weedeewee wrote on 2023-04-09, 11:10:

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.

weedeewee wrote on 2023-04-09, 11:10:

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

I've found out that Windows95B just reads out from the registry. But I still haven't found out how the values there are initiali […]
Show full quote

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

Are you saying that win95B reports one thing on a new install and then it gets changed after running SIV or are you still trying to figure it out ?

I have edited that key in regedit to CentaurHauls, and Windows 95B reported CentaurHauls.
I have rebooted Windows and it still remained CentaurHauls.
During startup of SIV it was changed back to AuthenticAMD.
Note: This processor does not have the CPUID instruction.
So, I'm still examining how it is changed.

For the moment I can quote:

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Disruptor wrote on 2023-04-09, 11:16:

For the moment I can quote:

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

What is reported by win95b after a fresh clean new install of win95b ?

Cleaned up by red-ray

red-ray wrote on 2023-04-09, 11:37:

weedeewee wrote on 2023-04-09, 11:10:

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.

I have tried to sensibly interact with Disruptor and every time I do much the same happens. Enough is enough.

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.

weedeewee wrote on 2023-04-09, 11:31:

What is reported by win95b after a fresh clean new install of win95b ?

Well, I'll have to do that...

Cleaned up by red-ray

Cleaned up by red-ray

Sorry to be that person, but the best way to end the angry comments is for both of you to just ignore each other. I see a useful thread at risk of getting moderated if everyone can't just be nice to each other (or quiet, that would work as well). I don't know what happened in PMs, but somewhere down the line, things got heated between you. I'd like NOT to see this thread closed, as the goal is to constantly improve Ray's app, which many of us appreciate (especially seeing how quickly you respond to reasonable comments and fix bugs)

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.

red-ray wrote on 2023-03-31, 21:49:

Topic: Stop being a PITA.
Please don't post to any thread I start.

I made it more then clear you should start your own thread, so I have effectively do this for you.

Oh, you have tried to mute me and you used a buzz word.

Cleaned up by red-ray

red-ray wrote on 2023-04-09, 12:07:

debs3759 wrote on 2023-04-09, 12:05:

Sorry to be that person, but the best way to end the angry comments is for both of you to just ignore each other.

+1

+2

Ray, I just sent you my CPUID code (it stops shortly after x64 cpus came out, has a lot of old data). It's public domain with a copyright, so can be freely shared and used as long as I am given credit for code I supply.

I also have data relating to various 808x versions that is not yet in the files, if you need it.

Two whole pages have been cleaned up. I left it were it should have ended.

PM's have been sent to both parties.

Thank you, vetz.

In SIV 5.70 Beta-04 I've seen a strange thing occuring when testing 486 CPUs which lack of the CPUID instruction.
My Cyrix Cx486DX-40, running at 33 MHz, is reported by SIV as "GenuineIntel" 486 DX (P4) 29 MHz.
When I test my Am486 DX4 NV8T at stock frequency of 33x3 = 100 MHz it is reported as AuthenticAMD. When I clock it down to 25x2 = 50 MHz it is reported as GenuineIntel 486 DX 50.
My third candidate is an Intel 486ODPR25 SZ697. When I run it at stock frequency 25x2 = 50 MHz, it is reported as GenuineIntel 486 DX 50. When I overclock it to 33x2 = 66 MHz, it is reported as AuthenticAMD 486 DX2 66.

Can anyone else commit this behaviour?

Now testing SIV 5.70 Beta-04 on a fast real 386 machine.

On mkarcher's Am386DX 40 with Cyrix FPU the AMD CPU is displayed as "GenuineIntel". FSB is somehow below at 35.7 MHz.
There is no information displayed at all on which FPU is installed. The presence of a FPU is in the features dialogue.
Cache latency tool misinterprets the cache of 256 kB as 64 kB in size.

A small note on memory consumption: I have installed 20 MB of RAM in this machine and SIV32L reacts quite smooth. I don't recommend to use SIV32L with less than 16 MB of RAM. With 20 MB RAM the swapfile usage is 18 MB. If your system goes out of virtual memory, SIV32L just will crash.

It's been a long time, but I've got a rather curious PC (if it can even be called like that, it's more like of a SBC that piggybacks off a Power Macintosh), it's, odd, in every sense of the term. It's got a Cyrix 5x86 onboard, so that should be interesting.

If you'd like, I can try and get SIV running on it once I it arrives home and I get it up and running, but doing so will take a very long time, given the machine I'll use (a Power Macintosh 7500/100) has limited storage, so this is gonna be a tough balancing act, but I'm confident I could manage.

(I really should get a DB25 to HD50 SCSI adapter for my external SCSI HDD box...)

Edit: As luck would've had it, my monitor is incompatible (fixed frequency 640x480@66.7Hz), I've ordered an adapter but it's going to take time.

In the meantime the card is now in my PowerMac, it's recognized and all, just that little monitor snag will delay things..

I've done a test on my 386SX/20 with 20 MB RAM.
16 MB are useable by Windows 95 because upper just can be accessed as EMS by a special driver, so I'd consider this as correct.

I'm sorry for the graphics, but my ISA ET4000/W32's 1024x768 mode is interlaced and does not run on my LCD, so it is 800x600.

In the 1st run the CPU was displayed as 23.1 MHz, which has been fixed in the 2nd run.

However, it is displayed as 132 PGA socket, which is true for a 386 DX but wrong for my SX. It is a QFP / PQFP 100 instead.



The feature list displays a FPU, which is wrong, but probably may be confused by Windows 95' FPU emulation.

It seems like SIV32L 5.70 Beta-04 does not distinguish between 386 DX and 386 SX.

And here my ISA ET4000/W32