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. 


LoneCrusader

Windows 95 2.1GHz CPU Limit BROKEN!

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, shelby said:

Is there any way to remove the additional floppy disks?

Never seen that before. Remove all of the floppy disk drives and controllers from the Device Manager and reboot, see if they all reappear. Does your system have a floppy drive? If not, you may need to disable the Floppy Disk Controller in the system BIOS. Beyond that I'm not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind, LoneCrusader, it's solved (and as per your suggestion, BTW):

2 hours ago, shelby said:

i think the delete of the floppy disk controller in the device manager should work. Anyway this work for me :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2010. 01. 25. at 0:25 AM, LoneCrusader said:

***UPDATED 06-10-2013***

I have managed to fix the 2.1GHz CPU limit of Windows 95. :o

I've just installed Windows 95 on my AMD K6-2 machine and I was surprised to see the "Windows protection error" message. Thanks to your package, the problem is solved! Thank you for your great work! I really appreciate it! :cool:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much, LoneCrusader, only because of you I now have a wonderful Win 95C machine based on a 900MHz CPU. Great work with the fix :-)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is cool.....unfortunately, not working for me.  PC still reboots when trying to resume the install.  What next?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JonnyGators said:

This is cool.....unfortunately, not working for me.  PC still reboots when trying to resume the install.  What next?

We need a little more information before anyone can help you.

What are the full specs of the computer you're trying this on?

Were any errors reported during the installation process?

Are any errors reported when the machine reboots?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm using an ASUS  p4c800-e deluxe motherboard with 3.0GHz Pentium 4 processor.

A motherboard made in 2003 I believe, which puts it right in the XP era, but ASUS does provide 95/98 drivers for the board.  Although as I found setting up 98 it requires proper configuration.  I have it set to legacy mode to use IDE and not the S-ATA ports.  

My intent is a multiboot machine that does 95, 98SE, XP.  So far I do have a dual-boot 98SE/XP setup (on a solid state s-ata drive, to use when the bios is set to use the secondary ide and s-ata.  But for the purposes of setting up 95, it's set to not use the s-ata ports, and I have a 8GB drive setup on the primary IDE that I'm attempting my 95 install on)

I do have the board maxed out at 4GB of RAM (which nothing will ever use all of it on since I can't run a 64 bit OS on there....but the documentation points out once you use more than 1 stick of RAM it only supports pairs, so I can't just throw in 3 sticks and expect that to not cause problems.  I guess I could have done a pair of 1 and a pair of 512....but, I had 4 sticks of 1 kicking around, and they all test out fine)

I did have to modify the system.ini and apply another patch to get the 98SE to work properly under those circumstances.  Even after that, I ran into problems where once I started installing drivers, I'd lose the ability to open a command prompt (error about not enough resources), which I believe was due to too much memory even though the system.ini was modified.  I found another patch (will need to dig that up again) that resolved this issue in 98SE....but this isn't all that relevant just yet, because for troubleshooting purposes I do have a stick of 256 that I'm using when trying to setup 95.

I'm setting up 95 OEM Service Release 1....I have my reasons for wanting to play around with such a primitive version of 95, and realize going newer would give me better chances for success.

So basically I use a boot disk to get to a prompt, fdisk to setup a 2GB partition on the IDE drive, format the drive, run setup, and the first part runs fine.

After the reboot, it resumes, and crashes out by restarting without an error.  So that's what led me to search on this and find this thread.

So I started over, new format, run the setup, get to the reboot part, booted with the repair tool, repair tool ran and did it's thing, reboot, the setup resumes and crashes out exactly the same, restart, no error.

I can start in safe mode, but since it hasn't finished setting up, all it does in safe mode is tell me to restart and not choose safe mode.

If I do the stepped startup (I forget what they call it), it prompts me a series of Y/N questions, and it immediately restarts with the enable devices or drivers or something like that (I can get the right details on this when I get home this evening)

I can't get an error or log to really give me anything to go on here, as it just goes in this cycle of restarting.  Once it's happened, I never see it try to resume the setup, immediate black screen/restart.

 

Not sure what I can troubleshoot next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, not sure if this helps, but....from experimenting tonight, I'm finding the patch doesn't exactly work completely correct when I try it.

I thought at some point last night I got the patch to apply without getting stuck on first attempt, but perhaps not.  Tonight, here is what consistently happens.

I do the first part of the install, no problem.  On reboot, insert diskette with your fix.

