asdf53 wrote on 2022-02-15, 13:28:

I have a Radeon 9600 Pro and at first I couldn't get it to work either with the newer Catalyst drivers. Even though the drivers […]
Show full quote

I have a Radeon 9600 Pro and at first I couldn't get it to work either with the newer Catalyst drivers. Even though the drivers install without any error message and the card shows up correctly in the device manager, I am still limited to a desktop resolution of 640x480 and Direct3D games don't work.

However, I found this older driver version from 2003:

https://www.helpjet.net/Fs-31741585-59851182-78185101.html

Apparently it's from May 15 2003, Catalyst 3.4 (6.14.10.6343), and it supports the following cards:

Copy code to clipboard

1"ATI MOBILITY FIRE GL 7800" = M7_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4C58
2"ATI MOBILITY FIRE GL 9000" = M9_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4C64
3"ATI MOBILITY RADEON 9600 Series" = M10_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4E50
4"MOBILITY RADEON" = M6_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4C59
5"MOBILITY RADEON 7500" = M7_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4C57
6"MOBILITY RADEON 9000" = M9_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4C66
7"MOBILITY RADEON 9200" = M9Plus_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_5C63
8"MOBILITY RADEON 9200 " = M9Plus_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_5C61
9"RADEON 7000 SERIES" = RV100_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_5159
10"RADEON 7200 SERIES" = R6_ENU_default, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_5144
11"RADEON 7500 SERIES" = RV200_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_5157
12"RADEON 8500 SERIES" = R200_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_514c
13"RADEON 9000 SERIES" = RV250_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4966
14"RADEON 9000 SERIES - Secondary" = RV250_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_496e
15"RADEON 9100 SERIES" = R200_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_514D
16"RADEON 9200" = RV280_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_5961
17"RADEON 9200 - Secondary" = RV280_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_5941
18"RADEON 9200 PRO" = RV280_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_5960
19"RADEON 9200 PRO - Secondary" = RV280_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_5940
20"RADEON 9500" = R300_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4144
21"RADEON 9500 - Secondary" = R300_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4164
22"RADEON 9500 PRO / 9700" = R300_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4E45
23"RADEON 9500 PRO / 9700 - Secondary" = R300_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4E65
24"RADEON 9600" = RV350_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4152
25"RADEON 9600 - Secondary" = RV350_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4172
26"RADEON 9600 PRO" = RV350_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4150
27"RADEON 9600 PRO - Secondary" = RV350_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4170
28"RADEON 9700 PRO" = R300_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4E44
29"RADEON 9700 PRO - Secondary" = R300_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4E64
30"RADEON 9800 - Secondary" = R350_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4E69
31"RADEON 9800 PRO" = R350_ENU, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4E48

This driver works for me under Windows 95 OSR 2.5. I can select high resolutions, 32 bit color, and play Direct3D games. Since it also lists the Radeon 9200, you could give it a try. I couldn't get the corresponding version of the ATI control panel to work either, but it's not needed for basic operation. I also couldn't get OpenGL to work with these drivers (Quake 3 and Half-Life refuse to start in OpenGL mode).

I also found this history of older ATI driver versions, very helpful to see which versions came out and when:
https://alt.3dcenter.org/downloads/treiber-radeon.php
The download links do not work anymore, but you can google the file names to see if it's still available somewhere. Keep in mind that there are two versions of the early 2000's ATI drivers, one Win2k/XP version and one Windows ME version, you need the Win ME version. Windows 98 and 95 are not officially supported at all, but the Windows ME driver works in some cases.

Are you able to set monitor refreshrate with this driver normally? Because my initial tests were with a Radeon 9600 and an LCD monitor, so I had no reason to change the default.

However I'm currently testing a 9200 with a tube monitor and regardless of which refreshrate I set through Display Properties, the monitor seems to default back to 60 Hz, even though according the driver 85 Hz might be set, eg.

edit:
Looks to have something to do with the video card/driver not being able to deal with the DDC info supplied by the monitor.
The solution that keeps turning up is to uncheck the Use DDC information-setting in the monitor properties of the Displays-tab in advanced display properties.

