xrayer

Member
  • Content count

    202
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About xrayer

  • Rank
    RayeR

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://rayer.g6.cz

Profile Information

  • OS
    98SE
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

212 profile views
  1. Your version of the story is quite misguiding. You probably see the history via AMD fan angle of view. I, as an intel user, would see it a bit differently. I'm not blind to adore intel beyond the limits. I appreciate AMD's success and inovations they made in the past. The biggest one was integrating the MCH into the CPU that dramatically improved memory bandwidth. Intel was some way suspicios about that but finally they adopted in new core Nehalem generation... But I wanted to clarify and complete the information that after successfull Pentium III intel was developing new microarchitecture called Netburst - Pentium 4 generation that trurned out to be not much successfull. They was forced to gain power with high frequency that caused overheating issues. In that ages AMD ruled, that's true. But the card had flipped when intel decided, finally, to trash Netburst and continue with P3 evolution (P3 in fact never ended but was still developed by some small Israel team who created Pentium M and then Core solo and core duo - this was aimed to notebooks - intel Centrino not desktops/server) and they came with new Core 2 duo that was, IMHO, the most successful intel CPU that brought very significant performance gain with limited power consumption. It's not true they made 2 small weak cores. They are full featured cores that can share large L2 cache. Every benchmark or real test show you, that even on single core the C2D performed better than P4 at much higher frequency. That was due to improved microarchitecture and cache not because of 65nm technology (also P4 was manufactured by 65nm process but it didn't help them much). So intel quickly overrun AMD and then continued with also very successful core i7 Nehalem and Sandybridge. AMD response was making 6 or 8 cores CPUs but they have currently worse perf. per core and still in 2016 there are lot of singlethread apps that matters. Simple because some algorithms cannot be divided and paralelized. BTW I'm not happy that intel has no a real competitor now, their evolution slow down a lot (new core generation can brings say 0-5% gain in common apps) and prices stays high... BTW this was a reason why I decided to upgrade to 4 years old Sandybridge 2600K instead of latest Skylake CPU, it gives me similar performance but for ~1/3 of price...
  2. Yes, I already patched PE header version more times and sometimes it works. But it's not enough to run e.g. newer version of Adobe Lightroom that needs newer API AHA, VAIO seems to look promissing, I'll try...
  3. 1. I use Windows XP SP3 with recent XPE fixes and PAE >4GB patch on my upgraded machine core i7-2600k / 4GB RAM as primary OS. I also use XP at work because we need at least one PC with older OS to be able to use some specific HW which doesn't have drivers for Vista and newer systems... 2. I don't have serious problems, I only found that XP is not capable tu utilize hyperthreading even worse it makes some apps run slower. I experienced some apps (usually singlethread but WinRAR too) run some tens % slower than with HT disabled. Compared to Linux where I got about 20% faster compilation with HT enabled and use make -j8. 3. I never used IE8 on XP as I never upgraded IE6 from basic install. I was always IE hater from ancient times of Win 3.1 where I installed Netscape Navigator and later go with Mozilla till now...
  4. Hm, still nothing? I can see there's kernelex for Win2k - is it capable to run some Vista-only app? Or just brings XP-only apps to W2k? I would wonder if W2k gets better support than XP...
  5. BTW I use the PAE patch for about 1 year and dind't find more problems than I described here before. Just only one a bit uncomfortable behavior that may be linked with this patch - when I plug in USB some flash disk that I use 1st time then Found new hardware wizard appear and I need to point the usbstor.sys driver and install it again (of course it's already installed and usbstor.inf is present in INF directory). When I plug this flashdisk again it's recognized automatically and no more Wizard (it probably store it's s/n to registry). On my notebook with less RAM where I didn't applied PAE patch I never see wizard for any flash device and it works automatically. I suspect the problem may be caused by using usbstor.sys from Win2k3 server (I changed INF too) and driver signing. I tried to set This Computer|Hardware|Driver Signing to Ignore but any change. I also tried other tips found for this issue but still appeard wizard for new flash. Do you, other users who replaced usbstor.sys, observed same problem? (you need to try with some new flash disk not one you already use).
  6. I wouldn't wonder if MS have such intentions pushed to manufacturers. But I can imagine that DOS is used in embedded and industry more than Win9x so there may have more demand for DOS drivers. BTW DMP Vortex86EX SoC also have DOS packet driver as they support FreeDOS as development platform. Also it's more easy to write a packet driver than some VXD/WDM hell for Win9x so I understand that manufacurers don't want waste time for a few remaning Win9x users. Fortunately Win9x can cooperate with realmode DOS drivers so problem solved And yes, I read an article with quotes of some MS-man about how strong they are pushing Win10 against all existing OSes, including Win7 and 8.x. They are doing all they can to force users to update, even talking ambiguously about older OS quality and security. And the time is playing for them. After a few years the support for Win7/8 will end and it fall into the same trap of HW incompatability like Win9x/2k/XP is now. They simple want to get all users into new cage of SaaS (System as a Service) to gain more control of user system and data. But who would wonder in nowdays f*kin world, they just learned from Google and Apple If I wouldn't need to use a lot of specific SW and HW linked to MS platform at work I switch to Linux but now it's not alternative for me. And virtualization is also not 100% working solution...
