[PROBLEMCHYLD]

I have USBUHCI.SYS 5.1.2600.5512 running on my system with no problem.
USBUHCI.SYS replaces UHCD.SYS 4.90.3000.0

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 21 July 2012 - 07:42 PM

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

After testing USBUHCI.SYS 5.1.2600.5512, all seems to work fine until I plug in a USB keyboard/mouse.
USB flash drives works ok. No corruption or any problems. It will not be added to the SP, until I test more.

[erpdude8]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 28 July 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

After testing USBUHCI.SYS 5.1.2600.5512, all seems to work fine until I plug in a USB keyboard/mouse.
USB flash drives works ok. No corruption or any problems. It will not be added to the SP, until I test more.

hmm, what exactly would happen with those usb mice/keyboards? do they stop responding?
what kind of usb keyboards/mice were you using?

I remember a forum user named PassingBy who made an NUSB98FE pack for Win98fe, several years ago. he hasn't been heard for a long time since then.
I may consider updating his NUSB98FE package close to the level of the latest NUSB pack for 98se (which is currently v3.6).

BenoitRen, on 26 November 2007 - 05:25 AM, said:

Quote

BenoitRen

There are already generic drivers for Win 95 OSR2x
See this link http://toastytech.co...ruzerwin95.html

That's what I already use. Works great for flash sticks, but it doesn't seem to work for USB hard drives. Well, at least not correctly; it installs a USB Mass Storage Port, but the drive doesn't appear.

Thanks for the thought, though, and for the info on how to modify it for unrecognised flash sticks. Might come in handy in the future.

sorry man, but those usb flash drivers for Win95 osr2x don't work with other usb mass storage devices like usb card readers and usb hard drives.
and many USB HDDs require USB 2.0 support; both hardware [the usb2 ports] and software [the usb2 drivers for hi-speed 480mbps data transfers]. so far, there are no usb 2.0 drivers out there that will make your usb hard drive work under 95 [only w98 and above can try out usb 2.0]. and you only get USB 1.x support on Win95 sr2x with those usb flash drivers. tough luck, dude!

USB hard drives are usually at least USB 2.0 based devices and don't function well or not at all if connected to USB 1.x ports. take it from experience.
you're better off using usb flash drives instead.

This post has been edited by erpdude8: 28 July 2012 - 11:07 PM

[LoneCrusader]

erpdude8, on 28 July 2012 - 11:07 PM, said:

I remember a forum user named PassingBy who made an NUSB98FE pack for Win98fe, several years ago. he hasn't been heard for a long time since then.
I may consider updating his NUSB98FE package close to the level of the latest NUSB pack for 98se (which is currently v3.6).

BenoitRen, on 26 November 2007 - 05:25 AM, said:

Quote

BenoitRen

There are already generic drivers for Win 95 OSR2x
See this link http://toastytech.co...ruzerwin95.html

That's what I already use. Works great for flash sticks, but it doesn't seem to work for USB hard drives. Well, at least not correctly; it installs a USB Mass Storage Port, but the drive doesn't appear.

Thanks for the thought, though, and for the info on how to modify it for unrecognised flash sticks. Might come in handy in the future.

sorry man, but those usb flash drivers for Win95 osr2x don't work with other usb mass storage devices like usb card readers and usb hard drives.
and many USB HDDs require USB 2.0 support; both hardware [the usb2 ports] and software [the usb2 drivers for hi-speed 480mbps data transfers]. so far, there are no usb 2.0 drivers out there that will make your usb hard drive work under 95 [only w98 and above can try out usb 2.0]. and you only get USB 1.x support on Win95 sr2x with those usb flash drivers. tough luck, dude!

USB hard drives are usually at least USB 2.0 based devices and don't function well or not at all if connected to USB 1.x ports. take it from experience.
you're better off using usb flash drives instead.

Wrong again. You mentioned PassingBy's NUSB for 98 FE, but you forgot that he also did a USB package for Windows 95, which you were also critical of at the time.