Does anyone know which registry key the toggle modifies? This guy asked already, but didn't get an answer...

I found the solution in this thread:

I had to append the registry with the following keys:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\ATI Technologies\Driver\0000\DAL
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\ATI Technologies\Driver\0000\VxD

Within DAL, I had to create a new binary value: IDCRegOptionDontUserOSMonitorInfo
and set it to 00 00 00 00
Within VxD, I had to create a new binary value: EnableDDC
and set it to 00

I tried modifying the same values within an already existing Driver\0001 hierarchy, but that didn't seem to have any effect. Not sure why the 0000-key and it's sub-keys and values are missing.

Now I'm able to set the refresh rate just like expected. 😀

asdf53 wrote on 2022-02-17, 07:12:

I installed the working 9600 drivers, then I extracted just the old OpenGL driver file (atio9xxx.dll) from the 8500 drivers and put it into windows\system. I now had 9600 drivers with just the 8500 OpenGL driver. When that didn't work, I tried force installing the whole 8500 driver package by spoofing the PCI ID, but that didn't work either, Windows refuses to use these drivers. No wonder it didn't work, but it was worth a try.

I also found this!

Mixing Old OpenGL Driver with Newer Driver […]
Show full quote

Mixing Old OpenGL Driver with Newer Driver

For one reason or another (for example, to correct CounterStrike problems) you may find youself wanting to use, say, Catalyst 3.5's OpenGL driver with the Catalyst 4.4's (one reason you might do this is to get the Dawn demo running). This is possible - Although note that it is NOT possible to mix and match DirectX drivers.

How-To
Install any driver, whichever one you prefer, if you've not already done so. We'll change it's OGL driver in a bit.
Download, but do not install, the Catalyst driver that contains the desired OpenGL driver. You can find previous Catalyst driver versions here. Save whichever driver you downloaded to the desktop.
Download and install WinZip.
Use WinZip to open the Catalyst driver with the desired OpenGL driver. To do this right click the Catalyst package (which should be on the desktop, as I told you), select WinZip, and then "Open With WinZip".
Search for the file atioglxx.dl_ - Double click that file.
A new iteration of WinZip will popup. This is normal. Highlight "atioglxx.dll" and select "Extract" from within WinZip. Extract it to the desktop.
Highlight atioglxx.dll on the desktop and cut it (press CTRL + X) - this puts it onto the clipboard so we can move it.
Browse to C:\Windows\System32 and paste the atioglxx.dll file there (Press CTRL + V). Confirm file replacement. If nothing happens, then you did not cut correctly the atioglxx.dll file as, I told you to in #7.
There, you're done! Go ahead and delete the driver you downloaded to the desktop, since it is no longer necessary.

This can be done with any OpenGL driver on any card with ANY Catalyst as many times as you want - just remember to CONFIRM file replacement in the System32 folder!

[Source] https://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t … readid=33738545

Do you think we might have a winner here?

leonardo wrote on 2022-09-01, 13:02:

I also found this! […]
Show full quote

asdf53 wrote on 2022-02-17, 07:12:

I installed the working 9600 drivers, then I extracted just the old OpenGL driver file (atio9xxx.dll) from the 8500 drivers and put it into windows\system. I now had 9600 drivers with just the 8500 OpenGL driver. When that didn't work, I tried force installing the whole 8500 driver package by spoofing the PCI ID, but that didn't work either, Windows refuses to use these drivers. No wonder it didn't work, but it was worth a try.

I also found this!

Mixing Old OpenGL Driver with Newer Driver […]
Show full quote

Mixing Old OpenGL Driver with Newer Driver

For one reason or another (for example, to correct CounterStrike problems) you may find youself wanting to use, say, Catalyst 3.5's OpenGL driver with the Catalyst 4.4's (one reason you might do this is to get the Dawn demo running). This is possible - Although note that it is NOT possible to mix and match DirectX drivers.