  7. > LoneCrusader > Thanks for the updated ZIP. Did you happen to compare the newer files inside to their older counterparts to see if there were actually any additions? Most of the files of that three packages was the same and created in 2013. Only about 3 INF was updated - you can see they have diffrent date 2014 in the package and some files was added. I also edited the XML to add VID, PID and INF entries that was missing. I already received uniata experimantel port for win9x from xeno and bearwin. There's IdeDma.sys that was suggested to rename and replace the pdr file. I tried it but it didn't boot (nither on SATA2 port) and hagned in black textmode screen. Xeno told me he developed this version olny under vmware and there was some issues that caused crashes. So I don't wonder it doesn't work oin real HW. BTW I use uniata for NT4 and I tried a lot of versions and many of them crashed or had a problem that CD/DVD drive didn't work. It took me some time to find the latest version with working DVD for me - it is ver 0.44b2.
  8. OK, thanks. As I run my W98 at home as a hobby system without any commercial potential I don't intend to order commercial patches for it. So I sticked with alternate boot from SATA2 HDD. I just wanter to try myself all possibilities that I could try...
  9. But ver 10.x is for Win7-10 only and it's reworked differently (useless). I'm confused about intel's versioning systems. It seem's there are more INF packages targeted for different platforms but in fact they are mostly overlaping. I see that version from supermicro web 9.4.2.1019 is even newer dated April 25 2014 * Target CPU/PCH: Intel® Xeon® E5 v3/Core i7 / Intel® C610 series/X99 chipset but it seems to be a mix of older INFs, e.g. file couide2.inf: DriverVer=07/25/2013, 9.2.0.1035 it's same as from package 9.3.2.1020 So probably there was only a few inf files added/updated... update: I compiled one zipped INF package with most of and latest versions of files collected from 9.x.x inf packages and uploaded it here http://ulozto.cz/xHLkZvUK/infxp944-zip (click "Stahnout", fill the captcha and click stahnout again)
  10. >LoneCrusader this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_chipsets could give you some idea what ICH, MCH and CPUs belongs together but I think it's not needed to loose much time with it. I think that I googled a lot for the latest Win2k/XP compatible INFs so I doubt there's something newer than 9.4.4.1006...
  11. OK, I did tried some attempt with TSR myself... I found an opensource program protect.com for DOS. It's simple to understand and modify. I modified it to be silent on discarded write access. The unload after Win98 boots is not so easy as I though because when a DOS window is launched and program executed again to disable it only affect environment of that one DOS window and not system in global. So as a dirty test I added a counter of dicarded writes with condition that passed all writes after reaching some count. Then I do trial-error tune of count to see how system will react. If I block more than about 300 writes it booted to GUI. Unfortunately whole write protection idea proved wrong because when write access via INT13h was reenabled Win98 hanged totally. So even after esdi_506.pdr driver takes control there still seems to be INT13h accesses that kill it. So what only could help would be to patch BIOS INT13h routine to not doing any buggy DMA operations. This task going too complicated over the discomfort of booting Win98 from slave HDD on SATA2 port (where I have smaller primary partition that I cannot easily increase because of need to keep extended partition on the same HDD below 8,4GB limit for DOS 6.22).
  12. Ok, nice, is it freely available?
  13. I tried to search for some existing old DOS disk write protection utilities and found something: Eric Auer's fdshield - this can protect various area or all disk but throws classir abort/retry/fail message that needs interaction and so boot failed The FANTOM 2.2 - (fanram.arj package from http://www.dcee.net/Files/Utils/ ) This looked much more promissing - from the description: This is new NICE programm to protect your Hard Disk from Human-Disasters. Catching Functions: Copy HD<-->FD Delete HD, FD Format HD Rename HD, FD CreatFile HD, FD EditFile HD, FD All operations looks as normally works(you may see what files copied, disk formatted e.t.c.), but really, when you reboot PC, all files/formatted disks will be Ok ! I don't know if it hooks INT13h or INT21h. With this loaded in autoexec.bat I was able to normally boot to desktop with all start-upo programs but then Windows displayed a message about new TSR detected thet may slowdown PC and the mouse freezed. After some seconds mouse relived and I closed this window but I cannot do anything else, clickink on icons/start doesnt work, system was inresponsive, correct shutdown cennot be done only HW reset. But it seems it's on a good way! I belive if I would unload the TSR during boot it would work but unfortunately this TSR doesn't have unload option (I could put a unload call to a batch executed automatically after the boot).
  14. Realtek has some unified driver - sys file, that also was used for W2K and XP (that is obsolete now too, except XPE) so they may not want to disclose it. I don't remember other case where some company released public sources of their drivers. Simply Windows platform is closed source by default. BTW it's interesting that they still develop DOS drivers (god bless them for it)...
  15. Did you ever get an answer? Maybe we should all email them with the same request... lol Of course not, as nVidia and some else I mailed e.g. for publishing some specification before. If you are not a big company that makes busyness with them nobody really cares, but I still try sometimes... BTW it's very different for small HW companies like DMP that makes their own x86 SoC and embedded boards (Vortex86) who have really kind support on theirs forum...