Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account


Photo

Windows 95 2.1GHz CPU Limit BROKEN!

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
200 replies to this topic

#76
dencorso

dencorso

    Adiuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Super Moderator
  • 5,538 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

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?

There is no actual need for a superfloppy Zip100, that I know of. I used it as a model, to learn how to do it, since there are older cameras and other devices that use FAT12 only SD cards. However, since I don't have any 128 MB SD card, I thought the Zip100 is a good enough model. Nowadays, 128 MB SD cards are not easy to find new, so it may be a long time before I can get one, even if used, and I wanted to test it right away.


How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#77
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 798 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

I had originally thought that somehow I was the first person to discover how to fix this problem in Windows 95, because I remember searching for a solution a few years back (Old post at Annoyances.org) and was unable to find one.

However, recently I discovered this thread Windows 95 unofficial patches by Petr wherein he obviously had identified the problem, along with a solution. I am amazed at some of the hostility given to his solution and some obvious misinformation in that thread. :blink:

#78
submix8c

submix8c

    Inconceivable!

  • Patrons
  • 3,879 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I am amazed at some of the hostility given to his solution and some obvious misinformation in that thread. :blink:

Misinformation - perhaps due to confusion. Hostility - personal perception only. The solution/patch was for RTM and requested further investigation into the later OEM versions.

Forgot to mention - all in that thread (but one) have been around a long time, are extremely knowledgeable, and have high respect for one another.

Edited by submix8c, 14 March 2010 - 02:50 PM.


#79
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 798 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Misinformation - perhaps due to confusion. Hostility - personal perception only.

I do not think that I would be the only one to perceive certain responses in that thread as hostile. And the idea that "NDIS.VXD 4.00.1113 does not fix any version of 95" is blatantly incorrect, as my experiments and the results of others can now confirm.

#80
dencorso

dencorso

    Adiuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Super Moderator
  • 5,538 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Just to be sure I have backported the code from 4.10.2000 version in original Q312108 hotfix to 4.00.1113 and created version 4.00.1114.


@RLoew: Would you please be so kind as to compare Petr's Ndis.VxD 4.0.1114 with the original 4.0.1113 and give us your expert evaluation about the advantages, if any, offered by Petr's patched file? The patched file is downloadable from Petr's original post, quoted above.

#81
rloew

rloew

    MSFN Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,069 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Just to be sure I have backported the code from 4.10.2000 version in original Q312108 hotfix to 4.00.1113 and created version 4.00.1114.


@RLoew: Would you please be so kind as to compare Petr's Ndis.VxD 4.0.1114 with the original 4.0.1113 and give us your expert evaluation about the advantages, if any, offered by Petr's patched file? The patched file is downloadable from Petr's original post, quoted above.

The two versions are nearly identical. A Processor speed check is coded slightly differently, but the results are equivalent. You can stick with the official 1113 Version.

Edited by rloew, 14 March 2010 - 11:59 PM.


#82
dencorso

dencorso

    Adiuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Super Moderator
  • 5,538 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

The two versions are nearly identical. A Processor speed check is coded slightly differently, but the results are equivalent.
You can stick with the official 1113 Version.

Thanks for looking into it and for your swift reply. You do rock! :thumbup

#83
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
LoneCrusader sent me the newest version...
Tx!

* Unofficial Windows 95/95a OSR1/95B OSR2.0/95C OSR2.5 Fixed 2.1 GHz CPU Limitation Patch:
http://www.msfn.org/...howtopic=141402
FIX95CPU [5.67 MB, free, English]:
http://www.mdgx.com/spx/FIX95CPU.ZIP

Linked here:
http://www.mdgx.com/web.htm#FX95

Keep up the good work! ;)

HTH

#84
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 798 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

****UPDATE 4-23-2010****

Version 2.0 Released

See the first post in this thread for a complete description of the changes.