How-To
Install any driver, whichever one you prefer, if you've not already done so. We'll change it's OGL driver in a bit.
Download, but do not install, the Catalyst driver that contains the desired OpenGL driver. You can find previous Catalyst driver versions here. Save whichever driver you downloaded to the desktop.
Download and install WinZip.
Use WinZip to open the Catalyst driver with the desired OpenGL driver. To do this right click the Catalyst package (which should be on the desktop, as I told you), select WinZip, and then "Open With WinZip".
Search for the file atioglxx.dl_ - Double click that file.
A new iteration of WinZip will popup. This is normal. Highlight "atioglxx.dll" and select "Extract" from within WinZip. Extract it to the desktop.
Highlight atioglxx.dll on the desktop and cut it (press CTRL + X) - this puts it onto the clipboard so we can move it.
Browse to C:\Windows\System32 and paste the atioglxx.dll file there (Press CTRL + V). Confirm file replacement. If nothing happens, then you did not cut correctly the atioglxx.dll file as, I told you to in #7.
There, you're done! Go ahead and delete the driver you downloaded to the desktop, since it is no longer necessary.

This can be done with any OpenGL driver on any card with ANY Catalyst as many times as you want - just remember to CONFIRM file replacement in the System32 folder!

[Source] https://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t … readid=33738545

Do you think we might have a winner here?

OK... no dice with OpenGL just yet. Trying the atio9xxx.dll from the Radeon 7000-series driver CD just causes crashes. The one from Catalyst 6.2 (Win98) does not crash, but Unreal will cancel startup with an error and while Homeworld will even run after switching to OpenGL, it states that it is not accelerated and recommends switching to software rendering instead.

Sorry to necro an older thread, but this thread inspired me to try to tackle this problem. I came back across this conversation while trying to figure out why my Radeon 9600 TX doesn't operate in AGP mode with Windows 95 (it runs in PCI mode). This thread didn't solve the AGP issue (it turns out that Windows 95 will not work in any AGP mode after 2x), but I decided to try to get my Radeon 9250 PCI fully functional in Windows 95 instead.

Catalyst 3.1 (release 4.14.01.9082, dated 01/20/2003) completely works for me in Windows 95 (including OpenGL) with my Radeon 9600 TX. I figured that would be a good start.

It took some trial and error, but I finally got Catalyst 3.4 (release 4.14.01.9099, 04/30/2003) to install on a fresh copy of Windows 95 with my Radeon 9250 PCI on a Pentium 4 motherboard. Catalyst 3.4 pops up with a single helper program error at boot up (ATI2S9AG.EXE), but the driver itself works properly in 2D and Direct3D with the 9250. The control panel for version 3.4 does not work, and the OpenGL library didn't work either.

Amazingly, OpenGL started to work as soon as I replaced the library file with the one from version 3.1 (ATIO9XXX.DLL). That was the key! The control panel app from Catalyst 3.1 also installs and works properly with the version 3.4 driver.

Here's a picture of MDK 2's launcher reporting on ATI's OpenGL support. I also get some decent framerates with the Radeon 9250.

This could open up cards like the Radeon 9600 XT and Radeon 9800 series to Windows 95. I don't have any of them to test, but I hope this information helps you all.

It's not perfect though. While I still need to do some more testing, I'm getting screen corruption when switching color modes in full screen OpenGL (no issues if the color mode of the app matches the Windows desktop).

fosterwj03 wrote on 2024-08-11, 13:51:

Sorry to necro an older thread, but this thread inspired me to try to tackle this problem.
...
Amazingly, OpenGL started to work as soon as I replaced the library file with the one from version 3.1 (ATIO9XXX.DLL). That was the key! The control panel app from Catalyst 3.1 also installs and works properly with the version 3.4 driver.

Thank you for putting the work in! Can you share the copy of ATIO9XXX.DLL you found working? I want to try it with the driver I've been using (6.14.10.6343).

