Windows 95 2.1GHz CPU Limit BROKEN!

[dencorso]

I am surely missing a point , but what is the practical need/advantage of having a FAT12 "super-floppy" instead of a FAT16 one?

There is no actual need for a superfloppy Zip100, that I know of. I used it as a model, to learn how to do it, since there are older cameras and other devices that use FAT12 only SD cards. However, since I don't have any 128 MB SD card, I thought the Zip100 is a good enough model. Nowadays, 128 MB SD cards are not easy to find new, so it may be a long time before I can get one, even if used, and I wanted to test it right away.

[LoneCrusader]

I had originally thought that somehow I was the first person to discover how to fix this problem in Windows 95, because I remember searching for a solution a few years back (Old post at Annoyances.org) and was unable to find one.

However, recently I discovered this thread Windows 95 unofficial patches by Petr wherein he obviously had identified the problem, along with a solution. I am amazed at some of the hostility given to his solution and some obvious misinformation in that thread.

[submix8c]

I am amazed at some of the hostility given to his solution and some obvious misinformation in that thread.

Misinformation - perhaps due to confusion. Hostility - personal perception only. The solution/patch was for RTM and requested further investigation into the later OEM versions.

Forgot to mention - all in that thread (but one) have been around a long time, are extremely knowledgeable, and have high respect for one another.

Edited March 14, 2010 by submix8c

[LoneCrusader]

Misinformation - perhaps due to confusion. Hostility - personal perception only.

I do not think that I would be the only one to perceive certain responses in that thread as hostile. And the idea that "NDIS.VXD 4.00.1113 does not fix any version of 95" is blatantly incorrect, as my experiments and the results of others can now confirm.

[dencorso]

Just to be sure I have backported the code from 4.10.2000 version in original Q312108 hotfix to 4.00.1113 and created version 4.00.1114.

@RLoew: Would you please be so kind as to compare Petr's Ndis.VxD 4.0.1114 with the original 4.0.1113 and give us your expert evaluation about the advantages, if any, offered by Petr's patched file? The patched file is downloadable from Petr's original post, quoted above.

[rloew]

Just to be sure I have backported the code from 4.10.2000 version in original Q312108 hotfix to 4.00.1113 and created version 4.00.1114.

@RLoew: Would you please be so kind as to compare Petr's Ndis.VxD 4.0.1114 with the original 4.0.1113 and give us your expert evaluation about the advantages, if any, offered by Petr's patched file? The patched file is downloadable from Petr's original post, quoted above.

The two versions are nearly identical. A Processor speed check is coded slightly differently, but the results are equivalent. You can stick with the official 1113 Version.

Edited March 15, 2010 by rloew

[dencorso]

The two versions are nearly identical. A Processor speed check is coded slightly differently, but the results are equivalent.

You can stick with the official 1113 Version.

Thanks for looking into it and for your swift reply. You do rock!

[MDGx]

LoneCrusader sent me the newest version...

Tx!

* Unofficial Windows 95/95a OSR1/95B OSR2.0/95C OSR2.5 Fixed 2.1 GHz CPU Limitation Patch:

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=141402

FIX95CPU [5.67 MB, free, English]:

http://www.mdgx.com/spx/FIX95CPU.ZIP

Linked here:

http://www.mdgx.com/web.htm#FX95

Keep up the good work!

HTH

[LoneCrusader]

****UPDATE 4-23-2010****

Version 2.0 Released

See the first post in this thread for a complete description of the changes.

Get the new version here: FIX95CPU.ZIP

[MDGx]

P.S.:

I used 7-zip to re-ZIP your files into a smaller archive [so your MD5 checksum won't work anymore ].

Hope you don't mind.

HTH

[LoneCrusader]

P.S.:

I used 7-zip to re-ZIP your files into a smaller archive [so your MD5 checksum won't work anymore ].

Hope you don't mind.

HTH

No problem. I used 7-Zip to make the archive to begin with though...

[dencorso]

No problem. I used 7-Zip to make the archive to begin with though...

