dencorso

I've been doing some tests with RLoew's non-XMS RAMDSK32... Here are the results: Gigabyte i-RAM hardware ramdisk vs. RLoew's software-only non-XMS RAMDSK32 GB i-RAM 1.5GiB (Win 98 SE) FAT-32 ------------------------------------------------------------------ CrystalDiskMark 2.2 © 2007-2008 hiyohiyo Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/ ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sequential Read * : 122.1 MB/s Sequential Write * : 120.4 MB/s Random Read 512KB : 115.1 MB/s Random Write 512KB : 119.4 MB/s Random Read 4KB : 44.3 MB/s Random Write 4KB : 41.0 MB/s *Test Size : 100 MB Obs: The GB i-RAM is a SATA-I device, so its theoretic maximum allowable data transfer is 150.0 MB/s... ===================================== RLoew's RAMDSK32 1.5GiB (Win 98 SE) FAT-16 ------------------------------------------------------------------ CrystalDiskMark 2.2 © 2007-2008 hiyohiyo Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/ ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sequential Read * : 275.7 MB/s Sequential Write * : 180.2 MB/s Random Read 512KB : 269.6 MB/s Random Write 512KB : 82.5 MB/s Random Read 4KB : 248.9 MB/s Random Write 4KB : 41.0 MB/s *Test Size : 100 MB Obs: using the SYSENTER Method.

On the other hand, as you have a GeForce FX5500, you can also use nVidia drivers 77.72, or if you're more adventurous, the unofficial 82.69. But dont remove nVidia drivers with add/remove or unistall. Do it using the great freeware Driver Cleaner Pro Version 1.5 (*NOT* Driver Cleaner .NET !!!). HTH

You can go all the way up to 77.72, or if you're more adventurous, the unofficial 82.69. But dont remove nVidia drivers with add/remove or unistall. Do it using the great freeware Driver Cleaner Pro Version 1.5 (*NOT* the for-pay Driver Cleaner .NET !!!). HTH

BTW, Drugwash, it catched my eye you're using v. 4.86.1964.1880... Consider updating to v. 4.87.1964.1880, so you'll get 128-bit strong encryption. Quoting from Petr's post I mentioned above, he found out and reported this little pearl: Even if he posted it in reverse, because 4.8X.1964.1880 is in fact the binary version number (the one returned by getver.exe), while the text version number is 5.00.1880.14... See also the NT part of the security update info of MS04-011

I know it doesn't solve your issue, and, yes, is some more digression... but I think the correct usage is "disc" for optical media and vinyl records, and disk for every other round flat media, including Magneto-Optical and Zip Disks, except for common floppies, where diskette applies. See also DISC/DISK and Spelling of disc (Wikipedia).Now back to topic: did you use Scrubber (KB277222) to help reduce your registry size?

There is no coincidence. They're one and the same. @Dave_H: Done. Thanks!

Strange, but true! Here's some more info on it, from Petr: File versioning question

It's true. It works!

Your video problems may be solved by using Bearwindows free Universal VESA/VBE Video Display Driver. Read also this thread for more on it: Asus Eee PC and Windows 9x. Your sata problems require RLoew's (beta) SATA.INF... It's not free, but IMHO it's worth the cost. For more about it, check his site. Good luck!

@RLoew: I understand the new capability added to v. 6.0 of the RAM Limitation Patch enables VMM to load at physical addresses above 16 MiB, with the result that the whole VxD arena will start at higher physical addresses, thus freeing the necessary low memory. I also understand that SPLIT8MB has a different, complementary approach to this. Can you explain a little more what does SPLIP8MB do? I did not yet update from v. 5.0 of the RAM Limitation Patch, but I guess I should, since my system.dat is already at 10 MiB and growing... @RLoew and Dave-H: BTW, I believe I must update all your entries at my List to reflect your upgrade to v. 6.0 of the RAM Limitation Patch, am I correct? I'm striving to keep the List as up-to-date as possible.

I don't know whether he also has Win 9x/ME on his machine, I guess not. But the great Dietmar has succeeded at installing Vista on FAT-32 and wrote a tutorial on how to do it. (link) See the post my link points to and the one immediately following it. HTH

Hi dencorso, I tried to download the Texas Instruments PCI-1225 CardBus Controller 5.0.2183.1 from ZDNET http://downloads.zdnet.com/abstract.aspx?docid=458239 but ZDNET only passes the download request to Microsoft with MS Windows Update, and then I get the request "Install and run Windows Update signed on 8/26/03". I have my reservations about installing MS Windows Update - does it still work for Windows 98SE? Will I just install spyware, and then get a msg like: "Sorry, Win98 is not supported anymore"? It seems that MS Windows Update is nowadays refusing to install on Win 9x/ME, anyway. I did try from my Win XP alternative boot and got to the Windows Update site, but it offered no download of the file you want. BTW, while this is definitely not the file you're asking for, it may be worth a try, after the usual preventive back-up: Texas Instruments PCI 1225 CardBus Controller. HTH. Also BTW, I just found this KB article which might be of value for future reference: Q201018 INFO: Explanation of CardBus Registry Entries In PCMCIA.INF

Try the classic shareware Registry Search & Replace by Steven J. Hoek. It may solve your problem and is free for the first 25 searches. Later edit: it also isn't capable of DWORD data searches, I've got it installed for a long time now (and regeistered) and I've just checked it. Sorry.