Get the new version here: FIX95CPU.ZIP

#85
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
P.S.:
I used 7-zip to re-ZIP your files into a smaller archive [so your MD5 checksum won't work anymore :(].
Hope you don't mind. ;)

HTH

#86
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 798 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

P.S.:
I used 7-zip to re-ZIP your files into a smaller archive [so your MD5 checksum won't work anymore :(].
Hope you don't mind. ;)

HTH

No problem. I used 7-Zip to make the archive to begin with though... :unsure:

#87
dencorso

dencorso

    Adiuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Super Moderator
  • 5,538 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

No problem. I used 7-Zip to make the archive to begin with though... :unsure:


One can tweak (the options of the Add menu in) 7-Zip for even better compressions. Maybe this can explain it. :yes:

#88
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
I use the command line [7za.exe], and I create zips automatically from a batch file, which uses maximum compression ratio for the ZIP format:
@ECHO OFF
IF NOT EXIST C:\ZIP\7ZA.EXE GOTO END
C:
CD\T
C:\ZIP\7ZA.EXE a -mx=9 -r- -tZIP -oC:\T -y %1.ZIP * %2 %3 %4 %5
IF EXIST C:\T\*.zip REN C:\T\*.zip *.ZIP>NUL
:END
EXIT
This batch [7Z.BAT] must be executed followed by 1 space and the desired archive name (without extension), for example:

7Z ZIP001

[C:\ZIP is included in the system path, no need to type it.]

If source directory [C:\T in this case] contains subfolders, this batch is recursive, and will zip up all subfolders + files.


HTH

#89
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 798 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Hello again everyone :hello:

I think I have finally discovered a method of "slipstreaming" this into a fresh Windows 95 (C tested so far, should apply to at least B as well) installation, but I need some help.

While we were working on this fix, RLoew advised me that only the updated VFBACKUP.VXD prevented slipstreaming, as it breaks WININIT.EXE's original combining of VXD's into VMM32.VXD. Through my experimenting with customizing 95C's installation files, I have discovered that SETUPC.INF contains the list of files entered into WININIT.INI during Setup to be combined into VMM32.VXD by WININIT.EXE.

Extracting SETUPC.INF from PRECOPY2.CAB into the main WIN95 installation directory and removing the line:

wininit.ini, CombineVxDs,,"%22%\vfbackup.vxd=%11%\vmm32.vxd"

will solve the VFBACKUP.VXD problem, allowing slipstreaming by simply placing all of the updated files in FIX95CPU into the main WIN95 installation directory.


Placing all of the updated FIX95CPU files in the installation source directory and editing SETUPC.INF as described is enough to get Windows 95 Setup to complete properly on a 2+ GHz system, however upon further examination, it appears that NTKERN.VXD and possibly other updated files from FIX95CPU placed into the source directory are not actually installed or copied to the appropriate directory during the initial Windows 95 Setup. Requirements for these files must be added by later updates applied. :unsure:

I suppose the answer to this is to edit a script somewhere for them to be copied to the appropriate directory, or, try to develop a patch type installer that can be called in SETUPC.INF or run when setup has completed.


***EDIT 12-18-2010:***
Some incorrect information removed.
Complete slipstream instructions have been added Here.

Edited by LoneCrusader, 18 December 2010 - 11:10 PM.


#90
spaceheeder

spaceheeder
  • Members
  • 7 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
Here's what I did:
1. Install Windows 95 to C:\
2. Use LoneCrusader's patch for my CPU
3. Get a protection error on reboot with no other diagnostic information whatsoever

The exact wording of the error:
"Windows protection error. You need to restart your computer."
That's the only line.

When I try rebooting, I get the following prompt:

1. Normal
2. Logged (\BOOTLOG.TXT)
3. Safe Mode
4. Step-by-step confirmation
5. Command prompt only
6. Safe mode command prompt only

(1) Does what you'd think: results in another protection error.
(2) Results in a protection error, but I can't find BOOTLOG.TXT anywhere on C:\
(3) Gets me to the desktop, but it gives me a dialog box saying "Windows cannot detect and install your devices while it is running in safe mode. To detect and install your devices, restart Windows and don't choose safe mode."
(4) Results in a protection error when I tell it to turn on the GUI
(5) Works, but when I navigate to C:\WINDOWS\WIN.INI I get a BSOD
(6) Haven't bothered trying.

