Win95C on AMD64 box

Archived from groups: uk.comp.os.ms-windows,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

Got a new box with CPU AMD64 3400+, Chipset K8T800 with VIA 8237 South
Bridge. RAM is 1024 MB and the video card is nVidea GeForce FX5200. The
box functions very well with XP and W2k, but I also wanted to try Win95C.

To get the Windows GUI to work the following was necessary:
1. Install patch Amdk6upd.exe
2. Add Device=Ifhlp.sys to config.sys
3. Replace Himem.sys and emm386.exe with newer, dated 1989-05-03,
probably from Win98SE?

As I had cloned a well working partition from the old box, there was
quite a turmoil to sort out the hardware in the device manager. Decided
to inactivate all the USB units, the FireWire and the TV-card. The
system would freeze a few seconds after the welcome sound. Thinking
this might be a memory problem I eliminated all unnecesary processes and
deactivated the drivers to a bare minimum for the video card. Found
that I could start with either of AVG7.0 or ZoneAlarm4.5, but not both,
which would cause the startup freeze. After tweaking some memory
settings I can now start with both AVG and ZA - just barely.

Settings in system.ini:
MinPagingFileSize=262144
REM EMMExclude=C000-CFFF
MinFileCache=1024
MaxFileCache=24576
I am especially in doubt if the vcache settings are optimal. The
EMMExclude=C000-CFFF was probably added by the nVidia installation, and
after reducing the video drivers to the minimum I REMmed out this setting.

Norton System Doctor gives these values in the as booted state after a
few minutes of idleness + writing this in Thunderbird:
PM free: 0.3 MB (RAM available for applications)
Memory Load: 100% (load on system memory)
GDI free: 84% (GDI resources)
USER free: 70% (user resources)
VM free: 322,6 MB (space available for use as virtual memory)
Swap file: 262144 kB
Swap file usage: 38%
Cache used: 4.6 MB
Cache hits: 68%

Would appreciate advice on how to improve the performance.

Krister
Lytham UK
20 answers Last reply
More about win95c amd64
  1. Archived from groups: uk.comp.os.ms-windows,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    On Mon, 09 May 2005 19:01:01 +0200, Krister Hallergard <krister@hallergard.fsworld.co.uk>
    wrote the following to uk.comp.os.ms-windows:

    > Got a new box with CPU AMD64 3400+, Chipset K8T800 with VIA 8237 South
    > Bridge. RAM is 1024 MB and the video card is nVidea GeForce FX5200. The
    > box functions very well with XP and W2k, but I also wanted to try Win95C.
    >
    > To get the Windows GUI to work the following was necessary:
    > 1. Install patch Amdk6upd.exe
    > 2. Add Device=Ifhlp.sys to config.sys
    > 3. Replace Himem.sys and emm386.exe with newer, dated 1989-05-03,
    > probably from Win98SE?

    1989? Are you sure you don't mean 1998?

    Anyway, Windows 9x has problems with memory > 512MB, and this article might
    help: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q253912/
    mh.
    --
    Reply-to address *is* valid. "From" address is a blackhole.

    This space to let.
  2. Archived from groups: uk.comp.os.ms-windows,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    Krister Hallergard <krister@hallergard.fsworld.co.uk> wrote:

