LoneCrusader

I've mentioned this in passing elsewhere, but I'm working on getting XP up and running on a MSI GT80S Laptop; trying to have the "ultimate Windows XP Laptop" so to speak. Picked this one specifically because of the dual GTX 980M video cards - last known working graphics with XP (unless some laptop is packing a Titan-X, lol). I've had some success so far; I've been able to load the INF-edited 368.81 NVidia driver under XP x86. (It's currently crashing under x64; "STOP: 0x00000050, PAGE_FAULT_IN_NONPAGED_AREA in nv4_mini.sys," more experimenting required there.) The NVidia Control Panel also crashes when the desktop loads, but I believe this is a minor issue to address later. I've got working audio using the last Realtek driver package for XP, and I've got working USB3 ports using the drivers @Dietmar provided. However I'm hitting a brick wall with the LAN and WLAN drivers. Unfortunately this laptop uses "Killer" network hardware, which seems to be unfriendly to XP. I have read several places that it is possible to use Qualcomm Atheros drivers for these chips, as they are simply rebranded versions. But to this point none that I have tried have worked. Almost always result in a "Code 10" "Device Cannot Start" error. Has anyone had success getting these Killer network chips to work under XP? Since it's a laptop, it's not absolutely essential for the wired network card to work, but I do need working WiFi. Worst case scenario I can try to change the WiFi card to a more compatible one... LAN: VEN_1969&DEV_E0A1 = Killer e2400 Gigabit Ethernet Controller WLAN: VEN_168C&DEV_003E = Qualcomm Atheros QCA61x4 Wireless Network Adapter Note that I've been trying to get this done for months and I keep having to drop it and come back to it when real life permits. Too many RL responsibilities and not enough time for projects. So there may be extended periods of time between experiments. Thanks in advance for any assistance.

LIMITMEM

Hello and welcome to the forum! Always nice to see some interest in 95, although I'm not able to give the level of attention that I used to give to my projects, and it's been a long time since I actually installed an unmodified version of Windows 95 to any system. Long ago I built a slipstreamed version that bypasses the need for FIX95CPU, XUSBSUPP, etc. to be installed manually and saves so many headaches such as these you are facing. So, fair warning, my memory may be a bit rusty! A few initial thoughts - I can see problems arising from trying to accomplish all the tasks in one pass so to speak... First - I would not attempt to fix the SATA issue until after the other issues are sorted. As SweetLow suggests, try using any available Legacy modes for the board storage controllers, or even leave them in compatibility mode until the rest is fixed. If I remember correctly, the SATA patch should work with the last 95 version of ESDI_506.PDR, but if not, it is possible to simply use the 98 version of this file.** (**may require "downversioning" hex-edit!) Second - XUSBSUPP, or the official MS USB updates, will replace VMM.VXD. This will break any previous installation of PATCHMEM and require repatching. Another reason to sort issues one by one. Third - The 98 INF files could definitely cause some weird issues as there are differences between them and the ones for 95. I may be able to provide a matching set specifically made for 95, but I can't promise a timeframe on this. It may be a simple copy, zip, and publish, but I'll have to go back and compare old notes and see whether the ones in my slipstreamed copy are affected by any other changes I've made. I just never expected interest for 95 on these honestly; pleasantly surprised! Fourth - MS set a hard limitation in ESDI_506.PDR that you cannot use an optical drive as the Primary IDE Master. Are you using a SATA HDD and a PATA ODD by chance? I encountered this problem before. rloew was able to patch out this issue, but I'm not certain that this patch exists "by itself" anywhere; it may only exist as one of many changes inside one of his larger packages, such as TBPLUS, which of course was only specifically made for 98. It's possible to use the 98 driver as I mentioned, but this would require a lot of time digging through our old emails for me to find a definitive answer. The meaning of "Projects" seems to vary among members; some of them see it as a place to discuss their "projects" as in patches, fixes, updates, guides, etc. While others see it as a place to discuss "project machines" they are working on. It's not really an issue either way as far as I'm concerned.. not like we get a lot of new members or posters these days, haha.

These had no effect on the issue. Same result, Code 39 error. Thanks again! These USB3 drivers are working properly with the USB mouse on the laptop. So far I have XP x86 and x64 up and running with the patched ACPI files and USB3 files. NVidia drivers 368.81 load under x86 with a couple of error boxes thrown when the desktop loads; but under x64 I get a BSOD, STOP: 0x00000050, PAGE_FAULT_IN_NONPAGED_AREA in nv4_mini.sys. (Given the CPU is Skylake I guess it's time to throw in the other patches... ) Not sure if anything else special needs to be done since these are "980M" cards rather than desktop 980's. If this gets much deeper I will probably create a separate thread about it; don't want to get too far off topic.

Good to see XPx64 getting some love. I keep finding things that have been fixed in x86 but not fixed in x64. Thanks for the package. I'm a little rusty on what all has been done; tried to follow it all however long ago before the original Win-Raid thread got messed up and changed hands but lost track of it since. Too many real life issues since then.. work, people passing away, etc. Only now getting (still limited) opportunities to experiment with XP and my newer hardware. (When are the HAL.DLL and intelppm.sys patches needed?) Using the last ACPI.SYS got XP x64 up and running on the laptop (MSI GT80S), but now I have another problem. I added the backported USB3 drivers from @George King's v24 package linked here to both XP x86 and x64 on the laptop. The USB controller and hub seem to be installed and working properly, but when I connect a USB mouse to the system, it doesn't work and shows a yellow-bang "Code 39" error under the Device Manager. Any ideas?