One can tweak (the options of the Add menu in) 7-Zip for even better compressions. Maybe this can explain it.

[MDGx]

I use the command line [7za.exe], and I create zips automatically from a batch file, which uses maximum compression ratio for the ZIP format:

@ECHO OFF
IF NOT EXIST C:\ZIP\7ZA.EXE GOTO END
C:
CD\T
C:\ZIP\7ZA.EXE a -mx=9 -r- -tZIP -oC:\T -y %1.ZIP * %2 %3 %4 %5
IF EXIST C:\T\*.zip REN C:\T\*.zip *.ZIP>NUL
:END
EXIT

This batch [7Z.BAT] must be executed followed by 1 space and the desired archive name (without extension), for example:

7Z ZIP001

[C:\ZIP is included in the system path, no need to type it.]

If source directory [C:\T in this case] contains subfolders, this batch is recursive, and will zip up all subfolders + files.

HTH

[LoneCrusader]

Hello again everyone

I think I have finally discovered a method of "slipstreaming" this into a fresh Windows 95 (C tested so far, should apply to at least B as well) installation, but I need some help.

While we were working on this fix, RLoew advised me that only the updated VFBACKUP.VXD prevented slipstreaming, as it breaks WININIT.EXE's original combining of VXD's into VMM32.VXD. Through my experimenting with customizing 95C's installation files, I have discovered that SETUPC.INF contains the list of files entered into WININIT.INI during Setup to be combined into VMM32.VXD by WININIT.EXE.

Extracting SETUPC.INF from PRECOPY2.CAB into the main WIN95 installation directory and removing the line:

wininit.ini, CombineVxDs,,"%22%\vfbackup.vxd=%11%\vmm32.vxd"

will solve the VFBACKUP.VXD problem, allowing slipstreaming by simply placing all of the updated files in FIX95CPU into the main WIN95 installation directory.

Placing all of the updated FIX95CPU files in the installation source directory and editing SETUPC.INF as described is enough to get Windows 95 Setup to complete properly on a 2+ GHz system, however upon further examination, it appears that NTKERN.VXD and possibly other updated files from FIX95CPU placed into the source directory are not actually installed or copied to the appropriate directory during the initial Windows 95 Setup. Requirements for these files must be added by later updates applied.

I suppose the answer to this is to edit a script somewhere for them to be copied to the appropriate directory, or, try to develop a patch type installer that can be called in SETUPC.INF or run when setup has completed.

***EDIT 12-18-2010:***

Some incorrect information removed.

Complete slipstream instructions have been added Here.

Edited December 19, 2010 by LoneCrusader

[spaceheeder]

Here's what I did:

1. Install Windows 95 to C:\

2. Use LoneCrusader's patch for my CPU

3. Get a protection error on reboot with no other diagnostic information whatsoever

The exact wording of the error:

"Windows protection error. You need to restart your computer."

That's the only line.

When I try rebooting, I get the following prompt:

1. Normal

2. Logged (\BOOTLOG.TXT)

3. Safe Mode

4. Step-by-step confirmation

5. Command prompt only

6. Safe mode command prompt only

(1) Does what you'd think: results in another protection error.

(2) Results in a protection error, but I can't find BOOTLOG.TXT anywhere on C:\

(3) Gets me to the desktop, but it gives me a dialog box saying "Windows cannot detect and install your devices while it is running in safe mode. To detect and install your devices, restart Windows and don't choose safe mode."

(4) Results in a protection error when I tell it to turn on the GUI

(5) Works, but when I navigate to C:\WINDOWS\WIN.INI I get a BSOD

(6) Haven't bothered trying.

Info on my setup:

CPU: Pentium 4 @ 3.0GhZ

RAM: 512MB

Hard drive and CD drive are both PATA and have no problems with any other OSes.

Please help!

EDIT: BEHOLD! I HAVE FOUND THE BOOTLOG!

http://pastebin.com/Gawzv7sy

More hardware details:

GPU: NVidia 6800 256MB

Edited December 12, 2010 by spaceheeder