    >Got a new box with CPU AMD64 3400+, Chipset K8T800 with VIA 8237 South
    >Bridge. RAM is 1024 MB and the video card is nVidea GeForce FX5200. The
    >box functions very well with XP and W2k, but I also wanted to try Win95C.
    >
    >To get the Windows GUI to work the following was necessary:
    >1. Install patch Amdk6upd.exe
    >2. Add Device=Ifhlp.sys to config.sys
    >3. Replace Himem.sys and emm386.exe with newer, dated 1989-05-03,
    >probably from Win98SE?
    >
    >As I had cloned a well working partition from the old box, there was
    >quite a turmoil to sort out the hardware in the device manager. Decided
    >to inactivate all the USB units, the FireWire and the TV-card. The
    >system would freeze a few seconds after the welcome sound. Thinking
    >this might be a memory problem I eliminated all unnecesary processes and
    >deactivated the drivers to a bare minimum for the video card. Found
    >that I could start with either of AVG7.0 or ZoneAlarm4.5, but not both,
    >which would cause the startup freeze. After tweaking some memory
    >settings I can now start with both AVG and ZA - just barely.
    >
    >Settings in system.ini:
    >MinPagingFileSize=262144
    >REM EMMExclude=C000-CFFF
    >MinFileCache=1024
    >MaxFileCache=24576
    >I am especially in doubt if the vcache settings are optimal. The
    >EMMExclude=C000-CFFF was probably added by the nVidia installation, and
    >after reducing the video drivers to the minimum I REMmed out this setting.
    >
    >Norton System Doctor gives these values in the as booted state after a
    >few minutes of idleness + writing this in Thunderbird:
    >PM free: 0.3 MB (RAM available for applications)
    >Memory Load: 100% (load on system memory)
    >GDI free: 84% (GDI resources)
    >USER free: 70% (user resources)
    >VM free: 322,6 MB (space available for use as virtual memory)
    >Swap file: 262144 kB
    >Swap file usage: 38%
    >Cache used: 4.6 MB
    >Cache hits: 68%
    >
    >Would appreciate advice on how to improve the performance.
    >
    >Krister
    >Lytham UK


    1. MinPagingFileSize=262144
    That is a pretty big swap file (256 mb) and is probably far more than
    you need. It is not hurting anything but I would reduce it to
    something in the 50 to 100 mb range just to be tidy.

    2. MinFileCache=1024
    Pretty much a useless entry, and I would dispense with it.

    3. MaxFileCache=24576
    That is a setting that would be appropriate for Windows 95 with about
    100 mb of RAM. Windows 95 is very much weaker than Windows 98/Me in
    this aspect of memory/cache management and the general rule that I use
    it to limit Windows 95 to a MaxFileCache equal to about 25% of total
    RAM.

    4. I would consider using a MaxPhysPage entry in the [386enh] section
    of system.ini because I have no experience with using Windows 95 on a
    system with a vast amount of RAM, and 1 gb is a vast amount by Windows
    95 standards. I would limit it to about 256 mb by using
    MaxPhysPage=10000.

    However you work it, the end result is going to be much the same as if
    you took a new Ferrari and replaced the engine with one from a Model T
    Ford.

    Good luck


    Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
    --
    Microsoft MVP
    On-Line Help Computer Service
    http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

    In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
    http://aumha.org/alex.htm
  3. Archived from groups: uk.comp.os.ms-windows,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    In article <d5o8dm$75l$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Krister Hallergard
    says...
    > Got a new box with CPU AMD64 3400+, Chipset K8T800 with VIA 8237 South
    > Bridge. RAM is 1024 MB and the video card is nVidea GeForce FX5200. The
    > box functions very well with XP and W2k, but I also wanted to try Win95C.
    >
    > To get the Windows GUI to work the following was necessary:
    > 1. Install patch Amdk6upd.exe
    > 2. Add Device=Ifhlp.sys to config.sys
    > 3. Replace Himem.sys and emm386.exe with newer, dated 1989-05-03,
    > probably from Win98SE?
    >
    > As I had cloned a well working partition from the old box, there was
    > quite a turmoil to sort out the hardware in the device manager. Decided
    > to inactivate all the USB units, the FireWire and the TV-card. The
    > system would freeze a few seconds after the welcome sound. Thinking
    > this might be a memory problem I eliminated all unnecesary processes and
    > deactivated the drivers to a bare minimum for the video card. Found
    > that I could start with either of AVG7.0 or ZoneAlarm4.5, but not both,
    > which would cause the startup freeze. After tweaking some memory
    > settings I can now start with both AVG and ZA - just barely.
    >
    > Settings in system.ini:
    > MinPagingFileSize=262144
    > REM EMMExclude=C000-CFFF
    > MinFileCache=1024
    > MaxFileCache=24576
    > I am especially in doubt if the vcache settings are optimal. The
    > EMMExclude=C000-CFFF was probably added by the nVidia installation, and
    > after reducing the video drivers to the minimum I REMmed out this setting.

