VOGONS


First post, by ychh0

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

During setup of 486DX-4 computer, I found that the driver of ATI Mach 64VLB has some problem.

Firstly, my ATI Mach64 VLB 4MB works well on Windows 95 with driver version 3.03 which is in the VOGONs driver library.
But when installing Windows 98SE, I found that system hangup during booting regardless of driver version either with originally included in Windows 98 SE or with version 3.03.
And also I found that if I remove 2MB module from ATI Mach64 VLB, Windows 98 SE boot up with no problem.
In summary, with the same driver, Windows 95 boot up with no problem and Windows 98 SE hang up.

Is there any Windows 98 SE driver for ATI Mach 64VLB 4MB (with 2MB memory upgrade module)?
And is there anyone who experienced this kind of error?

Reply 1 of 26, by SodaSuccubus

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Any reason in particular why you'd want to use Win98 SE on a DX4? Unless your tryn'a be janky with it and install a voodoo for the lols 😁
Win95 should be more then sufficient for that kind of rig (and it'd probably run better). If you need light usb support, I do believe there are some official 95' drivers for that.

Hell, win98 SE felt slow for me even on a P200MMX. I can't fathom how bad it'd run on a regular DX4.

Reply 2 of 26, by ychh0

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
SodaSuccubus wrote on 2020-03-12, 19:32:

Any reason in particular why you'd want to use Win98 SE on a DX4? Unless your tryn'a be janky with it and install a voodoo for the lols 😁
Win95 should be more then sufficient for that kind of rig (and it'd probably run better). If you need light usb support, I do believe there are some official 95' drivers for that.

Hell, win98 SE felt slow for me even on a P200MMX. I can't fathom how bad it'd run on a regular DX4.

It's not to use it for main operating system. I'll mainly use DOS/Windows 95 and Windows 98 is just an option.
Anyway, I wonder if there is a driver only for ATI Mach 64 VLB 4MB or there is some conflict in my system. It's very odd that booting with 2MB ATI Mach 64 VLB is OK but booting with 4MB ATI Mach 64 VLB is totally failure.

Reply 3 of 26, by CoffeeOne

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
ychh0 wrote on 2020-03-12, 23:27:
SodaSuccubus wrote on 2020-03-12, 19:32:

Any reason in particular why you'd want to use Win98 SE on a DX4? Unless your tryn'a be janky with it and install a voodoo for the lols 😁
Win95 should be more then sufficient for that kind of rig (and it'd probably run better). If you need light usb support, I do believe there are some official 95' drivers for that.

Hell, win98 SE felt slow for me even on a P200MMX. I can't fathom how bad it'd run on a regular DX4.

It's not to use it for main operating system. I'll mainly use DOS/Windows 95 and Windows 98 is just an option.
Anyway, I wonder if there is a driver only for ATI Mach 64 VLB 4MB or there is some conflict in my system. It's very odd that booting with 2MB ATI Mach 64 VLB is OK but booting with 4MB ATI Mach 64 VLB is totally failure.

Your description is very vague.
What did you do exactly?
I guess Windows 98 SE boots fine in Safe Mode. Is that correct?
So is it only "hanging" when you have set a high resolution? What did you set? 1280 x 1024?
When you have the problems only when the full 4MB VRAM are used, then you have very likely a problem with your additional 2MB VRAM, so a hardware problem.
That's actually easy to solve, just don't use that additional memory module on the card 😁
I am quite sure, that has nothing to do with Windows 95 vs. Windows 98SE.

Reply 4 of 26, by ychh0

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
CoffeeOne wrote on 2020-03-12, 23:38:
Your description is very vague. What did you do exactly? I guess Windows 98 SE boots fine in Safe Mode. Is that correct? So is i […]
Show full quote
ychh0 wrote on 2020-03-12, 23:27:
SodaSuccubus wrote on 2020-03-12, 19:32:

Any reason in particular why you'd want to use Win98 SE on a DX4? Unless your tryn'a be janky with it and install a voodoo for the lols 😁
Win95 should be more then sufficient for that kind of rig (and it'd probably run better). If you need light usb support, I do believe there are some official 95' drivers for that.

Hell, win98 SE felt slow for me even on a P200MMX. I can't fathom how bad it'd run on a regular DX4.

It's not to use it for main operating system. I'll mainly use DOS/Windows 95 and Windows 98 is just an option.
Anyway, I wonder if there is a driver only for ATI Mach 64 VLB 4MB or there is some conflict in my system. It's very odd that booting with 2MB ATI Mach 64 VLB is OK but booting with 4MB ATI Mach 64 VLB is totally failure.

