Not only that - Note: Win2K is slow with a physical 512Mb ram shared with Puppy. I want to add 512Mb ram, but also keep my primary Win98seLite system safely available. Win98 has a bug that "may" prevent this with more than 512Mb. To work around this:
14. Edit "system.ini" (in Win98seLite) thus:
[Vcache]
# added next line.
maxfilecache=524288
Initialize Win2K to work with the Qemu shared-documents folder:
right click on My Network Places,
click on Search for Computers,
enter puppypc,
open Shared Documents and then any individual [/quote]
Windows 98 when running in QEMU, doesn't know how much RAM the host has. It knows how much RAM you've allocated to it through QEMU.
Knowing of Windows 98 limits, I allocate less than 512MB with no problem.
How to Run Win2K (and others) in NOP with Qemu. SOLVED, EDIT
-
Bruce B
Speed Considerations
Most Linux Distributions I run into support SMP. No
release version of Puppy does. Although, I've read
Dingo alpha/betas do (support SMP), so we've got
something to look forward to.
My experience using QEMU with SMP kernels with a
multiple processor machine:
My first experience with emulation was with the commercial
product Win4Lin (version 5?) It claimed native speeds of
faster than native for many operations and lived up to its
claims.
I've dropped the use of Win4Lin and they've apparently
dropped development for the particular product I bought.
--------------------
Most Linux Distributions I run into support SMP. No
release version of Puppy does. Although, I've read
Dingo alpha/betas do (support SMP), so we've got
something to look forward to.
My experience using QEMU with SMP kernels with a
multiple processor machine:
- * Puppy 2.xx and 3.xx runs almost as fast as it does on
native hardware.
* W98 is really fast.
* W95OSR crashes from the speed, being about 200MHz
faster than it can handle on my processors. (any suggestions
about this, appreciated)
My first experience with emulation was with the commercial
product Win4Lin (version 5?) It claimed native speeds of
faster than native for many operations and lived up to its
claims.
I've dropped the use of Win4Lin and they've apparently
dropped development for the particular product I bought.
--------------------
Re: Breakthrough!
[quote="Bruce B"]Not only that - Note: Win2K is slow with a physical 512Mb ram shared with Puppy. I want to add 512Mb ram, but also keep my primary Win98seLite system safely available. Win98 has a bug that "may" prevent this with more than 512Mb. To work around this:
14. Edit "system.ini" (in Win98seLite) thus:
[Vcache]
# added next line.
maxfilecache=524288
Initialize Win2K to work with the Qemu shared-documents folder:
right click on My Network Places,
click on Search for Computers,
enter puppypc,
open Shared Documents and then any individual [/quote]
Windows 98 when running in QEMU, doesn't know how much RAM the host has. It knows how much RAM you've allocated to it through QEMU.
Knowing of Windows 98 limits, I allocate less than 512MB with no problem.[/quote]
--------------------------------------------------------
You've misunderstood what I'm doing. As I stated many times, from the very beginning, my basic primary business computer is a light win98se. My live- CD puppy runs on that computer and Win2K with Qemu on that, experimentally, to try to determine if I could in the future migrate all my work off the basic win98 to puppy.
I wanted to add memory to speed up the Win2K guest, but be sure not to cause any problem thereby with my basic everyday computer from the large memory, when it, not puppy was running.
14. Edit "system.ini" (in Win98seLite) thus:
[Vcache]
# added next line.
maxfilecache=524288
Initialize Win2K to work with the Qemu shared-documents folder:
right click on My Network Places,
click on Search for Computers,
enter puppypc,
open Shared Documents and then any individual [/quote]
Windows 98 when running in QEMU, doesn't know how much RAM the host has. It knows how much RAM you've allocated to it through QEMU.
Knowing of Windows 98 limits, I allocate less than 512MB with no problem.[/quote]
--------------------------------------------------------
You've misunderstood what I'm doing. As I stated many times, from the very beginning, my basic primary business computer is a light win98se. My live- CD puppy runs on that computer and Win2K with Qemu on that, experimentally, to try to determine if I could in the future migrate all my work off the basic win98 to puppy.
I wanted to add memory to speed up the Win2K guest, but be sure not to cause any problem thereby with my basic everyday computer from the large memory, when it, not puppy was running.
