• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

61 Excellent

About LoneCrusader

  • Rank
    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • OS
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

1,938 profile views
  1. I remember on an earlier version of the forum software, there was an option to email yourself a copy of a PM conversation. Very useful for technical conversations where you may need the info without having to login to the forum or for helping clean out your PM inbox. Is this feature still around somewhere or has it disappeared?
  2. In all honesty guys, any attempt to extend XP's kernel and API functionality will most likely require disabling/circumventing Windows File Protection and possibly other "security" functions. I would simply accept this as a given prerequisite and just move forward... It comes down to a choice between "do I want to leave things as they are for security" or "do I want to extend the possibilities of XP?" I think you're worrying too much about this point. Most users who would be willing to use a "KernelEx" type project are power users who are certainly familiar with the risks of running "non-secure" systems. In the end security comes down to the user, regardless of what operating system they're using.
  3. Oh, the PaleMoon guys are being Microsoft's toadies again? Hating on older systems because they want an excuse to stop supporting them? Big surprise. I saw this coming even before the artificial POSReady block brouhaha earlier this year. EDIT: Wow, wth? My post is considered older than the one I quoted?
  4. If I were you I would dig a little deeper into those reports and want to see some video and/or screenshot evidence that the ATI cards are really messing up EGA games. Also, just because one ATI card or series of cards may have had issues does not mean that all ATI cards have the same problem. I wouldn't rule them out just because someone had something bad to say about them, there are too many variables, not least of which can be user error.
  5. While I hold the good old Voodoo cards in high respect there's no reason to have to go back that far in order to find a working PCI graphics card. I know ATI made PCI versions of several of their 7xxx, 8xxx, and 9xxx series cards. I would probably look for a PCI version of the Radeon 8500, as I have used this particular card in several Win95 machines and I know the disc that came with the cards has working 95 drivers... I don't see any of those on eBay currently but there are some 7xxx and 9xxx series: http://www.ebay.com/itm/152225129722 http://www.ebay.com/itm/182243441276 http://www.ebay.com/itm/381761732402
  6. Dibya, while we all wish you success with your projects it might be better if you started a new thread (or used one of your older ones) in the XP forum for them so that everything can be kept together and organized. Right now you have discussion of your mods going on in three or more different threads and it will soon become difficult to keep track of what information is where. If you need to consult with other developers or project maintainers in their threads you can always include a link back to your main thread that contains the relevant information.
  7. I'm not familiar with that board, but from a quick Google search it appears that the 3.0 revision of the board can support Wolfdale (a BIOS version 3.2 and a beta BIOS version 3.22 were mentioned as well so it may need this even on the 3.0 board?). Looks like it has a AMI BIOS though.. I wouldn't choose this board for a 9x setup myself but to each his own. If I wanted Socket 775 + AGP I would look for a DFI LanParty 875P-T or 865PE-T (these are rare!), but unless you need AGP there's no reason not to use a PCI-E board and an NVidia 7xxx card.
  8. As far as I know you can't have "too large" a power supply, as the motherboard and devices will only draw as much as they need. The problems come when the devices draw more than the PSU can put out. I would trash the Celeron (known to gamers as CelerOWNED ) processor and replace it with the highest-clocked Pentium III that is compatible with that board. You will see a very significant increase in performance. Virtually any Pentium 4 (Socket 478/some Socket 775) motherboard is great for running Windows 9x as most of them have compatible drivers and some can use over 3GHz processors and 4GB of RAM (you'll need rloew's patch for that much RAM though). Boards newer than that can be used in some cases but require more effort and more non-free patches. See the sticky thread we have devoted to motherboards for more info (I know it's a lot to read and somewhat disorganized, but we hope it will be improved in the future). You've come to the right place for Windows 9x support. You won't find any haters here that will waste your time telling you it's old and to run something else.
  9. This card apparently uses the "memory banking system" that rloew and I discovered while experimenting with 512MB and larger nVidia cards. With rloew's NVSIZE patch you can make all 256MB of the cards memory usable under 98SE.
  10. It's normal behavior for Windows 9x as far as I know. Windows 95 doesn't use DriverVer entries either. I can't speak for Windows ME offhand but if I remember correctly I don't think it works there either. DriverVer entries first appear in Windows ME .INF's but this may simply be due to the fact that ME technically came out after 2K and shared some degree of driver interoperability.
  11. It may be possible to run 98 on this hardware, but in order to do so you will definitely need several patches from our good friend rloew and I almost guarantee you will need to install with "SETUP /P I" to disable ACPI. I have never tried to install 9x on hardware this "new," but it doesn't mean it's impossible. I have used 9x successfully on an X58 system and rloew has it working on a Z87 system. If you don't have at least rloew's RAM and SATA patches though, don't waste your time trying. This is hardly helpful. This is the dismissive attitude I see given to 9x users who want to use 9x on modern hardware on various other forums. I don't like seeing it here as well.
  12. The original incarnation of the UBCD apparently included the 98SE Setup files along with a MSBATCH.INF which provided a Product Key. This forced the project to be considered "warez" and a violation of copyright. MSFN cannot be the host of such a project or condone the posting of links to it as such. Now...This was all before my time here, and discussion of the issue since has been pretty much "taboo." I assume one could create a package that included everything from the original except these two problem items and it might be acceptable; but in the end it's not my decision.
  13. I'd like to register a vote against this, or at least to make the order switchable somehow. I had to track down a method of reversing it back to the old way on PaleMoon.
  14. Here's a link. Notes from MDGx on this fix:
  15. The next question is whether or not Windows 98/ME/2K can also use the updated CRYPT32.DLL (along with any interlocked dependencies it may have) from XP. Its possible it may just work, it's possible it may work with KEX or a similar approach, or it may not work at all.