• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About cov3rt

  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • OS
    none specified
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

1,041 profile views
  1. ^i agree with pretty much all the things you said, besides, why use a power hungry card like the 7950gx2, even if it was possible to have support for both gpu chips, it would run hot and use a lot of power. heck, i would rather use something like a 7600 gt instead of the 7950gt. it would definitely be nice if someone were to get modded working drivers for the radeon x1xxx series as you can have a cooler running lower wattage chip compared to the older chips.
  2. i would agree on this, if you are worried about some games preferring no more than pentium iii speeds, not running well or problematic, there is some programs that can limit cpu speed, something down to like 200mhz or lower which may help with compatibility with some dos games or possibly disabling of cache with the cpu to also help with compatibility or functionality with a specific program or game. some of the newer games that work on windows 98SE require fairly high specs to run smoothly on high settings such as fable the lost chapters, far cry 1, etc. i would love to give you build options / suggestions to parts, pm me if you want with price / budget range, etc.
  3. has anyone actually tested and confirmed youtube working on 98SE? i just tested it yesterday on firefox 3.5.19 with flash 11, pentium m 780, 1 GB ram, geforce fx go 1400, i typed "&nohtml5=1" at the end of the video web address and it wouldn't work like it used to a few weeks back when i last tested. have they changed another thing in the web browser to prevent us 98SE users from getting youtube to work? i also noticed firefox 3.5.19 crashing and asking to see if i wanted to disable flash, adobe reader and some other options, it was running slow and unresponsive at the time i tested yesterday for some reason, maybe it's ff 3.5.19 specifically and perhaps firefox 9.0 would work better? reason i use 3.5.19 specifically is because it is the newest or one of the newest web browsers that still supports java and i've been longing to keep that because if there are many websites that require it somehow, then it would definitely help obviously, although if there really is much of no use for it, i may just remove java completely from my archived 98SE contents and just add in a newer web browser. anyone know what sites or things really require or use java? i know asks for it, only needs flash player i think.
  4. i know the thread is mostly on kaby lake but im hoping even cannonlake can work "fine" on windows 7 as that's what i would like to use as my next system possibly. the windows 7 experience scores would be nice to see :).
  5. i wasn't sure where to post this, i thought of posting it in the general forum but i guess i couldn't do that if it was technical in any nature so i thought of posting it here since i also plan on using windows 7. so anyways, i was just wondering if anyone knows any good looking laptops with decent performance for what im looking for. im mainly looking for a white or beige colored laptop ( not a fan of the high contrast black and white scheme ), and need the performance to be at least of intel 45nm processors or amd 45nm processors. im mainly looking to play world of warcraft on it on lowish medium settings smoothly. monitor size can be as low as 14 inches, although i prefer 15 - 16 inches, but not 17 inches. i would need an optical drive as well. you can throw in 13 inch laptops in there too if they have optical drives. i have found many used sony laptops on ebay but most of them are either in rough condition, not worth the price ( you can find black or other color laptops for a lot cheaper with the same specs or better ), or just dont really look nice. the only laptop i had found that really stood out in looks was the asus f8p limited white leather edition, although the performance is still a little low and i have yet to find any to buy at all to compare with other laptops in price / appearance. i am not sure on price range, im already on a pretty low budget and being that you can get new low end laptops for like 300 dollars or so, i wouldn't want to spend more than like half of that. other than that, the newer laptops in my opinion look uglier, and of course carry the extra cost to them as well. i dont 100 percent have to get a white or beige colored laptop, if there is a black colored version or similar model, i might be ok with it if the price is good, so you can suggest or give some alternatives, although i have searched many laptops, there may be something i haven't came across currently in price or in general.
  6. perhaps modifying the maxmtu settings of windows would allow faster download/upload speeds, this was something i had experimented with a while back but i don't remember what i did and if it helped or not. i guess il just have to experiment again myself.