    > Would appreciate advice on how to improve the performance.
    >
    You need to alter the MaxFileCache setting. You've set it at 24MB so
    each app can only access 24 MB. It should be 524288.

    Win95 USB support is shite. Forget it. It died years ago.

    --
    Conor

    "Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.
  4. Archived from groups: uk.comp.os.ms-windows,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    Marcus Houlden wrote:
    > On Mon, 09 May 2005 19:01:01 +0200, Krister Hallergard <krister@hallergard.fsworld.co.uk>
    > wrote the following to uk.comp.os.ms-windows:
    >
    >
    >>Got a new box with CPU AMD64 3400+, Chipset K8T800 with VIA 8237 South
    >>Bridge. RAM is 1024 MB and the video card is nVidea GeForce FX5200. The
    >>box functions very well with XP and W2k, but I also wanted to try Win95C.
    >>
    >>To get the Windows GUI to work the following was necessary:
    >>1. Install patch Amdk6upd.exe
    >>2. Add Device=Ifhlp.sys to config.sys
    >>3. Replace Himem.sys and emm386.exe with newer, dated 1989-05-03,
    >>probably from Win98SE?
    >
    >
    > 1989? Are you sure you don't mean 1998?
    >
    > Anyway, Windows 9x has problems with memory > 512MB, and this article might
    > help: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q253912/
    > mh.