-
Bruce B
Henry,
It makes no difference how much extra RAM the host computer has. Mine has for example 2.5GB of which 50% is a tmpfs on /dev/shm. Even that doesn't matter except as a point of interest.
The point is that Windows 9X is not going to have a problem, if you don't run QEMU's -m switch > 512 (or close depending on how QEMU calculates RAM)
You can say that I've misunderstood what you're doing, fine, Lord knows I'm not in your shoes.
However, what I say in the second paragraph is truthful and accurate. Most importantly accurate.
The idea of tweaking system.ini [vcache] to compensate for a 512MB limit makes no sense at all. What makes sense is: Don't give Windows 9x more than -m 512 MB with QEMU.
Bruce
It makes no difference how much extra RAM the host computer has. Mine has for example 2.5GB of which 50% is a tmpfs on /dev/shm. Even that doesn't matter except as a point of interest.
The point is that Windows 9X is not going to have a problem, if you don't run QEMU's -m switch > 512 (or close depending on how QEMU calculates RAM)
You can say that I've misunderstood what you're doing, fine, Lord knows I'm not in your shoes.
However, what I say in the second paragraph is truthful and accurate. Most importantly accurate.
The idea of tweaking system.ini [vcache] to compensate for a 512MB limit makes no sense at all. What makes sense is: Don't give Windows 9x more than -m 512 MB with QEMU.
Bruce
-
Bruce B
While I'm on the subject of QEMU and Windows, I thought I'd add a little trick or two.
Sometimes we need alt-ctrl-del for managing Windows, blue screens of death, killing processes, and whatever.
Puppy also intercepts alt-ctrl-del as a signal to reboot the computer. If you discover this phenomenon and want to stop it, delete the appropriate line in inittab.
----------------------------
Sometimes QEMU can lockup the whole show. LeftAlt+LeftCtrl+F2 will (if things are too bad) drop you to a prompt where you can kill QEMU - then LeftAlt+LeftCtrl+F3 will bring you back to X
Most Linux have more ttys and the same key combinations don't do the same thing.
Sometimes we need alt-ctrl-del for managing Windows, blue screens of death, killing processes, and whatever.
Puppy also intercepts alt-ctrl-del as a signal to reboot the computer. If you discover this phenomenon and want to stop it, delete the appropriate line in inittab.
----------------------------
Sometimes QEMU can lockup the whole show. LeftAlt+LeftCtrl+F2 will (if things are too bad) drop you to a prompt where you can kill QEMU - then LeftAlt+LeftCtrl+F3 will bring you back to X
Most Linux have more ttys and the same key combinations don't do the same thing.
-
Bruce B
Henry,
I got where you're coming from. I used to run into that problem all the time.
What you're doing makes sense at the direct hardware level.
Although I think Microsoft recommend(ed) that trick, I've never ever used it.
Here's the facts of the situation. MS-DOS version 7.1 as used in Windows OSR2 and Windows 98 can easily handle 1GB RAM.
The Windows GUI stuff is what can't handle it. If you make a RAM disk in DOS > 512MB, when Windows runs it only sees the memory left over from the RAM Drive and has no problems.
I'd often make my RAM disk 700 or so MB and then what to do with it? What I did was run Windows on it.
Bruce
I got where you're coming from. I used to run into that problem all the time.
What you're doing makes sense at the direct hardware level.
Although I think Microsoft recommend(ed) that trick, I've never ever used it.
Here's the facts of the situation. MS-DOS version 7.1 as used in Windows OSR2 and Windows 98 can easily handle 1GB RAM.
The Windows GUI stuff is what can't handle it. If you make a RAM disk in DOS > 512MB, when Windows runs it only sees the memory left over from the RAM Drive and has no problems.
I'd often make my RAM disk 700 or so MB and then what to do with it? What I did was run Windows on it.
Bruce
-
Bruce B
Henry,
I've seen many threads where people want to share files from Puppy on their local network. I stay away from those threads because nobody ever took my advice, which is exceedingly simple.
Now that you've got your Samba up and running, I'd like to ask why you didn't use Puppy's FTP server (pure-ftpd). Don't feel like the Lone Ranger, I've not found anyone I can think of who uses it for their LAN or QEMU needs.