Your description is very vague.
What did you do exactly?
I guess Windows 98 SE boots fine in Safe Mode. Is that correct?
So is it only "hanging" when you have set a high resolution? What did you set? 1280 x 1024?
When you have the problems only when the full 4MB VRAM are used, then you have very likely a problem with your additional 2MB VRAM, so a hardware problem.
That's actually easy to solve, just don't use that additional memory module on the card 😁
I am quite sure, that has nothing to do with Windows 95 vs. Windows 98SE.

Yes. Windows 98 SE boots fine in Safe Mode, but does not boot properly in normal mode. It sometimes just hang up, sometimes shows blue screen during booting process after mouse pointer appeared. (Resolution is 640*480) With 2MB memory module attached system never boot up properly, therefore I couldn't even reach adjusting display resolution stage.
I also suspect additional 2MB VRAM but also think that there could be driver compatibility problem.
With the memory module attached, diagnotics pass all the tests with 2.0x version DOS ATI diagnotics utility but system hang up with 3.0x version DOS ATI diagnotics utility. Windows 95 boots up fine but Windows 98 SE does not. I have two memory module and both show the same problem with Windows 98 SE.

I may simply not use 2MB memory module, but I just wonder if this can be solved with proper driver.

Reply 5 of 26, by CoffeeOne

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
ychh0 wrote on 2020-03-13, 00:27:
Yes. Windows 98 SE boots fine in Safe Mode, but does not boot properly in normal mode. It sometimes just hang up, sometimes show […]
Show full quote
CoffeeOne wrote on 2020-03-12, 23:38:
Your description is very vague. What did you do exactly? I guess Windows 98 SE boots fine in Safe Mode. Is that correct? So is i […]
Show full quote
ychh0 wrote on 2020-03-12, 23:27:

It's not to use it for main operating system. I'll mainly use DOS/Windows 95 and Windows 98 is just an option.
Anyway, I wonder if there is a driver only for ATI Mach 64 VLB 4MB or there is some conflict in my system. It's very odd that booting with 2MB ATI Mach 64 VLB is OK but booting with 4MB ATI Mach 64 VLB is totally failure.

Your description is very vague.
What did you do exactly?
I guess Windows 98 SE boots fine in Safe Mode. Is that correct?
So is it only "hanging" when you have set a high resolution? What did you set? 1280 x 1024?
When you have the problems only when the full 4MB VRAM are used, then you have very likely a problem with your additional 2MB VRAM, so a hardware problem.
That's actually easy to solve, just don't use that additional memory module on the card 😁
I am quite sure, that has nothing to do with Windows 95 vs. Windows 98SE.

Yes. Windows 98 SE boots fine in Safe Mode, but does not boot properly in normal mode. It sometimes just hang up, sometimes shows blue screen during booting process after mouse pointer appeared. (Resolution is 640*480) With 2MB memory module attached system never boot up properly, therefore I couldn't even reach adjusting display resolution stage.
I also suspect additional 2MB VRAM but also think that there could be driver compatibility problem.
With the memory module attached, diagnotics pass all the tests with 2.0x version DOS ATI diagnotics utility but system hang up with 3.0x version DOS ATI diagnotics utility. Windows 95 boots up fine but Windows 98 SE does not. I have two memory module and both show the same problem with Windows 98 SE.

I may simply not use 2MB memory module, but I just wonder if this can be solved with proper driver.

The issue is not clear to me (at all).
According to your description it is not even clear to me, that the windows 98se problems have something to do with the graphics card.
But on the other hand, when it works without the additional memory .....

I don't know how you should proceed. 2 Things to consider:
1) When you run Windows 95 with card with the full 4MB VRAM: Are you really sure, that everything is OK? Did you use a high resolution like 1024x768 true colour (or any other mode that requires 4MB video ram)? Also run some applications when that resolution. By the way what monitor / flat screen did you connect to it?
2) When you run Windows 98 SE WITHOUT the 2MB additional video RAM: Are you sure that everything is 100% OK? So similar to above, did you set a resolution which is maximum for the 2MB (like 1024x768 with 65000 colours)?

Last but not least, that would increase the entertainment factor of this thread: Which card exactly is that? Does it have the ATI RAMDAC to the 220MHz IBM RAMDAC?
Can you provide some pictures of the graphics card?
Please provide also an extra picture of the (probably faulty) memory expansion card.

Reply 6 of 26, by Anonymous Coward

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

The 220MHz IBM RAMDAC was only an option for the PCI version of this card.

