• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


LoneCrusader last won the day on January 6

LoneCrusader had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

74 Excellent

About LoneCrusader

  • Rank
    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • OS
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

2,410 profile views
  1. I personally don't think trying to run with over 512MB of RAM with tweaks is a good idea, but as you see there are obviously others who swear by it. Apparently "YMMV - Your mileage may vary." It may work for you on your system and it may not. From what I remember of the old discussions offhand it is also relevant how much memory is physically installed; i.e. having only a 1GB RAM module installed and using the limiting tweaks may work, but if you put in 4GB RAM for other OS'es in dual-boot then the tweak that worked at 1GB may not work anymore. The stickies cover most things, although sometimes one has to dig through several pages to cover an entire subject. MSFN for 9x is like a vast museum that one can get lost in. So much information is here that doesn't exist anywhere else. And there are too few of us left to keep it all dusted off. But I digress... "IDE Mode" on a modern board will almost always mean "Native IDE SATA" rather than "Legacy IDE PATA." Only Legacy mode works properly with 9x. VBE9X is a nice project but it's very limited. For instance without hardware acceleration 9x-era games and such probably would not run properly if at all. It essentially serves to escape 640x480x16, but that's it. RTL8111D or previous work as far as I know; RTL8111E does NOT work. A buggy driver exists that will work with some "E" cards but not at full gigabit speeds. SoundBlaster would probably be best for 9x; just be sure you pick a compatible one. Pentium 4 era is best in my opinion. Most everything still had 9x drivers, including some early SATA chips as mentioned by Nomen. Intel 865/875 chipset boards are best. A rare handful of boards with these chipsets exist in Socket 775 models as well, although still limited to 800HMz FSB CPU's. Search around, I've given lists of such boards here before several times. I've currently got Windows 95 OSR2 and 98SE "running" on a board using the Intel X79 chipset and a Core i7. I haven't used them for any "day to day" activity, but they're up and running nonetheless. 7950GT graphics card with working drivers. Haven't gotten around to Sound and LAN yet though.
  2. This is not necessarily directed at you personally, but I love how we seem to have a sudden influx of people around here who want to "dispute" long established knowledge. You say "98SE doesn't crash with more than 512MB of RAM on physical hardware" when it is a known, well established, indisputable fact that it DOES crash. I've seen and done this myself countless times over the years. I've actually used Windows 9x as a primary, day to day, production operating system. Not just as a toy to amuse myself running VM's and wasting time while never spending actual "production" time on a system which requires stability. And for the record, I did also specify that tweaks MAY get you to 1.2GB. This is NOT guaranteed. This does NOT always work. And it most definitely WILL make your system unstable. So, why post and say "it doesn't crash with more than 512MB" when it does, and then say "I wouldn't recommend going over 512MB," because "it might be the reason they're unstable." Might?? Ya think?? No, I don't mean that. I mean what I said. "Almost always?" Certainly not. Those tweaks never worked for me. Only once did I see 9x run with more than 512MB and without crashing, and this was when using an old version of the Unofficial Service Pack (which I believe included Xeno's VCACHE patch along with said "tweaks") and the system was very unstable. What's the point of those tweaks if it makes the resulting system unstable? Fine, Windows 98 drivers are available for a handful of early SATA controllers. But what "modern" motherboards are actually using these chips today? So they had 9x drivers 10 years ago when they were used. Great. But who uses them now? What good is this to the OP? The OP specified a "modern" system. I haven't seen a board using those SATA chips in 8 years or more.
  3. Compatible? Not really. However whether it can be made to work or not mainly depends on your level of determination to succeed. How much work (read:trial and error and time) are you willing to invest getting Windows 9x running? Do you accept that non-free patches may be required to get you results? More specs on your planned system might be helpful... but here's a few quick points to consider: -Windows 9x will only see and use one CPU core. -Windows 9x will crash with more than 512MB of RAM; some tweaks MAY take you to 1.2GB; paid patch will definitely take you to the 32-bit limit of 4GB. -Windows 9x will not use Native IDE SATA controllers/drives without a paid patch. AHCI is even worse. If you can't set your HDD controllers to Legacy IDE mode you'll have to deal with slow DOS-mode compatibility filesystem. -Windows 9x has been without any drivers for new graphics cards since the end of the NVidia 7xxx series and the ATI X8xx series. You will need one of these or you will have to either deal with 640x480x16 resolution or try using VBE9X which will get you better resolutions but no hardware acceleration and frequently crashes with DOS Boxes. -Windows 9x has been without any drivers for network cards for a while as well. Realtek and Marvell based controllers may work depending on version. -Windows 9x has no HD Audio drivers whatsoever. Be prepared to use an add-in card. -(Your motherboard will probably need 2 or more regular PCI slots for 9x-compatible cards.) If you've read and digested this and still wish to try, then you've come to the right place.
  4. No, Windows ME doesn't have native USB2 support either. Microsoft made no USB2 drivers for 98/ME and I guess we're lucky that the 2K files just happen to work. A USBHUB20.SYS 4.90.3000 does exist, but this file was developed by VIA and distributed with their USB2 controllers. It doesn't come from Microsoft and it isn't universal, only working with VIA controllers.
