dencorso

I don't think so. Not here. What you want is a wiki, not a forum, and they are quite different things. I do think that's a nice idea. But you'd have to start the wiki, and administrate it. Of course, you can open a thread here to announce it existence, interest people in it and keep us all informed about its progress. But your last remark is not entirely true: it would require a lot of effort on the part of the wiki creator/administrator, at least in the initial phase, until it can keep going on of its own momentum. And, unless you can interst a lot of people in it quite fast, that initial phase may last longer than you might expect. And, then, there is this question to be answered: are we a big enough community to keep a wiki going on? Good luck!As for the here and now, there are cannie's tutorials. Find them here: How to install Windows 98 in modern motherboards using more than 1 GB and How to create easily a second Win98/XP in the same computer. The latter is precisely intended for people looking to do what you said you want to do. So, you shouldn't feel left alone and in the dark. Vick1111's machine is described in post #2 of the > 1 GiB list, for which there is a link in my signature. All the machine's configurations there are listed with the explicit purpose of providing good examples of configurations known to work, so that's indeed a good starting point, and I'm confident you'll have success with your own machine faster than you think. Your latest post makes me think you've already taken the right key decisions. One last thing: One can add the .NET framework (both 1.x and 2.0) at any point. So, unless you do have some important software that requires them, don't add them from the start, just for the sake of adding them. They are big and complex, and will just sit there occupying disk space. And to remove them is quite labor intensive, although it's possible. Furthermore, in a double-boot machine having XP as the other boot, you already have them in XP, so you don't really need them also in 9x/ME. Of course, this is my opinion and others will disagree.

Yes!

You need to create another key, by the name of:HKEY_USERS\.DEFAULT\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\User Shell Folders and inside it create only the entries with the non-default directory. There must be two separate entries for each of them, one in Shell Folders and one in User Shell Folders. Make sure the entries in both places are exactly equal. Now the changes will stick.

I) Let's do a somewhat more complex test, and see whether it solves your problem: 0) Backup your system! 1) Go to RLoew's Site and grab the RAM Limitation Patch Demo. 2) Install RAM Limitation Patch Demo with the /M switch. 3) Reboot into Windows and test, to see whether things now work OK or not. II) In case the above doesn't solve your problem, you might change the driver for an older one. I've discussed how to do it here. BTW, how much video RAM does your 7600GS have onboard? It's an AGP card, right? What's the AGP aperture you're using?

7-09-2009 Added under "Supported Software, Games + Hardware": * [9x/Me] Surviving Without a Virus Scanner: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=133579 * Reordered some links for easier reference. Enjoy.

Glad to hear it ! Just for the record, which Hyperion driver solved it for you? And, BTW, if you ever decide to add a SATA drive, this is the right driver to use: VIA_VT6420VT8237_SerialATA_V220E.

The 524A is too new! First try the 521A, as per RetroOS suggestion. If it still gives you grief, then try the VIA_Hyperion 4in1_v456. I'd try to install it on top of the already installed driver, just to install what's missing. If this procedure doesn't work for you, then remove the previous installs and add the 456. As for USB, NUSB 3.3 should be all you need. But, in case it doesn't enable USB 2.0 for you, the you should remove just the USB 2.0 generic driver using add/remove and install VIA_USB2_V270p1-L-M. Good luck!

No, I did not. I gave you a link to the right thread, not to a specific post. My ideia was that you'd read the whole thread (it's not very long), to know more about Gavotte's Rramdisk. If you look for it there is a post there, by myself, with the latest version of Rramdisk attached. Cheers!

Yes! Moreover BHDD31.ZIP is intended for Win 98SE, not for ME.

7-07-2009 Added under "Supported Software, Games + Hardware": * How to install Windows 98 in modern motherboards using more than 1 GB: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=129983 * How to create easily a second Win98/XP in the same computer: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=118623 Enjoy.

Hi, Tim. Welcome to MSFN! You'll notice I've split your post into a new topic. This is for it to get more visibility instead of being lost at the tail of a long thread. Now on to answring your main question: Well, sort of... I guess cannie's tutorials are just what you need! Find them here: How to install Windows 98 in modern motherboards using more than 1 GB and How to create easily a second Win98/XP in the same computer. Good luck!

Most of the files inside BHDD31.ZIP are from ME. For ME, all you need is this fix: ME48BLBA.EXE. Now, the pointer I've given you is for the English version of the file, which probably works also with the chinese versions. Check the properties of your present C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\IOSUBSYS\ESDI_506.PDR: I suspect it already is an English language file. And even if it's not, the English file should work. Do back up first. Then try to apply this patch. If the patcher fails for any reason, restore your back-up and I'll help you install the patched ESDI_506.PDR from true DOS. But be sure to do it now, before you add a BIG HDD. Good luck!

Possibly. As for your other questions, the only way to try to answer them is to do some testing. And I think the first one would be, as you yourself suggested, to test the Win 2k hotfix .dll in 9x. Or you can start the way Tihiy proposed, by unregistering and renaming the file.

