[no1none]

I just finish installing NT4 on some old junk (Pentium MMX 0.233 GHz with 0.128 Gb RAM hahaha) that i'm going to hide in my hallway where it will be working as a 'general communicator' (basicly an answering machine and fax, a "home account" for msn messenger, and maybe few things else).
Took me awhile to compile new bootable CD with W2K boot style and all updates, but it was worth and Im very pleased with NT4 itself and the way it works with all other in my home network (mostly w2k machines and xp and vista laptops)
Anyone else playing with old NT4 on old boxes?

BTW I could use a tip how to set Packard Bell motherboard to work with amd k-6 550mhz, cause I can't find right setting (tried all possible combination of jumper settings on multiplier and bus freq, none works )

[legionaire]

As for the PackardBell motherboard...it's just a rebranded product (MSI most likely), so try to find out the exact MSI model number and install the corresponding BIOS. You should be able to get your processor to work using the original MSI documentation then.

[no1none]

legionaire, on May 7 2007, 04:50 PM, said:

As for the PackardBell motherboard...it's just a rebranded product (MSI most likely), so try to find out the exact MSI model number and install the corresponding BIOS. You should be able to get your processor to work using the original MSI documentation then.

Thx for the tip. Couldn't find similar MSI motherboard, but I found some info on PB 790 what looks exactly the same as this mobo. BIOS is already at the last revision from what I could find. Seems it won't work with anything else but intel cpu, and it won't go higher than 233 MHz Crappy mobo it is. At least I learned it is able to use up to 196MB RAM, so I may replace 1 of its two 64m chips with 128.

Another gripe with this mobo is its on-board ATI VT3 video chip.
I found NT4 driver for it, n42040en package from ATI, but DirectX 5 doesn't recognize it.

I also have a problem with high color icons.
After installing IE6 SP1 with Windows Desktop Update, all explorer icons are reverted back to its standard low colors, even though "show icons in all possible colors" is still checked. How can I set it to use or force high color icons as they were?

High color icons before installing IE6 with ADU:


After installing IE6SP1 with ADU:

This post has been edited by no1none: 08 May 2007 - 04:17 PM

[awergh]

i noticed that, im pretty sure it only happens when you install the shell update

[no1none]

awergh, on May 9 2007, 12:12 AM, said:

i noticed that, im pretty sure it only happens when you install the shell update

no no, thats what I thought too, but it happens not because of shell update. There have to be some other factor.
When I was making IE6SP1 with ADU installer (just a complete package in single exe and options to chose just browser or browser+ADU for my 'updated' NT CD) and during one of those earlier testing installations the icons stayed in the same high-color version.

PS do you guys can point me out to some complete DirectX 5 beta (MSDN release for NT4)?
Im not sure do I have'em all files:

