I will test it on the YMF719 during the weekend, but on my other system (Intel Advanced/EV motherboard with an integrated ViBRA) it shows nothing. A possibly important difference, it's an 95 OSR2 system.

EDIT: the "Wave" version of the previous beta reports something.

As for the enumerations etc. I think the "standard" frequencies (11, 22 and 44.1 kHz) are standard as far Windows Sound System 1.0 is concerned. I've looked through MSDN library from the 90s, and they will mention the other frequencies (8, 16, 32 kHz) in other articles, they are even recommended for hardware manufacturers to support in the PC 96 or PC 97 specifications (8 kHz was important for speach, 32 kHz AFAIK is DAT, can't remember what they said about 16 kHz). But apparently these were not important enough to add them to the "standard" frequencies.

GL1zdA wrote on 2023-03-10, 15:07:

it's an 95 OSR2 system

Thank you for checking, I need to check what happening on a W95 system here, but none of my W95 system have sound. My guess is that waveInOpen( WAVE_FORMAT_QUERY ) + waveOutOpen( WAVE_FORMAT_QUERY ) are different on W95.

The Wave-07 test version is reporting the WAVEINCAPS->dwFormats or WAVEOUTCAPS->dwFormats which I removed as they are already on [Audio Devices], let's see what happens with the YMF719 and take it from there.

Update: When waveInOpen() or waveOutOpen() fail MMRESULT should be WAVERR_BADFORMAT and I wonder if it's some other error on Windows 95. Does the attached SIV32L 5.69 Test-08 test SIV report any MMRESULTs please?

Here's a screenshot for the YMF719 - looks as expected.

As for the 95 machine, I had only a brief moment for testing today, I will return to that one in April (had to split my collection between 3 places, so that my family doesn't kill me).

GL1zdA wrote on 2023-03-10, 21:21:

Here's a screenshot for the YMF719 - looks as expected. […]
Show full quote

Here's a screenshot for the YMF719 - looks as expected.

As for the 95 machine, I had only a brief moment for testing today, I will return to that one in April (had to split my collection between 3 places, so that my family doesn't kill me).

Thank you, this is what I was expecting would be reported and is what I get on my Windows 2000 Digital Alpha AXP 21164A (EV56) system.

OK, maybe another member will try SIV32L 5.69 Test-08 on a W95B system with sound.

I felt I should check the panel worked on NT 4.00 and was surprised that Windows 2000 has more the NT 4.0. I wonder if it will work on NT 3.51.

Here's another report for 98 SE, this time with Audigy 2 ZS. Looks good, there's just not enough space to list all "modes" for 8-bit samples.

There's a problem with identifying a GeForce 5900 in this computer.

GL1zdA wrote on 2023-03-14, 20:45:

Looks good, there's just not enough space to list all "modes" for 8-bit samples.
There's a problem with identifying a GeForce 5900 in this computer.

Thank you for the report and if you hover over the Mono + Stereo + there should be a tooltip that shows the full text, is there? I could remove/increase the width limit, but then the panel might be too wide for small screens.

SIV says 5900, what do you feel is wrong? SIV would do better on Windows NT 3.51 and later.

red-ray wrote on 2023-03-14, 21:37:

GL1zdA wrote on 2023-03-14, 20:45:

Looks good, there's just not enough space to list all "modes" for 8-bit samples.
There's a problem with identifying a GeForce 5900 in this computer.

Thank you for the report and if you hover over the Mono + Stereo + there should be a tooltip that shows the full text, is there? I could remove/increase the width limit, but then the panel might be too wide for small screens.

There's an error about COMCTL32 I think, this is a machine I haven't updated much. If the tooltip works, then it's basically a minor cosmetic annoyance. My knowledge of GDI programming is basic, but if you can calculate, what's the length of the text and if it's larger than the column, then shortening it and ending with "..." is the most elegant solution I can think of 😉

SIV says 5900, what do you feel is wrong? SIV would do better on Windows NT 3.51 and later.

I miss GPU/MEM clocks. It's the only feature I care about for graphics cards. nVidia's control panel, HWiNFO and AIDA64 report this, so I assume it's doable.

If I hadn't been lazy I would have made the panel width resizable.

red-ray wrote on 2019-08-22, 10:17:

Systems and GPUs I would like to test on

1. SIV is designed for Windows NT so if you have both Windows NT/XP and 9X use the NT/XP system as more will be reported. Chances are that if something is zero or absent on 9x/Me the correct value will be reported on NT 3.51 and later.

GL1zdA wrote on 2023-03-14, 22:01:

I miss GPU/MEM clocks. It's the only feature I care about for graphics cards. I assume it's doable.

So not an issue with identifying it as a 5900. All things are doable if you have infinite time and an infinite budget! As I clearly specified "SIV is designed for Windows NT ".

red-ray wrote on 2023-03-14, 21:37:

SIV would do better should report the clocks on Windows NT 3.51 and later.

red-ray wrote on 2023-03-14, 23:19:

GL1zdA wrote on 2023-03-14, 22:01:

I miss GPU/MEM clocks. It's the only feature I care about for graphics cards. I assume it's doable.

