Hoko

Several Win 95 Questions

122 posts in this topic

May I suggest we wait for Hoko to get back to us before going any further? :unsure::angel

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why the OP would be wanting to "get win-95 running" on this particular machine vs win-98 (he could explain that if he wants) but I'd like to know, in a general sense, what advantages there would be for system tweakers like ourselves in running win-95 vs win-98, given that either OS was leveraged to the max with any available files and settings from all sources.

Is there a case that can be made that if you are going to run win-9x/me on a given (older) system, and if maximum usability and stability are your goals, that win-95 can meet that goal better than (or even equal to) win-98 or ME?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One can make a case even for CP/M-86, if one tries hard and long enough...

In any case, besides the posts by LoneCrusader, who's participaring in this thread already, you should search for and read patiently most posts by BenoitRen, to give yourself a good picture of it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why the OP would be wanting to "get win-95 running" on this particular machine vs win-98 (he could explain that if he wants) but I'd like to know, in a general sense, what advantages there would be for system tweakers like ourselves in running win-95 vs win-98, given that either OS was leveraged to the max with any available files and settings from all sources.

Is there a case that can be made that if you are going to run win-9x/me on a given (older) system, and if maximum usability and stability are your goals, that win-95 can meet that goal better than (or even equal to) win-98 or ME?

The only "case" that needs to be made is the preference of the user. You don't know why the OP wants do do it... I don't know why you would care if he does? :huh:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only "case" that needs to be made is the preference of the user. You don't know why the OP wants do do it... I don't know why you would care if he does?

There's a lot about the technical differences between win-95 and win-98 that I don't know. Technical differences that have an impact on usability and stability. I would be eager to learn about perhaps the most important of these differences so that I (and perhaps others) would have a basis to switch over from win-98 to win-95 during a future OS re-installation. (I do not mean to question the subjective feelings that people may have for one OS or another).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only "case" that needs to be made is the preference of the user. You don't know why the OP wants do do it... I don't know why you would care if he does?

There's a lot about the technical differences between win-95 and win-98 that I don't know. Technical differences that have an impact on usability and stability. I would be eager to learn about perhaps the most important of these differences so that I (and perhaps others) would have a basis to switch over from win-98 to win-95 during a future OS re-installation. (I do not mean to question the subjective feelings that people may have for one OS or another).

Besides the posts by LoneCrusader, most posts by BenoitRen, and also those by Andrew T., together with some posts by erpdude8 and a few by RLoew are all you need to read, to form your own opinion. The materials are there, it's just a matter of taking a deep breath and plunging into them. As you progress along that material, you might as well open a new thread, in order to discuss those tech aspects you're interested into.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot about the technical differences between win-95 and win-98 that I don't know. Technical differences that have an impact on usability and stability. I would be eager to learn about perhaps the most important of these differences so that I (and perhaps others) would have a basis to switch over from win-98 to win-95 during a future OS re-installation. (I do not mean to question the subjective feelings that people may have for one OS or another).

OK, fair enough.

I'll make a few short points below, but despite the technical aspects, this really is a "subjective" issue based on the preference of the user.

My personal affinity for Windows 95 comes from my early computer experiences. I never used 95 RTM / 95A, so my first experience with 95 was OSR2.x, which is essentially a whole new version unto itself, without the bugs of 95RTM. I had a 95OSR2.x machine that never gave me problems and ran everything I threw at it. A friend of mine had a 98FE computer that was a pile of junk and was crashing constantly. Because of this, and because I eventually used 98FE for a short time, I came to dislike Windows 98. Keep in mind that this was based on experiences with 98FE, and the fact that 98 was somewhat slower that 95 on the hardware of that period. I eventually encountered the 2.1GHz bug on a new system I wanted to build (and didn't know how to fix it at the time), and this, combined with the fact I could not run WarCraft III on 95, forced me to step up to 98SE.

Since then I have come to appreciate 98SE. It is more stable than 98FE (in the same vein as 95OSR2.x fixed the problems with 95RTM) and as such I find it an acceptable replacement for 95 OSR2.x for most of the things I use my computer for. I do devote a fair amount of time to working with 95, but this is because I was forced to abandon it unwillingly, and out of a sheer determination to use it because the "mainstream" says I shouldn't. I've been quite the 95-diehard for most of my time though. I actually refused to purchase or use ANY USB device WHATSOEVER until sometime in 2009, simply because the devices did not support Windows 95. :lol:

Other users here have different reasons for preferring 95. Many of the 95'ers hate the Windows 98 / Desktop Update shell. I prefer it myself; however I always run very powerful hardware for 9x, so I am never bugged by its supposed "sluggishness."

