LoneCrusader

This is simply not true, at least in the case of OSR2.x. I've used 40GB and larger drives with 95 for years. This is an example (just one of many) of Microsoft spreading false information in order to promote a newer version of Windows. The 137GB/48-Bit LBA limit applies just as with 98/ME but there are no other random "limits." Can't say for sure about 95 RTM/95A (and since they use FAT16 it's mostly irrelevant) but I would not take Microsoft's word at face value for them either.

Yes. I see you've made it more descriptive since Trip posted but also there's no need to shout. I personally don't use any of the unofficial 98SE packs except NUSB. You definitely do not want to install a different language version of a package on an English version of the OS however (assuming you're running the English version, if not then disregard this).

You keep asking for a PCI-E motherboard "with 98 drivers"... what exactly do you hope to accomplish here? There are no "drivers" for motherboard chipsets other than a simple set of INF text files as I have already stated before. I have provided an unofficial set of these for later Intel chipset-based systems by taking the 2K/XP INF files and converting them to the expected 9x format using the 865/875 INF's as a guide. You will not find "drivers" for a motherboard other than this, and the system does not even NEED them anyway. Now, as for onboard devices, you can forget a SATA driver for any "modern" board unless you want to buy rloew's patch, but we've been through that before as well. You can also forget any driver for HD Audio (unless rloew and I have a breakthrough on this front which has not been promising so far - but if you won't buy the SATA patch then you probably won't buy a HD Audio driver package either if we ever get there so why mention it...). LAN is simple - look for a board using a Realtek LAN chip and then check it against the last Realtek driver package for 98SE. USB(2) is already covered by NUSB. USB(3) is out same as HD Audio, once again unless there is a breakthrough orchestrated by rloew. Now to go back to your main issue - I have yet to see any issues with using PCI-E graphics cards under 98SE other than the issue at 512MB that has been previously discussed. No doubt problems can occur in some hardware configurations but I would say the systems exhibiting "problems" are the exceptions not the rule.

I wouldn't be surprised. One of the patches for WarCraft III broke my Windows 9x installation of it several years ago. (I think it was 22b? I'd have to check.) Needless to say Blizzard support was useless on the issue at the time. I never got around to examining it further. I seem to never have time to spend playing my old games anymore. I've had a "new" 9x gaming system under construction for years now that never gets finished either. I planned to dig into the issue further when I set up all of the games again on the new system. Now I know I'll have to watch out for D2 patches (later than the 1.12 that's on my old systems) as well (I've never really liked D2, I LOVE D1, but a friend of mine likes to play D2.)

Ok fine then, so the 7950GT is the highest numbered model fully working under Windows 9x. I don't have a 7900GTX to compare. I do have a 7800GTX somewhere...

Best fully working graphics card is the 7950GT. PCI-E version works fine. 256MB version + NVidia 82.69 driver + rloew's NVidia Shutdown patch (free) should work without any other modifications. If you want to use a 512MB version of the card you will need rloew's NVidia size patch (not free) as well. The 7950GX2 works but only one card is initialized by the driver so it behaves like a 7950GT. Currently there is no working HD Audio driver of any kind for Windows 9x. We are working on trying to fix this but no success as of yet.

Unfortunately I've not tried to use GCDROM in the same hardware configuration as yours. It should still work provided that the card is initialized by the BIOS and so forth before your boot CD runs. Post the contents of your AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS and maybe others can help...

First you will need to find a program that can extract the Boot image of the CD that you want to model this on, I assume the standard Windows 98SE CDROM. Then you will need to modify that boot image by adding GCDROM.SYS in the same manner as OAKCDROM.SYS. You can use both of them together that way if OAKCDROM.SYS doesn't work on your target system then GCDROM.SYS will kick in. Then you use this modified Boot image on your new CD. There are many more in-depth ways of doing this including switching to other bootloaders and so forth but I believe the way I described is the simplest solution. Sorry for the lack of detail at the moment. It's been a while since I did this operation myself.

There is probably a way, but I don't know how unfortunately.

Not really, it's pretty much shooting in the dark to guess where it might be embedded... you could always try searching logical strings in the Registry Editor. For example "ie6" "internet explorer" etc. and see if you hit on any keys or values that contain data for IE6.

It works for me. You must have some leftover(s) from IE6 somewhere in the Registry that's preventing it from running. It even shows up the KB number after SP2 on the "About Internet Explorer" dialog. Never take MS Security Bulletins or KB articles from the 9x-era at face value. They have a nasty habit of reverse-editing them to leave out information and/or fixes for 9x and in some cases give misleading or completely false information. If you parse through the article, note that they forgot to remove a section for Windows ME... Good point here, I haven't tested this but I read about it before and forgot it.