  7. thank you for the response, however, i dont think you properly answered my question. you mentioned "the prescott would be the better choice due to the better specs you mentioned", but im not sure what this is implying, im not sure if i can conclude from this to see in what ways it would be better, as being faster is obviously a goal in itself, but does it specifically allow youtube to run smoothly if i were to swap out the northwood and replace it with the prescott? again, this is a laptop, i had given the manual url below for its specs, the part of using prescott 775 and ddr2 is a bit irrelevant, because im just talking about the laptop at hand, if we were talking about the socket 775 boards, then i would be aiming for a cedar mill 65nm pentium 4 ( if pentium 4's are the only supported options ), but obviously thats a different story. one big reason why i made this thread specifically was to see whether having sse3 vs sse2 would allow loading websites quicker or load possibly more content and smoother playback of youtube videos or videos in general on the internet that would otherwise benefit from sse3. the instructions are apparently important because i remember when using pentium iii or processors that only had up to sse instructions, some web content or information wouldn't even load at all, limiting what you can do, so even though a pentium iii tualatin at 1.4 Ghz may be faster clock for clock against for example a northwood pentium 4 at 1.6 Ghz, the instructions limit what you can do / and as a result, make it slower or not fully functional for the intended purposes as i had mentioned.
  8. would anyone if whether or not a prescott pentium 4 without hyperthreading would be faster than a pentium 4 northwood without hyperthreading at the same clock speed of 3.06 Ghz if using youtube playback on firefox 12.0 ( last official version to work on windows 2000 )? reason why i ask this specifically, other than my previous knowledge on prescott vs northwood efficiency is to see whether the lagging im getting and unplayable framerates has to do more with the simple combination of a slow pentium 4 northwood at 3.06 to begin with and only 1 GB ram on windows 2000 with mobility radeon 9100 with 64 MB video memory, or is it possible that sse3 instructions are really needed to make up for the slowness im experiencing in the videos taking long to load all information, comments, and playback? so my direct question would be if i could get smoother playback if i upgraded from the 3.06 Ghz northwood with 130nm architecture, 512 l2 cache, and only sse2 instructions to the 3.06 Ghz prescott that has 90nm architecture, 1 MB l2 cache, and sse3 instructions. and yes, i know that many people say that the prescotts are slower in general and the extra l2 cache is supposed to make up for the slowness of the architecture, but im just asking again a direct question, will it be faster with the prescott and fix the choppy unplayable frames im currently getting with the northwood, or will it not? i feel like the sse3 instructions would help with this. the laptop seems to have very limited upgrade choices, i know there are up to 3.46 Ghz mobile prescotts and 3.33 Ghz, however i don't even know if the laptop would support higher than 3.2 Ghz for prescott with HT. MN Series/compatriotMN_nbc118ts06_09.pdf
  9. anyone know if there is a windows 95 driver for the audio device with hardware id of "PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4341"? i've downloaded a package, for both the w95 and 98 folders, they reference to cmi9738 for the audio device next to the hardware id, however, only the 98 package shows "PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4341". the hardware id links to AMD ATI® IXP150 AC97 Audio Controller from a quick google search. im not sure if the chipset of this laptop im working with is even supported for w95 or if it was mentioned anywhere in this thread or elsewhere, so im also trying to see if there are working chipset drivers for the laptop, gpu drivers, or other drivers. for example, i've been able to get the mobility 9000 and 9600/9700 to work on w95 before, however this laptop has a slightly different model, its the ati mobility 9100. the laptop has a current installation of windows xp so i was able to get some info beforehand, though i dont have the laptop just yet to see all hardware ids and devices. i've found an earlier chipset package of gart9x, it mentions "windows 95" inside the inf file text and also has vxd files in the package, so i would assume it might work. interestingly, for the ati mobility 9100 or radeon 9100 in general, i've found many many different hardware ids. this was somewhat a similar problem with the radeon x600 or x700, where only certain hardware ids are supported under 98SE apparently. i think lonecrusader was the one that mentioned he couldnt get any drivers to work on his mobility x600 or x700 on one of his laptops, and so i was using him as this example. i also researched and found out that apparently the radeon 8500le is literally the same exact gpu at the radeon 9100 or very very close, just differentiating mostly in transistor fabrication mostly. i was thinking of taking one route of possibly using the official 8500le w95 driver to install it for the ati mobility 9100. other options are to use "PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_5834", "PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_516d", or "PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_514d". all of these apparently had official windows 95 drivers or proper packaging with vxd files that would otherwise support w95. another thing is that the hardware ids also sometimes change based on the operating system, ( this was the case for the ati m6 or radeon 7500 when tested on 98 vs 95 ) so its possible that windows xp showing the ati mobility 9100 as "PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_5835" is really the "PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_5834" that is provided in these w95 packages i have, therefore providing a possible working driver. the laptop either comes with up to 100 mbps ethernet or 1000, im hoping its the 100 with realtek 8100 as it will have a w95 driver and i was hoping to get w95 installed on this laptop from the start. the chipset i think is rc300m or sb200, i couldn't find much info on this particular chipset. please let me know if i should progress this topic into a separate thread or if its ok to get answers directly in this thread.