I have used it with a variety of USB 2.0 Flash drives, and it has worked with every single drive I've thrown at it. It does have a bug, but this appears to be a failure in the driver files themselves, (which, for the record, are the SAME files as in the "cruzerwin95" package, just renamed internally and externally) not in PassingBy's work. The bug is this: only ONE USB device can be connected ONE time per Windows session. Reconnecting a device after it has been unplugged, or trying to plug in a second device after one has been used does not work.

Oh, and the drivers used by Nathan Lineback and by PassingBy originally come from a USB CompactFlash reader device. Doesn't work with card readers, eh?


(I am currently trying to find a better solution for this. I have found another 95-compatible driver stack {also from a USB Card reader, imagine that? } that works perfectly for some USB HDD's and Flash Drives, but behaves strangely with others for no apparent reason. Work continues.)

This post has been edited by LoneCrusader: 29 July 2012 - 12:32 AM

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

erpdude8, on 28 July 2012 - 11:07 PM, said:

hmm, what exactly would happen with those usb mice/keyboards? do they stop responding?
what kind of usb keyboards/mice were you using?

Nothing! Thats why its weird because there was no error message, no BSOD. My USB mouse/KB wouldn't detect at all.
Logitech is the brand. Here's the other weird thing, all of my usb flash drives worked.

[dencorso]

Transplanting XP's USB stack to 9x/ME is a loosing game. There's nothing to be gained, in what regards functionality, and plenty to be lost. RetroOS's success with USBCCGP.SYS is a rare exception, and there there was a problem to be solved (and solve it he did). Also getting XP's USB 3.0 to work on 9x/ME is a worthy quest. But simply upgrading to XP's file for things that already work well with the currently known drivers, with all due respect, seems pointless to me.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

dencorso, on 29 July 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

Transplanting XP's USB stack to 9x/ME is a loosing game. There's nothing to be gained, in what regards functionality, and plenty to be lost. RetroOS's success with USBCCGP.SYS is a rare exception, and there there was a problem to be solved (and solve it he did). Also getting XP's USB 3.0 to work on 9x/ME is a worthy quest. But simply upgrading to XP's file for things that already work well with the currently known drivers, with all due respect, seems pointless to me.

My goal is to improve Win98 by all means necessary.
I have been more active with SP3 in the last year than others have been in the last 5 yrs with all their abandoned unofficial packs/projects.
And yes, I have just as many responsibilities as anyone else. I have bills and I have a family thats needs providing for.
I have been dealing with death more in the last 2 years than my entire lifetime.
I do this for the love, because I'm passionate about not being stuck in any situation. I don't do for the money (NO DONATIONS HAS BEEN OFFERED), I do it because I like challenges.
So what you are saying is adding any files thats not intended for Win98 is pointless, just cause it might breaks something. Well that means 98SE2ME is pointless (No Disrespect to you MDGx)
because some files in MDGx packs break some things. It has been posted in the proper forum. Maybe I should just remove all the WinME/Win2000/WinXP files etc.... because it pointless.

[LoneCrusader]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 29 July 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

So what you are saying is adding any files thats not intended for Win98 is pointless, just cause it might breaks something.

I don't think any of us are saying that. If there is some new or improved functionality to be gained by adding a Windows ME/2K/XP/Vista or whatever version file to Windows 98, then by all means add them.

But there are other things to be considered if a newer file does not actually add functionality. The Windows 98/ME USB driver stack was written for Windows 9x and with the underlying DOS in mind. I would hazard a guess that the 2K/XP USB USB driver stacks do not know what to do with or do not recognize a USB Keyboard or Mouse during the DOS\9x startup process, so they never get loaded.

If the 2K/XP USB driver stack provided some new functionality or improvement, such as the Win2K USB2 drivers, then we should use them. But if the 2K/XP USB1 stack doesn't do anything that the 98/ME stack already does, then we only take a risk that it will not work as well as the original because it was not designed for 9x to begin with.

