j7n

The best system is the one you're most familiar with and therefore can work most efficiently on it.

(1) Assuming your WinXP installation is very important but programs are NOT stored in \Program Files. I'm not sure how to properly move an installed WinXP from \WINDOWS to \WINNT. I would try installing Win98 to something like \WIN98 (possible incompatibilities later since some tools assume \WINDOWS). 1. Backup your system to another place. 2. Wipe the partition. 3. Install Win98. 4. Setup a BIOS password (to halt booting). Run WinXP installer and wait until it reboots the PC. NT boot sector and system files are now written. Do not let the XP setup continue (since we don't need this clean XP). 5. Delete the newly created directories by the XP installer in C: root. 6. Restore your original WinXP directory from the backup. Edit boot.ini so that it has 2 entries, one pointing to WINDOWS, and one to C:\BOOTSECT.DOS This approach has 2 problems: the \WIN98 directory name and lost \Program Files contents. It is no big deal if software had been installed to another partition such as D. You can also try restoring original \Program Files but I'm not sure if Win98 would be happy with some NT-specific DLLs there. Most likely Win98 will boot Ok though, I think. (2) It's much easier to install everything clean and organize your folder structure like this: C:\WINDOWS - Win98 C:\Program Files - contents installed by Win98 and application shared files C:\WINNT - WinXP C:\TEMP - common temp dir (instead of deep inside Documents and Settings) D:\SOMETHING - Applications, maybe addition folders for Games and shared files like Codecs that are installed by the user. Applications may be common to both OSes. E:\ - Virtual Memory F:\ [G: H: ...] - User files N:\ - An NTFS partition (or physical disk) for large files such as when doing video editing. All partitions except one (or more if you have a monster computer with like 5 hdds) are FAT32 for interoperability. This partition structure enables you to make backup of you operating system and applications without worrying about swap and user files. User files are often large and are better backuped separately. It's not absolutely necessary to have applications on D. Though I find it useful myself. In case C: or D: gets fragmented your user files on other disks won't suffer. When you install applications you'll have to do it 2 times – for each system once. Except for programs that require NT, you obviously don't need to install the on 98. Some software use INI files in %Windir%. They may provide an option to pass the ini filename as command line parameter, so you can still share their config between both systems. I would also make common Start menus and the Desktop (later less important). This can be done using TweakUI XP by changing special folder locations to "C:\Windows\Start Menu" and so on. I have installed three systems this way. Takes hellalot of time and drives nuts since you have to do twice the work. But it can be done. This dualboot setup comes useful when you need to fix one of the systems. Just boot into the other one. No need for slow boot CDs most of the time. Example boot ini for this configuration: [boot loader] timeout=6 default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT [operating systems] multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT="Windows XP SP1" /noguiboot /fastdetect C:\bootsect.dos="Windows 98SE"

I haven't heard of good quality DOS soundcard & VESA video emulation, except VDMSound which I was unable to install properly. VMware 5.5 certainly doesn't have any good audio for Win98. The driver I found is unstable, has no MIDI, and no legacy support. Under VMWare the Windows GUI is does not work smoothly, so even if VESA was available it would play at least as jerky and unsuitable for gaming experience.

Win98 was used without a license on that computer. We found another machine, which happened to have a proof of purchase sticker on its case.

If you don't have a working system at the moment, you just install both OSes. If you already have WinXP installed and want to keep, it's more complicated. I find it best if both systems ar located on a single FAT32 partition. You will have to use nLite to modify installation path of Windows XP. First install Windows 98 to \WINDOWS and then Windows XP to say \WINNT. WinXP will see that the system contains DOS and will dump the current boot sector to a file called bootsect.dos. Later you can add an entry to boot.ini to use this file for loading Windows 98.

Things like this are usually done from a boot CD, so that nothing gets installed on any of the partitions in question. It's not morally worse to use an illegal boot disk compared to installing a trial version for the sole purpose of taking advantage of it (instead of evaluation). Cloning become easier if you have assigned individual partitions for your SYSTEM, PROGRAMS and FILES. In this case you clone only the OS (depending on if mobo is the same), only applications or opt to reoganize USER FILES by copying them manually. lol

The point was to have 2 systems working parallel, one clean and another possibly misconfigured. You could tell if complete reinstall would solve the problem. You don't need another partition AFAIK. As I said, from my experience WinXP and Win2k would create directories WINNT.1 and WINNT.2 if directed to the same existing directory WINNT.

To determine if the problem is in software configuration or network adapter itself you can install another clean copy of WinXP with only the network driver. Windows should install in different directory called WINDOWS.1 and you may switch back to the previous OS at anytime.

If they are not your computers, autorun might have been (should be) disabled for security.

Removed DHCP client might indeed be the cause, athough DHCP as such is not needed on the network. I will test this once I get the opportunity. Found out also about /SOS switch. It might provide some info on which specific file XP hangs. Minlogon is good since I don't approve multiuser PCs (personal computers). But this boot delay cannot be influenced by winlogon, as it happens way before logging on.

Yes, this pack is distrubuted along the driver. By installing it I got an older ADI (on i915) recognized under XP without an additional driver. But this is not possible with Realtek. One of the reasons for pushing the UAA (apart from possible user lock-in to WinNT and DRM) was to get rid of separate device drivers for every device. The crap is contained inside the driver itself. Core SYS file alone is 4 Megs. Maybe there is a way to modify the UAA so that it accepts ALC8xx. Basic audio output is enough. An enthusiast or audio expert would need proper soundcard anyway.

