LoneCrusader

It's normal behavior for Windows 9x as far as I know. Windows 95 doesn't use DriverVer entries either. I can't speak for Windows ME offhand but if I remember correctly I don't think it works there either. DriverVer entries first appear in Windows ME .INF's but this may simply be due to the fact that ME technically came out after 2K and shared some degree of driver interoperability.

It may be possible to run 98 on this hardware, but in order to do so you will definitely need several patches from our good friend rloew and I almost guarantee you will need to install with "SETUP /P I" to disable ACPI. I have never tried to install 9x on hardware this "new," but it doesn't mean it's impossible. I have used 9x successfully on an X58 system and rloew has it working on a Z87 system. If you don't have at least rloew's RAM and SATA patches though, don't waste your time trying. This is hardly helpful. This is the dismissive attitude I see given to 9x users who want to use 9x on modern hardware on various other forums. I don't like seeing it here as well.

The original incarnation of the UBCD apparently included the 98SE Setup files along with a MSBATCH.INF which provided a Product Key. This forced the project to be considered "warez" and a violation of copyright. MSFN cannot be the host of such a project or condone the posting of links to it as such. Now...This was all before my time here, and discussion of the issue since has been pretty much "taboo." I assume one could create a package that included everything from the original except these two problem items and it might be acceptable; but in the end it's not my decision.

I'd like to register a vote against this, or at least to make the order switchable somehow. I had to track down a method of reversing it back to the old way on PaleMoon.

Here's a link. Notes from MDGx on this fix:

Never seen that before. Remove all of the floppy disk drives and controllers from the Device Manager and reboot, see if they all reappear. Does your system have a floppy drive? If not, you may need to disable the Floppy Disk Controller in the system BIOS. Beyond that I'm not sure.

Windows 98 Second Edition and Windows ME do not need this patch as they don't suffer from the CPU clock speed bug to start with. Microsoft issued an official HotFix for Windows 98 First Edition (RTM), Q312108, which can be found here.

Yes, you must keep the updated files installed by the FIX95CPU script. If older files from the original CD SETUP are allowed to overwrite them then it will undo the patch. Glad you got it working!

So, did you use the latest FIX95CPU (v3) as instructed or are you using an older version? DUN14-95.EXE is still a recommended update but when using FIX95CPU as intended it should not be necessary to install it in order to get the system to boot. Boot into Safe Mode again and check the version of the NDIS.VXD file in the WINDOWS\SYSTEM folder (right click on it, choose Properties, then examine the Version tab) and report the results here. If it is not version 4.00.1113 then you need to re-run FIX95CPU per the instructions. You still didn't answer my other specific questions. It is important to know the specific details of the processor you're using since it is possible that there may be further bugs with CPUs clocked above 3.73 GHz as this is the highest clocked CPU I have to test with.

As dencorso has already pointed out I will need a lot more information in order to even attempt to address your issue. What is the exact model and clock speed of the CPU? What motherboard are you running it on? How much RAM do you have (and if more than 512MB do you have rloew's RAM patch to fix it)? What steps did you take during installation? What exactly happens, and what error, if any, do you get? Those questions, at least, must be answered to begin with.

Purely hypothetical, but it MIGHT be possible to use some updated files from XP to get secure sites working again under IE6. Even IE8 has issues with these sites unless one has either SP3 for XP x86 or installs specific HotFixes for XP x64 (as there was no SP3, only SP2). I mentioned this before in this thread (and this subsequently linked thread is also related), but I haven't had the chance to do any experimentation and I never use IE for anything anymore if I can help it. The KB articles for the HotFixes I used to fix my XP x64 problem may give an idea what files are necessary to make an attempt. I wonder whatever happened to maximus-decim and his "cumulative updates" for IE6? If he's still making these packages somewhere then he might be the one who could figure this out...

You can't apply any of the patches until Windows has completed the first round of setup (unless you manually pre-patch all of the files on another machine and drop the resulting files into the \WIN98 SETUP folder in order to override the ones in the CABs). If you mean Step 3 in the post you made then you haven't run SETUP yet at that point. In order to use a 500GB SATA drive you will definitely need both the SATA and 48-Bit LBA patches in place. FDISK is known to be limited when calculating disk capacity. Usually it still works fine to partition a drive so long as you set the whole drive as a single partition or specify the partitions by the percentage of the drive to be used rather than by byte count. There are many other tools that can be used in place of FDISK if you wish, so long as you get a proper FAT32 partition created, formatted, and set "Active." I have no experience with SSD's so I can't advise you there. Note that in order to TRIM it under 9x you will need yet another solution form rloew.

I've never seen any of these errors before... very odd. Are you sure the CD(s) you're using are in good shape and not dirty, scratched up, or otherwise damaged? I would try using a different CD/DVD drive; it's always possible it could be the cause as well. Some "lower quality" ones don't always function well under a DOS environment or with SETUP. When I set up a new Win9x system I always partition and format the drive and then I copy all of the Windows SETUP files to a folder on the hard drive, such as C:\WINDOWS\SETUP\ and run the installation from there instead of from the CD. This also prevents Windows from asking for the CDROM when installing new hardware. (Using a folder under WINDOWS on the HDD will trigger a prompt about the folder already existing or cause Windows to try to install to s different folder during SETUP, always check this or use MSBATCH.INF to override the install folder and kill the prompt about it.)