Info on my setup:
CPU: Pentium 4 @ 3.0GhZ
RAM: 512MB
Hard drive and CD drive are both PATA and have no problems with any other OSes.

Please help!

EDIT: BEHOLD! I HAVE FOUND THE BOOTLOG!
http://pastebin.com/Gawzv7sy

More hardware details:
GPU: NVidia 6800 256MB

Edited by spaceheeder, 12 December 2010 - 11:45 AM.


#91
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 798 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Welcome to MSFN, and thanks for your interest in my patch. :)

Ok, lets start from the top.

I assume from your title that you are running Windows 95 C OSR 2.5, correct?

What exact order did you perform your installation in, did you install the patch immediately after the first reboot or did you allow the IOS or NDIS Windows Protection Errors to be displayed?



@dencorso -
If you think this should be merged with the main FIX95CPU thread, please do so.

#92
spaceheeder

spaceheeder
  • Members
  • 7 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
When the installation process said it was completed, I took out the Windows 95 CD and put in your patch CD, then I rebooted and followed the installation instructions.

I did NOT see the protection error before using the patch. However, on a separate installation attempt, I tried to wait before using the patch and I don't remember if I got the exact same error but I know that I couldn't get to safe mode.

#93
dencorso

dencorso

    Adiuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Super Moderator
  • 5,538 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

@dencorso -
If you think this should be merged with the main FIX95CPU thread, please do so.

Done :)

#94
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 798 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

When the installation process said it was completed, I took out the Windows 95 CD and put in your patch CD, then I rebooted and followed the installation instructions.

I did NOT see the protection error before using the patch. However, on a separate installation attempt, I tried to wait before using the patch and I don't remember if I got the exact same error but I know that I couldn't get to safe mode.

Yes, Safe Mode is inaccessible without the updates from the AMDK6UPD fix, even though Microsoft's directions for it say to use Safe Mode. :wacko: That was one of the reasons I created my script.

I have run a couple of tests and have not been able to reproduce the problem you're having :}

I need some more details on your specific setup. Some of the details may or may not be having any effect on this issue, but we may learn something from them anyway. ;)

Hardware:
You said you are running a Pentium 4 3.0GHz, do you know if it is a Northwood or a Prescott?
(I have only used the patch on Northwood's and a Gallatin, I know Windows XP had some issues with Prescott CPU's, don't think it affects 95/98 but I don't know.)
What other hardware is in your computer, sound cards, network cards, etc, including those integrated into the motherboard?
- Have you tried installing Windows 95 with these other hardware items removed or disabled in the BIOS?

Installation:
From your response I assume you are installing Windows 95 from the CD?
How are you performing the initial boot, have you created a bootable Windows 95 CD or are you using a floppy?
- If using a floppy, have you tried creating a FIX95CPU floppy instead of the CDROM?
Have you tried copying the install files to the hard drive and running Setup from there?
Are you doing a "Custom" Setup or using "Typical", "Full", etc?
Are you using a MSBATCH.INF script?
Which Networking Protocols/Functions did you choose during install?
Did the second phase of Setup complete properly after installing FIX95CPU and rebooting?
- If so, you should have been prompted to keep the newer version of NDIS.VXD installed by the patch, did you?
Have you tried reinstalling the patch after you get the Windows Protection Error?
(Theoretically it should still work, as it is designed to be used before or after the second phase of Setup.)


Done :)

Thanks!

Edited by LoneCrusader, 12 December 2010 - 11:41 PM.


#95
spaceheeder

spaceheeder
  • Members
  • 7 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

You said you are running a Pentium 4 3.0GHz, do you know if it is a Northwood or a Prescott?
(I have only used the patch on Northwood's and a Gallatin, I know Windows XP had some issues with Prescott CPU's, don't think it affects 95/98 but I don't know.)

According to CPU-Z, it's a Prescott. Windows 98SE installs and runs just fine on it, though; that's where I'm running CPU-Z from.

What other hardware is in your computer, sound cards, network cards, etc, including those integrated into the motherboard?
- Have you tried installing Windows 95 with these other hardware items removed or disabled in the BIOS?

