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

intel 845 graphics on windows 95

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1
cov3rt

cov3rt

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 11 posts
  • Joined 24-January 15
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

has anyone gotten the intel 845 / 845g, 845gv graphics to work on windows 95? also, from the research i have done, it seems that the 845 series graphics are the same as the 865, both giving the same name intel extreme graphics 2? or are they a little different? i was not able to get either of them to work, after installing the driver on previous builds, it would just bring an error message of a missing function, i think it was hkcmd or some tray item and i each time i tried to redetect the adapter / change resolution, it would just bring me back to the same problem. besides that, does anyone know any details on the 830gm graphics, like what it is called? would this be the original intel extreme graphics? i was gonna see if maybe i could just use the 830gm drivers for the 845 graphics, or they are not the same?

 

the reason why i would like to use the 845 chipset is because older chipsets dont support processors with sse2, and i would like the instructions for certain websites that may need it ( even though, most sites won't work properly on a windows 95 machine ), its always better to have the extra instruction sets. and of course, so i don't have to buy a separate video card, it saves me a little money while having directx 8.0a support through the 845 graphics. so is there a way to work around the graphics problem, note though that i did try using the vbemp drivers and those didn't work out too well, i would experience a lot of lock ups and freezes in the computer when opening up programs or just doing anything in general, but i did look up another thing which mentioned support for hardware acceleration and possibly a more stable driver but don't remember where it was in this forum. but all this being said, i would rather have the onboard graphics working on the 845 chipset. 

 

i have downloaded some driver files from the site in the below link to be tested which mentions 845 for intel video card drivers on windows 95, i don't see any 865 drivers, but i see up to 855gm, so are these legit sources or its not possible to have these installed on windows 95 and they are simply mistyped into that section? -

 

http://www.video-dri...thx=9&bng=7&o=2

 

 




How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#2
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 841 posts
  • Joined 11-May 09
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

I have several machines with the Intel 845 Chipset that run Windows 95, but none of them have onboard graphics... (I despise onboard graphics... :puke: )

Try this and see if it runs under Windows 95. Only Windows 98 is listed as supported on the page, but the ReadMe.txt linked there lists Windows 95 as well, so you never know. If it causes errors, post them here.


Edited by LoneCrusader, 17 April 2015 - 04:29 PM.


#3
cov3rt

cov3rt

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 11 posts
  • Joined 24-January 15
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I have several machines with the Intel 845 Chipset that run Windows 95, but none of them have onboard graphics... (I despise onboard graphics... :puke: )

Try this and see if it runs under Windows 95. Only Windows 98 is listed as supported on the page, but the ReadMe.txt linked there lists Windows 95 as well, so you never know. If it causes errors, post them here.

thanks for the reply. i may give that driver a try as well, although it is a little newer than the ones i found. 



#4
cov3rt

cov3rt

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 11 posts
  • Joined 24-January 15
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

 

I have several machines with the Intel 845 Chipset that run Windows 95, but none of them have onboard graphics... (I despise onboard graphics... :puke: )

Try this and see if it runs under Windows 95. Only Windows 98 is listed as supported on the page, but the ReadMe.txt linked there lists Windows 95 as well, so you never know. If it causes errors, post them here.

thanks for the reply. i may give that driver a try as well, although it is a little newer than the ones i found. 

that file you gave link to did not work for the 845 graphics on windows 95, i tried several others and they didn't work either, even the intel 830gm vga driver. some of the installers, including the one you gave from intel's site didn't even run because of the unsupported operating system preventing the installer from working but its fine though, im using a separate video card now. 



#5
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 841 posts
  • Joined 11-May 09
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

that file you gave link to did not work for the 845 graphics on windows 95, i tried several others and they didn't work either, even the intel 830gm vga driver. some of the installers, including the one you gave from intel's site didn't even run because of the unsupported operating system preventing the installer from working but its fine though, im using a separate video card now.


If you don't list the specific errors that you are getting then we can't help you. Will the installer not run at all? Does it run but throw errors? Does it complain about missing exports or "devices attached to the system not functioning" etc etc?  :huh:  You need to be more specific about this and any other issues you may have. At any rate, I'm glad you found a different solution. :)



#6
cov3rt

cov3rt

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 11 posts
  • Joined 24-January 15
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

 

that file you gave link to did not work for the 845 graphics on windows 95, i tried several others and they didn't work either, even the intel 830gm vga driver. some of the installers, including the one you gave from intel's site didn't even run because of the unsupported operating system preventing the installer from working but its fine though, im using a separate video card now.


