Windows 95 2.1GHz CPU Limit BROKEN!

[jaclaz]

Could it be - somehow - connected with the (stupid) volume tracking of Win9x?

See:

https://jeffpar.github.io/kbarchive/kb/148/Q148637/

and:

https://jdebp.eu/FGA/volume-boot-block-oem-name-field.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20061124201419/http://www.microsoft.com./technet/archive/win95/rk20_dsk.mspx

jaclaz

[LoneCrusader]

On 10/14/2019 at 4:11 PM, JonnyGators said:

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.

There does appear to be a problem when applying FIX95CPU to a full OSR1 installation from CD/scratch. RTM installations later manually updated to OSR1 should not be affected.

FIX95CPU tests for the existence of FILEXFER.EXE to determine whether the version of 95 being patched is RTM or OSR2... FILEXFER.EXE does not exist in RTM, but does in OSR2. Apparently it exists in OSR1 as well. Looks like I will need to find another file to test for to make the determination. Anyone who may have further input on this please chime in.

On the other hand, if you're not getting anywhere with 95 RTM or OSR2 either on this machine I'm not certain what other problems may be in play. OSR2 should definitely work, even if the others don't.

[win32]

How about mfc40.dll? That's new to OSR2.

[LoneCrusader]

On 10/20/2019 at 2:38 AM, win32 said:

How about mfc40.dll? That's new to OSR2.

So, I assume you're saying that MFC40.DLL does not exist in a clean installation of 95RTM or 95A (OSR1), and does exist in a clean installation of 95B/95C (OSR2.x)? If so, this sounds like a winner. Thanks for your help!

I'll try to verify this myself as well, but my workspace and testing systems are a wreck right now. Even 95 VM's are not working on the machine I'm using now. Not to mention that I haven't worked on FIX95CPU or used it myself in over 6 years (I slipstreamed the fixes so I never have to use the manual version anymore), so it may take me a while to implement the change and push out an updated package.

In the meantime, anyone who needs to use FIX95CPU on a KNOWN OSR1 installation can rename FILEXFER.EXE on their HDD to something else before FIX95CPU installs, or delete the line referencing it in FIX95CPU.BAT on the FIX95CPU floppy. NOTE the latter of those options will make the FIX95CPU floppy useless for OSR2 installs!

[Condor.07]

Windows 95A does not work simply because this version also has the file "FILEXFER.EXE"

This is the solution I tested:

Modify "FIX95CPU.BAT"

Replace the following command line:

IF EXIST %WINDIR%\FILEXFER.EXE GOTO OSR2

with this:

IF EXIST %WINDIR%\WABMIG.EXE GOTO OSR2

Edited April 9, 2020 by Condor.07

[JonnyGators]

On 10/20/2019 at 1:45 AM, LoneCrusader said:

There does appear to be a problem when applying FIX95CPU to a full OSR1 installation from CD/scratch. RTM installations later manually updated to OSR1 should not be affected.

FIX95CPU tests for the existence of FILEXFER.EXE to determine whether the version of 95 being patched is RTM or OSR2... FILEXFER.EXE does not exist in RTM, but does in OSR2. Apparently it exists in OSR1 as well. Looks like I will need to find another file to test for to make the determination. Anyone who may have further input on this please chime in.

On the other hand, if you're not getting anywhere with 95 RTM or OSR2 either on this machine I'm not certain what other problems may be in play. OSR2 should definitely work, even if the others don't.

I've tried getting Windows 95 on my P4 frontwards, backwards, upsideown, insideout, and absolutely cannot get it to take.  This fix isn't working on my machine.

I'm pretty sure it's somehow related to the bugs this patch is supposed to patch, as it occurs right at the point where it restarts.

What I have observed is if I don't use this tool, after the restart, I do get the screen where it's resuming the install process, but at that point it crashes out and restarts.  From that point on, I can only do 2 things, start in safe mode and have it bark at me that it can't complete the installation from safe mode, or start normally and have it automatically restart again, no error, no hint, no clues.

When I use your tool, after it applies, I don't even get the screen where it resumes the process.  I get the windows startup, and then automatic restart.  With the option for safe mode, or normal, with the same situation.

Without any error codes or messages or anything I'm not sure how to even begin trying to determine where the problem lies.  I hope you have an interest in improving this tool, since it's clearly not at 100 percent.  Please let me know what info I can provide to help get this working for my computer.

[cov3rt]

13 hours ago, JonnyGators said:

I've tried getting Windows 95 on my P4 frontwards, backwards, upsideown, insideout, and absolutely cannot get it to take.  This fix isn't working on my machine.

I'm pretty sure it's somehow related to the bugs this patch is supposed to patch, as it occurs right at the point where it restarts.