Just want to know why?
Bruce
I've seen many threads where people want to share files from Puppy on their local network. I stay away from those threads because nobody ever took my advice, which is exceedingly simple.
Now that you've got your Samba up and running, I'd like to ask why you didn't use Puppy's FTP server (pure-ftpd). Don't feel like the Lone Ranger, I've not found anyone I can think of who uses it for their LAN or QEMU needs.
Just want to know why?
Bruce
Bruce,
As you know, I'm a Linux user, not a developer. There are doubtless several ways to do file sharing. Whether pure-ftp or the newer pnethood would be usable or better than the smb I am using, I don't know. As it is it took three Sambas to get one that worked. Personally, I don't have the time.
Henry
As you know, I'm a Linux user, not a developer. There are doubtless several ways to do file sharing. Whether pure-ftp or the newer pnethood would be usable or better than the smb I am using, I don't know. As it is it took three Sambas to get one that worked. Personally, I don't have the time.
Henry
-
Bruce B
Henry,
On a LAN computer it takes about ten or fifteen minutes to plugin a montor, keyboard and mouse. Then mount the partitions to be shared, then type in pure-ftpd. Then unplug it all.
If the LAN computer or any computer behind a router is the one you are using, you've already got the monitor, keyboard and mouse. It is just a matter of typing in pure-ftpd which takes only a few seconds.
Please don't argue time or that you're not a developer. Because if it is as easy as typing in pure-ftpd, to argue that reason refutes itself.
No to be taken personally, I've enough experience on the list to say NOBODY has ever taken this advice.
I would be nice however, if someone would say, "Hey thanks, that really works, nothing could be easier."
Bruce
On a LAN computer it takes about ten or fifteen minutes to plugin a montor, keyboard and mouse. Then mount the partitions to be shared, then type in pure-ftpd. Then unplug it all.
If the LAN computer or any computer behind a router is the one you are using, you've already got the monitor, keyboard and mouse. It is just a matter of typing in pure-ftpd which takes only a few seconds.
Please don't argue time or that you're not a developer. Because if it is as easy as typing in pure-ftpd, to argue that reason refutes itself.
No to be taken personally, I've enough experience on the list to say NOBODY has ever taken this advice.
I would be nice however, if someone would say, "Hey thanks, that really works, nothing could be easier."
Bruce
@BruceB
Hi Bruce, just spotted this,
Active CPU
Active CPU (ACPU) - easy to use tool for Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000 that enables you to watch a graphical representation of your CPU's activity. When ACPU is running, an accurate miniature CPU usage gauge appears on the taskbar on the end opposite the "Start" button. When you touch it with the cursor, it displays the percentage of processor use in text format.
Download (445Kb)
http://www.devicelock.com/download/smar ... u/acpu.zip
excerpt from old wordperfect setup
Have you tried?
http://www.mdgx.com/
This is where I got my 98/Me upgrades, which worked really well
[Ideal for new W98/ME images for virtual use, I would have thought]
Everything from 3.1 to XP, also has a good linux page/ sadly no Puppy
Edit: Re-read & Puppy linux has been added recently, though added 2.17 download linked to Puppylinux.org website where 3.01[slackpack] is available
Aitch
Hi Bruce, just spotted this,
and wondered if this, might help* W95OSR crashes from the speed, being about 200MHz
faster than it can handle on my processors. (any suggestions
about this, appreciated)
Active CPU
Active CPU (ACPU) - easy to use tool for Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000 that enables you to watch a graphical representation of your CPU's activity. When ACPU is running, an accurate miniature CPU usage gauge appears on the taskbar on the end opposite the "Start" button. When you touch it with the cursor, it displays the percentage of processor use in text format.
Download (445Kb)
http://www.devicelock.com/download/smar ... u/acpu.zip
excerpt from old wordperfect setup
Long time since I messed with W95 [osr2.5?] as I went on to mess with W98SE adding bits of ME, but I know messing with memory settings/ram memory made loads of differenceOpen your existing Config.sys file for editing (Help! How do I edit my Config.sys file?), look for any lines that begin dos= or device=c:\windows\himem.sys or device=c:\windows\emm386.exe, and insert the word REM (followed by a space) at the very start of each of those already present lines. Do not change any other lines that you may find in the file. Then, add the following lines to the very top the file, save the file, and reboot.
dos=umb,high
device=c:\windows\himem.sys /testmem:off
device=c:\windows\emm386.exe ram
(If Windows is not installed in c:\windows use the folder in which it is found on your system.)