Windows ME is the only exception to this IMO, because it is actually a direct update to the 9x codebase. Windows ME is good for something - for updating 98SE.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

LoneCrusader, on 29 July 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

I don't think any of us are saying that. If there is some new or improved functionality to be gained by adding a Windows ME/2K/XP/Vista or whatever version file to Windows 98, then by all means add them.

But there are other things to be considered if a newer file does not actually add functionality. The Windows 98/ME USB driver stack was written for Windows 9x and with the underlying DOS in mind. I would hazard a guess that the 2K/XP USB USB driver stacks do not know what to do with or do not recognize a USB Keyboard or Mouse during the DOS\9x startup process, so they never get loaded.

If the 2K/XP USB driver stack provided some new functionality or improvement, such as the Win2K USB2 drivers, then we should use them. But if the 2K/XP USB1 stack doesn't do anything that the 98/ME stack already does, then we only take a risk that it will not work as well as the original because it was not designed for 9x to begin with.

Windows ME is the only exception to this IMO, because it is actually a direct update to the 9x codebase. Windows ME is good for something - for updating 98SE.

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 28 July 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

It will not be added to the SP, until I test more.

Which means, if the files don't work I will NOT add them. Self Explanatory

[LoneCrusader]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 29 July 2012 - 04:57 PM, said:

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 28 July 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

It will not be added to the SP, until I test more.

Which means, if the files don't work I will NOT add them. Self Explanatory

We know that you wont add any problem files to the SP.

I admire you for your efforts and willingness to experiment with all of these newer files. I share your desire to "improve Win98."

But changing something just for the sake of changing it (i.e. a file is newer, but does nothing different) is not always an improvement, and in the case of transplanting driver files between two different OS architectures, not a good idea when there is nothing to be gained.

This post has been edited by LoneCrusader: 29 July 2012 - 05:07 PM

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

LoneCrusader, on 29 July 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

We know that you wont add any problem files to the SP.

I admire you for your efforts and willingness to experiment with all of these newer files. I share your desire to "improve Win98."

But changing something just for the sake of changing it (i.e. a file is newer, but does nothing different) is not always an improvement, and in the case of transplanting driver files between two different OS architectures, not a good idea when there is nothing to be gained.

So why are we using some WinME files when the Win98 files works just fine?
The WinME/Win2000/XP/Vista are no better than each other.

[LoneCrusader]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 29 July 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

So why are we using some WinME files when the Win98 files works just fine?
The WinME/Win2000/XP/Vista are no better than each other.

Which WinME files are you referring to that are no better than 98 files?

If you're referring to those in NUSB, lets break it down:


Windows ME files from NUSB:

No 98 equivalent:
USBMPHLP.PDR
USBNTMAP.INF
USBSTOR.INF
USBNTMAP.SYS
USBSTOR.SYS
USBAUTH.SYS

Added to solve a specific bug in the 98 version:
DISKTSD.VXD
CDVSD.VXD

Added to allow the use of XP USBCCGP.SYS:
OPENHCI.SYS
UHCD.SYS
USBD.SYS
USBHUB.SYS
USB.INF (98SE + ME info edited in)


Windows 2000 files in NUSB:

No 98 equivalent:
USB2.INF
USBPORT.SYS
USBEHCI.SYS
USBHUB20.SYS


Windows XP file in NUSB:

No 98 equivalent; WinME version bugged; no Win2K equivalent:
USBCCGP.SYS


All of these files were added for a specific purpose, either to solve an existing bug, or to add previously unavailable functionality.

Windows ME files ARE "better" and preferable to those from 2K/XP+ when/if they can be used to add something or solve something, simply because they are from the 9x codebase!

