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. 



BenoitRen

W00T! Windows 95 runs on it!

Recommended Posts

BenoitRen    0

Just for kicks, I decided to try installing Windows 95 on my super PC. I formatted the HDD, and ran setup. Worked flawlessly. When the time came to boot, though, it complained about not having enough memory to initialise.

A Google search revealed a KB article that instructed to edit system.ini with a MaxPhysPage of 300000. I did so through DOS. Next was a protection error involving IOS. After Googling again and reading some KB articles, I didn't really find a solution, though I figured it would be that timing problem. On the KB article of that issue the error message was similar. Not being able to even boot in Safe Mode (not enough memory, huh?), I copied the necessary files from the AMD-K6 update on a floppy and copied them over manually.

Then Windows 95 setup continued, and after a couple reboots Windows 95's desktop appeared in 16-colour glory. Next step is finding/trying some drivers. :)

Still, I'm happy that it even runs. Since my CPU is an AMD Sempron 2800+, I feared that the AMD-K6 update wouldn't be enough, since Windows 98 had another timing problem that occurred with a CPU faster than 2.1 Ghz or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BenoitRen    0

Windows 95 boots in 17 seconds! The only change I had made at that point was installing the DCOM 95 update.

The "support CD" of ASRock announced that it didn't support the version of the Windows OS. Pfft.

The VGA driver setup errorred while it was preparing. I don't think it ever worked on Win98 anyway.

I got sound to work. Yay!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PassingBy    0

Hmmm .....

Can you fill in the blanks please ?

1. Motherboard model

2. Chipset

3. VGA chipset

4. Audio chipset

5. NIC if available

On VIA chipsets, older drivers version 4.43 seems to works best (may need to patch in the irq driver manually) ... Nvidia drivers can be made to work fully (driver+cpl) on win95 upto version 61.77, above that requires some patching upto 81.98 ... Haven't tried ATI or Unichrome drivers yet ... Audio for realtek is version 4.03 vxd ...

Rgds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BenoitRen    0

  • Motherboard: ASRock K7S41GX (SiS 741GX)
  • CPU: AMD Sempron 2800+ (really an Athlon XP in disguise)
  • RAM: 1 GB DDR1
  • Graphics card: ATI Radeon 9250
  • Sound chipset: C-Media 9738 (AC97)
  • Network card: SiS 900

I got the network card to work too. Catalyst 6.2 wouldn't run. It says it can't find anything requiring drivers. Catalyst 4.3 seems to be the last Catalyst for Windows 95, and it seems to support Radeon 9250. But it's a b***h to download. I HATE DRIVER SITES! They make something simple a pain in the a**. ATI doesn't provide older versions. archive.org is being a pain (Failed Connection, Data Retrieval Failure). ARRRGH!

Edited by BenoitRen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BenoitRen    0

I finally got my hands on a Catalyst 4.2 driver for Win9x/ME. However, as usual, there is confusion regarding what "Win9x" means. Idiots stamp Win9x even when it's only compatible with Win98 and WinME. Then people who do know note it as being compatible with Win95. Yeah, the driver didn't work.

I guess that's the end of this exercise. Unless Tihiy's driver works on Windows 95 too.

Seriously, all this driver s*** is a load of crock. The companies sell HARDWARE. Release some decent drivers, AND publish specificiations and technical info so people can create their own drivers. What the hell is there to lose? We get the drivers for free anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RJARRRPCGP    5

If you can't complete the driver installation process with Windows 95 even after some other changes, then try again with Windows 98 SE. Catalyst, at least up to 3.9 will support Windows 98 SE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RJARRRPCGP    5
The goal was Windows 95. I know it works on Windows 98 SE. The last Catalyst for Win98 SE is 6.2.

I dunno what can be done to make Catalyst install on Windows 95?

Maybe try extracting the driver files and infs right out of the package.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
modicr    0

Hello!

Since my CPU is an AMD Sempron 2800+, I feared that the AMD-K6 update wouldn't be enough, since Windows 98 had another timing problem that occurred with a CPU faster than 2.1 Ghz or so.

No fear - Sempron 2800+ is 1.6 GHz ...

Cheers, Roman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andrew T.    4

Congratulations! It doesn't totally surprise me that you got Windows 95 to boot: After all, at one point in time I got a minimal installation of Windows 3.11 running on my 600MHz P3 box (from within Windows 95's DOS, no less). Drivers are another matter, however: They are what separate a merely-bootable OS from a practically usable one, and tend to complicate things to the nth degree. <_<

Be sure to let us know what progress you make!

It's a wonder why more purveyors of hardware and peripherals don't publish specifications and technical info for their products. Back in the olden days (circa 1980s), manufacturers published and publicized specs for devices as a matter of course: This way, software could be written that took advantage of their capabilities, thereby providing an incentive for consumers to buy the product. Doing so was in the best interests of everyone involved!

I'm not sure when the trend of not publishing specifications became the norm rather than the exception, though I'd assume it was after Windows 3.x caught on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's because they don't want to be bored with error feedbacks or questions from programmers who would use the infos.

Avoiding error complains and reducing consumer support is the main reason why they block the driver installation under w98 and below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ninho    1
Just for kicks, I decided to try installing Windows 95 on my super PC. I formatted the HDD, and ran setup. Worked flawlessly. When the time came to boot, though, it complained about not having enough memory to initialise.

A Google search revealed a KB article that instructed to edit system.ini with a MaxPhysPage of 300000.

A very bad solution IMNSHO. You are in effect removing part of your memory from the system. The problem you experienced is very well known, and it's surprising someone who is never shy on giving advice was not aware of the right way of correcting it.

You should ditch the MaxPhysPage altogether, and instead add (or modify, if it exists) an appropriate [VCache] section to your System.ini :

_________________________

[VCache]

MaxFileCache=65536

_________________________

HTH. And please don't bother to thank me.

--

Ninho

Edited, to explain : the actual figure, '65536' is not critical. It is what I use on a system similar to Benoit's - same MoBo & installed memory. I could as well, say, double it. In Windows 98 as opposed to Win 95, programs can be run directly from the VCache if they happen to be there already, so having a larger VCache is more appealing.

The critical point is to set a definite limit, and one which is /not too high/, because of a bug or oversight on the part of Microsoft.

Edited by Ninho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PassingBy    0

Hmmm .....

I've just patched OpenOffice 2.3.1 (sal3.dll) to run on windows 95 ... Its still the same IsDebuggerPresent patch ... No problems so far ...

If anyone wants it, kindly let me know ...

Rgds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm .....

I've just patched OpenOffice 2.3.1 (sal3.dll) to run on windows 95 ... Its still the same IsDebuggerPresent patch ... No problems so far ...

If anyone wants it, kindly let me know ...

Rgds

You're no longer active on this forum, but if there's anybody who knows or can replicate the patch in order for it to make Win 95 run OOo 2.3.1, it would be appreciated. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dencorso    542

You didn't search the forum, did you?

I use the free hex editor XVI32 to do that. Most often to change the API call IsDebuggerPresent (not present in Win95, and most programs don't even use it) into ReadFile.

PassingBy is not around anymore, but BenoitRen remains with us, so if the above info is not enough (but it *is* a good start), you should ask him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×