SP2 is probably a big step in the right direction, but a quick Google search for "cumulative update for internet explorer 5.5" yielded this Security Bulletin with at least one Cumulative Update. The link of course produces Microsoft's "smarterror" trash that should more aptly be named "stupiderrorbecauseyoumustupgrade". The Wayback Machine yields the page, this shot circa 2008, but the Download button doesn't work. But it does yield the KB number and file name, so one must use these to track down the right copy of the file for the right OS and right IE version. EDIT: Got the file here by pulling the download address out of the page source code from the Wayback Machine.

What type of speakers are you using? Do they have their own power supply or do they draw all power directly from the Audio jack? Speakers that draw only from the Audio jack are frequently garbage and the volume is barely audible. I always opt for speakers with their own power supply, but I believe some special models were made by Compaq and others with a larger/more powerful Audio jack for higher power, and some speakers have a USB connector for extra power as well.

Here's the full package: http://browsers.evolt.org/archive/ie/win32/5.5-sp2/ie55sp2.exe I'm not certain offhand about the updates. Definitely check the Update Catalog. It may be worthwhile to check for updates to Windows 2000 as well since it shipped with IE5 and there may be more updates listed this way. Some of the Windows 2000-devoted sites may also have archived these. If you can at least get hold of the file names of the updates it is usually possible to find the file somewhere out there.

Theoretically KernelEx could be made to work on 95 OSR2 but it would require a "bridge" expansion that would handle functions present in 98 that are not present in 95, and despite the prevailing attitude that "98 is just a patched up copy 95" there are very significant differences between the two and this would be a lot of work. 95 unfortunately doesn't have even the userbase that 98 does now so there's not enough interest. I believe I'm the only "active" 95 user around these days, and even before that 95 did not enjoy nearly as much attention here as 98 and ME did.

Internet Explorer 5.5 SP2 seems to be a better choice for Windows 9x now than IE6SP1. I don't think 5.5 suffers from some of these issues. As you suspect some sites purposely block IE6 and I am not aware of any ways to circumvent this problem. At this point there's no real advantage to using 6 over 5.5, and if you really want most sites to even halfway function you will need Firefox 3.5 or later anyway. I have no experience with Opera.

Since you asked, I do not use or like the Unofficial Service Pack (or any other 98SE "update packs" for that matter other than NUSB). Any such creation almost inevitably ends up being a product of the author's tastes and desires (and there is nothing wrong with that, any project maintainer has the right to take his or her project in any way they so desire) rather than a bare-bones, strictly updates only package. Other choices were made during it's development that I disagree with, but if you really want to learn more I suggest you read the U98SESP3 thread in its entirety. Why are you trying to load a DOS CDROM Driver/File System Interpreter in the 98SE CONFIG.SYS anyway? Are you planning to boot into pure DOS for some reason where you would need CDROM access before Windows loads? You also never answered my question about your Optical drive. You should verify physically that it is capable of reading DVD's. Even though I don't like the Unofficial Service Pack I still highly doubt that it is the cause of your problems. If your drive is DVD-capable, then reinstall without the USP as instructed. If your problem goes away, then you have your answer. If not, I would say you have some faulty hardware.

I see from the spec sheet for your laptop that it came in models with both CD and DVD drives. Are you certain that your laptop has a DVD-capable drive? If so it should have "DVD" written somewhere clearly on the tray door faceplate. I personally don't use the Unofficial Service Pack but I highly doubt that it is preventing you from reading DVD's. NUSB has nothing to do with drives not connected by USB. 98SE has default support for wheel mice, so it should be working. Do you mean that the "touchpad equivalent" of a wheel is not working? Touchpads may require their own drivers.

Amazingly this seems to "stick" somehow, even if I click to view another video. I figured one would have to add it manually for every link. Do any of those work for Firefox 24 and/or Palemoon 24? I had a look around and they only seem to go back to Firefox 26 for compatibility.

Yes, various manufacturers provided USB2 drivers (I'm aware of the OrangeWare and VIA stacks, any others out there?) but there was no direct Microsoft support. Which I'm inclined to believe some other manufacturers (maybe not all) used this as an excuse to not provide USB2-speed capable drivers. I have no way to prove this yet but something is amiss with these ridiculously low USB WiFi speeds. There's no speed issue with PCI or even PCI-E network cards, only with USB WiFi. Unless there are some settings separate for this specifically then I don't see how tweaking network parameters will help... what tweaks would you suggest though? Anyone know if the security type used by a WiFi network has an effect on speed? (And/or affects 9x differently than say XP?)

It's all a matter of personal preference really. Some users like the Unofficial Service Pack. Some don't. You should read some of the sticky threads and learn about the various options. Every option has pros and cons; only you can decide which you prefer.

I don't see anything outstanding that should be a problem from the spec sheet you gave. However with laptops and 9x it's very much a game of Russian roulette. I certainly was disappointed when my HP ZD8000 plans fell through. Everything seems to have working drivers (although I didn't get to test them all) except the Radeon Mobility X600 video. Nothing works correctly with it, not even VBE9X. I hope Mobile NVidia chips are more cooperative.