    I mean 1999. Thanks Marcus.
  5. Archived from groups: uk.comp.os.ms-windows,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    Conor wrote:
    > In article <d5o8dm$75l$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Krister Hallergard
    > says...
    >
    >>Got a new box with CPU AMD64 3400+, Chipset K8T800 with VIA 8237 South
    >>Bridge. RAM is 1024 MB and the video card is nVidea GeForce FX5200. The
    >>box functions very well with XP and W2k, but I also wanted to try Win95C.
    >>
    >>To get the Windows GUI to work the following was necessary:
    >>1. Install patch Amdk6upd.exe
    >>2. Add Device=Ifhlp.sys to config.sys
    >>3. Replace Himem.sys and emm386.exe with newer, dated 1989-05-03,
    >>probably from Win98SE?
    >>
    >>As I had cloned a well working partition from the old box, there was
    >>quite a turmoil to sort out the hardware in the device manager. Decided
    >>to inactivate all the USB units, the FireWire and the TV-card. The
    >>system would freeze a few seconds after the welcome sound. Thinking
    >>this might be a memory problem I eliminated all unnecesary processes and
    >>deactivated the drivers to a bare minimum for the video card. Found
    >>that I could start with either of AVG7.0 or ZoneAlarm4.5, but not both,
    >>which would cause the startup freeze. After tweaking some memory
    >>settings I can now start with both AVG and ZA - just barely.
    >>
    >>Settings in system.ini:
    >>MinPagingFileSize=262144
    >>REM EMMExclude=C000-CFFF
    >>MinFileCache=1024
    >>MaxFileCache=24576
    >>I am especially in doubt if the vcache settings are optimal. The
    >>EMMExclude=C000-CFFF was probably added by the nVidia installation, and
    >>after reducing the video drivers to the minimum I REMmed out this setting.
    >
    >
    >>Would appreciate advice on how to improve the performance.
    >>
    >
    > You need to alter the MaxFileCache setting. You've set it at 24MB so
    > each app can only access 24 MB. It should be 524288.
    >
    > Win95 USB support is shite. Forget it. It died years ago.
    >
    Thanks Connor. The MaxFileCache=524288 I have seen recommended for
    Win98, but for Win95 many suggest much lower values. I have not really
    understood why, have you?
  6. Archived from groups: uk.comp.os.ms-windows,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    Ron Martell wrote:
    > Krister Hallergard <krister@hallergard.fsworld.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Got a new box with CPU AMD64 3400+, Chipset K8T800 with VIA 8237 South
    >>Bridge. RAM is 1024 MB and the video card is nVidea GeForce FX5200. The
    >>box functions very well with XP and W2k, but I also wanted to try Win95C.
    >>
    >>To get the Windows GUI to work the following was necessary:
    >>1. Install patch Amdk6upd.exe
    >>2. Add Device=Ifhlp.sys to config.sys
    >>3. Replace Himem.sys and emm386.exe with newer, dated 1989-05-03,
    >>probably from Win98SE?
    >>
    >>As I had cloned a well working partition from the old box, there was
    >>quite a turmoil to sort out the hardware in the device manager. Decided
    >>to inactivate all the USB units, the FireWire and the TV-card. The
    >>system would freeze a few seconds after the welcome sound. Thinking
    >>this might be a memory problem I eliminated all unnecesary processes and
    >>deactivated the drivers to a bare minimum for the video card. Found
    >>that I could start with either of AVG7.0 or ZoneAlarm4.5, but not both,
    >>which would cause the startup freeze. After tweaking some memory
    >>settings I can now start with both AVG and ZA - just barely.
    >>
    >>Settings in system.ini:
    >>MinPagingFileSize=262144
    >>REM EMMExclude=C000-CFFF
    >>MinFileCache=1024
    >>MaxFileCache=24576
    >>I am especially in doubt if the vcache settings are optimal. The
    >>EMMExclude=C000-CFFF was probably added by the nVidia installation, and
    >>after reducing the video drivers to the minimum I REMmed out this setting.
    >>
    >>Norton System Doctor gives these values in the as booted state after a
    >>few minutes of idleness + writing this in Thunderbird:
    >>PM free: 0.3 MB (RAM available for applications)
    >>Memory Load: 100% (load on system memory)
    >>GDI free: 84% (GDI resources)
    >>USER free: 70% (user resources)
    >>VM free: 322,6 MB (space available for use as virtual memory)
    >>Swap file: 262144 kB
    >>Swap file usage: 38%
    >>Cache used: 4.6 MB
    >>Cache hits: 68%
    >>
    >>Would appreciate advice on how to improve the performance.
    >>
    >>Krister
    >>Lytham UK
    >
    >
    >
    > 1. MinPagingFileSize=262144
    > That is a pretty big swap file (256 mb) and is probably far more than
    > you need. It is not hurting anything but I would reduce it to
    > something in the 50 to 100 mb range just to be tidy.
    >
    > 2. MinFileCache=1024
    > Pretty much a useless entry, and I would dispense with it.
    >
    > 3. MaxFileCache=24576
    > That is a setting that would be appropriate for Windows 95 with about
    > 100 mb of RAM. Windows 95 is very much weaker than Windows 98/Me in
    > this aspect of memory/cache management and the general rule that I use
    > it to limit Windows 95 to a MaxFileCache equal to about 25% of total
    > RAM.
    >
    > 4. I would consider using a MaxPhysPage entry in the [386enh] section
    > of system.ini because I have no experience with using Windows 95 on a
    > system with a vast amount of RAM, and 1 gb is a vast amount by Windows
    > 95 standards. I would limit it to about 256 mb by using
    > MaxPhysPage=10000.
    >
    > However you work it, the end result is going to be much the same as if
    > you took a new Ferrari and replaced the engine with one from a Model T
    > Ford.
    >
    > Good luck
    >
    >
    > Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

    Thanks Ron. MaxFileCache: Conner suggest 524288, much higher tha your
    suggestionb of about 65000. MaxPhysPage: Why not 20000 (512 MB) or 4000
    (1 GB)? Are these higher values appropriate for Win98 but not for Win95?
  7. Archived from groups: uk.comp.os.ms-windows,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    In article <d5omdt$nkv$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, Krister Hallergard
    says...

    > Thanks Connor. The MaxFileCache=524288 I have seen recommended for
    > Win98, but for Win95 many suggest much lower values. I have not really
    > understood why, have you?
    >
    Dpends on how old the info is that you saw. You have to remember that
    back when 95 came out, RAM cost £30 per MB and 8-16MB was considered
    standard.

