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

Moderator
  • Content count

    1,201
  • Donations

    $75.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

LoneCrusader last won the day on January 6

LoneCrusader had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

94 Excellent

About LoneCrusader

  • Rank
    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • OS
    98SE
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

4,103 profile views
  1. "Slipstreamable" Intel Chipset INF Drivers

    I checked my INF's against xRayer's for this device. xRayer's INF is missing the "INTEL_PCI" install section that the device ID is directed to, so I can only assume it does nothing if no error is reported. My INF's point this device to a blank section like the original 9x compatible Intel versions, so my INF "does nothing" for this device as well. Both sets of INF should name the device but that's all. (It's really all chipset INF's are good for anyway.) Neither of them should have any effect on the nVidia driver. The only way I could see any different condition arising from using xRayer's INFs or my INF's would be if the entry for this chipset's LPC controller on xRayer's INFs does not load ISAPNP.VXD as mine (and the original Intel 9x compatible ones) does. Keep me posted about what you find.
  2. Ultimate 98SE PC - preparation

    You can discuss 9x issues here to your heart's content (or till you're blue in the face), take your pick. But you must learn to separate different issues and keep discussions on topic. Different specific forums and threads exist for a reason. Use them as such. Do not post about 9x things in the XP forum. Do not discuss subjects from one thread in a different thread. Failure to do this results in a nightmare for anyone looking for specific information or trying to follow a discussion. In the event there is an issue with "overlap" across multiple operating systems, you need to keep the discussion in the forum for the OS where the issue originated and where it will receive the most relevant attention.
  3. Yes. I have a representative board from almost every "family/level/generation" (whatever you wish to call it) of Intel chipset. On the "newer" ones I have chosen however to only spend money on Xxx chipset (X58/X79/X99) boards because I don't want the integrated graphics that come with Zxx boards. I have at least one board using each of these Intel chipsets: 845, 865, 875, 915, 925, 945, 965, 975, P35, P45, X38, X48, X58, X79, and X99. There's a Z87 or Z97 (not sure which) somewhere but I think it had a power problem. I have already used each of these systems at some point or another in test setups just like the one pictured. No audio or LAN yet. I have several of these newer systems but I have not tried to use them beyond proof-of-concepts yet. However I do already have solutions for this. I found a Chinese PCI-E sound card using a 9x compatible chipset on eBay and ordered a couple. They do work. I also have PCI-E Network cards that have 9x drivers. This X99 board has two PS/2 connectors so I'm using PS/2 Keyboard and Mouse. My X79 board has one PS/2 connector so in this case I use a USB Keyboard and PS/2 Mouse. Onboard USB2 ports are working. I just haven't tried the USB3 ones yet. I used the older ones out of force of habit, lol. The RAM patch would have no affect on device detection, this is absurd. Without the RAM patch the system probably would not boot, and even if one had the desire to play around with other "free" RAM tweaks and solutions (which have never worked for me), and if they did miraculously work long enough to boot to the desktop, the system would not be stable. Bottom line, I don't waste my time trying to run 9X on a modern system without the right tools to do it. And rloew's RAM and SATA patches are mandatory for that. Once again the RAM patch cannot affect device detection. Not having the SATA patch will not prevent you from running SETUP or reaching the desktop. Of course these systems could "work" without the SATA patch. If you're willing to run in DOS compatibility mode, go right ahead. The specific Device ID's come from my INF's. They can be found here. You will need the later versions that came along around post #31 or so for an X99 system. I have a 512MB version of the 7950GT that I have used successfully before with rloew's NVidia patch, I just didn't have it in this system. rloew wrote the Shutdown Fix for the 82.69 driver but you must apply it yourself. It's here in a thread somewhere. I haven't tried running 2K or XP on the X99 system yet. I do have XP x86 + PAE and XP x64 on my X79 system though (once again this system is not daily-use yet).
  4. Ultimate 98SE PC - preparation