I personally don't think trying to run with over 512MB of RAM with tweaks is a good idea, but as you see there are obviously others who swear by it. Apparently "YMMV - Your mileage may vary." It may work for you on your system and it may not. From what I remember of the old discussions offhand it is also relevant how much memory is physically installed; i.e. having only a 1GB RAM module installed and using the limiting tweaks may work, but if you put in 4GB RAM for other OS'es in dual-boot then the tweak that worked at 1GB may not work anymore. The stickies cover most things, although sometimes one has to dig through several pages to cover an entire subject. MSFN for 9x is like a vast museum that one can get lost in. So much information is here that doesn't exist anywhere else. And there are too few of us left to keep it all dusted off. But I digress... "IDE Mode" on a modern board will almost always mean "Native IDE SATA" rather than "Legacy IDE PATA." Only Legacy mode works properly with 9x. VBE9X is a nice project but it's very limited. For instance without hardware acceleration 9x-era games and such probably would not run properly if at all. It essentially serves to escape 640x480x16, but that's it. RTL8111D or previous work as far as I know; RTL8111E does NOT work. A buggy driver exists that will work with some "E" cards but not at full gigabit speeds. SoundBlaster would probably be best for 9x; just be sure you pick a compatible one. Pentium 4 era is best in my opinion. Most everything still had 9x drivers, including some early SATA chips as mentioned by Nomen. Intel 865/875 chipset boards are best. A rare handful of boards with these chipsets exist in Socket 775 models as well, although still limited to 800HMz FSB CPU's. Search around, I've given lists of such boards here before several times. I've currently got Windows 95 OSR2 and 98SE "running" on a board using the Intel X79 chipset and a Core i7. I haven't used them for any "day to day" activity, but they're up and running nonetheless. 7950GT graphics card with working drivers. Haven't gotten around to Sound and LAN yet though.

This is not necessarily directed at you personally, but I love how we seem to have a sudden influx of people around here who want to "dispute" long established knowledge. You say "98SE doesn't crash with more than 512MB of RAM on physical hardware" when it is a known, well established, indisputable fact that it DOES crash. I've seen and done this myself countless times over the years. I've actually used Windows 9x as a primary, day to day, production operating system. Not just as a toy to amuse myself running VM's and wasting time while never spending actual "production" time on a system which requires stability. And for the record, I did also specify that tweaks MAY get you to 1.2GB. This is NOT guaranteed. This does NOT always work. And it most definitely WILL make your system unstable. So, why post and say "it doesn't crash with more than 512MB" when it does, and then say "I wouldn't recommend going over 512MB," because "it might be the reason they're unstable." Might?? Ya think?? No, I don't mean that. I mean what I said. "Almost always?" Certainly not. Those tweaks never worked for me. Only once did I see 9x run with more than 512MB and without crashing, and this was when using an old version of the Unofficial Service Pack (which I believe included Xeno's VCACHE patch along with said "tweaks") and the system was very unstable. What's the point of those tweaks if it makes the resulting system unstable? Fine, Windows 98 drivers are available for a handful of early SATA controllers. But what "modern" motherboards are actually using these chips today? So they had 9x drivers 10 years ago when they were used. Great. But who uses them now? What good is this to the OP? The OP specified a "modern" system. I haven't seen a board using those SATA chips in 8 years or more.

Compatible? Not really. However whether it can be made to work or not mainly depends on your level of determination to succeed. How much work (read:trial and error and time) are you willing to invest getting Windows 9x running? Do you accept that non-free patches may be required to get you results? More specs on your planned system might be helpful... but here's a few quick points to consider: -Windows 9x will only see and use one CPU core. -Windows 9x will crash with more than 512MB of RAM; some tweaks MAY take you to 1.2GB; paid patch will definitely take you to the 32-bit limit of 4GB. -Windows 9x will not use Native IDE SATA controllers/drives without a paid patch. AHCI is even worse. If you can't set your HDD controllers to Legacy IDE mode you'll have to deal with slow DOS-mode compatibility filesystem. -Windows 9x has been without any drivers for new graphics cards since the end of the NVidia 7xxx series and the ATI X8xx series. You will need one of these or you will have to either deal with 640x480x16 resolution or try using VBE9X which will get you better resolutions but no hardware acceleration and frequently crashes with DOS Boxes. -Windows 9x has been without any drivers for network cards for a while as well. Realtek and Marvell based controllers may work depending on version. -Windows 9x has no HD Audio drivers whatsoever. Be prepared to use an add-in card. -(Your motherboard will probably need 2 or more regular PCI slots for 9x-compatible cards.) If you've read and digested this and still wish to try, then you've come to the right place.