• Announcements

    • xper

      MSFN Sponsorship and AdBlockers!   07/10/2016

      Dear members, MSFN is made available via subscriptions, donations and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, become a site sponsor and ads will be disabled automatically and by subscribing you get other sponsor benefits.
LoneCrusader

Windows 95 2.1GHz CPU Limit BROKEN!

272 posts in this topic

...

AFAIKR the MS AMD Patch was specifically for the 350mhz (although heard reports of others).

...

Not slamming the project as it sounds great and should "cure" any problems with installation on "real" PC's. May try installing Win95RTM/OSRx.y onto a "real" partition just to give it a go (yeah, I have all of them in some form or another).

...

BTW, installing the DUN (and other items) should be able to "integrate" into actual install using the MSBATCH.INF (remember your other thread?) the same way as UBCD98SE did. If need be, I'll scrounge up the "basics" of the how-to to assist. Not much on projects nowadays except to fix my own up and relative's ignorance. I could at least supply the "raw files" (if not too large for a ZIP) used (the actual process files, not the remainder/proprietary EXE, etc.) to let you late-comers peruse (lots of BAT files too).

I can't speak from experience on the VPC issues, however I think he is referring to VPC7 for Windows 7, not VPC2007.

The MS AMD Patch works for many processors besides the 350MHz. I used it for years on AMDK6-2 550MHz systems before being forced to upgrade to 98 because of a game I wanted to play. It is also required for Pentium 4 processors, and I have used it to successfully install 95 on a P4 2.0GHz system.

Above 2.1GHz, Windows 95 will crash with the NDIS error referenced in the first post. MS claimed there was no fix for this in 95, but issued a HotFix for 98FE that contained an updated NDIS.VXD. It just so happens, the NDIS.VXD contained in the DUN14-95 update also fixes the error. MS neglected to mention this. :whistle:

The reason for this particular project is that you cannot boot into Windows (not even safe mode) to install the MS patches. Windows will crash on the first reboot during setup. This project manually copies the AMDK6UPD files and the updated NDIS.VXD into Windows so that Windows Setup can continue normally.

It may be possible to use MSBATCH to install DUN14-95 during Setup, (as discussed with BeatZero above) but you must first be able to continue setup, if the updated files are not copied after the first reboot, Setup will crash. And, if the updated files are simply placed in the \WIN95 folder before setup, or copied before setup, WININIT.EXE will crash and not properly compress VMM32.VXD.

Edited by LoneCrusader
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

? I am soooo confused...

VPC2K7 doesn't mount floppies without VB(what version)? Maybe I installed all of the VBx's on my XP/2K3's... I installed Win95RTM (no IE at all!!!) from... FLOPPY IMAGES!!! Then mounted the VPC2K4SP1 ISO add-ons and installed, then used Shared Folders, installed the DUN then IE. My CPU is a Sempron on the Host and I limited the RAM in VPC. No problems whatsoever. AFAIKR the MS AMD Patch was specifically for the 350mhz (although heard reports of others).

Hi:

Sorry for the confusion. Virtual PC 2007 works fine with Win 95. However, Virtual PC (or Virtual PC 7), the latest version that only works with Windows 7, does not have a floppy interface. You need to open Windows Powershell and run either a VB script or Powershell script:

http://blogs.msdn.com/virtual_pc_guy/archive/2009/10/01/using-floppy-disks-with-windows-virtual-pc.aspx

http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en/w7itprovirt/thread/62f8eaf1-23f9-497e-a431-f4a1ad643d38

You can install Virtual PC 2007 in Windows 7, but not concurrently with VPC 7, so you lose XP mode.