Note: If your system locks up when you try to restart Windows, press F8 as the computer reboots, and choose the option Safe Mode Command Prompt only; then use Edit.exe to edit the Config.sys file; try the following steps in order until it boots again: first, remove the first line; next, in the third line, add this at the end (after a space): frame=none ; this should be sufficient.
... or: (b) If you do not have a C:\Config.sys file on your system:
Create a C:\Config.sys file that contains these lines; it is an ordinary text file, not a WP document:
dos=umb,high
device=c:\windows\himem.sys /testmem:off
device=c:\windows\emm386.exe ram
(If Windows is not installed in c:\windows use the folder in which it is found on your system.) Save the file and reboot.
Have you tried?
http://www.mdgx.com/
This is where I got my 98/Me upgrades, which worked really well
[Ideal for new W98/ME images for virtual use, I would have thought]
Everything from 3.1 to XP, also has a good linux page/ sadly no Puppy
Edit: Re-read & Puppy linux has been added recently, though added 2.17 download linked to Puppylinux.org website where 3.01[slackpack] is available
Aitch
-
Bruce B
Aitch,
Thanks for the post and tips. Since reading I underclocked it and overclocked it, then set it at the AMIBIOS faults.
I know what the problem is and that there is no fix I've learned about it (yet).
Yes, I really like Axcel's site and it would be the place to look.
Presently I'm thinking about installing Windows Retial (AKA FAT16 version A), because this problem ONLY affects the OSR2 releases. Then update the version A with the 10 or so disk updates.
Other than that, I don't know what else to do.
Bruce
Thanks for the post and tips. Since reading I underclocked it and overclocked it, then set it at the AMIBIOS faults.
I know what the problem is and that there is no fix I've learned about it (yet).
Yes, I really like Axcel's site and it would be the place to look.
Presently I'm thinking about installing Windows Retial (AKA FAT16 version A), because this problem ONLY affects the OSR2 releases. Then update the version A with the 10 or so disk updates.
Other than that, I don't know what else to do.
Bruce
@BruceB
Try this, from W95-11D.EXE:-
http://www.uwe-sieber.de/umbpci_e.html
Aitch
PS what speed/ver. CAN you run it at?
He seems to have stopped at o/c celeron1.3G to 1.4Ghz/256Mb mem/fsb=[100]@112 in 2003 - see benchmarks
Try this, from W95-11D.EXE:-
Also, this may explain some of the problem, as it may be ram speed/latency relatedCourtesy of Thomas Tompkins (ICQ# 3001681).
1. Windows 95/98/ME users ONLY:
"Run Regedit and go to:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\VxD\BIOS
In the right hand pane create a new DWORD Value called "CPUPriority" (no quotes) -> double-click on it -> check the Decimal box -> type 1 -> click OK to save.
This will speed things up by using the fastest priority to the CPU when opening any program, and works on 99% of the PCs I've tried it on.
To reset to Windows 9x/ME default type 3 or delete this Value altogether.
To see your system's real time performance type 0 (NOT recommended by Microsoft!).
In some cases this Registry BIOS key is absent, because enabling the BIOS power management feature (APM) and the Win9x/ME ACPI BIOS extentions may disable it!
Make sure there is a Plug and Play BIOS item listed in Control Panel -> System -> Device Manager -> System devices.
Here are other DWORD Values (Decimal) you can use to tweak your CPU Priority even further (under the same Registry key above):
* PCIConcur = 1 (enabled)
* FastDRAM = 1 (enabled)
* AGPConcur = 1 (enabled) [if your video controller is AGP based].
These settings speed up hardware specific operations by allowing installed devices to use extra CPU cycles: PCI, AGP and/or DRAM based I/O transfers from the motherboard interface/bus/bridge (PCI, AGP, DRAM) [-> to the motherboard chipset/bus/bridge where applicable] -> to the CPU, and the other way around."
MEANING:
"CPUPriority" DWORD valid Decimal values:
0 = The foreground (active) app/game is assigned exclusive CPU cycles (real time priority). WARNING: Use with caution!