   D:\WORK\DX5bNT4
   =====================
   D3DHALF.DLL								 131 KB   1997-12-03 01:44:56 PM
   D3DIM.DLL								   141 KB   1997-12-03 01:44:48 PM
   D3DPMESH.DLL								 83 KB   1997-12-03 01:44:42 PM
   D3DRAMPF.DLL								108 KB   1997-12-03 01:44:34 PM
   D3DRG16F.DLL								213 KB   1997-12-03 01:44:30 PM
   D3DRG24F.DLL								158 KB   1997-12-03 01:44:16 PM
   D3DRG24X.DLL								162 KB   1997-12-03 01:43:58 PM
   D3DRG32F.DLL								157 KB   1997-12-03 01:43:48 PM
   D3DRG32X.DLL								161 KB   1997-12-03 01:43:42 PM
   D3DRG55X.DLL								291 KB   1997-12-03 01:43:30 PM
   D3DRG56X.DLL								291 KB   1997-12-03 01:43:16 PM
   D3DRG8F.DLL								 213 KB   1997-12-03 01:43:00 PM
   D3DRG8X.DLL								 217 KB   1997-12-03 01:42:52 PM
   D3DRGBF.DLL								 109 KB   1997-12-03 01:42:38 PM
   D3DRGBXF.DLL								113 KB   1997-12-03 01:42:28 PM
   D3DRM.DLL								   296 KB   1997-12-03 01:42:20 PM
   D3DRM16F.DLL								453 KB   1997-12-03 01:42:06 PM
   D3DRM24F.DLL								128 KB   1997-12-03 01:41:48 PM
   D3DRM32F.DLL								128 KB   1997-12-03 01:41:34 PM
   D3DRM8F.DLL								 452 KB   1997-12-03 01:41:08 PM
   D3DXOF.DLL								  107 KB   1997-12-03 01:40:42 PM
   DDHELP.EXE								   31 KB   1997-12-03 01:40:30 PM
   DDRAW.DLL								   163 KB   1997-12-03 01:40:28 PM
   DINPUT.DLL								   93 KB   1997-12-03 01:40:16 PM
   DIRECTX.CPL								  61 KB   1997-12-03 01:40:00 PM
   DPLAY.DLL									32 KB   1997-12-03 01:39:50 PM
   DPLAYSVR.EXE								 27 KB   1997-12-03 01:39:46 PM
   DPLAYX.DLL								  141 KB   1997-12-03 01:39:42 PM
   DPMODEMX.DLL								 23 KB   1997-12-03 01:39:30 PM
   DPSERIAL.DLL								 52 KB   1997-12-03 01:39:30 PM
   DPWSOCK.DLL								  41 KB   1997-12-03 01:39:24 PM
   DPWSOCKX.DLL								 20 KB   1997-12-03 01:39:22 PM
   DSOUND.DLL								  129 KB   1997-12-03 01:39:20 PM


  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  Total 0 folder(s); 33 file(s)

  Total files size: 5 MB; 4940 KB; 5058560 Bytes

  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

TIA



I still can't believe NT4 uses only 30+MB of RAM to run... with NOD32 and some more services and progs running it maxes out at some 80MB only... someone please explain to me why people were using stupid Win95/98 instead of NT4 back then?????

This post has been edited by no1none: 09 May 2007 - 02:44 AM

[Mijzelf]

Quote

someone please explain to me why people were using stupid Win95/98 instead of NT4 back then?????

1) W95 runs on 4 MB (not very well, but 8 MB is sufficient for the OS)
2) W98 has USB support.
3) W9x does plug&play and has a device manager.
4) W9x have real dos, which is necessary for many old games.
5) NT4 was not yet available when W95 arrived.
6) NT4 is more picky on legacy software.
7) The computerstore in the street didn't sell NT4 (Still doesn't)
8) Drivers

[awergh]

well, when i first saw NT4 i was very yick but when you use it you get to like it more
i perfer 98se over NT4 but i still like NT4 afterall i converted my P166 to NT4 from 95 and it still runs fine.

NT4 had a much better install than 95 did, the NT4 install is so fast

[no1none]

I never was Win9x fan, even when I had to use it. I never seen worse OS than any of those 95/98/ME series. Reinstalls and crashes on a basically daily basis - I think it sums it up. Im surprised Msoft never shipped it with some ghost/imaging software (so people could quickly and easily 'restore' their win9x harddisk with last saved working config, instead of going thru all that lengthy installation process). IMHO Msoft's reputationsuffered alot after release of win9x (or maybe since win3.x actually).
Except for those old games that need DOS, I really can't see any reason why anyone would use win9x nowadays or in the past since 198/1999 - computers shipped back then already with 64 or memory, enough for NT4 already

Anyways.
What about those DX5 files?
Could anyone kindly check their files and let me know am I missing anything? (see my prev. post)
or give me some hint?

This is what I get when open directx control panel:

The version numbers don't match anything I could find (it supposedly be version 4.05.00.0155, while it apperas to be anything from 4.05.00.1659 to 4.05.00.1664 ...)

