thanks to VDNKh for putting in the effort, when you've got another user replying with responses like the above, probably makes you wonder why you even bother.

Exactly my thoughts after putting the effort in to do the research, recommend a course of action to isolate it, find a probably good match datasheet, Linux kernel driver source (not easy to find) that deals with this exact thing, and find out the people affected don't know their ass from their elbow.

I mean really. "I have a via problem. Here's an amd register dump"

Wtf is the use of that?

Might as well send me a picture of a tree and call it the moon.

myne wrote on 2024-12-04, 14:16:

Exactly my thoughts after putting the effort in to do the research, recommend a course of action to isolate it, find a probably good match datasheet, and find out the people affected don't know their ass from their elbow.

I mean really. "I have a via problem. Here's an amd register dump"

Wtf is the use of that?

You're an f'in a$$hole! People like you don't belong in these communities.

Pfft.

I'm out. Deleting all the actually useful posts that were ignored.

Good riddance!

Good luck.

Sorry if I mess up, the comment was rude but noone has the same social skill or the same sensibility, either way the style doesn't make a statement actually false, what he claimed in a rude way may still be true.

Wow, what a specimen. Such an important topic and such a weirdo derailing it, 🤣.

Thank you VDNKh, for putting out the dumps. Hope, this'll get some traction.

its not about social skills, its about being condescending and telling someone their way of thinking is stupid which is the same as calling someone stupid, theres no excuse for that, especially when that someone is actively doing their best to figure out a problem for the benefit of the community.

if the other user had all the answers maybe he should have figured it out himself instead of spamming replies then berating someone for actually trying.

myne wrote on 2024-12-04, 14:20:

Pfft.

I'm out. Deleting all the actually useful posts that were ignored.

Jeez, okay.

I'm not sure where the break in communication is happening, but I dumped all the VIA device registers too. Like I already posted on this thread, all of the registers, except device 24 F2 and F3, are identical between 0112 and 0203. I don't see the point in double checking the registers against VIA's chipset datasheet when we know that this register configuration works on BIOS 0112. Nor do I see the point in posting all the identical registers here. I think it's a dead end and a waste of effort to examine them any further.

Nemo1985 wrote on 2024-12-04, 15:12:

Sorry if I mess up, the comment was rude but noone has the same social skill or the same sensibility, either way the style doesn't make a statement actually false, what he claimed in a rude way may still be true.

This hobby, and IT in general, does attract a lot of weirdos. I'm one of them after all.

I'm familiar with inspecting AGP registers for correctness from my work on this issue a while ago: Not Another Ultimate Windows 98 Build.

I read into the PT880 chipset's documentation back when I did that, while also comparing it to Intel's PCI documentation, and verified all the registers are set on the PT880 correctly. Since the relevant registers don't change on the K8v-MX at all between BIOS 0112 and 0203, we can rule out incorrect registers at this point. I know what I'm doing. I would love someone to prove me wrong though.

VDNKh wrote on 2024-12-04, 20:29:

This hobby, and IT in general, does attract a lot of weirdos. I'm one of them after all.

I'm familiar with inspecting AGP registers for correctness from my work on this issue a while ago: Not Another Ultimate Windows 98 Build.

I read into the PT880 chipset's documentation back when I did that, while also comparing it to Intel's PCI documentation, and verified all the registers are set on the PT880 correctly. Since the relevant registers don't change on the K8v-MX at all between BIOS 0112 and 0203, we can rule out incorrect registers at this point. I know what I'm doing. I would love someone to prove me wrong though.

I see, thank you for the clarification.

Posting the device register dumps if anyone wants to look at them. I found XP's a little interesting. I wanted to see an example of a working AGP aperture in BIOS 0203.

In XP, the "GART Table Base Address" in the AGP target device (D0F0, 1106 0204) is not programmed in the device register. Yet, the AGP aperture is functional. It ignores the set aperture size of 64 MB and uses 256 MB instead, according to 3DMark 2001 anyway. This happens in both version 0112 and 0203. I can't figure out why. Is VIA's XP GART driver doing something different? Is it XP overriding something? Is it Nvidia's display driver providing a soft-GART driver of sorts? XP SP1's included drivers are over written by all the drivers I installed. Either way, I couldn't gleam any useful information from this. Maybe someone else can. I wonder if it's possible to use RLoew's WDM extension for 98 with the XP VIA AGP driver?

Anyway, SoftICE here I come.

OS and drivers used, other info:

• Windows 98SE, vanilla, no patches applied
• Windows XP SP1, vanilla, no patches applied
• VIA Hyperion Pro v5.24a
• Nvidia Display Driver 45.23
• DirectX 9c December 2006
• BIOS settings are unchanged between all dumps. BIOS 0112 and 0203 do not reset any options, thankfully.