    --
    Conor

    "Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.
  8. Archived from groups: uk.comp.os.ms-windows,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    Conor wrote:
    > In article <d5omdt$nkv$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, Krister Hallergard
    > says...
    >
    >
    >>Thanks Connor. The MaxFileCache=524288 I have seen recommended for
    >>Win98, but for Win95 many suggest much lower values. I have not really
    >>understood why, have you?
    >>
    >
    > Dpends on how old the info is that you saw. You have to remember that
    > back when 95 came out, RAM cost £30 per MB and 8-16MB was considered
    > standard.
    >
    Have seen an argument that there is some kind of a memory leak in Win95
    and that you therefore has to use a lower value (than with Win98)?
  9. Archived from groups: uk.comp.os.ms-windows,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    Krister Hallergard <krister@hallergard.fsworld.co.uk> wrote:

    >Thanks Ron. MaxFileCache: Conner suggest 524288, much higher tha your
    >suggestionb of about 65000. MaxPhysPage: Why not 20000 (512 MB) or 4000
    >(1 GB)? Are these higher values appropriate for Win98 but not for Win95?

    MaxFileCache first. Windows 98 has very much improved disk cache
    management compared to Windows 95. The major problem is that Windows
    95 has a tendency not to reduce the size of the disk cache even though
    there are other more important uses for that RAM. Tests have shown
    that Windows 95 will have as much as 80% of the total RAM tied up in
    disk cache while the computer is being bogged down with constant swap
    file activity because the remaining 20% of the RAM is totally
    inadequate for the applications being run.

    Also Windows 95 does not have the MapCache capability that is found in
    Windows 98 and Windows Me. MapCache allows aligned application code
    to be executed directly from the disk cache, thereby allowing that RAM
    to effectively perform double duty as both disk cache and program
    execution memory.

    So there is little benefit and fairly large risks from using a huge
    disk cache with Windows 95, hence my preference for a 25% limit.


    MaxPhysPage. Huge amounts of RAM with Windows 95 is pretty much
    uncharted waters, at least in my experience. I cannot recall ever
    working on a system with more than 256 mb of RAM that was running
    Windows 95. Even on my own multi-boot system I had removed Windows
    95 before I increased the RAM to 512 mb, which was sometime in 2001.

    So feel free to experiment. I prefer to "play safe" and I know that
    Windows 95 will operate quite happily with 256 mb but am uncertain as
    to the consequences of going beyond that figure.

    Good luck


    Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
    --
    Microsoft MVP
    On-Line Help Computer Service
    http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

    In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
    http://aumha.org/alex.htm
  10. Archived from groups: uk.comp.os.ms-windows,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    glee wrote:

    > AFAIK, Ron Martell's settings are optimal, and Conor is way off the mark for
    > Win95....he is thinking of Win98. According to Crucial memory manufacturers, Win95
    > and 98 can both handle up to 1GB RAM, though I would stick with Ron's
    > recommendations re: your settings:
    > http://www.crucial.com/kb/answer.asp?qid=3743
    >
    > Your problems may lie elsewhere....possibly stemming from the fact that you used a
    > clone of the OS from another system. Did you remove all hardware from Device
    > Manager *in Safe Mode*, and let Windows re-detect it all on restart? You may also
    > need to uninstall and reinstall some apps, Java among them. Use Process Explorer to
    > find what program is using 100% of your CPU:
    > http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/procexp.shtml

    Norton System Doctor shows CPU usage 0%, but if I start Java it shows
    100%. The Process Explorer shows CPU 100% idle, also when Java is started.

    Not sure if I deleted the old hardware properly or not. Probably will
    attempt a fresh install, though I did try that a couple of months ago,
    and had big problems with the SAPA and CD configuration.
  11. Archived from groups: uk.comp.os.ms-windows,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    Krister Hallergard <krister@hallergard.fsworld.co.uk> wrote:


    >
    >Norton System Doctor shows CPU usage 0%, but if I start Java it shows
    >100%. The Process Explorer shows CPU 100% idle, also when Java is started.
    >
    >Not sure if I deleted the old hardware properly or not. Probably will
    >attempt a fresh install, though I did try that a couple of months ago,
    >and had big problems with the SAPA and CD configuration.