What I have observed is if I don't use this tool, after the restart, I do get the screen where it's resuming the install process, but at that point it crashes out and restarts.  From that point on, I can only do 2 things, start in safe mode and have it bark at me that it can't complete the installation from safe mode, or start normally and have it automatically restart again, no error, no hint, no clues.

When I use your tool, after it applies, I don't even get the screen where it resumes the process.  I get the windows startup, and then automatic restart.  With the option for safe mode, or normal, with the same situation.

Without any error codes or messages or anything I'm not sure how to even begin trying to determine where the problem lies.  I hope you have an interest in improving this tool, since it's clearly not at 100 percent.  Please let me know what info I can provide to help get this working for my computer.

it would help to know your detailed specific system specs. motherboard / computer model, how much memory is installed. the patch needs to be installed right before the 2nd installation / setup phase or right after the 1st setup phase, insert the fix95cpu version 3.0 disc and allow it to load on next reboot. also, make sure that the windows 95 installation is a clean install. 

[JonnyGators]

30 minutes ago, cov3rt said:

it would help to know your detailed specific system specs. motherboard / computer model, how much memory is installed. the patch needs to be installed right before the 2nd installation / setup phase or right after the 1st setup phase, insert the fix95cpu version 3.0 disc and allow it to load on next reboot. also, make sure that the windows 95 installation is a clean install. 

Motherboard is an ASUS P4C800-E Deluxe.  Processor is a Pentium 4 3.0GHz. 

The motherboard does have 98/95 drivers available, which suggests it's plausible it would support such an installation. 

The BIOS requires setting up a compatibility mode for IDE for 95/98, to either use Primary P-ATA and SATA, Secondary P-ATA and SATA, or only P-ATA.

For the purposes of setting up Windows 95, I set it up for only P-ATA, with an IDE Module on the primary, and 2 optical drives on the secondary.

(I do have this machine working as a dual-boot XP/98 machine when it's set for Secondary P-ATA and SATA.  Installing 98 required some patching.)

I had the machine maxed out at 4GB of RAM.  But, for the purposes of trying to eliminate possible problems, I took those out and put in a stick of 256MB.

All of my Windows 95 installation attempts have been clean installs.  Following this process:

For retail:

Boot with DOS 6.22 Disk

Use fdisk to create a partition (creates 2GB partition)

Format partition

Copy contents of win95 directory of retail disk to c:\windows\options\cabs (online guide recommends this method)

run the setup

go through the setup process. (since a windows directory already exists, it wants to install to windows.000.  I know the folder isn't a problem, so I set it back to windows.  So the patch should still be patching the correct path)

Insert patch disk when it gets to the point of wanting to restart.

Patch disk runs successfully, and restarts

I get blue sky Windows 95 startup screen

Screen goes black - splash screen for the motherboard comes back up - automatic restart after some sort of crash that displayed no info/error.

Option to boot into safe mode comes up.

 

For OEM2 - same process as above, except I used a windows 95 boot disk to run fdisk and format, creating a larger partition.

 

For the sake of troubleshooting - I tried it again today with the retail CD, running the setup directly off of the CD, to see if that makes a difference.  It made no difference.

 

Let me know if you have any further questions or if there's any other info I can provide.

[cov3rt]

5 hours ago, JonnyGators said:

Motherboard is an ASUS P4C800-E Deluxe.  Processor is a Pentium 4 3.0GHz. 

The motherboard does have 98/95 drivers available, which suggests it's plausible it would support such an installation. 

The BIOS requires setting up a compatibility mode for IDE for 95/98, to either use Primary P-ATA and SATA, Secondary P-ATA and SATA, or only P-ATA.

For the purposes of setting up Windows 95, I set it up for only P-ATA, with an IDE Module on the primary, and 2 optical drives on the secondary.

(I do have this machine working as a dual-boot XP/98 machine when it's set for Secondary P-ATA and SATA.  Installing 98 required some patching.)

I had the machine maxed out at 4GB of RAM.  But, for the purposes of trying to eliminate possible problems, I took those out and put in a stick of 256MB.

All of my Windows 95 installation attempts have been clean installs.  Following this process:

For retail:

Boot with DOS 6.22 Disk

Use fdisk to create a partition (creates 2GB partition)

Format partition

Copy contents of win95 directory of retail disk to c:\windows\options\cabs (online guide recommends this method)

run the setup

go through the setup process. (since a windows directory already exists, it wants to install to windows.000.  I know the folder isn't a problem, so I set it back to windows.  So the patch should still be patching the correct path)

Insert patch disk when it gets to the point of wanting to restart.

Patch disk runs successfully, and restarts

I get blue sky Windows 95 startup screen

Screen goes black - splash screen for the motherboard comes back up - automatic restart after some sort of crash that displayed no info/error.

Option to boot into safe mode comes up.

 

For OEM2 - same process as above, except I used a windows 95 boot disk to run fdisk and format, creating a larger partition.