1 = All open apps/games (foreground and background) benefit from a few more CPU cycles than loaded Win32 TSRs/DLLs/Runtimes/APIs.
2 = All open apps/games (foreground and background) benefit from even more CPU cycles than loaded Win32 TSRs/DLLs/Runtimes/APIs.
3 = All apps/games/TSRs/DLLs/Runtimes/APIs share same CPU cycles (default, same as "CPUPriority" absent from Registry).
UPDATES:
* "Some PCs powered by AMD K7 (Athlon) CPUs and AMD compatible chipsets may NOT have the \VxD\BIOS Registry key installed, and therefore canNOT use the "CPUPriority" setting."
[Thank you Peter!]
* "CPUPriority works fine on my PC: AMD K6 450 MHz + 3DNow and Viatech MVP3 chipset."
[Thank you Julian!]
* "I have used the "CPUPriority" setting of 1 on my E-machine box: AMD K6-2 500 MHz (upgraded), Win98 original. For some reason it reverted itself to 0!"
[Thank you Greg!]
http://www.uwe-sieber.de/umbpci_e.html
Aitch
PS what speed/ver. CAN you run it at?
He seems to have stopped at o/c celeron1.3G to 1.4Ghz/256Mb mem/fsb=[100]@112 in 2003 - see benchmarks
AHEM!
"buy hardware "designed for Windows95" (pnp)"
APM is dropped so long... . The total show stopper.
is a pnpOS aware? HaHaHa!
(That was okay because of protected drivers management, but....)
Since Internet Explorer 4 it was recommended to disable the Splash Screen (or Esc). Behind the Splash Screen win queried the BIOS again, and another gain....
As fas as i know VM's are pnp for the stupid ones (too).
AHEM
"buy hardware "designed for Windows95" (pnp)"
APM is dropped so long... . The total show stopper.
is a pnpOS aware? HaHaHa!
(That was okay because of protected drivers management, but....)
Since Internet Explorer 4 it was recommended to disable the Splash Screen (or Esc). Behind the Splash Screen win queried the BIOS again, and another gain....
As fas as i know VM's are pnp for the stupid ones (too).
AHEM
-
Bruce B
Aitch,
For the last couple days all I've been doing is working on this.
The breaking point for OSR2?
It has always broke with an AMD K6-2 500 for me. The fix is to install the patch. The catch 22 is the monopoly wants you to run the patch from Windows, remember they got rid of DOS, or so they said. And well Windows won't run.
The work around is work in the DOS that doesn't exist according to Microsoft, but does exist according to me, rename the AMDK6UPD.EXE to AMDK6UPD.ZIP, then unzip it. Probably, you don't need to rename it. Then write a little batch file to install the files from DOS.
This was only an OSRx problem, and only on AMD K6-2, the K7s were fine as were the Intels.
There is however an actual OSR2 break point of about 2500* MHz, again the earlier versions of Windows as well as the later versions don't have this break point.
A Microsoft page gives the details and the fact they aren't going to fix it because this product is no longer supported. Ideally, I should go back and do more R&D because maybe someone has fixed it, maybe you.
Although it won't boot, but I've no problem editing the registry in the DOS that doesn't exist.
-------------------
Presently, I'm running the Windows 95a at 2800 MHz and it's doing fine except I have a graphics problem with too slow refreshing, that I'm trying to work out.
------------------
@Bosley
I've given up trying to put together any Windows 9x machines, except for VM(s) - the reason why is (1) Linux and (2) finding 9x drivers for hardware is becoming way too time consuming for me. As if the new gospel is saying: "Seek (drivers) and do not find."
Thanks,
Bruce
* the range was maybe 2200 to 2500 MHz
Also I'll try the reg tweak after sending this post.
For the last couple days all I've been doing is working on this.
The breaking point for OSR2?
It has always broke with an AMD K6-2 500 for me. The fix is to install the patch. The catch 22 is the monopoly wants you to run the patch from Windows, remember they got rid of DOS, or so they said. And well Windows won't run.
The work around is work in the DOS that doesn't exist according to Microsoft, but does exist according to me, rename the AMDK6UPD.EXE to AMDK6UPD.ZIP, then unzip it. Probably, you don't need to rename it. Then write a little batch file to install the files from DOS.