    Norton System Destroyer is among the very worst products you can use
    on any computer.


    Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
    --
    Microsoft MVP
    On-Line Help Computer Service
    http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

    In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
    http://aumha.org/alex.htm
  12. Archived from groups: uk.comp.os.ms-windows,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    glee wrote:
    > AFAIK, Ron Martell's settings are optimal, and Conor is way off the
    mark for
    > Win95....he is thinking of Win98. According to Crucial memory manufacturers, Win95
    > and 98 can both handle up to 1GB RAM, though I would stick with Ron's
    > recommendations re: your settings:
    > http://www.crucial.com/kb/answer.asp?qid=3743
    >
    > Your problems may lie elsewhere....possibly stemming from the fact that you used a
    > clone of the OS from another system. Did you remove all hardware from Device
    > Manager *in Safe Mode*, and let Windows re-detect it all on restart? You may also
    > need to uninstall and reinstall some apps, Java among them. Use Process Explorer to
    > find what program is using 100% of your CPU:
    > http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/procexp.shtml

    Went back to my cloned installation of Win95. In safe mode I found a
    lot of old hardware entries in the device manager; cleand those out.
    Reinstalled Java which still froze.

    Like on my fresh install there was a conflict between the video card and
    the AGP Controller:
    nVidia 000A 0000 - 000A FFFF
    000B 0000 - 000B FFFF
    CE00 0000 - CEFF FFFF
    C000 0000 - C7FF FFFF
    AGP Contr CDE0 0000 - CFEF FFFF
    BDD0 0000 - CDCF FFFF
    Strangely enough the Win98 partition has exactly the same settings
    (actually nVidia has two more 000c0000-000cf3ff and cde00000-cde?ffff)
    but does not show a conflict!!

    Tried changing the memory settings to avoid conflict, but the box keeps
    rebooting.

    Shall I give up?
  13. Archived from groups: uk.comp.os.ms-windows,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    In article <d6hfao$bh0$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Krister Hallergard
    <krister@hallergard.fsworld.co.uk> writes
    >glee wrote:
    > > AFAIK, Ron Martell's settings are optimal, and Conor is way off the
    >mark for
    >> Win95....he is thinking of Win98. According to Crucial memory manufacturers,
    >Win95
    >> and 98 can both handle up to 1GB RAM, though I would stick with Ron's
    >> recommendations re: your settings:
    >> http://www.crucial.com/kb/answer.asp?qid=3743
    >>
    >> Your problems may lie elsewhere....possibly stemming from the fact that you
    >used a
    >> clone of the OS from another system. Did you remove all hardware from Device
    >> Manager *in Safe Mode*, and let Windows re-detect it all on restart? You may
    >also
    >> need to uninstall and reinstall some apps, Java among them. Use Process
    >Explorer to
    >> find what program is using 100% of your CPU:
    >> http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/procexp.shtml
    >
    >Went back to my cloned installation of Win95. In safe mode I found a
    >lot of old hardware entries in the device manager; cleand those out.
    >Reinstalled Java which still froze.
    >
    >Like on my fresh install there was a conflict between the video card and
    >the AGP Controller:
    >nVidia 000A 0000 - 000A FFFF
    > 000B 0000 - 000B FFFF
    > CE00 0000 - CEFF FFFF
    > C000 0000 - C7FF FFFF
    >AGP Contr CDE0 0000 - CFEF FFFF
    > BDD0 0000 - CDCF FFFF
    >Strangely enough the Win98 partition has exactly the same settings
    >(actually nVidia has two more 000c0000-000cf3ff and cde00000-cde?ffff)
    >but does not show a conflict!!
    >
    Doesn't Win98 support this resource sharing that Win95b/c did not?
    >Tried changing the memory settings to avoid conflict, but the box keeps
    >rebooting.
    >
    >Shall I give up?