    What are you talking about? I'll have you know I have no trouble "detecting" my motherboard. It's right where I left it on my testing bench. It is not mobile and does not have cloaking ability. Stop hijacking threads and cross-posting multiple subjects across different threads. This thread is about MrMateczko's Windows 98SE machine. It has nothing whatsoever to do with VBE9X, DOSBOX, or any of my motherboards.
  5. I have a Gigabyte GA-X99-UD4P motherboard + GeForce 7950GT 256MB with 95 OSR2 and 98SE up and running for testing. Using rloew's RAM and SATA patches, the NVidia 82.69 driver (patched for shutdown), and my updated Intel chipset INF's. I did notice that on this board the SATA controllers will only show up if they are in use. I had to connect a drive to another controller to make another one show up in the Device Manager. Apparently the BIOS disables devices that are not in use without consulting the user.
  6. I'm not insulting your intelligence. I'm just pointing out the fact that moving a pre-installed system is asking for trouble, plain and simple. It's not that there is anything wrong with doing so, but moving a pre-installed system is something to be done when necessary and when you have already tested the target system with a clean install to verify compatibility. You can't just throw it on a new machine and expect everything to work properly. Sometimes that happens, but you can't assume that it will always (or even usually) work. In all honesty I have probably tested rloew's patches on more systems than anyone else, maybe even rloew himself. I have quite a stockpile of various hardware, mostly Pentium 4 era and later that I have either stockpiled specifically for 9x compatibility, been given by some friends I have in a large organization when they were replacing, or purchased specifically to test 9x compatibility. Not too long ago I started out on a "quest" to test Windows 95 and Windows 98 on each subsequent set of Intel chipsets from the time when they were supported (845-865-875) up to the present (X99, I don't have X299 yet). I have tested 9x boards using Intel 9xx chipsets, P35, X38, X48, X58, X79, and X99, all without any strange issues except those cause by Intel-branded motherboards that have a garbage BIOS incompatible with 9x. (Do I need to prove it with screenshots? lol) I only have 2 older AMD nForce3/4 systems but the patches work there as well. I have the full range of nVidia 7xxx cards; 7200GS, 7600GS, 7800GS, 7800GTX, 7950GT, and possibly others. I actually did a lot of testing for the nVidia problems to help rloew as well. It's possible that your hardware combination can cause issues. Any motherboard with an Intel BIOS newer than 8xx chipset is garbage for 9x. It's possible other things may cause issues as well, but you need to be able to pin it down to a very specific point by removing ALL other variables from the situation. Once you do this, if there is indeed a bug of some kind, I'm sure rloew will address it.
  7. ASRock ConRoe865PE --> just for laughs...

    I see.. I didn't take into account the Quad support, so I suppose the ConRoe board has some degree of advantage there. However Windows 9x cannot use these other cores anyway, so a single-core P4 with a higher raw clock speed should still be better for 9x than a Quad. Also, if the ConRoe board doesn't support DDR2 then I'm not certain how much having a 1066MHz FSB CPU is any better than 800MHz FSB. Bottom line, if you're looking for 9x performance then any advantage would be negligible, and you could use a 9xx chipset board that also supports DDR2 and have a better result. If you're thinking of other OS such as XP, then there are far, far, more performance-capable systems for it than dropping all the way back to Quad + DDR1. Also, based on reports I've seen I'm not certain ASRock has the same level of quality as Gigabyte or DFI but I've never used ASRock so I don't know.
  8. Running SoftICE with Windows 2000 SP4?

    SoftICE 1.99? I don't think I've ever heard of that... The versions I see mentioned most are 4.05 and 4.2.7., apparently both of which were produced pre-2KSP4 and pre-XPSP2 and require fixes to work under those systems.
  9. ASRock ConRoe865PE --> just for laughs...

    Eh.. what's so great about it? DFI Lanparty 875P-T is the king of the 8xx chipset + LGA775 boards.
  10. You seem to have a very strange set of problems with your various experiments. Being a frequent user and tester of most of rloew's programs and patches I can say I have never yet seen any issues like the problems you are having. I believe most of your problem comes from trying to move around previously installed copies of the OS. I know it is annoying to have to re-setup updates and programs for each new machine, but this is questionable at best to start with. Any time you do this you should at LEAST go into the Device Manager in Safe Mode and remove any and all devices BEFORE even attempting to boot the system on different hardware. Failure to do this is asking for trouble. Better yet, you should do that step and then manually go into the ENUM key in the registry and manually delete anything that is left under \PCI, \MF, \USB, \USBSTOR, and possibly others (do not remove \ROOT) after the Device Manager cleanup. You should try clean installs using only the base system + rloew's patches and see if you have any issues under that configuration before you try moving a pre-installed system that exponentially multiplies the variables for failure. If it works in the clean setup and doesn't in your moved setup, then the problem lies somewhere in your pre-installed environment.
  11. Running SoftICE with Windows 2000 SP4?

    What version? On what hardware? I'm debugging a driver, or rather tracing what a couple of specific 2K-compatible drivers do when running in their normal environment under 2K and comparing it to how the driver operates under 98SE. (we are trying to backport two 2K-compatible drivers to 98SE) So I need SoftICE to be working under 2K SP4 on the same machine where I already have it working under 98SE to compare.
  12. Hello my Win2K friends! Has anyone here been able to successfully run SoftICE under Windows 2000 SP4? If so, what version of SoftICE did you use? did you have any updates for that version installed? any special registry settings or other settings you had to modify? any updates beyond SP4 installed on your Win2K? what hardware did you run it on? what specific video card and what video driver version did you use? I've combed the Internet and tried just about everything that I've been able to dig up but SoftICE keeps crashing out when the machine boots and causes the machine to restart in an infinite loop. Thanks in advance!
  13. Forum upgrade to v4.2!

    I'm a sponsor. And as you can see it's disabled anyway.
  14. MSFN will be online one more month! (Until Sept-12)

    Really now? Me too.
  15. Forum upgrade to v4.2!

    Using PaleMoon 24.7.2 under XP, 1280x960 resolution I see some overlap issues with formatting. This goes away if I use Firefox 52.2.0esr. Hopefully a simple problem.
×