"Will the highways on the internets become more few?" -Gee Dubya
V'Ger XT|Upgraded AT|Ultimate 386|Super VL/EISA 486|SMP VL/EISA Pentium

Reply 7 of 26, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

I find Win98SE a bit more stable than Win95 on my 486 systems, though I prefer using Win95 OSR 2.5 for them being a proper age fit.

All the ATI March 64 cards I've found are missing the memory upgrade headers. I'm surprised you have one.

Are you able to use resolutions up to 1280x1024x16bit on your card in Windows 95? You've run games in Windows 95 and there is no issue? Then running Win98SE and you get BSOD's due to the card? What is the situation if you use a different VLB graphics card in Win98SE with drivers installed?

Ultimate 486 Benchmark | Ultimate 686 Benchmark | Cyrix 5x86 Enhancements | 486 Overkill Graphics | Worlds Fastest 486

Reply 8 of 26, by CoffeeOne

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
feipoa wrote on 2020-03-19, 04:13:

I find Win98SE a bit more stable than Win95 on my 486 systems, though I prefer using Win95 OSR 2.5 for them being a proper age fit.

All the ATI March 64 cards I've found are missing the memory upgrade headers. I'm surprised you have one.

Are you able to use resolutions up to 1280x1024x16bit on your card in Windows 95? You've run games in Windows 95 and there is no issue? Then running Win98SE and you get BSOD's due to the card? What is the situation if you use a different VLB graphics card in Win98SE with drivers installed?

Looks like he made a modification for the upgrade.
There is a thread from half a year ago:
Re: VLB ATI Mach64 - won't POST if memory upgrade module is attached

Reply 9 of 26, by ychh0

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
CoffeeOne wrote on 2020-03-14, 11:21:
The issue is not clear to me (at all). According to your description it is not even clear to me, that the windows 98se problems […]
Show full quote
ychh0 wrote on 2020-03-13, 00:27:
Yes. Windows 98 SE boots fine in Safe Mode, but does not boot properly in normal mode. It sometimes just hang up, sometimes show […]
Show full quote
CoffeeOne wrote on 2020-03-12, 23:38:
Your description is very vague. What did you do exactly? I guess Windows 98 SE boots fine in Safe Mode. Is that correct? So is i […]
Show full quote

Your description is very vague.
What did you do exactly?
I guess Windows 98 SE boots fine in Safe Mode. Is that correct?
So is it only "hanging" when you have set a high resolution? What did you set? 1280 x 1024?
When you have the problems only when the full 4MB VRAM are used, then you have very likely a problem with your additional 2MB VRAM, so a hardware problem.
That's actually easy to solve, just don't use that additional memory module on the card 😁
I am quite sure, that has nothing to do with Windows 95 vs. Windows 98SE.

Yes. Windows 98 SE boots fine in Safe Mode, but does not boot properly in normal mode. It sometimes just hang up, sometimes shows blue screen during booting process after mouse pointer appeared. (Resolution is 640*480) With 2MB memory module attached system never boot up properly, therefore I couldn't even reach adjusting display resolution stage.
I also suspect additional 2MB VRAM but also think that there could be driver compatibility problem.
With the memory module attached, diagnotics pass all the tests with 2.0x version DOS ATI diagnotics utility but system hang up with 3.0x version DOS ATI diagnotics utility. Windows 95 boots up fine but Windows 98 SE does not. I have two memory module and both show the same problem with Windows 98 SE.

I may simply not use 2MB memory module, but I just wonder if this can be solved with proper driver.

The issue is not clear to me (at all).
According to your description it is not even clear to me, that the windows 98se problems have something to do with the graphics card.
But on the other hand, when it works without the additional memory .....

I don't know how you should proceed. 2 Things to consider:
1) When you run Windows 95 with card with the full 4MB VRAM: Are you really sure, that everything is OK? Did you use a high resolution like 1024x768 true colour (or any other mode that requires 4MB video ram)? Also run some applications when that resolution. By the way what monitor / flat screen did you connect to it?
2) When you run Windows 98 SE WITHOUT the 2MB additional video RAM: Are you sure that everything is 100% OK? So similar to above, did you set a resolution which is maximum for the 2MB (like 1024x768 with 65000 colours)?

Last but not least, that would increase the entertainment factor of this thread: Which card exactly is that? Does it have the ATI RAMDAC to the 220MHz IBM RAMDAC?
Can you provide some pictures of the graphics card?
Please provide also an extra picture of the (probably faulty) memory expansion card.

I finally found the solution to solve this problem, but I don't know why. It works with 48MB(16MB*3sockets) ram installed but failed with 64MB(16MB*4sockets) ram installed .

Reply 10 of 26, by ychh0

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
feipoa wrote on 2020-03-19, 04:13:

I find Win98SE a bit more stable than Win95 on my 486 systems, though I prefer using Win95 OSR 2.5 for them being a proper age fit.