I am NO virtualization expert, but from my understanding, Virtual PC 2007 does not use hardware virtualization. One possibility is that the CPU speed is sensed to be lower than the patch cutoff, so you do NOT need FIX95CPU (another is that running in ring 1 avoids the problem altogether). Since Virtual PC 7 requires hardware virtualization, perhaps having the raw code in the correct ring 0 position with a faster speed makes the IOS protection error occur. This is a problem in VMWare as well, but I believe that the program has the option to turn off hardware virtualization, thus avoiding the error. I am going to try to current patch in VMWare Workstation, and I will e-mail them if it works.

http://kb.vmware.com/selfservice/microsites/search.do?language=en_US&cmd=displayKC&externalId=817

Edited by dawong
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@LoneCrusader -

OK, but again... it should be "doable" using the UBCD98SE method. It installed from Boot and included the necessary patches using a "special" Boot Image and the contents of the CD during Text Mode (which is not affected as you are in the process of installing). Agreed that the AMD Patch actually fixed other CPU's.

Too bad the UBCD thread was totally eliminated. There was a wealth of information there applicable to nearly any Win9x-series. Perhaps (?) it could be reloaded from archive and all links/attachments removed... (probably not and not worth the effort)...

If no Moderator has any objections, I'll extract the BAT's (all home-grown) and the contents list-only of the Boot Image so you'll see what I mean... (Never was a UBCD for Win95, but the concept is the same...)

@dawong - thx for the explanation

edit - errr DUN... will try a "basic" UBCD-95 in spare time just to test... Theoretically, the actual components could be extracted, placed in the WIN95 and alter the LAYOUT.INF accordingly (if other methods fail).

Edited by submix8c
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@LoneCrusader -

OK, but again... it should be "doable" using the UBCD98SE method. It installed from Boot and included the necessary patches using a "special" Boot Image and the contents of the CD during Text Mode (which is not affected as you are in the process of installing). Agreed that the AMD Patch actually fixed other CPU's.

Too bad the UBCD thread was totally eliminated. There was a wealth of information there applicable to nearly any Win9x-series. Perhaps (?) it could be reloaded from archive and all links/attachments removed... (probably not and not worth the effort)...

If no Moderator has any objections, I'll extract the BAT's (all home-grown) and the contents list-only of the Boot Image so you'll see what I mean... (Never was a UBCD for Win95, but the concept is the same...)

edit - errr DUN... will try a "basic" UBCD-95 in spare time just to test... Theoretically, the actual components could be extracted, placed in the WIN95 and alter the LAYOUT.INF accordingly (if other methods fail).

This is all very interesting :)

I'm open to any suggestions for improvement, but I don't want to bring any moderators down on our heads. I was not around before the UBCD project was removed, and I don't know much about what happened. Feel free to PM me or email me from my profile if you wish.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback. Spread the word in the virtualization community that 95 is now working again. :thumbup

DUN14-95.EXE is too large to fit on a floppy disk, so there is no way to have it on the same "Disk" as the batch file. One solution to this might be to use an ISO editing program and add DUN14-95 to the bootable FIX95CPU.ISO so that it would be in the root of the CD image and could be accessed from there once the Windows desktop has loaded. However this would require recapturing the ISO image, as you must release it after the patch is applied to allow Setup to continue. I considered doing this, but I felt things were getting a little redundant, since I had to include two versions in the new package, and both versions contain copies of DUN14-95 in their ZIP's.

Yes, I will do something like that and will post for the VPC 7 users when it is done. Right now, the skeleton site I set up has a boot disc that also has the DUN14-95 patch, but the process can be improved further. http://www.virtualuser.net

While I agree it would be convenient to have the CPU and RAM fixes combined, RLoew's RAM patch is not free, so it cannot be distributed in such a manner. It is the only method of installing more than 512 MB of RAM on a 9X system that I personally recommend however. I have been using it for over a year on my 98SE system with 1.5 GB of RAM. If you decide to purchase a copy, it is worth every penny.

Forget about virtualization for the moment--if I read things correctly, FIX95CPU, rloew's patch(es), the info on MDGX's site, and a boot manager like EasyBCD may allow a native Win 95 (or Win 98SE2ME) installation in any partition on a modern fast 8GB system with a large >137GB hard drive :-) :-) Hooray!