Diskette boots, runs through the process, then at some point after applying something to the registry, it gives an error about wrong ms-dos version, and tells me to wait, something about it may take a few minutes.  But, it never advances at this point.

Forcing a restart, the install proceeds, but fails, triggers a restart, no error.

If I try the floppy again, this time it completes correctly, and gets me to the screen that it has completed, press a key for it to restart, and remove the disk.

But, still, I get a restart when it goes to startup windows 95.

 

 

Not sure if that wrong ms-dos version error gives a clue or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For troubleshooting purposes, tried OEM 2.5 version.  Same results.  No matter what, a reboot with no error when trying to start up after the first reboot in the setup process, fix or no fix.  This motherboard has 95 drivers, so that would imply it can do Windows 95 somehow...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One other thing, the repair consistently displays the "incorrect ms-dos version" line, whether it gets stuck before 95 fails to start, or it finishes after 95 fails to start.  Not sure what that's all about.  But this repair seems to be overlooking something or incomplete at this time, hopefully we can get something more complete at the end of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2019 at 9:59 AM, JonnyGators said:

I'm using an ASUS  p4c800-e deluxe motherboard with 3.0GHz Pentium 4 processor.

A motherboard made in 2003 I believe, which puts it right in the XP era, but ASUS does provide 95/98 drivers for the board.  Although as I found setting up 98 it requires proper configuration.  I have it set to legacy mode to use IDE and not the S-ATA ports.  

My intent is a multiboot machine that does 95, 98SE, XP.  So far I do have a dual-boot 98SE/XP setup (on a solid state s-ata drive, to use when the bios is set to use the secondary ide and s-ata.  But for the purposes of setting up 95, it's set to not use the s-ata ports, and I have a 8GB drive setup on the primary IDE that I'm attempting my 95 install on)

I do have the board maxed out at 4GB of RAM (which nothing will ever use all of it on since I can't run a 64 bit OS on there....but the documentation points out once you use more than 1 stick of RAM it only supports pairs, so I can't just throw in 3 sticks and expect that to not cause problems.  I guess I could have done a pair of 1 and a pair of 512....but, I had 4 sticks of 1 kicking around, and they all test out fine)

I did have to modify the system.ini and apply another patch to get the 98SE to work properly under those circumstances.  Even after that, I ran into problems where once I started installing drivers, I'd lose the ability to open a command prompt (error about not enough resources), which I believe was due to too much memory even though the system.ini was modified.  I found another patch (will need to dig that up again) that resolved this issue in 98SE....but this isn't all that relevant just yet, because for troubleshooting purposes I do have a stick of 256 that I'm using when trying to setup 95.

Looks like a nice board. I've never used ASUS myself, but it's very similar to many systems I've worked with so it should work for what you're wanting to do.

For testing purposes and troubleshooting the current problem we should probably stick with the setup you've begun, and keep RAM at 512MB or below.

However, I will point you to a few fixes that will make your life easier, especially since you're multibooting with XP. With the recent passing of my good friend and one of our most knowledgeable members here (rloew), his software is now available to the public. Make all 4GB of RAM, your SATA ports, hard drives larger than 137GB, and TRIM capability for FAT32 usable under 9x with the patches found here.

I see you're already having some of the classic issues with large amounts of RAM (unable to open DOS boxes etc). This MAY be contributing to the problem as well (unless you're always at 512MB or below when experimenting). The patch I linked will eliminate that, and the need for system.ini modifications and other "tweaks."

What video card are you using? This may be significant as well. I've seen 95 fail to boot on some newer systems with a particular video card but work on other systems with the same video card. In this case these machines were newer than the one you're using but it's still a possibility.

19 hours ago, JonnyGators said:

Ok, not sure if this helps, but....from experimenting tonight, I'm finding the patch doesn't exactly work completely correct when I try it.

I thought at some point last night I got the patch to apply without getting stuck on first attempt, but perhaps not.  Tonight, here is what consistently happens.

I do the first part of the install, no problem.  On reboot, insert diskette with your fix.

Diskette boots, runs through the process, then at some point after applying something to the registry, it gives an error about wrong ms-dos version, and tells me to wait, something about it may take a few minutes.  But, it never advances at this point.