So not an issue with identifying it as a 5900. All things are doable if you have infinite time and an infinite budget! As I clearly specified "SIV is designed for Windows NT ".

I somehow came to the conclusion that "support for 386/486/586 class" includes 9x support, since NT on these is painful. It doesn't help, that the available software is not what I run on physical retro hardware. If a program doesn't need DOS or hardware acceleration, I simply run it in a VM, since these have decent NT support and the integration with the VM host makes it easy to work with.

I have no problem juggling between SIV and others, I just like how SIV works, so I tend to prefer it.

GL1zdA wrote on 2023-03-15, 07:23:

I somehow came to the conclusion that "support for 386/486/586 class" includes 9x support, since NT on these is painful.

"support for 386/486/586 class" means SIV will report these CPUs as such and does not imply anything about the operating system.

red-ray wrote on 2019-08-22, 10:17:

Any Windows NT/2K/XP/... system with NVidia 6000 series or earlier (NV3 to NV44) GPUs. SIV will not report NVidia clocks on Windows 9X systems.

Given what I clearly specified then I can't understand how you concluded this, I suspect wishful thinking.

I have always found W9x + W3.11 are painful (unreliable) on any hardware, PC wise back in the mid 1990s I used to mainly run NT 3.10 on a 20MB i386 DX40, then NT 3.51/4.00 (I think) on a 32MB i486 DX50, then NT 4.00 on a 64MB Pentium Pro 200 @ 233, found NT far more reliable than W3.11 + W9x and still do.

red-ray wrote on 2023-03-15, 08:34:

red-ray wrote on 2019-08-22, 10:17:

Any Windows NT/2K/XP/... system with NVidia 6000 series or earlier (NV3 to NV44) GPUs. SIV will not report NVidia clocks on Windows 9X systems.

Given what I clearly specified then I can't understand how you concluded this, I suspect wishful thinking.

No, it's the classic TL;DR 😉 But now you made me curious. What's the problem with reading these on 9x?

GL1zdA wrote on 2023-03-15, 08:43:

classic TL;DR

How does SIV32L 5.70 Wide-00 do?

red-ray wrote on 2019-08-22, 10:17:

As Windows 9X does not support kernel mode structured exception handlers (__try { … } _except() { … }) in VXDs SIV can't sensibly use a VXD to read MSRs so struggles with Pentium III and later CPUs on Windows 9X.

GL1zdA wrote on 2023-03-15, 08:43:

What's the problem with reading these on 9x?

There is no intrinsic problem in reading them, but to do this a VXD needs to be used and I have decided I don't wish to have a SIV VXD 'till W9x supports kernel mode structured exception handlers.

Fascinating. SIV 5.70 Beta-03 reports my Am486 DX4 NV8T / 100 has CPUID. It even reads AuthenticAMD. How can it be? Perhaps it does not execute CPUID at all?
I'm examining this, since this CPU is not known to have the CPUID instruction.
CPU-Z does not look like how a CPU with CPUID instruction
CHKCPU reports no CPUID
ctcm 1.7a does not look like how a CPU with CPUID instruction
Windows 95 B reports 80486
DXDiag reports Intel 80486

red-ray wrote on 2023-04-09, 11:56:

Disruptor wrote on 2023-04-09, 11:40:

So "insulting me in private messages" is a kind of "sensibly interact"?
I'd rather compare it with behaving like a bull in a china shop.

I have not sent you a PM or initiated interaction with you since I specified in a PM I did not wish to interact with you, further you should consider what you said to me in your PMs.

I am trying to ignore you, but you seem intent on stopping me doing this.

Be patient, as I'm examining this.

I am bored with Disruptor asking questions and not providing the information I need to sensibly answer them so have muted Disruptor.

I'll adapt my speed to your patience and friendlyness.
I'll come back when it is time.

red-ray wrote on 2023-04-07, 22:41:

I am bored Disruptor asking questions and not providing the information I need to answer them so have muted Disruptor.

Oh, what a joke.
I've asked a question to red-ray about how he uses CPUID, and got no answer, of course.
Now I see he has edited his postings and he also tells me that I am muted. Excellent.

It looks like red-ray expects that informations just go to him, and he does not like to provide any information back...
And to answer my question he does not need more informations from me.

Disruptor wrote on 2023-04-07, 08:11:

Windows 95 B reports AuthenticAMD

I've found out that Windows95B just reads out from the registry.
But I still haven't found out how the values there are initialized. It looks like SIV is manipulating/faking the registry at this point right after starting that tool!
The path is: HKLM\hardware\DESCRIPTION\System\CentralProcessor\0

red-ray wrote on 2023-04-07, 22:41:

I am bored Disruptor asking questions and not providing the information I need to answer them so have muted Disruptor.

That's not very adult behaviour of you, But whatever floats your boat.

edit: I was wrong and shouldn't have interfered and disruptor should have posted the screenshots red-ray was asking for instead of what happened.