For the NT-family OSes that can also be achieved using the free Gavotte's Rramdisk, that you did not mention.And, believe me, it does rock!

I doubt that Windows 9X SATA-Raid drivers are available for many of the newer motherboards. I also found that in at least one motherboard, using SATA-Raid mode disabled my Adaptec SCSI Card from booting. I agree that IDE Compatability mode is more complicated. I had to write a Patch and .INF file to make it work properly, but it works on my newest motherboards. I'm not sure what VIA Driver you are using, but the 2003 Miniport Driver has a bug in it. You wouldn't see it since you are using a WD Drive. What .mpd are you referring to? Is it this one:http://downloads.viaarena.com/drivers/RAID...alATA_V220E.zip? If so, can you describe the bug in more detail, please? Why does it depend on the HDD manufacturer to manifest itself?And, yes, I do agree that most of today's boards don't have any SATA drivers. I think, BTW, that the chipset in wsxedcrfv's board is the very last VIA chipset that works with the .mpd I've just pointed to. Also BTW, does your SATA patch to esdi_506.pdr work with the LLXX patched .pdrs? It'd be nice if it did. You've mentioned before your SATA.INF alone suffices for the ECS GeForce6100SM-M2. Is it true for all nForce4 boards or just a special case?

It's possible to send me this file?Here is a direct download Microsoft link for v. 1.5.723.1, which is older but should also work OK: GenuineCheck

@Tihiy: Supposedly, you can also go to HKEY_CURRENT_USER/Control Panel/Desktop/ and create the string value USERMaxHeapSize there, to control the max 32-bit USER heap size. While USERMaxHeapSize indeed exists inside USER.EXE, what I always found strange is: (i) why the control for USER is inside the registry, while the one for GDI is at WIN.INI?; (ii) why is it a string and not a DWORD or binary value? (iii) why WIN.INI instead of SYSTEM.INI? It occurs to me that they may be alternative places, and that using both in the indicated place at the resgistry or both in WIN.INI would work the same, but, if so, why? Moreover, why, before you mentioned it, I'd only found these settings in french sites, which apparently cite one another (this one, for instance)? I know, I know... that's too many questions! But I just wasn't able to resist posing you them since you wrote about GDIMaxHeapSize. And, yes, yes, yes! You can count on me too to alpha/beta test, whenever you want it. @Drugwash: Have you given Miranda up? I see you've purged it from your sinature too! What happened?

Dave, you're right: VWin32.VxD is packed inside the VMM32.VxD. Since you use Win 98SE, it can only be v. 4.10.2222, there is no other choice, becuse the versions for 98FE and for ME would not work with the 98SE VMM.VxD. So, no, there is no need to check. I studied the motherboard manual and mused about it for a long time, and I see no feasible way to underclock the RAM without also underclocking the processor, in your particular case. So, my initial suggestion is not a viable potential solution to pursue. Sorry! As for the MSKB solution, it's quite easy to do and undo, so you might explore it more than I did. I checked my records and my cooment at the time was "cripples DirectDraw". But I had set Hardware Acceleration to "None", as per Microsoft's advice. Yet, the setting is a slider so, perhaps, there may be an intermediate setting that does not affect DirectDraw and stops the BSODs. I think it's worth investigating. You can easily test DirectDraw, using the DXDiag.exe utility included in DirectX, after each new setting. Good luck!

I've done some tests with SCANDKSW (the SCANDISK from Win ME) and reported here that it works OK with 26.4 million clusters (26,389,392 clusters), but throws the infamous "ScanDisk could not continue because your computer does not have enough available memory. If any other programs are running, quit one or more of them, and then try running ScanDisk again." message with 26.6 million clusters (26,588,648 clusters). You are the first, AFAIK, to determine the limits For the DOS SCANDISK. Thanks for the great info! BTW, from the way you wrote it it seems to me that the limit for SCANDSKW and DEFRAG are one and the same, what makes me think it must lie inside DISKMAINT.DLL. Is that right?

Bug: CDFS DVD Appears to be 2,147,450,880 Bytes if the True Size is Over 2 GiB, *Solved at Last*! This Win 9x/ME bug has been with us since the begining and Microsoft never took the time to fix it: there is no official hotfix for it and it's not even mentioned in MSKB. If you don't know what I'm talking about, just put any CDFS DVD having more than 2 GiB data into your DVD drive and, after the drive becomes ready, go to Windows Explorer, highlight that drive, right-click on the Properties tab and look at the reported DVD size. But the issue is not limited to Windows Explorer, you can see it in Total Commander, too... in fact any program using the GetDiskFreeSpaceEX API will display the same bug. Last year, Drugwash started a sub-thread about it, inside the 98SE2ME thread, and we discussed it in depth (to read it all, start at posts #923-931, then proceed through #940-948 to posts #952-955). These posts led RLoew to devise a patch, which he decided to release as freeware (many thanks, you rock! ), which fixes that bug for good. And the patcher he created for applying the patch is an inteligent one, able to recognize and patch correctly CDFS.VXD v. 4.10.1998; v. 4.10.1999; v. 4.90.3000; v. 4.90.3001 and v. 4.90.3002! So all possible variants for Win 98FE, Win 98SE and Win ME are covered by his patch. At that point, Drugwash and RetroOS (thanks to both of you, too, you rock! ) agreed to join me in testing the experimental patch for three months, and we found out it works perfectly and is harmless to the system. Now RLoew has released it, so it's available for all! To get it, go to RLoew's Homepage, then to the "Prerelease and Beta Software" page, and there you'll find the CDFS Patch download link. After downloading the package, unzip it and follow intructions in the Readme.txt to apply the patch. One more Win 98/ME bug bites the ground!