 

For the sake of troubleshooting - I tried it again today with the retail CD, running the setup directly off of the CD, to see if that makes a difference.  It made no difference.

 

Let me know if you have any further questions or if there's any other info I can provide.

there is some slightly different methods / options you can try. first, use no more than 512 MB of system ram upon installing and early configuring, 256 MB may be even more suitable. also, to be sure you're using the latest / "best" versions of fix95cpu, as well as 98SE boot disk. i have uploaded them to the easyupload site. you can download them from here "https://easyupload.io/4gv4ya". the boot disk is a slightly modified version, i don't remember the exact changes, i even did them myself manually, i think it's ms dos 7.1 based and accompanied with some other fix that allows better partition sizing ability. for the fix95cpu one, it's version 3.0. there is some additional info i'll want to give you if you do get a successful setup. 

below is an instruction set i created that would apply for clean install of windows 9x.  i would use the "setup /p i" command ( mentioned below, as your chipset is ich5 )

. 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 installing of windows or else
a windows protection error occurs, this update also fixes other things

Edited July 13, 2020 by cov3rt

[JonnyGators]

17 hours ago, cov3rt said:

there is some slightly different methods / options you can try. first, use no more than 512 MB of system ram upon installing and early configuring, 256 MB may be even more suitable. also, to be sure you're using the latest / "best" versions of fix95cpu, as well as 98SE boot disk. i have uploaded them to the easyupload site. you can download them from here "https://easyupload.io/4gv4ya". the boot disk is a slightly modified version, i don't remember the exact changes, i even did them myself manually, i think it's ms dos 7.1 based and accompanied with some other fix that allows better partition sizing ability. for the fix95cpu one, it's version 3.0. there is some additional info i'll want to give you if you do get a successful setup. 

below is an instruction set i created that would apply for clean install of windows 9x.  i would use the "setup /p i" command ( mentioned below, as your chipset is ich5 )

. 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 installing of windows or else
a windows protection error occurs, this update also fixes other things

There were 2 major differences I identified here from my previous attempts....the use of setup /p i, and the use of your modified 98SE boot disk.

I've been playing around with various methods of 95 installation at this point.  I've been going back and forth with attempts at 3.1 and 95 installs on this drive, and managed to get 3.1 on there.  So, for shits and giggles before wiping and getting back to serious testing on this, I decided to try upgrading to 95 from 3.1.  The first attempt to run setup straight and use the fix on the reboot had the same outcome - crashing on the reboot after the fix was applied.  But...going into safe mode, I was able to roll back to 3.1.  Not that it mattered all that much, I could easily do another clean 3.1 install if I wanted to.

So, I decided, before I wipe and try this recommended process as listed, lets try the ugrade again, this time with the /p i.  Well....I'm at the point now where it's looking for plug and play, so I'm past the point of crashing.  Woohoo!

It seems that's the key for my situation, I needed the /p i.  Perhaps a note to that effect should be added to the readme of the patch?

[JonnyGators]

I'm not sure if this will be seen as self promotion that is frowned on, or appreciated info - so feel free to remove this post if it's deemed not appropriate or on topic for this thread.

This is related in the sense that using this Windows 95 patch and getting help in getting it to work - and having it work for an upgrade install from 3.1 has inspired me to start a series of youtube streaming related to this.  I've realized that, now that I've managed to get my Pentium 4 to accept a Windows 3.1 install, and upgrade to 95, that I may have a machine that is capable of installing Windows 1, and upgrading it through various versions up to 10. 

I did find an over 10 hour video where something like this had been done, which tells me this is something that will require more than 1 live stream to do.  But also, I do want to take some time with each version to install apps, play around, explore each version, and see what continues to work from version to version, so this will be a weekly series on Friday nights, 8pm EST.

This will be streamed on my tech related youtube channel "The Computer Bar" - feel free to check it out and subscribe.  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwzGycIpr-kaczZFM-ay7Gw

[Condor.07]

On 7/14/2020 at 1:33 AM, cov3rt said:

you're using the latest / "best" versions of fix95cpu, as well as 98SE boot disk. i have uploaded them to the easyupload site. you can download them from here "https://easyupload.io/4gv4ya"

also this version will not work with Windows 95A OSR1

you have to make the modification I wrote above

[MrInformative]

This isn't a normal file this is a trojan! If you want proof there you go

[i430VX]

I VERY much doubt it. As far as modern AVs care, anything uncommon = BAD. I do believe my site generates the same Malwarebytes nanny-nags, in some portions at least, despite the malware count on my site being, as always, ZERO. Frankly, Unless you make a habit of visiting extremely questionable sites, you're very much likely better off without the internet nanny features.

[pangoomis]

Different link: http://lonecrusader.x10host.com/fix95cpu.html
I think it should be included in the first post?