Edited by dawong
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget about virtualization for the moment--if I read things correctly, FIX95CPU, rloew's patch(es), the info on MDGX's site, and a boot manager like EasyBCD may allow a native Win 95 (or Win 98SE2ME) installation in any partition on a modern fast 8GB system with a large >137GB hard drive :-) :-) Hooray!

Yep. :yes:

The only limitation is the lack of drivers for 9X. :(

Edited by LoneCrusader
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fix95cpu.zip -

Currently a lot of users are downloading files. Please try again in 2 minutes or become a Premium Member
How about MegaUpload (or anything other than stinky RapidShare)?

Had DUN14-95.zip already tucked away...

edit - oops, sorry - I see new link above...

Edited by submix8c
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fix95cpu.zip -

Currently a lot of users are downloading files. Please try again in 2 minutes or become a Premium Member
How about MegaUpload (or anything other than stinky RapidShare)?

Had DUN14-95.zip already tucked away...

edit - oops, sorry - I see new link above...

Heh, yes, RapidShare is very irritating. I only link to it until MDGx gets a chance to update the patch on his site, which he did last night. ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree it would be convenient to have the CPU and RAM fixes combined, RLoew's RAM patch is not free, so it cannot be distributed in such a manner. It is the only method of installing more than 512 MB of RAM on a 9X system that I personally recommend however. I have been using it for over a year on my 98SE system with 1.5 GB of RAM. If you decide to purchase a copy, it is worth every penny.

The Patches can easily be combined so they can be done in a single sequence.

Add the PATCHMEM.EXE file from my RAM Limitation Patch package to the FIX95CPU Floppy, and run the RAM Patch after the FIX95CPU script completes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Patches can easily be combined so they can be done in a single sequence.

Add the PATCHMEM.EXE file from my RAM Limitation Patch package to the FIX95CPU Floppy, and run the RAM Patch after the FIX95CPU script completes.

Yes, it can easily be added to the floppy and even the script, provided one already has a copy of PATCHMEM. I was mainly addressing the distribution issue.

Edited by LoneCrusader
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DUN14-95.EXE is too large to fit on a floppy disk, so there is no way to have it on the same "Disk" as the batch file. One solution to this might be to use an ISO editing program and add DUN14-95 to the bootable FIX95CPU.ISO...

I made a combination boot disc that has the original MS .exe's in the non-bootable area, and combines the two patches on one disc. This disc is all you need for VPC 7 and may be useful for some regular installs. Use it as normal for a boot disc, and type PATCHA for the 95ALL version of the batch file and PATCHBC for the 95B&C version. DUN14-95 is automatically placed in a folder on the C drive when one of the patch programs is executed. Users with virtual programs other than VPC 7 can install Win 95 normally by turning off hardware virtualization, and then the patches can both be installed from within Windows.

Files (note different web address than previously, sorry):

Instructions

Boot Disk (self extracting archive)

I could only test patches for 95 OSR 2, because I don't have 95A, and the microsoft update patches for OSR 2 to 2.1 and 2.1 to 2.5 are no longer on the update site.

Also, I could not reproduce the 2.1 Ghz IOS error, perhaps because I never had the network running until after I had the DUN14-95 patch installed. Which program do you have to run to get this second problem?

While I agree it would be convenient to have the CPU and RAM fixes combined, RLoew's RAM patch is not free, so it cannot be distributed in such a manner. It is the only method of installing more than 512 MB of RAM on a 9X system that I personally recommend however. I have been using it for over a year on my 98SE system with 1.5 GB of RAM. If you decide to purchase a copy, it is worth every penny.