This was only an OSRx problem, and only on AMD K6-2, the K7s were fine as were the Intels.
There is however an actual OSR2 break point of about 2500* MHz, again the earlier versions of Windows as well as the later versions don't have this break point.
A Microsoft page gives the details and the fact they aren't going to fix it because this product is no longer supported. Ideally, I should go back and do more R&D because maybe someone has fixed it, maybe you.
Although it won't boot, but I've no problem editing the registry in the DOS that doesn't exist.
-------------------
Presently, I'm running the Windows 95a at 2800 MHz and it's doing fine except I have a graphics problem with too slow refreshing, that I'm trying to work out.
------------------
@Bosley
I've given up trying to put together any Windows 9x machines, except for VM(s) - the reason why is (1) Linux and (2) finding 9x drivers for hardware is becoming way too time consuming for me. As if the new gospel is saying: "Seek (drivers) and do not find."
Thanks,
Bruce
* the range was maybe 2200 to 2500 MHz
Also I'll try the reg tweak after sending this post.
@BruceB
win v1 was dos 3.1 later dos 4. 0, w3.1 was 5.0,
NT was 6.0, w3.11 was 6.2, then w95 was either 6.22 or 7.0,NT3.51/4
w95b dos 7.10, then w95c&W2k/NT5 until W98 then service packs
then around 2000, the ill-fated ME (was dos 7.10, 'hidden')
If memory serves dos 8 was when they dropped 16 bit 'real mode' support for XP in 2001? - no drop to dos in menu! - even though it's still there
That was the beginning of the end for me!!
Here I mention a friend who clocked a D 365 Celeron on W98Se at 4200Mhz
which he uses for folding@home
He claimed the record on overclockers forum for the fastest air-cooled D365; & I don't think it's been beaten
Hint: PSUs stability & mem temperature become crucial to performance at speed
[I would presume the same temperature effects affect the video, too]
Have you sorted your airflow around your video memory?
Another site of interest is:-
http://shellcity.net/cgi-bin/DB_Search/ ... es&topic=L
Good performance tips page listed - see video tips
then you should be ready for:-
http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR2001/super.htm
Aitch
I thought that was only in XP:remember they got rid of DOS, or so they said.
win v1 was dos 3.1 later dos 4. 0, w3.1 was 5.0,
NT was 6.0, w3.11 was 6.2, then w95 was either 6.22 or 7.0,NT3.51/4
w95b dos 7.10, then w95c&W2k/NT5 until W98 then service packs
then around 2000, the ill-fated ME (was dos 7.10, 'hidden')
If memory serves dos 8 was when they dropped 16 bit 'real mode' support for XP in 2001? - no drop to dos in menu! - even though it's still there
That was the beginning of the end for me!!
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=28309* the range was maybe 2200 to 2500 MHz
Here I mention a friend who clocked a D 365 Celeron on W98Se at 4200Mhz
which he uses for folding@home
He claimed the record on overclockers forum for the fastest air-cooled D365; & I don't think it's been beaten
Hint: PSUs stability & mem temperature become crucial to performance at speed
[I would presume the same temperature effects affect the video, too]
Have you sorted your airflow around your video memory?
Another site of interest is:-
http://shellcity.net/cgi-bin/DB_Search/ ... es&topic=L
Good performance tips page listed - see video tips
then you should be ready for:-
http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR2001/super.htm
Aitch
-
Bruce B
Aitch,
I'm not pleased with 95a after two days of trying various combinations. I might play another day as the only problem seems to be with graphics. I tried the reg tweaks, but 95a doesn't even have those keys.
Truth is 98SE runs much better.
If I can under-clock this enough I can install OSR2 but the clocking adjustments are AMIBIOS settings and most of them are over-clocking tweaks. I'll go into the setup and see how much I can slow it down.
About temperature, I have a guage on the front of the box, normally it's a pretty stable 31c, but after clocking it down some it's 27c.
Also, thanks for the research and links.
Bruce
I'm not pleased with 95a after two days of trying various combinations. I might play another day as the only problem seems to be with graphics. I tried the reg tweaks, but 95a doesn't even have those keys.
Truth is 98SE runs much better.