    It's a hard decision - I only gave up my Win95b after a long period of
    stubborn resistance, but just had to in the end, but only upgraded to
    Win98se, and that's becoming less and less easy as well.
    --
    Roger Hunt
  14. Archived from groups: uk.comp.os.ms-windows,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    Roger Hunt wrote:
    > In article <d6hfao$bh0$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Krister Hallergard
    > <krister@hallergard.fsworld.co.uk> writes
    >
    >>glee wrote:
    >>
    >>>AFAIK, Ron Martell's settings are optimal, and Conor is way off the
    >>
    >>mark for
    >>
    >>>Win95....he is thinking of Win98. According to Crucial memory manufacturers,
    >>
    >>Win95
    >>
    >>>and 98 can both handle up to 1GB RAM, though I would stick with Ron's
    >>>recommendations re: your settings:
    >>>http://www.crucial.com/kb/answer.asp?qid=3743
    >>>
    >>>Your problems may lie elsewhere....possibly stemming from the fact that you
    >>
    >>used a
    >>
    >>>clone of the OS from another system. Did you remove all hardware from Device
    >>>Manager *in Safe Mode*, and let Windows re-detect it all on restart? You may
    >>
    >>also
    >>
    >>>need to uninstall and reinstall some apps, Java among them. Use Process
    >>
    >>Explorer to
    >>
    >>>find what program is using 100% of your CPU:
    >>>http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/procexp.shtml
    >>
    >>Went back to my cloned installation of Win95. In safe mode I found a
    >>lot of old hardware entries in the device manager; cleand those out.
    >>Reinstalled Java which still froze.
    >>
    >>Like on my fresh install there was a conflict between the video card and
    >>the AGP Controller:
    >>nVidia 000A 0000 - 000A FFFF
    >> 000B 0000 - 000B FFFF
    >> CE00 0000 - CEFF FFFF
    >> C000 0000 - C7FF FFFF
    >>AGP Contr CDE0 0000 - CFEF FFFF
    >> BDD0 0000 - CDCF FFFF
    >>Strangely enough the Win98 partition has exactly the same settings
    >>(actually nVidia has two more 000c0000-000cf3ff and cde00000-cde?ffff)
    >>but does not show a conflict!!
    >>
    >
    > Doesn't Win98 support this resource sharing that Win95b/c did not?
    >
    >>Tried changing the memory settings to avoid conflict, but the box keeps
    >>rebooting.
    >>
    >>Shall I give up?
    >
    >
    > It's a hard decision - I only gave up my Win95b after a long period of
    > stubborn resistance, but just had to in the end, but only upgraded to
    > Win98se, and that's becoming less and less easy as well.

    I do have XP, W2k and Win98. Suppose it is a bit nostalgic to try
    keeping Win95 alive, but unless someone comes with a good suggestion, I
    will give it up. Thanks, Krister
  15. Archived from groups: uk.comp.os.ms-windows,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    In article <d6l2p2$ggk$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Krister Hallergard
    says...

    > I do have XP, W2k and Win98. Suppose it is a bit nostalgic to try
    > keeping Win95 alive, but unless someone comes with a good suggestion, I
    > will give it up. Thanks, Krister
    >
    www.vmware.com if you really really want to get it going.


    --
    Conor

    "Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.
  16. Archived from groups: uk.comp.os.ms-windows,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    The "memory conflict" is how Windows 95 sees the AGP slot. You must remember that
    there was no AGP video when any version of Win95 was released, so it does not
    accommodate for it, and sees it as a "conflict". It is normal for Win95.

    Do you have motherboard patches for Win95? These were patches made by the mobo
    maker, to update some .inf files in Win95 so that the AGP bus and other features
    could be properly enumerated in the Device Manager. I am thinking that your board
    likely does not have Win95 patches or drivers, which may contribute to your
    problems.
    --
    Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
    http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.mspx