Short answer: edit the statement MaxPhysMem your machine's system.ini so that it reads MaxPhysPage=76C00 and you've got it. Long answer: Read KB181862 first, and the go on to the full Day-to-day running Win 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM, hardware and setup used by members who do it. BTW, with 2 GiB RAM you qualify for the list, so if you kindly PM me the necessary details about your machine, you shall be added to the list. @cannie: since you started this topic, it may be your case too... If you do use more than 1 GiB yourself, please PM me the details and you too shall be added.

Yes, there is. Just after the [Version] section, add the product key at the following section (or create it, if it doesn't exist):-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [setup] ProductKey="XXXXX-XXXXX-XXXXX-XXXXX-XXXXX" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Substitute XXXXX-XXXXX-XXXXX-XXXXX-XXXXX by your product key but be sure to keep the quotation marks.

Read Day-to-day running Win 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM, hardware and setup used by members who do it. Read post #2 real carefully and ponder over it for some time, then plunge into the links of post #1. There are more than just one solution. But they're all descrbed there. Win ME'll run OK up to slightly less than 2 GiB and Win 98SE up to about 1150 MiB. For Win 98 SE you may let the system reboot to the floppy, and then just add Xeno86's patched VCache.VxD (v. 4.10.2223) to C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\VMM32, and use only MaxPhysPage=40000, without any VCache limit, reboot and let the setup continue. After the system is starting-up OK you may increase MaxPhysPage to about 48000.

It seems to exist only in ZDNET file library nowadays... However, since 5.0.2167.1 is the release version for pcmcia.sys from Win 2k Pro, it seems to me that this driver pack may not be for Win 9x/ME, regardless of claims galore to the contrary floating around google...

Thanks, MDGx, for all these new updates. Thanks, in particular, for IOSYS98! You do rock! I have, however, to point out that two of the newest updates might contain files of yet a higher version that work OK, by my own tests, with Win 9x/ME, namely: SCHANNEL.DLL v. 4.87.1964.1880, from KB831225 and RICHED20.DLL v. 5.30.23.1230, from KB936929 (XPSP3). Keep on the great work!

Kelsenellenelvian is right: with a 1 gb graphic card it's the only way to go. If you really wish to have Win 98SE run natively on your motherboard and core2duo, you must downgrade your graphic card to a GeForce having 256MB (or 512 MB at most, but there are not many success reports with so much video RAM). If you decide to keep your graphic card, there's nothing that can be done. If, instead, you decide to downgrade the graphic card, then read the topics below: Modern motherboards which are working with Windows 98 Day-to-day running Win 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM NVidia drivers 82.69 Big HDD & 48-bit LBA Thread Index

Don't worry! Your JETWAY 830CH motherboard has a SiS 730S chipset, not any INTEL chipset, so it's not the case, you don't need IAA.And, BTW, you don't need to create a slipstreamed SP4 installation disk, unless you intend to do many installs, which I don't think is the case. It suffices to download and apply the SP4 update and 2000 UR1 (MS Win 2k SP4 Update Rollup 1 (UR1) v2.0) to your system (you may also get them safely at MDGx's). But do backup first, just to be on the safe side!

Sorry for the long delay before giving you an update on the situation, Multibooter! You're right, of course! eMule 0.49b works flawlessly in my system too, now. I was unable to identify the origin of the issue I described, but then I fell back to a week older backup image of the system partition and reinstalled 0.49b in place of the 0.49a present in the backup and all is well. Thank you for the swift reply. You do rock!

My suggestion: grab DiskMark9x from CrystalDewWorld. select a partition (the smallest non-system available is preferable, but any will do). perform the DiskMark9x test, always on the same partition, varying the ReadAheadThreshold setting. This procedure ought to help find out which values have an effect, and which do not. I'd do it myself instead of suggesting it, if I hadn't already too many chestnuts in my plate to chew (BTW, why must it always be chestnuts? I'd much rather have hazelnuts or cashewnuts instead... )

Although I've been messing with bootsectors for more years than I can remember, I confess I'd never seen them referred to as PBRs (Partition Boot Records), although it makes perfect sense, and creates a nice symmetry with MBRs. Thanks, jaclaz! I always learn something new by reading your posts!

Well, let's see whether I can help:@Philco: REGEDIT.EXE is made up of two parts: a DOS executable (starting with "MZ" at offset 0) and a 32-bit windows executable (starting with "PE" at hex offset 9DD0, in Tihiy's version). The DOS part always starts at 0 and the start of the win-32 part is always present as a word at hex offset 3C, using "Little Endian" byte order, of course. What I understand Tihiy did was to join the Win-32 part from Win ME REGEDIT.EXE with the DOS part from Win 98SE (or from Win 98 they're both v. 4.10.0.1998) REGEDIT.EXE, doing the necessary adjustments to it, and then also updating the icons in the file thus obtained. So, in fact, it's neither the original Win ME version, nor just the result of simple patching, but a true new file, resulting from a procedure more complicated than a simple patch. HTH

The instructions are for installing Windows 98 using the original CD. Perhaps Case Four will instruct how to extract ESDI_506.PDR into the contents of the win98 folder copied from the CD to another partition on the harddrive. Yes, Winn98er is right! I was thinking about installing Windows 98 using the original CD. What I wrote are, IMHO, the easiest procedures for one not much familiar with the details of installation to be able to perform with success. Cases One and Two are in fact very simple. Case Three, on the other hand, requires ability to use pure DOS, so it's somewhat more complicated. But the Mini How-To is a work in progress, intended to be enlarged as time permits. If TooMuchFreeTime or you, Winn98er, would be so kind as to describe the procedure in a step-by-step way, just as I did for the three first cases and PM it to me, I'll be glad to add Case Four to the Mini How-To with due credit, of course. While I intend to keep this thread up-to-date, contribuitions from all members are much welcome.