It works great with VPC also. FWIW, all four virtualization programs I tried would boot with <=946MB but not >=947MB of RAM, but could get to >3GB (limited by the programs, not the RAM patch) with patch installed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Files (note different web address than previously, sorry):

Instructions

Boot Disk (self extracting archive)

I could only test patches for 95 OSR 2, because I don't have 95A, and the microsoft update patches for OSR 2 to 2.1 and 2.1 to 2.5 are no longer on the update site.

Also, I could not reproduce the 2.1 Ghz IOS error, perhaps because I never had the network running until after I had the DUN14-95 patch installed. Which program do you have to run to get this second problem?

Could you post the Instructions in a .TXT file?

I did not have 95 or 95A to test either, however rloew confirmed that the new method for the B & C patch does not work on the older systems because WININIT cannot be called manually. I kept v1.1 in the package for anyone who might want to experiment with it on the older 95 versions, or who may have not got the 1.2 disk inserted before the IOS error is displayed (WININIT is called before/during this).

There is no 2.1GHz "IOS" error, it is the "NDIS" error. To reproduce it, all you need to do is try to install 95 on a >2.1GHz system using only the AMDK6UPD.EXE files, and leave out the NDIS.VXD from DUN14-95.EXE.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you post the Instructions in a .TXT file?

OK, it is at www.virtualuser.net/files/win95/Win95VPC7.txt

If the width or format is wrong, let me know.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DUN14-95.EXE is too large to fit on a floppy disk, so there is no way to have it on the same "Disk" as the batch file.

It is possible to create a Bootable Floppy Image on a CD/DVD of up to 36MB. The required geometry is 1024 Cylinders 2 Heads 36 Sectors.

I use my own CD/DVD burner. I do not know if any other CD writer will support this.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DUN14-95.EXE is too large to fit on a floppy disk, so there is no way to have it on the same "Disk" as the batch file.

It is possible to create a Bootable Floppy Image on a CD/DVD of up to 36MB. The required geometry is 1024 Cylinders 2 Heads 36 Sectors.

I use my own CD/DVD burner. I do not know if any other CD writer will support this.

FIX95CPU and DUN14-95 could both fit on a 2.88MB floppy, so as long as one was using strictly floppy or cd images for their setup, it would not be a problem. However, it would be a problem for anyone who actually needed to write FIX95CPU to a floppy disk.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is possible to create a Bootable Floppy Image on a CD/DVD of up to 36MB.

I wonder how did you format FAT12 disk to 36 MB size instead of well known 32 MB limit.

I use my own CD/DVD burner. I do not know if any other CD writer will support this.

Any other CD burner supports 32 MB boot disk image.

Edited by Usher
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is possible to create a Bootable Floppy Image on a CD/DVD of up to 36MB.

I wonder how did you format FAT12 disk to 36 MB size instead of well known 32 MB limit.

Early implementations of DOS may have had a 32MB limit, namely the 16 bit sector count.

With the newer 32-Bit Sector Count, FAT12 can easily handle 128GB. DOS 7 and Windows 9x have no problem with it.

My modded IO.SYS raises the FAT12 limit to 512MB, 16GB with larger Sectors.

The limiting factor is the CD Boot Floppy emulation.

Edited by rloew
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Early implementations of DOS may have had a 32MB limit, namely the 16 bit sector count.

With the newer 32-Bit Sector Count, FAT12 can easily handle 128GB. DOS 7 and Windows 9x have no problem with it.

Wonderful, RLoew! :thumbup

Let me get technical...

You mean: set the word at offset 0x13 in the BPB to 0x0000 and use the dword at offset 0x20 to hold the sector count? Simple as that? Wow! :blink:

I always suspected this should be possible, but never actually tried it...

And you say DOS 7.0, 7.1 and 8.0 support it natively. Great! Did you test it with DOS 6.xx? It may also support it.

Besides images, it can mean an oldish 128 MB pendrive or a Zip100 formatted to true FAT-12!!! And 128 MB would use 96 sectors per FAT, right?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Early implementations of DOS may have had a 32MB limit, namely the 16 bit sector count.