Glad to hear you've had success with the INFs. The UAA Bus Driver (best to try the 2K version rather than XP) remains out of reach though, at least for now. rloew and I did some work with it, but it still fails to load. Despite Windows 2000 and Windows 98 sharing the WDM driver model, simply satisfying all of the missing imports for a 2K driver does not guarantee it will work under 98, and one can spend a lot of time fooling with it with no guarantee whatsoever of any success. Then, IF you got it working, the actual 2K HD Audio drivers that run on top of it may not work either. Unless someone can magically produce the source code, things don't look promising. (As promised above, I do have a newer INF version in the works. The transitions from the 2K/XP files are done but I have to decide how to split it up again; once again the files have grown beyond the annoying 64KB limit.)

SETUP /p i disables ACPI (Advanced Configuration and Power Interface) and reverts 98SE to APM (Advanced Power Management). The only downside to this might be the loss of some power saving features; but IMO this is irrelevant especially in a system built for performance/gaming. It might be helpful to have ACPI on a system that you plan to leave continuously powered on, but otherwise I see no benefit. You will probably need to use SETUP /p i on the G31 board (I assume that's the one you're working with) if you want to be certain there are no resource conflicts in the Device Manager. Of course you can always run a normal SETUP and see what the Device Manager looks like when you reach the Desktop. If you have conflicts, especially with "Motherboard resources," or you have trouble getting the machine to Shut Down properly then I would start over using SETUP /p i. I've never needed to use SETUP /p j for anything.

Visit rloew's site and see for yourself about the patches. Beyond that it will depend on what 98-compatible hardware you want to add to your system. If you're not very serious about this or very committed to seeing it done, I suggest you find some older hardware. You're in for a rough project and I doubt you will be happy with the result, depending on what you want to use the machine for.

You will probably still need the SATA patch as many boards that have SATA ports + an IDE controller still do not work properly without it because the IDE controller allows connection of PATA drives but is still treated as a SATA controller by the BIOS. I believe Tommy had this issue... I would also go ahead and get his 48-bit LBA patch for use with drives >128GB if you're getting the SATA patch anyway as it will allow you to use more common/more modern drives. The RAM patch is (ideally) installed at the first reboot of Windows SETUP, but it can be installed at any time. Installing it at the first reboot allows you to set up Windows without having to physically reduce RAM to 512MB or less, as the limitation doesn't present itself until this point.

It probably CAN be done, but I doubt it could be done in such a way to give any "satisfaction." For starters you would need at least 4 non-free patches from our good friend rloew to support your RAM, SATA, 1TB HDD and so on. You would have to use a FAT32 partition for Windows 98SE and even if you use a 98SE compatible NTFS driver you cannot break the 4GB file barrier and risk corrupting your NTFS disk if it has such files and you access it under 98. Then, there are no 98SE drivers whatsoever available for any of the devices you listed, so you would need to add a 98-compatible expansion card for every device you need to work under 98 - Audio, Video, Network, etc, which would probably be more expansion cards than your board can support and be utterly useless and redundant under Win10. You don't have to drop back to "ancient" hardware to run 9x, but you should at least step back far enough to have some of it be compatible.

If it has been solved, then it was solved without changing the CPL file. The 4.90.0.3002 one in USP 3.51 is still the same one that I created in the thread I linked to.

I dug up the 8.1.0.28 2K version of the driver that I linked in the previous incarnation of this thread. It is only missing one function, NdisInitializeString, under a vanilla 98SE system. This reminds me of the other 2K network driver file that was missing an NDIS function, I believe in Dave-H's thread where he ended up using a DOS driver. Any chance of an NDIS stub or extender set? wait a minute.. "NDISEX" ?? lmao

Using the ME SYSDM.CPL allows USB Storage Devices to be "autoinstalled" without prompting you to choose the driver and click though the dialog boxes, similar to Windows XP and up. It does however have some unresolved bugs under 98SE. (See this thread where I tried, unsuccessfully, to fix it.) I recommend using NUSB 3.5, as it doesn't change the CPL. You can always manually put back the 98SE version with 3.6 though, as it only affects the specific issue I mentioned.

Interesting; I'm afraid I can't be of much help on this point as I'm not familiar with the issue, but I would definitely be interested in knowing if that is true or not. If it is true, it's still possible to find good quality used PSU's on eBay though.

NUSB... Always check the Important/Pinned Topics thread first. Your questions may already have answers.

Added to the list. Thanks! If anyone has any other links that they feel should be here, please let me know.

Other discussion of running with jumper's add-on/development builds already existed here as well. There is no perfect solution, and no reason to start an entire new thread devoted to what works or doesn't work with the development version; KEX has enough threads as it is. I agree that it could also fit very well in the thread where it was, but in the end it's jumper's project and jumper's thread. We can only hope that he will eventually reach a "stable" version that incorporates new successes without breaking older ones.