I'll try to name as much as I can find out:
Motherboard is ASUS P4C800E Deluxe
Audio is SoundMAX Integrated Digital Audio
Network card is Intel Pro/1000 CT Network Card (the linux driver is called "e1000")
GPU is NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra hardware version 161
There's some sort of PCI RAID Controller but I can't find it in the BIOS to disable it. It still shows up as an "Other device" in Windows 98.
I've tweaked my BIOS heavily and tried many reinstalls with many configurations. The problem remains. Of all my hardware, if I had to guess, I'd assume the problem is the RAID controller. The problem is that I think it may be integrated, and I don't know how to disable it in the BIOS.

From your response I assume you are installing Windows 95 from the CD?
How are you performing the initial boot, have you created a bootable Windows 95 CD or are you using a floppy?
- If using a floppy, have you tried creating a FIX95CPU floppy instead of the CDROM?
Have you tried copying the install files to the hard drive and running Setup from there?
Are you doing a "Custom" Setup or using "Typical", "Full", etc?
Are you using a MSBATCH.INF script?
Which Networking Protocols/Functions did you choose during install?
Did the second phase of Setup complete properly after installing FIX95CPU and rebooting?
- If so, you should have been prompted to keep the newer version of NDIS.VXD installed by the patch, did you?
Have you tried reinstalling the patch after you get the Windows Protection Error?
(Theoretically it should still work, as it is designed to be used before or after the second phase of Setup.)

-I initially boot with a Windows 98SE CD. I tell it to boot into the command prompt with CD support, swap it out with a Windows 95 CD, and run setup. If there's something else I ought to be trying instead please link me to a better bootloader.
-I have, but that was with a different Windows 95 CD. It got the same results, though.
-I've tried custom and typical. When I try custom I generally remove all of the network protocols before installation. It doesn't help.
-The second phase of setup does not complete because it cannot run in safe mode. I get the protection error before installation fully finishes.

Thanks a ton for giving this such close attention :hello:

EDIT: I tried again with the install files on the hard drive, using a floppy boot disk labeled "win95osr25.img." It booted correctly from my floppy drive and said "Starting Windows 95" when it took me to the A:> prompt, so I'm assuming that how I boot setup.exe isn't the main issue. \BOOTLOG.TXT still reveals no errors; the last item in the log (presumably the last instruction reached before the protection error) is "DEVICEINITSUCCESS = BIOS"

Edited by spaceheeder, 13 December 2010 - 09:21 AM.


#96
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 798 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

I'll try to name as much as I can find out:
Motherboard is ASUS P4C800E Deluxe
Audio is SoundMAX Integrated Digital Audio
Network card is Intel Pro/1000 CT Network Card (the linux driver is called "e1000")
GPU is NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra hardware version 161
There's some sort of PCI RAID Controller but I can't find it in the BIOS to disable it. It still shows up as an "Other device" in Windows 98.
I've tweaked my BIOS heavily and tried many reinstalls with many configurations. The problem remains. Of all my hardware, if I had to guess, I'd assume the problem is the RAID controller. The problem is that I think it may be integrated, and I don't know how to disable it in the BIOS.


Hmm, looks like a nice motherboard B) I took a look at the Manual here.
Although I imagine it will work much better for 98SE than 95, lol. I think the last Intel chipset with 95 drivers was the 845, but I'm not sure. I ran a Windows 95 test setup on a Soyo P4-I875P Dragon 2 v1.0 board with a 3.4GHz Extreme Edition CPU and 4GB of Kingston HyperX RAM during the update of RLoew's RAM patch, but I had no drivers for the board or hardware.

I don't see any reason why Windows 95 should not install however, provided you disable or set everything you can to "Legacy" mode and re-enable things one at a time to see what is causing the problem. From what I saw in the Manual (p. 88), the RAID controller should be listed in the BIOS as "Onboard Promise Controller." I would disable the whole works, USB & 1394 included.

-I initially boot with a Windows 98SE CD. I tell it to boot into the command prompt with CD support, swap it out with a Windows 95 CD, and run setup. If there's something else I ought to be trying instead please link me to a better bootloader.
-I have, but that was with a different Windows 95 CD. It got the same results, though.
-I've tried custom and typical. When I try custom I generally remove all of the network protocols before installation. It doesn't help.
-The second phase of setup does not complete because it cannot run in safe mode. I get the protection error before installation fully finishes.