@Dietmar Could you please re-upload the latest versions of ACPI.SYS? All of the older links are no longer working. I'm working on a laptop where your ACPI 7777 for XP x86 dated April 6, 2023 works, but I don't have a matching version for x64 and the older ones I have aren't working. Thanks!

Luckily, someone uploaded a copy of it. Check the last few posts in the thread. But @Acheron also posted the patch bytes in the thread here at MSFN, which appears to be more helpful at the moment unless one needs the other things provided by the original package. Could be another way of approaching the issue. I hadn't thought about it that way, assuming that all paths to solve it would be similar. Based on un user's next post and an examination of that section in the registry it looks like one might get at the issue from that direction... I think that the approximate same result is achieved with one of the patches listed by Acheron; I tested them and while XP x86 still recognizes whether or not a driver is signed, it does not "prefer" one or the other on its own anymore, which solves the issue at hand. Now I just have to find someone with the know-how to port them to x64. Interesting.. is there any available documentation on this? And, I assume since you specified that it works only after setup is complete, that an attempt has been made to add these entries to the source files prior to setup?

Hmm.. looks like our Russian friends have already solved this issue long ago. Digging through an old RyanVM thread for information on Signing/Certificates inadvertently led me back around to here, and then to a thread on the OSZone Russian forum. Unfortunately I can't speak or read Russian, but a Google translate of paragraph #3 of post #10 refers to "Patch in Setupapi.dll, turning off the lowering of the rank of unsigned drivers when choosing the most suitable driver for the device." Now the problem is sorting out what patch does what exactly, and if there are any differences in different versions of the DLLs involved, and how to port it all to XP x64. All things I know nothing about. Fun!

Sure, they don't change anything. It's just a personal preference, hence why I said above that "need is subjective." But I prefer to have them installed, and it's all the more annoying that Windows refuses to do so, so I am therefore more determined to find a solution.

Yes, I know. I don't care whether they are signed or not. But Windows does. Setup refuses to use my specific-device-ID specific-name driver because it isn't signed, and uses its signed MACHINE.INF generic driver instead. As you see in the shots, I can manually force my driver to be used after Setup is done. But that defeats the purpose of having it slipstreamed. It also could theoretically cause problems in a situation where Windows has a generic driver pointed to a given installation routine, and you want to add a specific driver that points to a different installation routine. For example an IDE controller*.. MSHDC.INF will send anything matching PCI\CC_0101 to the generic IDE install routine. You might want to send PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_1C02 to an AHCI install routine with a specific driver INF. But Windows would choose the generic signed driver over your INF because yours isn't signed. *Intel avoids this particular situation because the storage controllers report different DEV ID's for different modes (IDE/AHCI/RAID) but not all manufacturers may do this.

Need is subjective.. lol. Chipset drivers usually don't "do" anything other than correctly name and prevent unknown devices/yellow bangs under the Device Manager. But installing them is one of the first tasks to be performed every time a new system is set up, so it is preferable to have them integrated and dispense with this task. Signed manufacturer files might be used somehow, but Intel insists on giving you over a hundred tiny INF and CAT files for a simple task that could be done with 3 files (1 for System Devices, 1 for USB controllers, 1 for Storage devices). And this fileset does not include any newer system devices that are "unsupported" for XP - for those you either make your own or hope XP can use the files provided for NT6x. At any rate, I tried using my compiled INF file under XP x86 along with the SETUPAPI.DLL patch. It did not have any effect on the problem, so that looks like a dead end. Still need a fixed SETUPAPI.DLL patch for x64 though, as it does help with the other things I mentioned in the other thread. Not sure if SYSSETUP.DLL patches would have any effect - there is no warning box or error box, etc. I already prevented those with the relevant registry entries. The system just silently prefers its signed, generic MACHINE.INF over my unsigned, specific INTELSYS.INF. See pics below; this is what I see when I examine the Device Manager entries for the devices after reaching the Desktop. Error/warning dialogs are not the issue. The problem is the silent preference for signed over unsigned, even if the signed driver is "generic."

My apologies for the late testing.. every time I get a good start on a project of mine something happens to delay it. Unfortunately this patch doesn't seem to work, it triggers an endless loop at the beginning of the second phase of SETUP. The text part of SETUP completes, the system reboots and shows "Installing Windows" and "39 minutes remaining" - but it never loads the first dialog box to click to continue. After a few seconds the screen goes all light blue and the machine reboots. This repeats on each reboot. No error is displayed.

Sounds promising. Tried using that just now, but I'm currently working on the x64 version of XP. Apparently the patch for the x64 version of SETUPAPI.DLL needs further work, it triggers an endless loop. Will elaborate further in that thread. I put this topic in the main XP section since I meant for it to apply to both x86/x64, but It may need moving to the x64 section later if divergent methods are necessary.

I've been told (and seen examples, i.e. Fernando's AHCI/RAID drivers) that one can self-sign files and/or obtain a certificate to do so, but I'm not sure that this method would necessarily work during a clean install, as "your" certificate would have to be imported and accepted as trusted prior to setup checking the files. Not saying it might not be possible, but I have no idea if it can be done in practice. I'm not aware of any way to "fix" a signature once it's been broken.. probably be hard information to find, even if it is possible, due to the possibility of using it for malicious purposes. Any of our "XP on Modern Hardware" gurus care to chime in on this? @Mov AX, 0xDEAD, @Dietmar, @George King, @pappyN4