LoneCrusader

Windows 95 2.1GHz CPU Limit BROKEN!

272 posts in this topic

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.