This post has been edited by LoneCrusader: 29 July 2012 - 06:45 PM

[dencorso]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 29 July 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

So what you are saying is adding any files thats not intended for Win98 is pointless, just cause it might breaks something. Well that means 98SE2ME is pointless (No Disrespect to you MDGx) because some files in MDGx packs break some things. It has been posted in the proper forum. Maybe I should just remove all the WinME/Win2000/WinXP files etc.... because it pointless.

No I did not say that. I think adding files from ME and 2k very useful. Most of the progress that has been done, has been done by adding files precisely from this origin. I did contribute myself to the adaptation of some of those files, as you fully know. So I cannot be saying that. What I said is, it's much more difficult to do it with XP files, particularly so at SP3 level, since we then are much farther from 98SE then. But RetroOS did so with success with USBCCGP.SYS, and I am one of the few that long advocated using the 32-bit twain files from XP SP3 in 98SE. Both these cases work well. BUT files which deal with OHCI and UHCI, that is the USB 1.x protocol, should add nothing new to 98SE, since it has that functionality already, and its USB 1.x protocol is bugless, AFAIK. Moreover the USB stack model changed from 2k to XP, and that can be seen easily because there's no USBHUB20.SYS in XP, all that functionality having been retrofitted into its USBHUB.SYS. So, with all due respect, I do think there's too little room for improvement in 98SE's USB 1.x stack, while Bluetooth and USB 3.0 support are unexistent. And, if we ever get to make those things work in 98SE it must be using either XP or 3rd party files, because neither ME nor 2k have any support for them, too. This is what I meant, and I sure didn't mean no disrespect, in no way.

[rloew]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 29 July 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

So why are we using some WinME files when the Win98 files works just fine?
The WinME/Win2000/XP/Vista are no better than each other.

I use the Windows ME SCANDISK/DEFRAG Files because they handle larger Partitions.
I use some of the Windows ME USB Files because they handle more devices such as U3 Keys. Even then I only use the minimum number of them.
I do not use USBCCGP.SYS. USBHUB.SYS can replace it.
The USB 2 Stack is of obvious value.
My WDMEX.VXD extension to NTKERN.VXD can handle all Windows ME Functions required by any new Drivers.

NOTHING ELSE !!!

[dencorso]

@RLoew: With all due respect, I do disagree: RetroOS found at least one case in which the Win XP USBCCGP.SYS is required, because USBHUB.SYS does not cater for many USB composite devices. The problem here is related to KVM devices, and perhaps some others, too.
That said, I must add that while I'm a satisfied customer of your WDMEX.VxD, which has more functionality and, being actively developed, can add still more, NUSB's needs, up to now, have been adequately satisfied by WDMSTUB.SYS, which is also a 3rd party file. I do however reckon WDMEX.VxD will be fundamental in the Bluetooth/USB 3.0 quest, and that's why I became so happy when you started its development.

[rloew]

dencorso, on 29 July 2012 - 10:45 PM, said:

@RLoew: With all due respect, I do disagree: RetroOS found at least one case in which the Win XP USBCCGP.SYS is required, because USBHUB.SYS does not cater for many USB composite devices. The problem here is related to KVM devices, and perhaps some others, too.
That said, I must add that while I'm a satisfied customer of your WDMEX.VxD, which has more functionality and, being actively developed, can add still more, NUSB's needs, up to now, have been adequately satisfied by WDMSTUB.SYS, which is also a 3rd party file. I do however reckon WDMEX.VxD will be fundamental in the Bluetooth/USB 3.0 quest, and that's why I became so happy when you started its development.

I have used USB Composite Devices such as USB Headsets. I don't have any USB KVM Devices, so I have not encountered any problems so far with using USBHUB.SYS.
I wasn't referring to NUSB when I mentioned my WDMEX.VXD Driver. I know WDMSTUB can handle it. I was referring to the fact that WDMEX can handle ALL Windows ME Kernel Functions unlike WDMSTUB.

My post was to make the point that I use the minimum of software from other OSes, and then only if it provides useful features that I cannot obtain otherwise. It was not a specific set of recommendations as people's needs can vary.