The Incorrect MS-DOS version error may very well be significant.. I have always used OSR2 or later for anything myself. It's been a long time since I've even looked the package over (I slipstreamed the fixes, so I no longer have to use the diskette) but I remember specifically having to use SETVER in the script in order to have compatibility with the original version of 95. I reworked the last version of FIX95CPU to be compatible with the earlier releases of 95 (DOS 7/FAT16 as opposed to DOS 7.1/FAT32; originally my package only supported OSR2) but it really had very limited virtual machine testing done on those systems. Now that I think about it, OSR1 may not have been tested at all. The original release and all OSR 2.x were tested, but I didn't have a copy of OSR1 to test, and I assumed the DOS version would be the same.

I'll see if I can find a copy of OSR1 to examine... I'm not certain how different it is from the original release. Depending on whether or not a new set of .CAB files was built, or whether another method is used to apply any updates it may be doing something unexpected. It's possible it may be overwriting some of the files applied by the patch (although I think this is unlikely); or OSR1 may introduce something else that causes a problem that did not exist under 95 RTM but was fixed in OSR2... there are several possibilities. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The video card is an ati radeon 9200 series all in wonder pro.  It's an AGP card.  From what I've read, earlier 95 versions don't support AGP, but treat it like PCI, which suggests to me it could work.  But, in my testing even OEM2.5 gives me the same problem, so I don't think it has to do with AGP.  But, looking at the amd site for drivers, I can only go as far back as 98 for a driver for the card.  So I could be out of luck with the video card. 

For troubleshooting purposes, I obtained a retail 95 CD, and have tested the install process there.  The fix doesn't give the dos version error.  But, I still get the restart issue, so I'm still stuck.  Videocard, and processor, seem to be the best culprits at this point. 

This is something of a nostalgia machine....I wanted something to put my turtle beach santa cruz sound card and all in wonder agp video card in, since I've not been able to bring myself to toss them all these years, and figured.....I should use them, or get rid of them.  I chose the only option, obviously.  So I picked up the same mobo and processor as my first build, and figured, may as well have a bit of fun and do more than just an XP build, and did the 98SE dual boot to have something I can do some old school gaming on.  But, with some IDE drives kicking around, I figured....may as well have a little windows 95 fun as well.  My first PC purchase was a 95 machine, and I remember it having IE with an animated blue sky instead of a blue E, which makes that IE 1 or 2.  I figure, the guy that built it would have probably had access to OEM 1.  It also came with plus installed on it.  So....could have been retail, could have been oem 1, if I get one of those to work I'll be happy.  I remember in college I used to use netscape on it, and one day I noticed, well, some people have the big blue rotating E....maybe I should install that.  And my roommate told me I'd regret it.  And sure enough.....I regretted doing the IE update for the rest of the life of that computer, completely possessed the machine as I put it at the time.  And he laughed, and laughed.  And I tried to uninstall it.  And he laughed more.  It's a funny story that I think anyone I try to tell it to fail to really understand.....so I figure, maybe I should try to demonstrate it. 

 

But I guess if my hardware just can't do 95, I can always try to re-create that experience in a virtual environment instead.  Or buy an older box.

 

Anyways, thanks for the tips, and I'm up for more troubleshooting/experimenting if you think you can get this to work.  But if not, it's cool.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2019 at 9:54 PM, JonnyGators said:

The video card is an ati radeon 9200 series all in wonder pro.  It's an AGP card.  From what I've read, earlier 95 versions don't support AGP, but treat it like PCI, which suggests to me it could work.  But, in my testing even OEM2.5 gives me the same problem, so I don't think it has to do with AGP.  But, looking at the amd site for drivers, I can only go as far back as 98 for a driver for the card.  So I could be out of luck with the video card.

For troubleshooting purposes, I obtained a retail 95 CD, and have tested the install process there.  The fix doesn't give the dos version error.  But, I still get the restart issue, so I'm still stuck.  Videocard, and processor, seem to be the best culprits at this point. 

It's been a long time since I've used it, but I have an AGP Radeon 92xx card here that I previously used before I moved up to the 9800XT years ago. I know a working driver package for this card existed for 95*, but I don't remember any specifics of it. It should be possible to get this card up and running under 95* though. I doubt this card is the problem, *but once again my experience is based on OSR2.

ON the other hand... after seeing you said "All-In-Wonder"; I do vaguely remember noting years ago that the system requirements on one of those older All-In-Wonder cards were different from the system requirements for the exact same normal Radeon 9xxx model. If you happen to have any other AGP or PCI video card, it may be worthwhile to do a test run with it instead of the All-In-Wonder. We can't say for sure this IS the problem yet, but if you have a way to test without it it could help rule it out.