Is it possible to make Realtek onboard sound on HDA bus just work without installing the whole "HD" driver? Version R1.84 is 15 Megs compressed. I've come across integrated codecs by ADI and STAC. Both installed nicely using 500k and 100k drivers.

Load the system from a boot CD and have all files accessible. In cases like this when you need to patch WinXP it's handy to have a second os like Win98 installed. But boot disks work fine too.

I have repeatedly lited this install. First I made one with all basic stuff that I never need removed (like System File Protection), classic icons added and product key entered. That's why there are so many inis. If this problem is not well known then I guess I just keep observing.

There is PCI-E. A different problem is that new video adapters no longer work on Win98.

Thank you for the replies. The problem is that somebody else is working at the computer and she only notifies me when something is going wrong. Anyway the entire computer will soon be replaced for licensing reasons.

What disks? In the most popular "zeraw" s’neriH Boot CD only selected applications can work with NTFS, or require loading of additional possibly unstable modules. For example Partition Cloning. With NTFS you cannot use PowerQuest Drive Image and are forced to use Acronis, files of wich cannot be easily browsed offline. How can a file system gain "much more speed" is beyond me, maybe a little.

I'm nLiting XP systems since the first time I bought a computer where Win98 wouldn't run, and installed full XP only two times in my life. All went well. However recently my lite installations started showing a problem: lengthy boot. As soon as the XP logo appears, progress bar moves nine or ten times while the HDD shows no activity. Does not seem much, but I expect better from a "lite" sytem. Looks like it's waiting for something. I experienced this before with Win98 trying to acquire a DHCP lease where there was none. The XP systems have addresses assigned by me and the DHCP client is removed. Previously on the given system progress bar went only 1/3 of total length before the XP logo disappeared. This effect is present on different computers with different manually created installations of WinXP Pro SP1. Here's one example of Last Session. What could be the cause?

It might be possible to transfer an installed Vista to a FAT32 disk.

There is problem with licensing Windows 98 today, which is important in a corporate environment. M$ doesn't want you to use older software and cuts you out with selling OEM lincenses with no 'rights' for 'downgrading'. It's true even for Win2k, which I would otherwise always install in order to get rid of useless XP's eye candy. Here I needed Win98 for an old program with an odd multi-codepage standard. I had to physically exchange computers only because the other machine happened to have a Win98 hologram on its case.

The Windows Appaearance has one ugly bug at least in Windows 98, 2000 and XP: the weight of typeface used in menus. Normal menus are drawn with weight 400/0x0190 (Regular), for default item Windows adds 200 weight units. This produces 600 for which there is no corresponding font. An automatically calculated semi-bold text is used instead. To get nice 700 (Bold) weight for default menu items, one can use 500/0x01F4 for regular text. Here is the Windows 2000 color scheme modified for proper Bold: REGEDIT4 [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Appearance\Schemes] "Windows 2000"=hex:04,00,00,00,1f,30,8c,d3,01,00,00,00,10,00,00,00,10,00,00,00,\ 12,00,00,00,12,00,00,00,f5,ff,ff,ff,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,bc,\ 02,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,54,61,68,6f,6d,61,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,\ 00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,0c,00,00,00,0f,00,00,\ 00,f5,ff,ff,ff,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,bc,02,00,00,00,00,00,00,\ 00,00,00,00,54,61,68,6f,6d,61,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,\ 00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,12,00,00,00,12,00,00,00,f5,ff,ff,ff,00,00,\ 00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,f4,01,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,54,61,68,\ 6f,6d,61,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,\ 00,00,00,00,f5,ff,ff,ff,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,90,01,00,00,00,\ 00,00,00,00,00,00,00,54,61,68,6f,6d,61,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,\ 00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,f5,ff,ff,ff,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,\ 00,00,00,00,00,90,01,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,54,61,68,6f,6d,61,00,00,\ 00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,f5,\ ff,ff,ff,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,f4,01,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,\ 00,00,54,61,68,6f,6d,61,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,\ 00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,d4,d0,c8,00,3a,6e,a5,00,0a,24,6a,00,80,80,80,00,\ d4,d0,c8,00,ff,ff,ff,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,ff,ff,ff,00,d4,\ d0,c8,00,d4,d0,c8,00,80,80,80,00,0a,24,6a,00,ff,ff,ff,00,d4,d0,c8,00,80,80,\ 80,00,80,80,80,00,00,00,00,00,d4,d0,c8,00,ff,ff,ff,00,40,40,40,00,d4,d0,c8,\ 00,00,00,00,00,ff,ff,e1,00,b5,b5,b5,00,00,00,ff,00,a6,ca,f0,00,c0,c0,c0,00 Normal: Fixed:

It's the Flash memory that has limited number of writes. So placing a virtual memory file there would be the stupidest thing. What's exactly the speed of an IDE CompactFlash (with DMA and all)? And seek times? I'm interested in this solution myself for a silent computer, not for performance cos I'm sure theres little of it.

Latest supported Radeon is RV410 (X700). I can personally assure that RV370 is working beautifully (X300, X550, X1050).

I have it disabled since the first occurence of the problem.

I have a Win98SE and a WinXP machine. Both are connected to a 1280*1024 LCD panel via a cheap Roline KVM switch. The problem is that occasionaly the Win98 computer reverts to 640*480 or 1024*768 resolution as a failsafe when it can't see the monitor. The XP computer never does that. The problem machine has integrated SiS M650 video (BIOS 1.07.00.6325). I have tried to change the monitor "driver" to VGA 1280*1024 but the problem is still present. Could an upgrade of the switch or video adapter resolve this? What KVM feature I need to look for?