This post has been edited by rloew: 30 July 2012 - 12:42 AM

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

@ dencorso + LoneCrusader

Maybe I did misunderstand your post.
It doesn't matter how clear you write something, everyone interpretations will be different. I misunderstoood yours.
Both of you guys have been down since the start. I should know better than that.

@ rloew

What new functions does your WDMEX.VXD add thats not present in WDMSTUB.SYS

[rloew]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 30 July 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

@ dencorso + LoneCrusader

Maybe I did misunderstand your post.
It doesn't matter how clear you write something, everyone interpretations will be different. I misunderstoood yours.
Both of you guys have been down since the start. I should know better than that.

@ rloew

What new functions does your WDMEX.VXD add thats not present in WDMSTUB.SYS

WDMEX.VXD is a work in progress.

The following additional functions are provided beyond the latest version of WDMSTUB:

New Functions:

ExExtendZone
ExInitializeZone
ExInterlockedExtendZone
ExInterlockedFlushSList
InitSafeBootMode
IoAttachDeviceToDeviceStackSafe
IoRequestDeviceEject
KeBugCheck
KeReadStateEvent
MmHighestUserAddress
MmIsAddressValid
RtlAnsiCharToUnicodeChar
RtlClearAllBits
RtlFindLeastSignificantBit
RtlNumberOfSetBits
RtlUpcaseUnicodeString
ZwDeleteValueKey
_purecall
_vsnwprintf
_allmul
---Stubbed
ExUuidCreate
IoDeviceObjectType
KeEnterCriticalSection
KeLeaveCriticalSection
KeQueryActiveProcessors
SeExports
SeSinglePrivilegeCheck
KeAcquireSpinLockRaiseToSynch
KeLowerIrql
KeRaiseIrql
KeRaiseIrqlToDpcLevel
KfRaiseIrqlToDpcLevel

New Stubs:

ExUuidCreate
IoDeviceObjectType
KeEnterCriticalSection
KeLeaveCriticalSection
KeQueryActiveProcessors
SeExports
SeSinglePrivilegeCheck
RtlAbsoluteToSelfRelativeSD
RtlAddAccessAllowedAce
RtlCreateSecurityDescriptor
RtlGetDaclSecurityDescriptor
RtlGetGroupSecurityDescriptor
RtlGetOwnerSecurityDescriptor
RtlGetSaclSecurityDescriptor
RtlLengthSecurityDescriptor
RtlLengthSid
RtlSetDaclSecurityDescriptor
SeCaptureSecurityDescriptor
ZwSetSecurityObject
ObOpenObjectByPointer

Replaced Stub with Implementation:

RtlInt64ToUnicodeString

Fixed:

RtlUlonglongByteSwap

Upgraded existing Function in Windows 98:

IoAllocateDriverObjectExtension
PsCreateSystemThread
ObReferenceObjectByHandle

[LoneCrusader]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 30 July 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

@ dencorso + LoneCrusader

Maybe I did misunderstand your post.
It doesn't matter how clear you write something, everyone interpretations will be different. I misunderstoood yours.
Both of you guys have been down since the start. I should know better than that.

No problem. We're all on the same side here.

We just all have different ways of tackling problems, and different lists of priorities about what issues should receive attention & time invested for experiments.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

LoneCrusader, on 30 July 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

No problem. We're all on the same side here.

We just all have different ways of tackling problems, and different lists of priorities about what issues should receive attention & time invested for experiments.

I kinda understand what you guys are saying now. The first 2 times I read you guys posts,
I thought you guys was saying everything I have done was pointless. You wasn't saying that, and now I understand.
Believe it or not, I have sacrifice a lot (I can go into details if you like) to try my best to accommadate as many people as possible.
No matter what you do, there will always be someone who doesn't like what you do.
Thanks for understanding (something I need to learn how to do).
This applies to you also dencorso.

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 30 July 2012 - 03:51 PM