Ok, as you said how you are booting to Setup is probably not related to the problem you are having, I was mainly curious as to whether your machine had a floppy drive, and whether you were able to try using the FIX95CPU floppy disk. I do all of my Windows 9X installs from the hard drive, so I was trying to see if it was somehow related to installing from the CD.

You have tried running FIX95CPU on your system again after you get the protection errors, right? :unsure:


This is bizarre :blink:
You're having virtually the exact same set of problems that occur without FIX95CPU, and that it was designed to correct.
With AMD processors over 350MHz, Windows 95 installation would fail on the first reboot, and you can't get to safe mode (Windows Protection Error in IOS.VXD). AMDK6UPD fixed this, and it also worked on Pentium 4's up to 2GHz. Above that, the same circumstances repeat, just with a different error (Windows Protection Error in NDIS.VXD). Both of these keep Setup from entering its second phase, and FIX95CPU updates all of the necessary files for Setup to continue normally.

If you install FIX95CPU immediately after the first reboot, without allowing the machine to return to Setup and crash on one of these errors, and then remove the FIX95CPU disk and reboot again, you should never even see a message about Normal or Safe Mode at all, it should just finish Setup as if nothing was wrong.

It seems like the updates are not being installed properly. We can do a test run that should eliminate whether you are having a hardware issue or not.

(NOTE: This method will not produce a properly compressed system file created during Setup, so if it works there is still more to do, but it will answer some questions.)

Create newly formatted C:\ partition
Copy all the contents of the \WIN95 folder on your Windows 95 CD to a folder on your new partition, example C:\WIN95CD
Copy the 10 updated system files contained in FIX95CPU to the C:\WIN95CD folder.
- (CDFS.VXD, DISKTSD.VXD, ESDI_506.PDR, HSFLOP.PDR, SCSIPORT.PDR, INT13.VXD, IOS.VXD, NTKERN.VXD, VFBACKUP.VXD, NDIS.VXD)
Run SETUP.EXE from inside the C:\WIN95CD folder

Using this method, Setup will use the updated files in the WIN95CD folder instead of searching for their old equivalents in the CAB files. Setup should run properly, and reboot properly without any errors except you may see something about "VMM32.TMP integrity check failed." You can ignore this for now, what we want to learn is whether or not this will get Windows 95 running without the protection errors.

Thanks a ton for giving this such close attention :hello:


No problem :)

Edited by LoneCrusader, 14 December 2010 - 12:42 AM.


#97
spaceheeder

spaceheeder
  • Members
  • 7 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
When I open up FIX95CPU.iso, I only see one file, dun14-95.exe. When I open it as an archive in 7zip, I don't see any of the files you mentioned. This doesn't make sense to me, though, because I could swear that when I use FIX95CPU it says it installs correctly. Where do I find the individual files?

Yes, I tried re-using FIX95CPU after I still had the protection error. Still got the protection error :}

EDIT: Nevermind, I found them. I had to write the floppy image separately inside of Windows 98 :rolleyes:
I'll edit this post again when I learn of success or failure.

EDIT AGAIN: Progress, but apparently not enough. This time I get to the screen that says something like "Getting ready to run Windows 95 for the first time." It looks like it's thinking for a bit, and then I get the Windows protection error again. To clarify, here was the methodology this time:
-Go into BIOS and disable everything that looks like it can be disabled
-Place the Win95 installation files onto the C:\ drive
-Place the FIX95CPU files in the installation folder (C:\win95)
-Boot using Win95C boot disk
-Install from C:\win95\setup.exe
-Restart WITHOUT having FIX95CPU in the floppy drive
-Get to start screen
-Have protection error before any dialog boxes come up (~8 seconds transpire before the protection error. That's eight more seconds than I was getting last time...)