This post has been edited by no1none: 10 May 2007 - 02:58 AM

[RJARRRPCGP]

legionaire, on May 7 2007, 06:50 PM, said:

As for the PackardBell motherboard...it's just a rebranded product (MSI most likely), so try to find out the exact MSI model number and install the corresponding BIOS. You should be able to get your processor to work using the original MSI documentation then.

Really? Just like eMachines. eMachines uses MSI too.

[M_win]

RJARRRPCGP, on May 10 2007, 04:21 PM, said:

legionaire, on May 7 2007, 06:50 PM, said:

As for the PackardBell motherboard...it's just a rebranded product (MSI most likely), so try to find out the exact MSI model number and install the corresponding BIOS. You should be able to get your processor to work using the original MSI documentation then.

Really? Just like eMachines. eMachines uses MSI too.

Are you sure?
Most emachines used TriGem befor they merged with Gateway.
Most modern eMachines now run Intel/ Low end VIA mobos.( mine was a biostar, my brother's was a intel)

[no1none]

M_win, on May 11 2007, 07:32 PM, said:

RJARRRPCGP, on May 10 2007, 04:21 PM, said:

legionaire, on May 7 2007, 06:50 PM, said:

As for the PackardBell motherboard...it's just a rebranded product (MSI most likely), so try to find out the exact MSI model number and install the corresponding BIOS. You should be able to get your processor to work using the original MSI documentation then.

Really? Just like eMachines. eMachines uses MSI too.

Are you sure?
Most emachines used TriGem befor they merged with Gateway.
Most modern eMachines now run Intel/ Low end VIA mobos.( mine was a biostar, my brother's was a intel)

This particular Packard Bell motherboard is actually... a Packard Bell motherboard (not MSI make).
I found out it is a PB790 model "Anchorage", and its not upgradeable beyond 233 MHz (no hidden or special jumper settings to get more than 3x FSB speed), as well as it won't recognize CPU other than Intel-make

Some stuff can be found HERE (if anyone else may ever need it too, ie latest BIOS).
Also latest Intel's update (for this chipset) is recommended on Win9x/NT4, because standard windoze drivers won't enable DMA on some devices as it was in my case (DMA-enable was greyed out on one of the hard disks, but enabled on second one - on the same channel LOL ain't it stupid ).

PS
Im not posting link for chipset drivers because stupid Intel uses anti-leeching page scripting idiocy, so if someone needs it too - go to intel site and search for Chipset Update Utility version 3.20.1008

This post has been edited by no1none: 11 June 2007 - 11:16 AM

[rjdohnert]

Windows NT was great back then and still works with some legacy hardware. A client I work with got burned because a piece of hardware was certified for NT but she wanted to use it on Server 2003 and it didnt work out. (Ended up getting it working in virtualized NT)

[no1none]

rjdohnert, on Jun 11 2007, 10:13 PM, said:

Windows NT was great back then and still works with some legacy hardware. A client I work with got burned because a piece of hardware was certified for NT but she wanted to use it on Server 2003 and it didnt work out. (Ended up getting it working in virtualized NT)

I have to admit I was stupid when I was avoiding NT4 (for personal uses / home computers).
I used to always go with W2K (customized often to the needs of the person or machine constraints) or Win9x, until I had to do complete NT4 set up from scratches (from reformatting hdds) . Yet I was still not recommending NT for home/personal machines, until it "grew" on me, that why bother with unstable and buggy 9x OSes on the old machines if we can use NT4 on those old computers and they will run on it perfectly

Unless someone still plays the old games and really need Win9x/DOS, on a personal level I'dalways recommend NT4 or W2K to be installed, if possible.
I like Win2003 too, I use one machine set as workstation-alike for myself too. I wasn't very impressed with it when it came out, but after SP1 it is excellent. However there only few things on W2K3 (as workstation) that good old W2K cannot do, thus I consider it rather wasteful resource-wise to use W2K3 instead of W2K.

This post has been edited by no1none: 12 June 2007 - 10:22 AM