LoneCrusader

Yes. I read that, and I did that. And I still had to make it manually connect to the URL and check for update before it would finish.

I just went through this same problem on a machine I built for someone else. I kept getting the "will be installed shortly" message until I manually set 51.0 in the %VERSION% section of the update URL and manually forced it to check for updates. Then it magically decided that it would work...

Welcome to MSFN The answer to your question largely depends on personal preferences. You will need to read up some on each of these packages and decide which works best for you. You may have to experiment a few times to get the right combination for you. A few general guidelines: 1) don't mix multiple update packs, i.e. Autopatcher and U98SESP3 or WUPG98 for example. 2) install your chosen "update" pack first before installing RP9, 98SE2ME, 98MP10, etc. 3) always install KernelEx LAST after all other updates and addons

I suppose I could agree with all of those reasons. There just aren't enough so-called "modern features" in a newer OS interest me (although I have been forced as of late to use XP or Linux for anything online). Threads like this often invite flame wars and lots of senseless heated debate with unsubstantiated opinions flying everywhere. I hope this does not happen again... Let's keep this thread respectful and on topic folks. If you are not really a 9x user (and just decide to drop in here to troll) then obviously the subject of this topic will not apply to you, so consider yourself warned.

The MSI driver listing page seems to be broken for the 98SE audio driver. However if you change the OS to Windows 2000 it shows a download that is supposedly for 98SE as well. Try this. If it doesn't work, you can try obtaining the latest Realtek AC'97 driver directly from Realtek's website.

I don't login to watch videos. Also this happens across multiple machines and other browsers... looks like Commodore has found the culprit, which seems to confirm the discussion I read on the Firefox addon page. Now we just need an "addon" that will make this change automatically...

I'm unable to load Flash on YouTube under XP/PaleMoon 24.7.2 now as well for the past two days. I came back to this thread to get the above mentioned Firefox addon and went to its page. There is some discussion in the comments there; someone claims that YouTube has disabled Flash. I didn't investigate further yet.

Intel Ethernet Connection Driver for Windows 98SE

rloew has just as much right to respond to any thread here as anyone else, and has every right to discuss his work. Not only that, but he probably knows more about 9x "under the hood" than anyone else here. So there's no need to have an attitude.

Really what you're asking comes down to personal preference. Out of the 9x systems Windows 98SE provides the best mix of compatibility, stability, and features (and has also received the greatest degree of interest and projects created out of the three). Windows 95 OSR2 is slightly faster than 98, but as you mentioned WDM is very limited (technically 95 OSR2.1 introduces WDM, but it's a very primitive implementation). Windows ME is slightly newer than 98SE, however the lack of access to real-mode DOS is an annoyance for some situations. There are other quirks involved in choosing a specific 9x version for a specific purpose, but most users will probably never need to worry about this. After installing 98SE we're back to personal preferences again. Out of the various update packs I only use NUSB 3.5, but some people are very happy using the Unofficial Service Pack or Autopatcher or whatever else. Just keep in mind it's not a good idea to mix up the unofficial packs. You'll have to choose one that suits you best. Each of them have their respective threads and it would be a good idea to read up on them and see what the pros and cons of each are. Your hardware choices will have some bearing on what you need, but since you first posted in the VBox thread I assume you are using virtualization, which will simplify this somewhat.

Do not provide links to illegally obtain copyrighted material. Despite the age of the data in question it is still under Microsoft's copyright and as such we cannot allow linking to it from this forum. eBay and other sources are your friends.

Don't be so quick to rule out a whole category of devices. Besides the known working PCI-E video cards I know of at least one example of a PCI-E network card and sound card working under 98. I assume USB2 PCI-E cards would work as well if such exist. Here's a PCI-E network card with 98 drivers. (V1 ONLY mind you; V2 (pictured; V1 looks different) does not work with V1's drivers. I have several.) TG-3468 And here's a PCI-E sound card that works with 98. (I have one.) CMI8738 Also, it may be worth trying the drivers for PCI devices with similar PCI-E devices. Nothing to lose in trying.