LAST EDIT PROMISE: I tried the step-by-step confirmation option again, and I found that the problem isn't with loading the user interface; I said "yes" to everything EXCEPT loading all device drivers. That got it to boot into safe mode. There's a driver problem somewhere. So how do I get the installer to install the bare minimum of device drivers? The last time I tried a custom install I told the hardware profiler ONLY to look for a display adapter, CD-Rom drive, Floppy drive, hard drives, mouse, and keyboard...that sounds pretty "bare minimum" to me...

Edited by spaceheeder, 14 December 2010 - 11:07 AM.


#98
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 798 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

EDIT AGAIN: Progress, but apparently not enough. This time I get to the screen that says something like "Getting ready to run Windows 95 for the first time." It looks like it's thinking for a bit, and then I get the Windows protection error again. To clarify, here was the methodology this time:
-Go into BIOS and disable everything that looks like it can be disabled
-Place the Win95 installation files onto the C:\ drive
-Place the FIX95CPU files in the installation folder (C:\win95)
-Boot using Win95C boot disk
-Install from C:\win95\setup.exe
-Restart WITHOUT having FIX95CPU in the floppy drive
-Get to start screen
-Have protection error before any dialog boxes come up (~8 seconds transpire before the protection error. That's eight more seconds than I was getting last time...)

LAST EDIT PROMISE: I tried the step-by-step confirmation option again, and I found that the problem isn't with loading the user interface; I said "yes" to everything EXCEPT loading all device drivers. That got it to boot into safe mode. There's a driver problem somewhere. So how do I get the installer to install the bare minimum of device drivers? The last time I tried a custom install I told the hardware profiler ONLY to look for a display adapter, CD-Rom drive, Floppy drive, hard drives, mouse, and keyboard...that sounds pretty "bare minimum" to me...


I believe you're right, Windows 95 or its standard drivers don't like something about your motherboard. :no:

The screen you made it to, "Getting ready to run Windows 95 for the first time..." is the screen that shows during the creation of VMM32.VXD, which will produce the "VMM32.TMP integrity check failed" error I mentioned. However, with all of the updated files in place, that doesn't matter for this test.

Once you get into Safe Mode, try installing DUN14-95.EXE and see if it makes any difference. It contains more updated system files for networking functions. If that doesn't work, try removing all of the installed devices in the device manager and reboot... :unsure:

I'm running out of ideas, calling for help from anyone else concerning non-file-specific Windows Protection Errors... ?
rloew in particular may have some insight, he's one of our resident experts and the one most familiar with FIX95CPU as he helped me develop it.

#99
spaceheeder

spaceheeder
  • Members
  • 7 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
I figured it out! It's not a problem with your patch at all, it's DEFINITELY a problem with my hardware configuration. I know this because I fixed it :thumbup

I had to remove "Plug and Play BIOS" from my System Devices. That did the trick. Now I just need to figure out how to coax these graphics drivers to install...

#100
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 798 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

I figured it out! It's not a problem with your patch at all, it's DEFINITELY a problem with my hardware configuration. I know this because I fixed it :thumbup

I had to remove "Plug and Play BIOS" from my System Devices. That did the trick. Now I just need to figure out how to coax these graphics drivers to install...


Congratulations! :thumbup

Now as for drivers, I don't know how much success you will have, but if you need it I'll help you all I can. I have several different versions of the Intel Chipset Driver Installation Utility archived, but I believe the last one that will install on 95 is version 3.40.1001 and it doesn't cover the 875 Chipset. It may still contain something useful, but I don't know.

I use mostly ATI video cards, and have several older driver packages archived for them, but I don't have much for NVidia cards. I have the Win9X ForceWare 81.98 installer archived, but that's all unless I have an old NVidia drivers CD somewhere...


Don't forget that you need to reinstall Windows 95 and install FIX95CPU per it's instructions. The method we used for the test does not produce a properly compressed VMM32.VXD or place the updated NTKERN.VXD file in the proper folder, which can lead to problems down the road with further updates, especially the Windows 95 USB Supplements. Also a proper VMM32.VXD is required for the use of RLoew's RAM Patch should you ever decide you want to run more than 512MB of RAM.

Keep me posted on your driver experiments. :)

Edited by LoneCrusader, 14 December 2010 - 11:05 PM.





6 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users



How to remove advertisement from MSFN