Now for a few quick technical points. You will have to follow dencorso's advice and do some digging if you need more than this.

-Windows 95 OSR2.x is faster than 98 & up and can do MOST but not ALL of the things 98SE can do.

-Windows 95 OSR2.x USB Support is almost nonexistent and USB2 Support is not available. Firewire/1394 is not supported either.

-Windows 98SE is supported longer on "newer" hardware; and is capable of "better" supporting "even newer" hardware that does NOT support 9x.

-Windows 98/98SE/ME are supported under KernelEx & the Revolutions Pack where 95 is not. This is a factor if you want to run newer programs.

-Most of the unofficial bug fixes found here for 98 & up have been ported to 95 in some form, so they are fairly equal in this respect.

-RLoew has added 95 support in some form to almost all of his various patches, including but not limited to the RAM, 48-Bit LBA, and SATA patches.

Edited by LoneCrusader
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok sorry I havent shown up past few days been very busy. Thanks very much to all of you for the outstanding help. That is awesome that you all could track down those drivers. I downloaded all of them but I've run into a problem. The motherboard video drivers need Direct X 8.1 to work and from what I've seen, Win 95 cannot use anything past Direct X 8.0. I hope I'm wrong about this. Is there a way to deal with this? As for why I want to use Win 95, it has always been my favorite OS and I dont really care how much more difficult it may be to get it going, Its worth it to me.Thank you, The help on this forum is outstanding. :D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to hear from you again Hoko! :hello:

And to see you're going for 95 precisely for the best of all the reasons, that's great! :thumbup

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The motherboard video drivers need Direct X 8.1 to work and from what I've seen, Win 95 cannot use anything past Direct X 8.0. I hope I'm wrong about this. Is there a way to deal with this?

Do you actually get an error when you try to install them, or does it just say that in the documentation somewhere?

If the documentation just makes this claim, I would try installing them anyway. I highly doubt that there is enough difference between DirectX 8.0a and 8.1 to keep a driver from working...

If you do get some kind of error, see if there are any earlier versions of the video drivers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some serious confusion on your OnBoard Video.

If in doubt, try these instead -

http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/SoftwareDescription.jsp?lang=en&cc=us&prodTypeId=0&prodSeriesId=96269&prodNameId=96983&swEnvOID=20&swLang=8&mode=2&taskId=135&swItem=PSG_I6585-7213

Ignore the "System Requirements" since we're unsure of whether it's actually going to "alter" the BIOS(?)...

There's usually multiple VID/PID values in the older ATI Driver packages, e.g. "Rage IIc" on the Chip itself. The document says "Rage Pro Turbo" but what's REALLY on the Chip itself? Would it be possible to visually get what's on it (a big "ATI" symbol will be on it). PCI vs AGP is (AFAIK) irrelevant when it some to older Drivers.

Big edit - I know you all don't like DriverGuide - but THIS may be just what the doctor ordered.

http://members.driverguide.com/driver/detail.php?driverid=78812

Notice the contents have a Win95 Help file AND a "Setup" program. I found this while searching for "Rage IIc" drivers.

I see NO requirements for any particular version of DirectX unless the Setup Program wants it. It appears to have come directly from an Installation CD (I have one of those too). -SORRY- but I can't upload because it's too big (2.9mb). :(

Edited by submix8c
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Driver Guide? Nah!... Here's much better (and pushes no downloader on you). :w00t:

There's usually multiple VID/PID values in the older ATI Driver packages, e.g. "Rage IIc" on the Chip itself. The document says "Rage Pro Turbo" but what's REALLY on the Chip itself? Would it be possible to visually get what's on it (a big "ATI" symbol will be on it). PCI vs AGP is (AFAIK) irrelevant when it some to older Drivers.

Er... (from post #4) you mean, like this? :unsure:

And it was manufactured on the second half of Nov '99, I think... dubbio.gif

007-1_zps3931ae78.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DUH!!! Yeah, that one.

Finding a good one for Win95 will be interesting (from that link, and Thank You for it). The one I cited has "macxw4.inf", nearly all files dated 1998, partial contents...