    "Krister Hallergard" <krister@hallergard.fsworld.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:d6hfao$bh0$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
    > glee wrote:
    > > AFAIK, Ron Martell's settings are optimal, and Conor is way off the
    > mark for
    > > Win95....he is thinking of Win98. According to Crucial memory manufacturers,
    Win95
    > > and 98 can both handle up to 1GB RAM, though I would stick with Ron's
    > > recommendations re: your settings:
    > > http://www.crucial.com/kb/answer.asp?qid=3743
    > >
    > > Your problems may lie elsewhere....possibly stemming from the fact that you used
    a
    > > clone of the OS from another system. Did you remove all hardware from Device
    > > Manager *in Safe Mode*, and let Windows re-detect it all on restart? You may
    also
    > > need to uninstall and reinstall some apps, Java among them. Use Process
    Explorer to
    > > find what program is using 100% of your CPU:
    > > http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/procexp.shtml
    >
    > Went back to my cloned installation of Win95. In safe mode I found a
    > lot of old hardware entries in the device manager; cleand those out.
    > Reinstalled Java which still froze.
    >
    > Like on my fresh install there was a conflict between the video card and
    > the AGP Controller:
    > nVidia 000A 0000 - 000A FFFF
    > 000B 0000 - 000B FFFF
    > CE00 0000 - CEFF FFFF
    > C000 0000 - C7FF FFFF
    > AGP Contr CDE0 0000 - CFEF FFFF
    > BDD0 0000 - CDCF FFFF
    > Strangely enough the Win98 partition has exactly the same settings
    > (actually nVidia has two more 000c0000-000cf3ff and cde00000-cde?ffff)
    > but does not show a conflict!!
    >
    > Tried changing the memory settings to avoid conflict, but the box keeps
    > rebooting.
    >
    > Shall I give up?
  17. Archived from groups: uk.comp.os.ms-windows,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    Conor wrote:
    > In article <d6l2p2$ggk$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Krister Hallergard
    > says...
    >
    >
    >>I do have XP, W2k and Win98. Suppose it is a bit nostalgic to try
    >>keeping Win95 alive, but unless someone comes with a good suggestion, I
    >>will give it up. Thanks, Krister
    >>
    >
    > www.vmware.com if you really really want to get it going.
    >
    >
    Interesting, thank you Conor, but this is a bit too advanced for me.
  18. Archived from groups: uk.comp.os.ms-windows,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    glee wrote:
    > The "memory conflict" is how Windows 95 sees the AGP slot. You must remember that
    > there was no AGP video when any version of Win95 was released, so it does not
    > accommodate for it, and sees it as a "conflict". It is normal for Win95.
    >
    > Do you have motherboard patches for Win95? These were patches made by the mobo
    > maker, to update some .inf files in Win95 so that the AGP bus and other features
    > could be properly enumerated in the Device Manager. I am thinking that your board
    > likely does not have Win95 patches or drivers, which may contribute to your
    > problems.

    Thanks glee. My driver "VIA CPU to AGP Controller" was dated
    2003-02-07, so I updated to a version dated 2004-08-19, which I believe
    is the latest (from package Hyperion 4in1 v 4.56) for Win95. Have not
    noted any difference.
  19. Archived from groups: uk.comp.os.ms-windows,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    In article <d6mpsp$b33$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Krister Hallergard
    says...
    > Conor wrote:
    > > In article <d6l2p2$ggk$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Krister Hallergard
    > > says...
    > >
    > >
    > >>I do have XP, W2k and Win98. Suppose it is a bit nostalgic to try
    > >>keeping Win95 alive, but unless someone comes with a good suggestion, I
    > >>will give it up. Thanks, Krister
    > >>
    > >
    > > www.vmware.com if you really really want to get it going.
    > >
    > >
    > Interesting, thank you Conor, but this is a bit too advanced for me.
    >
    It really isn't. Get a trial version and have a go.

    --
    Conor

    "Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.
  20. Archived from groups: uk.comp.os.ms-windows,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    "Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1cf86d5c4243862a989bdf@news.individual.net...
    > In article <d6l2p2$ggk$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Krister Hallergard
    > says...
    >
    > > I do have XP, W2k and Win98. Suppose it is a bit nostalgic to try
    > > keeping Win95 alive, but unless someone comes with a good suggestion, I
    > > will give it up. Thanks, Krister
    > >
    > www.vmware.com if you really really want to get it going.

    Good idea. Another one is Microsoft Virtual PC (formerly Connectix Virtual PC):
    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/default.mspx
    It is a little less expensive than vmware
    --
    Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
    http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
Ask a new question

Read More

Windows