  5. No, USB. Rosewill RNX-G1LX Interesting... I thought I might have just figured this out, but if yours is working faster then it throws my new theory out. (more below) Good! Now for a theory about the speed issues: What if all 9x-compatible USB WiFi devices (and their drivers) are assuming that Windows 9x only supports USB 1.0/1.1? Since Microsoft offered no official USB2 support, many manufacturers assume that no USB2 support exists for 9x. (For example noted in this manual for a 9x-compatible TP-Link USB adapter.) Now, to extrapolate further: USB1 speed of 1.5Mbits/sec = 192KBytes/sec. Assume a "safe" limit of 150KBytes/sec when writing a driver for USB1 bus speed? Of course this is all just speculation. But it made sense until you said that you were getting 250KBytes/sec.
  6. I obtained a USB Wifi Adapter based on the RTL8187 chipset which has a working Windows 9x driver without WDMEX. I thought I would use one that had working drivers and compare the results to what has been seen with the devices here using RT2870.SYS. The download speed is still garbage, it never exceeds 150KB/sec and floats around the 142~149KB/sec range so it appears there is some kind of "limit" at 150KB/sec under 9x for wireless LAN for whatever reason. This needs to be researched... Also, after a few minutes of downloading a large file I get a non-informative BSOD with a garbage address in it just as I get when using the RT2870 device with WDMEX. This may or may not be related to the speed "limit" if some kind of buffer is being overloaded or something isn't keeping up. Also noticed the USB Adapter was pretty hot after only a few minutes of use, I don't use WiFi very much so I don't know if this is normal or not. So whatever causes this BSOD is not related to WDMEX or the missing functions it provides for RT2870.SYS. A different BSOD that appears with the RT2870 devices does not appear with the RTL8187 however.
  7. I don't know what exactly you have in mind for your 98SE system, but be aware that the ATI X800 cards may have issues with some DOS programs (old DOS games WarCraft and WarCraft 2 for example; as of now these are the only ones I know). Most seem to work fine but it's something to keep in mind. Also I believe Dave-H here had some small annoying issue with X800 and X700 cards specific to his setup but he would have to elaborate further on it.
  8. Windows 7 is very "iffy" from my standpoint. The removal of the proper Classic Desktop/Start Menu Shell is a non-starter to begin with. I know there are ways to get it back, but I shouldn't have to use 3rd-party tools to restore something that should never have been removed in the first place. Not to mention the fact that 7 is/was plagued by all of the invasive "GWX" garbage, although I suppose that may have calmed down some now. I give Vista a pass only because it feels like it was the last operating system where Microsoft actually TRIED to make a "nicer"/"prettier"/"better" (whatever you want to call it) operating system and user experience. I believe they failed in the "better" part, but they still get credit for trying. After Vista it's all downhill.
  9. If I remember correctly I believe that particular call can sometimes just be patched to something else that is the same length and is present under 95. Somewhere there was a discussion of it but it's slipped my memory. "GetCurrentProcess" is the suggested replacement function. Here are the relevant links: This could make more software Win95 compatible. SysInternals Forum Another solution
  10. Here's hoping. I don't really care for Vista, but I draw the ultimate final line there. I refuse to be forced onto any later version of Windows, even if it's only for Internet use.
  11. Windows 9x can work pretty well on ICH6 and later systems provided some assumptions are made and some necessary prerequisites are accepted. First, avoid boards using an Intel proprietary BIOS and probably AMI BIOS as well. AWARD BIOS is preferred. (Strike 1 against this ASRock board) Second, you will either 1) need rloew's SATA patch, OR 2) you will have to verify that all SATA controllers can be set to operate in Legacy mode. Third, you will need an add-in Sound Card that is 9x compatible and a slot to put it in. Fourth, you will need an add-in Network card that is 9x compatible and a slot to put it in. (Realtek chip on this ASRock board MAY work with 9x.) (Unless you are lucky enough to have an onboard one with 9x drivers; usually Realtek or Marvell based.) The real unknown with this board is the AMI BIOS. If the BIOS is not 9x-friendly to start with it can cause all kinds of resource conflicts and other annoying issues. Probably should use SETUP /p i to disable ACPI with this system. I have very little experience with AMI BIOS but it has generally been bad. AWARD BIOS is good. Intel BIOS is trash.
  12. You can basically use any CPU for Windows 95 so long as you're using my FIX95CPU patch. I've seen no problems up to 3.73GHz. Some very old programs may have issues but I'm not aware of any specifically and there's no way to know that without trying first. The main issues to be aware of are device compatibility (including those built on the motherboard) and of course the amount of RAM unless you have rloew's RAM patch. As a general rule any system based on an Intel 845 or earlier chipset will have drivers available for Windows 95.
  13. You seem to have a lot of very strange problems running these older systems...
  14. There is no guarantee your system will work with more than 512MB of RAM even with the SYSTEM.INI tweaks. They never worked for me on any system I tested them on. I did see 98SE run with slightly over 1.2GB one time when using an old version of the Unofficial Service Pack, but the system was highly unstable. If I were you I would forget anything over 512MB until you get everything set up and working smoothly. Then add it and see what changes. You may end up needing rloew's RAM patch if it doesn't work or makes your system unstable.
  15. I was able to duplicate Mercury's results with the same VID&PID RALINK device and using rloew's latest WDMEX. Successfully connected to a WPA2 network under 9x using the Odyssey Client as well.