With the newer 32-Bit Sector Count, FAT12 can easily handle 128GB. DOS 7 and Windows 9x have no problem with it.

Wonderful, RLoew! :thumbup

Let me get technical...

You mean: set the word at offset 0x13 in the BPB to 0x0000 and use the dword at offset 0x20 to hold the sector count? Simple as that? Wow! :blink:

I always suspected this should be possible, but never actually tried it...

And you say DOS 7.0, 7.1 and 8.0 support it natively. Great! Did you test it with DOS 6.xx? It may also support it.

Besides images, it can mean an oldish 128 MB pendrive or a Zip100 formatted to true FAT-12!!! And 128 MB would use 96 sectors per FAT, right?

Haven't tried DOS 6.xx but I am pretty sure it would.

FAT12 is limited to 4086 Clusters so it never uses more than 12 Sectors per FAT. Any more Clusters would be recognized as FAT16.

128MB FAT12 Partitions need to use 32K Clusters.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FAT12 is limited to 4086 Clusters so it never uses more than 12 Sectors per FAT. Any more Clusters would be recognized as FAT16.

128MB FAT12 Partitions need to use 32K Clusters.

My modded IO.SYS raises the FAT12 limit to 512MB, 16GB with larger Sectors.

So this gives 4MB clusters?

Edited by Mijzelf
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FAT12 is limited to 4086 Clusters so it never uses more than 12 Sectors per FAT. Any more Clusters would be recognized as FAT16.

128MB FAT12 Partitions need to use 32K Clusters.

My modded IO.SYS raises the FAT12 limit to 512MB, 16GB with larger Sectors.

So this gives 4MB clusters? 

Yes.

256 Sectors per Cluster. 16K Bytes per Sector. This works only for DOS. I have not made a Large Sector Patch for Windows, just the 256 Sector Patch.

So the current limit for modded Windows 9X is 512MB for FAT12.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And 128 MB would use 96 sectors per FAT, right?
FAT12 is limited to 4086 Clusters so it never uses more than 12 Sectors per FAT.

Any more Clusters would be recognized as FAT16.

128MB FAT12 Partitions need to use 32K Clusters.

Of course! I must learn to curb my enthusiasm long enough to think things over more, before I post. :blushing:

128MiB uses 12 sectors per FAT12 and a Zip100 (which has 100,663,296 bytes = 96 MiB) uses 9 sectors per FAT12.

Here is how to calculate it: 96 MiB = 196,608 sectors (of 512 bytes) = 3,072 clusters (of 32 kiB or 64 sectors). Now, since each entry in a FAT12 is 1.5 bytes long, we have 3,072 x 1.5 = 4,608 bytes; dividing that by 512 bytes (= 1 sector) we get 9 sectors per FAT12.

I have just succedded in creating a FAT12 SuperFloppy out of a Zip100, and it works! :yes:

BTW, the FAT article in the Wikipedia (link) gives 4078 clusters as the maximum for FAT12, and their reasoning seems correct to me.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, the FAT article in the Wikipedia (link) gives 4078 clusters as the maximum for FAT12, and their reasoning seems correct to me.

4078 is based on the standards.

DOS and Windows computes the number of available Clusters then tests it against a threshold. If below, assume FAT12. If above, assume FAT16.

To complicate things further, DOS and Windows do not even use the same threshold. DOS uses 4086 and Windows uses 4085. A partition could be interpreted as FAT12 by DOS and FAT16 by Windows.

FAT16/FAT32 discrimination is even worse. DOS uses 65526 as a threeshold, Windows tests the 16-Bit # of Sectors per FAT field.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am surely missing a point :unsure:, but what is the practical need/advantage of having a FAT12 "super-floppy" instead of a FAT16 one?

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am surely missing a point :unsure:, but what is the practical need/advantage of having a FAT12 "super-floppy" instead of a FAT16 one?

jaclaz

I have seen some problems with SCANDISK when using FAT16 on A:.

0

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.