On 10/11/2019 at 9:54 PM, JonnyGators said:

This is something of a nostalgia machine....I wanted something to put my turtle beach santa cruz sound card and all in wonder agp video card in, since I've not been able to bring myself to toss them all these years, and figured.....I should use them, or get rid of them.  I chose the only option, obviously.  So I picked up the same mobo and processor as my first build, and figured, may as well have a bit of fun and do more than just an XP build, and did the 98SE dual boot to have something I can do some old school gaming on.  But, with some IDE drives kicking around, I figured....may as well have a little windows 95 fun as well.  My first PC purchase was a 95 machine, and I remember it having IE with an animated blue sky instead of a blue E, which makes that IE 1 or 2.  I figure, the guy that built it would have probably had access to OEM 1.  It also came with plus installed on it.  So....could have been retail, could have been oem 1, if I get one of those to work I'll be happy.  I remember in college I used to use netscape on it, and one day I noticed, well, some people have the big blue rotating E....maybe I should install that.  And my roommate told me I'd regret it.  And sure enough.....I regretted doing the IE update for the rest of the life of that computer, completely possessed the machine as I put it at the time.  And he laughed, and laughed.  And I tried to uninstall it.  And he laughed more.  It's a funny story that I think anyone I try to tell it to fail to really understand.....so I figure, maybe I should try to demonstrate it. 

 

But I guess if my hardware just can't do 95, I can always try to re-create that experience in a virtual environment instead.  Or buy an older box.

 

Anyways, thanks for the tips, and I'm up for more troubleshooting/experimenting if you think you can get this to work.  But if not, it's cool.

 

 

I understand completely.. my first machine had DOS and Win 3.1, but my next machine had 95 OSR2. I always preferred it.. hated 98FE with a passion. For a long time I refused to use 98SE because it changed IE from 4 that I was used to to 5 that had some minor difference that annoyed me (and now I can't even remember what exactly). I only moved to 98SE years ago when I hit this very CPU bug on my new P4 3.06GHz build. At the time I didn't know how to fix it, but at least I revenged myself on the problem years later.

It may take me some time to dig further into this.. I've got some issues coming up this week that will prevent me from getting much done, but I've not given up.

In the meantime, if you have the opportunity you can try some test runs with different conditions and see if anything changes.
-Try a different video card if you have one (even one without 9x support).
-Try disabling all onboard devices you can in the BIOS of the motherboard and reinstall. If it works, re-enable them one by one until you see the problem.
-Try to get a BOOTLOG from the system.. this can be tricky as it's a hidden file and frequently gets overwritten. Bet way is to choose Logged boot from the menu, let the system crash, and then retrieve the file with another OS. This may give some idea of what exactly is crashing, although I'm not the best at deciphering them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, will see what I can round up for a video card.  I don't have anything of that era handy, the only spares I have are PCI-E, but I can probably round something up somewhere eventually.

 

Meanwhile, testing in virtual, I've found the repair seems to not work for OSR1.  It appears to be doing an OSR2 repair and getting the MS-DOS error.

I should note, I'm not entirely confident that my ISOs are properly labeled.  My retail and OSR1 both make me enter dashes and OEM when entering in the key though, so that seems right.  But, my retail copy comes with a version of Internet Explorer (of the era of the floating windows icon in the sky, before the big blue e), and from what I read on wikipedia, retail didn't come with any version of internet explorer.  So....not sure about that.  But, anyways, my iso that is labeled retail does the fix correctly, my iso that is labeled OSR1 doesn't.  Obviously, no rush to look into that, as I'm happy playing around with my "retail" iso for my purposes, but figured you would want to know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really annoying problem keeps cropping up in my 95 VMs though....the A: drive keeps breaking.  I don't know what triggers it, but at first it works fine, if I have something to install that requires multiple floppy images, such as plus, I can attach the first image to the A: drive, run the setup, and change disks as prompted and resume the setup, and it detects the new disk just fine.

 

But then at some point, something triggers this to break on the VM, and it will not detect the disk change.  Changing the disk breaks the drive until powering the VM off and back on.  Which is a problem when it comes to installers that require multiple disks.

 

I've only been able to fix it by completely redoing the VM, but I'm on my 3rd VM, and I've still not figured out what triggers it to avoid it.

 

Anyone run into that before?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...