So far have been really happy with Radeons on Win95, even without OpenGL, but this would be the cherry on that cake. 😀

Sure, here it is. I have only used this library with Catalyst 3.1 (where it originated), 3.4, and 3.5. Nothing newer, yet.

If you're going to try a Catalyst driver that new, you could even go with a PCIe-based Radeon. Shoot, I might try Catalyst 6.2 on Windows 95 with my Radeon X800 if you can get OpenGL working on much newer drivers.

Edit 2: I had a quick minute, and I didn't post the correct version earlier. I re-uploaded the file (attached) which has the version taken directly from my working Win95 install. Sorry for any trouble this caused.

fosterwj03 wrote on 2024-08-12, 13:02:

Sure, here it is. I have only used this library with Catalyst 3.1 (where it originated), 3.4, and 3.5. Nothing newer, yet.

If you're going to try a Catalyst driver that new, you could even go with a PCIe-based Radeon. Shoot, I might try Catalyst 6.2 on Windows 95 with my Radeon X800 if you can get OpenGL working on much newer drivers.

Edit 2: I had a quick minute, and I didn't post the correct version earlier. I re-uploaded the file (attached) which has the version taken directly from my working Win95 install. Sorry for any trouble this caused.

Thank you! I've tested various Radeon 9200/9600 and even 9800 Pro with 6.14.10.6343 (Catalyst 3.4) as advertised by asdf53 earlier in the thread, and they've all worked great on Windows 95 except for OpenGL. I previously tried replacing the OpenGL-files with those from a couple of other Catalyst packages with no luck, and quit testing soon after since most of the games I had interest in playing also offer D3D renderers. Not all of them do, though - so this is very exciting. I'll report back what my findings are when I can get around to testing this again.

leonardo wrote on 2024-08-13, 11:14:

fosterwj03 wrote on 2024-08-12, 13:02:

Sure, here it is. I have only used this library with Catalyst 3.1 (where it originated), 3.4, and 3.5. Nothing newer, yet.

If you're going to try a Catalyst driver that new, you could even go with a PCIe-based Radeon. Shoot, I might try Catalyst 6.2 on Windows 95 with my Radeon X800 if you can get OpenGL working on much newer drivers.

Edit 2: I had a quick minute, and I didn't post the correct version earlier. I re-uploaded the file (attached) which has the version taken directly from my working Win95 install. Sorry for any trouble this caused.

Thank you! I've tested various Radeon 9200/9600 and even 9800 Pro with 6.14.10.6343 (Catalyst 3.4) as advertised by asdf53 earlier in the thread, and they've all worked great on Windows 95 except for OpenGL. I previously tried replacing the OpenGL-files with those from a couple of other Catalyst packages with no luck, and quit testing soon after since most of the games I had interest in playing also offer D3D renderers. Not all of them do, though - so this is very exciting. I'll report back what my findings are when I can get around to testing this again.

OK, I think I understand. The version number you referenced is the XP release number. The 9x driver releases start with a "4". Regardless, I think you'll have good luck with the Catalyst 3.4 driver and the 3.1 OpenGL library. That's the combination that worked for me. Good luck with that.

I'm going to try Catalyst 4.12 with the 3.1 OpenGL library when I get the chance. I'd rather use a high-performance PCIE card than AGP. If OpenGL worked with a Radeon xYYY card, I could use Windows 95 on my Ivy Bridge retro rocket using the same configuration as Windows 98.

fosterwj03 wrote on 2024-08-11, 13:51:

Catalyst 3.1 (release 4.14.01.9082, dated 01/20/2003) completely works for me in Windows 95 (including OpenGL) with my Radeon 9600 TX. I figured that would be a good start.