All the ATI March 64 cards I've found are missing the memory upgrade headers. I'm surprised you have one.

Are you able to use resolutions up to 1280x1024x16bit on your card in Windows 95? You've run games in Windows 95 and there is no issue? Then running Win98SE and you get BSOD's due to the card? What is the situation if you use a different VLB graphics card in Win98SE with drivers installed?

I can use resolution up to 1600*1200*16bit. I have ATI Mach32 VLB but it's only with 2MB ram. Until now, I found that 2MB VLB card has no problem in my 486 system, but 4MB ATI Mach64 only works with 48MB ram.

Reply 11 of 26, by ychh0

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

I tested all the cases that I can imagine and my conclusion is that ATI Mach64 VLB 4MB works properly with 48MB ram at least in my 486.

My 486 mainboard is made by SAMSUNG with Pheonix bios and officially support up to PODP83 with Bios upgrade. This mainboard has 4 ram sockets each accept 16MB single sided 72pin EDO ram total 64MB, and equipped with 256KB L2 cache. I upgraded CPU with Intel 486DX4-100Mhz (tried AMD 5x86 133MHz and PODP 83MHz but unstable, lag and so on) and installed adaptec AHA 1542CP with SCSI2SD v6 (tried AHA 2842A but system does not post). And I installed Bootit Bare Metal for OS multi boot.

I tried many cases but with no success and at last tried simplest configuration - test only with video card, ram and FDD.
I removed all the cards except for ATI VLB and executed ATI Mach64 diagnotics ver. 3. With 4 sockets fulled (64MB) it freezed and with 3 sockets occupied (48MB) it worked well.
Therefore I installed all cards back and boot with 48MB ram installed. It works with no problem, resolution up to 1600*1200*16bit.

I don't know why, it maybe from mainboard and VLB card incompatibility.
There are no option to control in mainboard Bios. If there are some to check please advise to me.
(Tried move linear buffer frame with SDD utility but it also has the same problem. Thanks Anonymous Coward)

Reply 12 of 26, by pentiumspeed

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

No no. wrong thinking of doing diagnostics:
Don't assume the video card is causing the memory issues.

Have you tried different video card with motherboard's 64mb (4 modules)? If error again even with S3 VLB card, then you have problem with motherboard.

Cheers,

Reply 13 of 26, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Try two 32 MB FPM modules instead of four 16 MB modules.

Ultimate 486 Benchmark | Ultimate 686 Benchmark | Cyrix 5x86 Enhancements | 486 Overkill Graphics | Worlds Fastest 486

Reply 15 of 26, by ychh0

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
pentiumspeed wrote on 2020-03-23, 20:08:
No no. wrong thinking of doing diagnostics: Don't assume the video card is causing the memory issues. […]
Show full quote

No no. wrong thinking of doing diagnostics:
Don't assume the video card is causing the memory issues.

Have you tried different video card with motherboard's 64mb (4 modules)? If error again even with S3 VLB card, then you have problem with motherboard.

Cheers,

I want to but I have no other 4MB VLB video card to test.

Reply 16 of 26, by ychh0

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
feipoa wrote on 2020-03-24, 00:30:

Try two 32 MB FPM modules instead of four 16 MB modules.

I don't know if mainboard recognize 32MB or not, but it's certain that it recognize only single-sided ram. Let me try 32MB single sided ram. (does 32MB single-sided 72pin ram exist?) If motherboard recognize it, it would be best.

Last edited by ychh0 on 2020-03-24, 08:12. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 17 of 26, by kixs

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I can test it but don't have Win98SE installed anywhere at the moment 🤣 I only use Win95OSR2 for 386/486 computers and that is just for testing purposes.

My Amibay: SALE | BUY - Updated on 2019-09-26

Reply 18 of 26, by kixs

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Just tested my ATI Mach64 4MB VLB at 1600x1200/16-bit and 60Hz on Windows98SE with PcChips M919 V3.4B/F VIP motherboard with 256KB cache.

It works fine with 4x16MB FPM, 2x32MB FPM, 2x32 + 2x16MB.

I have other 4MB VLB cards, but see no point in testing. Might try with a true VLB motherboard later...

My Amibay: SALE | BUY - Updated on 2019-09-26

Reply 19 of 26, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

ychh0, what motherboard are you using? If it is an M919, 'nuff said. I have two of those boards and they are incredibly buggy.

Ultimate 486 Benchmark | Ultimate 686 Benchmark | Cyrix 5x86 Enhancements | 486 Overkill Graphics | Worlds Fastest 486