  10. there was a separate thread on a user getting the nvs110m working on i think the same laptop or similar model for 98SE using 82.69 driver, so yes, it does work, however, i would aim for laptops with the 128 MB version of the nvs110m as i think the dell d620 only has 64 MB of video memory?
  11. winrar 3.80 was the last i got to work on my windows 95 osr 2.5 systems, newer versions did not work for me, although i don't remember which exact version(s) newer than 3.80 that didn't work, although you listed 3.92 as working. i use version 3.80 on 98SE as well. xnview 1.82.4 was the last version to work on windows 95 osr 2.5, i personally have xnview 1.11 in my archived contents as its more lightweight and the first version to support screen capture, however, its obviously less advanced in features than 1.82.4.
  12. hi, do you know what exactly the "Visual C++ .NET 2003 Redistributables" does? does it update important files in the system? i did a general search up of what it microsoft visual c++ was through wikipedia, but i just wanted to know more specifically if its something that is recommended to install on any w95 system excluding anything else that it might need to function completely, but just the package you had put down, its only about 1 MB.
  13. interesting, i didnt know there was a adobe reader 5.1 version for w95, i thought 5.0 was the last, however i just checked now and for adobe 5.1, it doesn't mention as windows 95 being supported, i checked 5.0.5 and does mention windows 95 as being supported. "ar505enu.exe" was the filename for the adobe reader 5.0.5 that i downloaded from oldversion, however from adobe's official site, it lists it as "a5u1tl.exe" for the 5.0.5 update. whats the difference? adobe's site says you need 5.0 already installed to install 5.0.5. i compared the two files and the oldversion one is smaller, only about 8.5 MB or so, but the one from adobe directly was about 13 MB. i renamed the adobe reader 5 when i first got it from the past that i have been using up to this point, im sure its got to be the 5.0 version exactly because the oldversion i just downloaded right now to compare was the same size, at 8.41 MB. anyone have experience on which versions they use exactly? honestly, i dont care if the 5.1 doesnt work, at least if i can get the 5.0.5 one that is only 8.5 MB or so, then it will still be a upgrade in compatibility and fixes, without sacrificing much of any space but the 13 MB one is significantly bigger and wouldnt want to use that one. here is some other stuff that works on 95 osr 2.5: . aida32 3.94.2 . hd tach 2.61 . imgburn . sisoft sandra 2001 . speedfan 4.28 . cpu-z 1.32.1 . msn messenger 5.0 ( not sure if it works properly still )
  14. thanks for the information. i will make the necessary changes in my docs based on these values and numbers.
  15. i didnt have any hanging issues with the unofficial sp 3.56, at least in the most recent tested builds, there is a confirmation dialog to ask to keep new or used files in conflict which i always select no when this happens for any updates but this is a universal thing which can happen when installing drivers, etc. the things that i would like to be different or would find better is if there was a lighter version of the unofficial service pack, for the most recent or newest ones, such as removing office 97, ntfs update, windows 2000 / me themes, the tweak ui and performance tweaks, and some other unnecessary things. i feel like the folder icons dont look good after the unofficial service pack update, even after unchecking most of the optional stuff, it still changes the way folder icons look and i havent found a way to change it back to the original icons, also, it seems that you cant view all pages in the web format after the update, even if choosing the web format option in folder options, it seems to show pages in classic way? other than that though, its a convenient way of installing many important updates, as well as directx 9.0c, etc.