That's really cool that you got it working. I've had a look at this driver version and the .inf file doesn't seem to include the PCI ID for the 9600 cards yet, did you modify it to get it to install?

asdf53 wrote on 2024-08-14, 15:22:

fosterwj03 wrote on 2024-08-11, 13:51:

Catalyst 3.1 (release 4.14.01.9082, dated 01/20/2003) completely works for me in Windows 95 (including OpenGL) with my Radeon 9600 TX. I figured that would be a good start.

That's really cool that you got it working. I've had a look at this driver version and the .inf file doesn't seem to include the PCI ID for the 9600 cards yet, did you modify it to get it to install?

You'll need to expand the driver package for Catalyst 3.4 (or even as late as Catalyst 3.5), then replace the file ATIO9XXX.DL_ with the one from the Catalyst 3.1 package. You can then run the setup program for the newer set of drivers.

fosterwj03 wrote on 2024-08-15, 03:44:

You'll need to expand the driver package for Catalyst 3.4 (or even as late as Catalyst 3.5), then replace the file ATIO9XXX.DL_ with the one from the Catalyst 3.1 package. You can then run the setup program for the newer set of drivers.

Thanks, I'll be sure to try that when I use my Radeon 9600 the next time. I remember trying this before (using the OpenGL driver from another driver version) but I couldn't make it work, it's awesome that you found the magic combination of drivers that work together.

As a quick update, I wanted to let everyone know that I've tested this driver combination (the Catalyst 3.4 driver package with the OpenGL library from Catalyst 3.1 substituted-in) on both the Retail and OSR2 versions of Windows 95. The drivers seem to perform about the same for DirectX and OpenGL in both versions of Windows 95.

I had to add the Windows 95/NT4 OpenGL update to get OpenGL working properly in the retail version (it seems to come pre-installed in OSR2.5). Otherwise, installation works the same on both versions of Windows 95.

Amazing investigation guys.
Has anybody compared the performance of these cards using Win95 vs. Win98?

tauro wrote on 2024-08-20, 06:34:

Amazing investigation guys.
Has anybody compared the performance of these cards using Win95 vs. Win98?

Have not really done this, but for all intents and purposes, cards starting with Radeon 8500 and 9x00 are so fast anyway, that it probably only serves academic interest to do so. These are GF3 and GF4 class cards that are being unlocked for an OS that one could previously not use them with.

The advantage of Windows 95 over -98 typically shows on much slower systems (ones with 32~64 megabytes of RAM, or less) due to lack of RAM and with slow disk IO performance that follows from swapping (due to the shell-bloat), so I wouldn't actually expect to see any marked difference for rendering speeds when the system is otherwise fast enough to accommodate such cards, and has 128 megabytes or more RAM so that the bloated shell doesn't impact system performance.

For me, Radeons belong on Pentium III and Athlon-class systems but I suppose for a really high-end Pentium II config they may also be a good pairing.

Anyway, I'm still going to try and see if I can get OpenGL working and if I can tell a difference in performance there.

Latest Catalyst VXD driver should be version 4.3, 4.4 are WDM already. When did come dotnet 1.1/2.0 requrement for Catalyst drivers?

I see that dotnet can be installed now on Windows 95b (OSR2).
https://github.com/itsmattkc/dotnet9x

tauro wrote on 2024-08-20, 06:34:

Amazing investigation guys.
Has anybody compared the performance of these cards using Win95 vs. Win98?

My Radeon 9600 TX (a factory overclocked 9500 Pro) loses about 25-30% of its performance with Windows 95 instead of Windows 98 on the same system (a Core 2 Duo X6800) depending on the application. Some research indicates that Windows 95 will force the card into PCI transfer mode since the card is AGP 4x/8x and Windows 95 isn't compatible with AGP faster than 2x. That still makes the 9600 TX faster than a fully functional Radeon 8500 even after the reduction in performance.

fosterwj03 wrote on 2024-08-21, 01:09:

tauro wrote on 2024-08-20, 06:34:

Amazing investigation guys.
Has anybody compared the performance of these cards using Win95 vs. Win98?