If I can under-clock this enough I can install OSR2 but the clocking adjustments are AMIBIOS settings and most of them are over-clocking tweaks. I'll go into the setup and see how much I can slow it down.
About temperature, I have a guage on the front of the box, normally it's a pretty stable 31c, but after clocking it down some it's 27c.
Also, thanks for the research and links.
Bruce
@BruceB
I'll make this my last, then
perhaps you should look here, as this seems to be in your vein:-
http://www.superfrink.net/athenaeum/OS-FAQ/os-faq.html
there's some code for K6s in there, though I don't think it'll help much
I don't think I understand about OSR2 in W98, as that seems like a mix of 95/98 and I used 98/ME[2K] mix
The link I posted showed my friend's W98SE setup running at 4.2G, so neither do I understand you having to clock down
It's not an smp problem, I trust?
Sounds more like poor memory management/video driver/setup problems to me
Nvidiacard + speed/tuning software [gamers kit, is useful in these circumstances]
so perhaps try with a different videocard & compare?
[unless your doing this all in a virtual shell, with preset setup?]
Anyhow, good luck, you've got more stamina than me with M$
I think the medical profession are close to a breakthrough, though,
so hang on in there, good buddy
Aitch
I'll make this my last, then
perhaps you should look here, as this seems to be in your vein:-
http://www.superfrink.net/athenaeum/OS-FAQ/os-faq.html
there's some code for K6s in there, though I don't think it'll help much
I don't think I understand about OSR2 in W98, as that seems like a mix of 95/98 and I used 98/ME[2K] mix
The link I posted showed my friend's W98SE setup running at 4.2G, so neither do I understand you having to clock down
It's not an smp problem, I trust?
Sounds more like poor memory management/video driver/setup problems to me
Nvidiacard + speed/tuning software [gamers kit, is useful in these circumstances]
so perhaps try with a different videocard & compare?
[unless your doing this all in a virtual shell, with preset setup?]
Anyhow, good luck, you've got more stamina than me with M$
I think the medical profession are close to a breakthrough, though,
so hang on in there, good buddy
Aitch
-
Bruce B
Aitch,
Yeah, it's all emulation. I have a choice of a Cirrus Logic 5446 Video card with 4MB RAM or Cirrus Logic 5446 Video card with 4MB RAM.
Fortunately, I think I was just able to find the right combinations to get the refresh rates up to par.
Windows 95 differences.
Revision A ( AKA retail, upgrade and first OEMS) file dates 7-11-95. Used DOS Version 7.00 and no FAT32 Support or Integrated IE
Revisions B ( AKA OSRx and supposedly only available with new computers used DOS version 7.10 and came out a little more than a year after the first Windows 95. FAT32 Support and also has the IE integration (supposedly).
The NO DOS is a joke because there certainly was a DOS, but Microsoft said there wasn't when 95 first came out.
W2K also has a good reputation of running well on QEMU, maybe I'll try it next. I'll wait for a slower computer to play around any with Windows OSR2. W2K can also run an 8MB video card in the emulator.
Thanks for your interest.
Bruce
Yeah, it's all emulation. I have a choice of a Cirrus Logic 5446 Video card with 4MB RAM or Cirrus Logic 5446 Video card with 4MB RAM.
Fortunately, I think I was just able to find the right combinations to get the refresh rates up to par.
Windows 95 differences.
Revision A ( AKA retail, upgrade and first OEMS) file dates 7-11-95. Used DOS Version 7.00 and no FAT32 Support or Integrated IE
Revisions B ( AKA OSRx and supposedly only available with new computers used DOS version 7.10 and came out a little more than a year after the first Windows 95. FAT32 Support and also has the IE integration (supposedly).
The NO DOS is a joke because there certainly was a DOS, but Microsoft said there wasn't when 95 first came out.
W2K also has a good reputation of running well on QEMU, maybe I'll try it next. I'll wait for a slower computer to play around any with Windows OSR2. W2K can also run an 8MB video card in the emulator.
Thanks for your interest.
Bruce
Concise Procedure, Nop 4.0
Just noting the shorter Qemu procedure and a new screen shot, which also shows off the elegant new Nop 4.0 here:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 348#189348
Henry
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 348#189348
Henry