Sfor, try to use eeectl and set the fan to 100%, while connected to AC power (or else it'll consume the battery charge quite fast). It may help. As far as I can establish, there are no missing dependencies for eeectl, so it probably run on Win 9x/ME, although it is not documented. Don't forget to set the fan back to native, before going back to battery power, though.

In case NUSB 3.3 doesn't work for you (but did you give it a try?), you have the Wintricks driver pack (the download link is on page #6) or RLoew's pack (the download link is on the Prerelease and Beta Software page), both free and both derived from the same Lexar drives. And there is the Win 2k USB 2.0 drivers for 9x/ME (direct download). I'd install USB 3.3 and if it gave me grief, just uninstall its (Win ME) USB 2.0 drivers from the Add/Remove software dialog and then add the Win 2k drivers. If that also doesn't work I'd restore a previously saved full system image to remove all traces of this installation and install one of the lexar derived drivers with the Win 2k USB 2.0 stack. Only if even that doesn't work I'd then just use either NUSB 3.3 without the USB 2.0 stack or one of the Lexar derived drivers stand alone. But without a USB 2.0 stack USB is not very useful, is it?

Those files are from NSW Premier 2005. What I do is a custom, very trimmed, install of NSW 2003 and then update the files related to Windoctor and NDD32 by hand up to v. 18. Queue has shown that up to v. 19 NU files work with 9x/ME, but neither he nor I do know whether the installer actually also works because he also updates by hand from a lower version. The premier 2005 is the highest version I own, so I'm meaning to install it on one of my XP machines as soon as I have time, to be able to apply the updates pointed to by RetroOS, so I can get up to v. 18.0.3.11. Read more about all this here (it's the selfsame thread I had already pointed to in my previous post, read it all, it's worth it). BTW, to decide which files I must update for Windoctor and NDD32, what I do is to trace them with Dependency Walker v. 2.2.6000 and jot down the list of dependencies found. Incidentally, Symantec Ghost 11.0.2.1573 is the latest version able to work with 9x/ME, but also has to be installed by hand (it has the downside that you can't buy less than 5 licences, because it's part of the corporate Symantec Ghost Solution Suite 2.0, but I do have 5 computers under my daily care, so it serves me just right).

Since you asked, Dave, I do know what the numbers mean... they mean the error occurred at Object #5 in VWin32.VxD, at offset 0x119E from the start of that object's segment. Now, looking at the VWin32.VxD Object Table we can determine that Object #5 is a PCOD Segment, that is, it contains Pageable Code. At that point in the code a Call to the service #1 of "device 0002" (and here the word device means just another .VxD). Now, "device 0002" is Debug.VxD (cf. here), which naturally is not linked (that's why the call failed) because you are not running a debug version of Win 98SE. VWin32.VxD v. 4.10.2222 is a solid .VxD and has no known bugs. So something very unusual happened for it to call Debug. That something is probably a transient memory failure. I have experienced that precise haphazard BSOD in my system, from the time I upgraded my motherboard's memory from 2 GiB to 3 GiB, to the day I underclocked the RAM some more. The RAM underclocking solved that issue permanently. And yes, I just looked up the manual for the X5DAE and there seems to be no seeting in the BIOS to control the RAM FSB frequency. Unless it's bundled to the Processor "Frequency Ratio". Get in BIOS and change no settings for now, but look up what options exactly are offered under "Advanced" -> "Advanced Processor Options" -> "Frequency Ratio" and tell me. It may be hidden there, but it's quite a long shot. On the other hand, if you set the Hardware Acceleration slider to the None setting as recommended in the MSKB I pointed to in my previous post, you'll also get rid of that BSOD, but, if I remember right, part of DirectX also stops working. I fear there may be no solution to that issue for your specific board, however. Sorry! BTW, how did you get the screenshot of the BSOD? Did you take a digital picture of it?

Of course it'll work, but much slower, since you've not got DMA. What CharlotteTheHarlot is saying amounts to this: there are 5 PCI slots and you're using just two cards, so move both cards out of their present slots to any of the now unused slots, taking care to let both the presently used slots unused, and see whether this solves your issue.