You don't see any differences between 95B and 95C on the surface. 95C includes the forced IE4 install and a handful of updated files. If you install 95B + IE4 + several HotFixes then you will have the same system. There used to be a MSKB article that detailed the differences between OSR2.1 and OSR2.5 but I'm sure it has "disappeared" by now. The most important differences are the inclusion of a HotFix that solves memory management issues on Pentium processors and a later version of the USBSUPP.EXE package included on the CD. Quick Launch will be enabled by default after the IE4 install. As rloew mentioned the SATA patch is for the controller interface, not for the size of the HDD. (There's another patch for that.) Both "IDE" and "SATA" are technically different versions of "IDE." Legacy IDE = PATA. Native IDE = SATA. Modern motherboards that have an "IDE" setting go into Native Mode when it is used, thus the SATA patch is necessary. See above. Currently no working USB3 drivers for Windows 9x. rloew and I have been trying to fix that, but no luck so far.

I've never seen any reason to artificially limit system performance for 9x. I've used 3+GHz P4 processors with it for years. Why hold yourself back? Games from the later 9x-era can certainly benefit from increased performance (WarCraft III comes to mind). What specific older games run better on a less-powerful system (besides true DOS games such as WarCraft/WarCraft 2... DOSBox could be a good solution for this)?

Here's a link to rloew's website. http://rloew1.no-ip.com/ You can use PayPal, just send it to the email on the site. The SATA patch is listed in the Prerelease section but it has long been established as working properly. I also recommend his RAM patch for your particular setup. I have an X79 chipset system running the RAM patch, SATA patch, and others with both 95C and 98SE that I set up for experiments. You won't be disappointed!

AFAIK it uses mostly Debian repositories for everything other than some Q4OS-specific components and for certain packages where a later version may be more preferable, such as the Trinity Desktop package. It's based on Debian stable. 8.0 "Jessie" I believe, I'm not up on Linux codenames.

I will repeat, this time with the full proper quote. "If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France I am not interested in your appeal to authority or appeal to popularity. All I see in your argument is the biased opinion of a bunch of people who have been indoctrinated by Microsoft and who believe in the fallacy that newer is always better or that somehow because something is older makes it inferior. Just because a bunch of people may advocate for using a newer system does not make the older system "dangerous" and I would love to see any concrete proof that somehow running an older system can affect a different machine using a newer system. Such an argument defies all logic, and would certainly refute the idea that the newer system is somehow superior if it can in fact be damaged by an older system. Such an attitude is arrogant because it has absolutely no basis in fact and is entirely based on opinion. Show me concrete proof otherwise. And the "opinion" of some so-called expert is most definitely not proof. Any operating system has limits. Limits of the time period do not translate into "dangers." "Stable" is also a subjective term here. Hardly "facts" of any relevance to your "dangerous" argument. Anyone who comes here to read this thread is most likely to be looking for a solution, not looking for someone's biased opinions on why they should not use their computer in the manner they choose. Is the Internet "usable" on Windows 9x these days? This is subjective as well. Depends on how determined the user is to achieve this and how many annoyances they are willing to put up with. I see the purpose of this thread and this forum as being a place for 9x users to get support and solutions, not a place for people to tell them how "ignorant" they are for wishing to do so. I expect 98 users to be able to come here and discuss their system of choice and get meaningful solutions (insomuch as they can be found these days) without some form of "Microsoft toadie" constantly chiming in to tell them to "upgrade" because they're not safe or some other FUD. This forum is not a vehicle for the Microsoft Lifecycle Policy. You cite the "Terrorist Edition" remark as ridiculous, but you tell Dibya to come "out of his XP cave"? How are you any better? You said you were going to leave the issue to rest and have not done so. Enough of this. Get back on topic and respect the topic for what it intended to be (i.e. helpful information, not biased BS).

Just because someone else has stated that they do not use 98SE online anymore does not give credence to your arrogant theories about it "being a danger to others." And such talk, along with behaving in a "condescending" manner toward those who disagree with you, is most definitely trolling. MrMateczko can at least be counted as a member of the 9x "community" whereas you apparently just came in here to voice unfounded opinions about a system you don't even use.

Arrogant presumption at it's finest. If a million people believe a stupid idea, it is still a stupid idea. Might (or weight of numbers) does not make right. When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. All great and very applicable quotes here. Thank you for admitting that you wish to "belittle" Windows 9x. As far as I am concerned now, anything more you have to say on the subject could clearly be construed as trolling or flame baiting.

