature of this flaw because I corrupted my experimental Windows with a Driver Replacement I was working on. Then I noticed that DEBUG would not run. I was not aware that many DOS and Windows Disk I/O Calls were on odd boundaries. On my system, with EMM386 loaded, DOS crashed before any damage could be done. There is no guarantee that damage cannot occur. If the Boot Drive is not in AHCI Mode, then DOS and probably Windows will run and damage could occur to AHCI Mode Drives.

@Dencorso I tested a hunch I had. The bug occurs in Virtual Mode. The easiest way to test for the bug is to run EMM386.EXE from your C:\CONFIG.SYS File. DOS should crash when it tries to run AUTOEXEC.BAT if the bug is present and the C: Drive is connected to an AHCI mode Controller.