My Radeon 9600 TX (a factory overclocked 9500 Pro) loses about 25-30% of its performance with Windows 95 instead of Windows 98 on the same system (a Core 2 Duo X6800) depending on the application. Some research indicates that Windows 95 will force the card into PCI transfer mode since the card is AGP 4x/8x and Windows 95 isn't compatible with AGP faster than 2x. That still makes the 9600 TX faster than a fully functional Radeon 8500 even after the reduction in performance.

Windows 95 hardware support stretches to roughly Pentium III-era stuff. You can feasibly use the full speed of the single core CPU, DirectX 8-compatible video cards in AGP mode, and USB 1.1 ports. Pentium 4- and Athlon-rigs are already stretching it, since you cannot effectively game or run applications due to lack of software support. A Core2-based system is mostly wasted on Windows 9x (no support for second core, etc.) but Windows 98 will fare a little better because like you noted, it has that crucial bump in AGP-compatibility, and a Core2-based system is so fast that the shell-bloat isn't going to make any difference.

If I had to wager a guess, I'd say the differences between the 9x variants with the same video card would be negligible if you were testing on a Pentium III or Athlon with an AGP 2x slot, never mind something more "age appropriate".

Oh, I don't build retro rockets for practicality. In fact, impractical is kind of the point.

I only have 2 "period correct" computers: a tricked-out 486 and a maxed-out Pentium MMX. While I like playing with them from time to time, they're much too slow for my liking.

I build retro rockets to experience the software the way I wish could have existed back in the day. I installed Windows 95 for the first time on a 486 DX2-50 in September of 1995. I loved Win95 from the start, but it definitely made me want to upgrade the system with a faster processor and more RAM. I felt the same way about Windows NT, 98, 2000, XP, and 7. It wasn't until Windows 10 that I felt like modern hardware was "good enough." Even now, I upgrade my daily driver every 4 to 5 years.

I built my Windows 95 retro rocket explicitly for Windows 95 (Retail and OSR2) to max out the processor, RAM, and graphics (I've got a SB Live 5.1 in there as well which I rather like). It isn't a waste in any way since I can multi-boot it thanks to an external SATA enclosure and a stack of cheap SSDs. It also can run DOS, NT, Win9x, OS/2 (when reconfigured with a PCI graphics card), Windows 2000 and XP (when reconfigured with a X-Fi), and others. It's a pretty fun machine.

I don't mind the fact that Windows 95 (both Retail and OSR2) runs these cards in PCI transfer mode. I still think these Radeons are the fastest cards possible for Windows 95 in raw performance.

It isn't perfect, though. Now that we've got a way to run newer Radeon 9000-series cards with both DirectX and OpenGL support, I think I might shop for a Radeon 9800-series card. I wonder if a Medion Radeon 9800 XL is plagued by the heat issues on 9800 Pros?

One more update:

After some more testing, it looks like the OpenGL library from Catalyst 3.2 (release 4.14.01.9088, dated 02/28/2003) also works with Windows 95. I didn't observe any measurable performance difference from the library in Catalyst 3.1 with my Radeon 9250. It is newer if that matters to you.

Control Panel 3.2 also installs on Windows 95. It has a different appearance from Control Panel 3.1, and some of the tabs work properly (DirectX and OpenGL controls in particular). Other tabs have bugs, and it messes up other display property tabs. I recommend Control Panel 3.1 which seems to work properly all-around.

Both OpenGL libraries from Catalyst 3.1 and 3.2 appear to function properly with the driver packages from Catalyst 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6. I didn't see any measurable performance differences among the newer driver versions in DirectX. Catalyst 3.5 and 3.6 throw up more USER32.DLL errors than Catalyst 3.4. I recommend Catalyst 3.4 for a more compatible experience with Windows 95.

Catalyst 3.7 and newer versions don't seem to install properly in Windows 95, and the video card remains in 16-color, 640x480 mode after reboot. Unfortunately, that makes the Radeon 9800-series the end of the line for ATI video cards with Windows 95.