; ATI Display Information file : MACXW4.INF
; INF file for mach64 MACXW4 display driver.
; Manufacturer: ATI Technologies Inc.
; 5.30_OEMS_ENU
<snip>
"RAGE PRO TURBO AGP (English)"= MACXW4_AGP_English, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742&SUBSYS_47421002, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742
"RAGE PRO TURBO AGP (English)"= MACXW4_AGP_English, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4744&SUBSYS_47441002, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4744
<snip>
"RAGE PRO TURBO AGP (English)"= MACXW4_AGP_English, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742&SUBSYS_00801002, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742
"RAGE PRO TURBO AGP (English)"= MACXW4_AGP_English, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742&SUBSYS_00401002, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742
"RAGE PRO TURBO AGP (English)"= MACXW4_AGP_English, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742&SUBSYS_00841002, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742
"RAGE PRO TURBO AGP (English)"= MACXW4_AGP_English, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742&SUBSYS_00441002, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742
"RAGE PRO TURBO AGP (English)"= MACXW4_AGP_English, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742&SUBSYS_00881002, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742
"RAGE PRO TURBO AGP (English)"= MACXW4_AGP_English, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742&SUBSYS_00481002, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742
"RAGE PRO TURBO AGP (English)"= MACXW4_AGP_English, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4744&SUBSYS_00801002, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4744
"RAGE PRO TURBO AGP (English)"= MACXW4_AGP_English, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4744&SUBSYS_00401002, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4744
"RAGE PRO TURBO AGP (English)"= MACXW4_AGP_English, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4744&SUBSYS_00881002, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4744
"RAGE PRO TURBO AGP (English)"= MACXW4_AGP_English, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4744&SUBSYS_00481002, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4744

and APPARENTLY only cares about DX6 (and up?). According to this it was preinstalled with Win98FE. That would just about match with what I have.

It APPEARS that file "w82560en.exe" is the "correct" one (for that era) and is slightly "newer" (the Version) than the "driverguide" one. It can be downloaded from here

http://www2.ati.com/drivers/w82560en.exe

(still there...) and APPEARS to be the "full" version I cited previously.

; ATI Display Information file : MACXW4.INF
; INF file for mach64 MACXW4 display driver.
; Manufacturer: ATI Technologies Inc.
; 5.37.1_OEMS_ENU
<snip>
"RAGE PRO TURBO AGP 2X (English)"= MACXW4_AGP_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742&SUBSYS_47421002, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742
"RAGE PRO TURBO AGP 2X (English)"= MACXW4_AGP_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742&SUBSYS_00801002, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742
"RAGE PRO TURBO AGP 2X (English)"= MACXW4_AGP_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742&SUBSYS_00401002, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742
"RAGE PRO TURBO AGP 2X (English)"= MACXW4_AGP_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742&SUBSYS_00841002, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742
"RAGE PRO TURBO AGP 2X (English)"= MACXW4_AGP_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742&SUBSYS_00441002, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742
<snip>
"RAGE PRO TURBO AGP 2X (English)"= MACXW4_AGP_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742&SUBSYS_464A8086, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742
"RAGE PRO TURBO AGP 2X (English)"= MACXW4_AGP_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742&SUBSYS_00821028, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742
"RAGE PRO TURBO AGP 2X (English)"= MACXW4_AGP_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742&SUBSYS_40821028, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742
"RAGE PRO TURBO AGP 2X (English)"= MACXW4_AGP_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742&SUBSYS_80821028, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742
"RAGE PRO TURBO AGP 2X (English)"= MACXW4_AGP_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742&SUBSYS_C0821028, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742
"RAGE PRO TURBO AGP 2X (English)"= MACXW4_AGP_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742&SUBSYS_80011002, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4742

You'll note that AMD (ATI) no longer supplies the Official Drivers ((which the above is)) for the older OS/Chips. The above is for Win95 2.1 (and above) and Win98FE only, BTW. No confusion involved. ;)

As a side note, I've had a heck of a time finding correct drivers for the oldie ATI's, particularly those AddIns that supported Vid In/Out (old AIW's).

edit - also found here

ftp://ftp.brain.it/public/Driver/ATI/Rage%20pro/

HTH (I'm BETTING that the Official will work...)

Edited by submix8c
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should I mess with the BIOS drivers, updates (whatever they are)? I've heard messing with the BIOS can be risky. :unsure:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should I mess with the BIOS drivers, updates (whatever they are)? I've heard messing with the BIOS can be risky. :unsure:

Download them and archive them just in case, but you don't NEED to install them unless you are having a specific problem with the BIOS.

It CAN be risky to update the BIOS, I've never seen any problems myself, but maybe I've just been lucky... :angel

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.