"WORLD'S BETTER" in your opinion. This along with the rest of your argument is entirely subjective. I'm not trying to be offensive to you Jody but I'll be perfectly honest - most of us 9x'ers don't care one iota about your (or anyone else's) opinion of 9x. If you don't even run it or care to use it, then why are you bothering to participate in this thread? You have nothing constructive to add here. All you are doing here is insinuating that someone who chooses to run Windows 9x is somehow "ignorant" or "unenlightened." We are not interested in hearing about Windows 8 or any other cause you are proselytizing for. We do not come to the Windows 8 forum and tell you how worthless, ugly, slow, and bloated it is and how much we hate it. So unless you can give us the same respect here, then yes, you can be quiet about it. If you have nothing constructive to say, then you can say it somewhere else. Again, I am not trying to be rude, but I am sick and tired of this type of attitude (perfectly exemplified by your arrogant assumption that an individual's choice of operating system is somehow a threat to others - this sounds like some kind of fascism...) that I see now everywhere around the internet, and I'll be d@mned if I'll see that type of stuff get started here.

Ridiculous. Windows 9x is no more a house of cards than any other version of Windows. Success or failure with the security of any operating system ultimately comes down to the end user and their level of knowledge. Security through obscurity? Well, maybe it isn't a "strategy" per se but in reality there is logic to it. As Nomen pointed out, what malware designed to target the popular operating systems of the day will even run under Windows 9x? Not much. Sure, there existed plenty of malware that could infect Windows 9x back when it was mainstream, but how likely is it to encounter such malware in the wild these days? Two factors at work here - 1) malware designed to target today's systems can't run under 9x, and 2) malware designed to attack Windows 9x is practically non existent in the wild because it has long been recognized as such and hunted to virtual extinction. So the reality of the situation still applies - whether one calls it a "strategy" or not, the two vectors at work inevitably lead to a safer situation on an obscure OS. And finally, if your Windows 9x was unstable, then you had some other issue at work as well. I'm very glad you're happy with Windows 8, but if you have any more 9x bashing to do, you can take it somewhere else.

Well, updating is not a "requirement" of course but one inevitably faces the same issues all of us have faced when trying to run older Microsoft OS'es. Sooner or later things stop "just working" as they should if you don't update. Now with Linux, you can in theory build your own packages from their source code (as PC mentioned in passing) and depending on your level of knowledge can probably keep things going for a long time. The main issue I see with Linux is the potential for a situation known as "dependency hell" - wherein a newer package, say "Firefox" for example, will require a newer version of some other package, say "libsomething1" and subsequently "libsomething1" will depend on a newer version of "libsomethingelse2" and so on ad infinitum. A blessing and a curse with Linux - every package is independently developed but interdependent on other subsequently independently developed packages. So in other words if you want to update "Firefox" on an "older" Linux installation you should be prepared for a potential cascade of dependency problems. Repositories of files and packages targeted for a given Linux distro version also have a tendency to disappear over time as newer versions are produced, and since packages are interdependent it can make it very difficult to find working packages for an older distro if you didn't archive them. All that being said I still believe Linux has promise, especially given the direction Microsoft is going. We may all end up there eventually, lol.

Since the subject of moving to Linux came up... Many of you know I always planned to do this myself when Windows 9x would could no longer perform everyday tasks. I made the attempt once only to find that the Linux world was even more crazy about the constant update/upgrade cycle than the Windows world and I could no longer download new packages for my distro version of choice after only 3 or 4 years. So I came back to Windows and decided to tolerate XP for a while. Even decided I maybe can stomach Vista at the utmost end of need... But, I've just recently discovered an extremely nice little Linux distro that is dedicated to providing a classic user interface experience and long-term release support (long-term for Linux at least). With a few clicks on this system and it's provided tools/wizards one can have a desktop and Start Menu that's almost a perfect mirror of the Windows Classic UI (or XP "Lego" UI if you prefer). It's been many years since I could say I was impressed by any operating system - but now I can finally say it again. Have a look at Q4OS.

Since it was mentioned here it's worth pointing out that IntelliPoint is an important piece of software for Windows 95. It enables the use of Wheel Mice - without it the mouse wheel does not work unless your mouse has a working Windows 95-specific driver that provides this functionality. The 3.2 version of IntelliPoint also provides this and does not include dependencies on IE5 or have "auto check for updates" functionality embedded in it. I've seen some issues with the WinRAR installer under 95 when using 3.8x/3.9x versions. The program itself works but the installer crashes or throws errors. I ran some experiments previously to determine where this starts but I can't remember exactly what I found out at the time. I'll have to check but I think 3.71 still installed without problems. If 3.92 works then 3.93 (last of the 3.x series; last to support 98/ME) should work as well.

You can try using this method that is confirmed to work for the high-end 900 series cards including the Titan X. Just find the correct INF entries for your 1000 series card in a Windows 7 driver package and follow the instructions on the page I linked. There have been some reports of 1000 series cards working so there may be some hope.