If you don't list the specific errors that you are getting then we can't help you. Will the installer not run at all? Does it run but throw errors? Does it complain about missing exports or "devices attached to the system not functioning" etc etc?  :huh:  You need to be more specific about this and any other issues you may have. At any rate, I'm glad you found a different solution. :)

 

the installer wouldn't even run when it mentioned the unsupported operating message, the other ones would install the driver ( where it would be detected in device manager ) but would still keep asking to configure the display adapter upon booting to desktop and when i try to configure it and restart it, it just does the same thing over and over, the other ones would just not let me boot into windows where i would have to go into safe mode, uninstall the driver and start over. although this may be a problem with other graphics cards and / or not necessarily the 845 one, the resolutions never passed more than the standard 640x480, the only other things i remember is that at one point when i tried doing this, i remember an error message saying missing hkcmd or something along those words. when i looked that term up, it seemed to be some sort of hotkey for the graphics adapter, but certainly a hotkey shouldn't be the factor of the driver working or not? 

 

other than this issue, i was gonna ask a few other questions on problems possibly due to memory management ( page faults, invalid operation, etc )

i don't have the exact errors and i feel like the specific errors don't matter so much as of now but rather the reason for getting them in the first place. for instance, i noticed in dxdiag that the page file always seems to be at 0 MB, shouldn't it be using at least a little bit of virtual memory? i checked it during web browsing, watching youtube, running microsoft word, running speedfan, etc, but still no page file seems to be present. is this normal or is there a particular reason to why it is using 0 MB or showing 0 MB? 

 

here is some other info if you need it, for system.ini, i put maxphyspage=39500 ( with 920 MB usable ( 2 sticks of 512 MB ), any more and the os doesn't boot, of course i tried lower too, i tried as low as 15000 with only 512 MB installed, for minfilecache and maxfilecache, i always put 0, for virtual memory, i let windows manage it, for the hard drive, i enable dma, i reserved 24 MB of ram for EMS, ACPI enabled in bios. 

 

i appreciate the help.


Edited by cov3rt, 22 April 2015 - 02:23 PM.


#7
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 841 posts
  • Joined 11-May 09
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

When running 512MB of RAM or less you shouldn't need to do any tweaking to SYSTEM.INI or otherwise. In fact, this may cause some things not to work properly, especially if you are trying to run more than 512MB. I was never able to get a 9x system to boot and be stable with more than 512MB of RAM without rloew's RAM patch. I got 98SE to boot with around ~1150MB once using an older version of the Unofficial Service Pack, but it was very unstable.

 

Specific errors are important though, because one has to know them in order to trace down the underlying causes. ;)

 

DXDIAG seems to not always be reliable. I never sees more than 2GB of RAM on systems where 4GB is present. I'm not sure about how well it measures and keeps track of the page file.



#8
cov3rt

cov3rt

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 11 posts
  • Joined 24-January 15
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

When running 512MB of RAM or less you shouldn't need to do any tweaking to SYSTEM.INI or otherwise. In fact, this may cause some things not to work properly, especially if you are trying to run more than 512MB. I was never able to get a 9x system to boot and be stable with more than 512MB of RAM without rloew's RAM patch. I got 98SE to boot with around ~1150MB once using an older version of the Unofficial Service Pack, but it was very unstable.

 

Specific errors are important though, because one has to know them in order to trace down the underlying causes. ;)

 

DXDIAG seems to not always be reliable. I never sees more than 2GB of RAM on systems where 4GB is present. I'm not sure about how well it measures and keeps track of the page file.

thanks for the reply, and yes, i do agree specific errors are important, but i just wanted others know the big picture of the problem first and then get the facts together. thats why i mentioned the whole invalid operation / page fualt errors as the type of errors, rather than giving the entire log of errors reported as that is not practical at first hand for me, although its fine to do that first, i don't have a problem doing that occasionally but i prefer to work up there if i have the energy to carry on that task, you know what i mean? im no programmer or highly technical with computers, its mostly a trial and error thing and i spend a decent amount of time trying to get things working by googling the problems, etc, so when people tell me to be more specific, it can sometimes stress me out because of all the energy i already spent trying to fix the problem. its a personality thing.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users