LoneCrusader

Found version 2.11.15.0 here. Just passing through, I'm not familiar with this issue, but when I saw it mentioned I thought it best to try and find any HP tools associated with 9x since they wiped them all at Microsoft's bidding. EDIT: typo

when you say other manufacturers may provide the drivers, is that mean integrated where the operating system loads the sata driver without needing ide legacy / compatibility mode or is it something that you would have to install later for sata devices to be properly configured or some other way that isn't automatically done with the motherboard? also with the sata add on cards that have 9x drivers, does that also have to be configured some different way or do the drivers automatically appear and load with the os install?If a SATA chip/chipset manufacturer provides a driver for 9x, then yes, it can be used to install 9x without the need for Legacy IDE PATA mode but you must know how to integrate the driver into the SETUP process. I don't know if it is possible to set up 9x without either legacy mode or pre-integrating the driver (or using rloew's patch as I do), I have never tried. rloew or others may know more about this. No drivers will "automatically appear" and automatically load with the OS install, unless they were already included in the original 9x CABs. Ideally you need the drivers in place beforehand, whether installing from scratch or adding a new card. Another point in favor of rloew's patch, as it patches and uses the already existing 9x IDE driver.

While "possible" I highly doubt that DOSBOX would be a "desirable" method of running Windows 9x. It's good for DOS programs as intended, but probably VirtualPC or VMware either one would be better choices for virtualizing the whole 9x OS. DOSBOX actually runs under Windows 9x for one, while others are 2K/XP and up only. I haven't used it extensively yet but it does appear to be useful for running older DOS games on newer systems where the CPU is too fast and renders the game unplayable. Best of both worlds? A newer, fast system to run 9x and Windows applications, while having DOSBOX installed to run older DOS programs that don't like the faster hardware. Intel does not provide any SATA controller drivers for Windows 9x. The boards you mentioned are perfectly compatible with Windows 9x so long as you set all SATA devices to Legacy/PATA compatibility mode. The Intel chipset driver packages are actually just text INF's that specifically identify common onboard devices. These are technically not even necessary and a system can run without them. No .VXD, .PDR, .SYS, or any other actual "driver" files are provided. Other chipset manufacturers such as VIA may well provide drivers. I am not as familiar with them as I am with Intel-based systems.

Apparently you've never had a system with an Intel ICH5 or later chipset. While they may be available for some third-party SATA controller chips, drivers are NOT available for most chipset-integrated SATA controllers. This is why rloew's patch is the best available solution, because it handles all possibilities without the need to purchase extra hardware. I depend on them every day. Have for the past 10 years. No signs of any trouble, and no plans to change either.

As far as I know none of these ATI cards came in 512MB versions... It is possible that these "last 9x supported" ATI cards and/or the last 9x driver package have some unresolved bugs with them. ATI only claims official support up to the 9800 XT and doesn't mention ANY X-series card as being supported. I am reminded of the issues I had with a DOS game and the X8xx cards. I don't have any X700 or X600 cards to check for the same issue.

Here. I have it in my slipstream build but without going back and reviewing all my old notes I don't remember how I had to extract it.PCCARD.ZIP

I was surprised that no further issues showed up.. but once the secondary profile was deleted it just booted into the correct one without any complaints. Still bizarre, but at least I know how to fix it now.

Thanks for the link! This procedure from that link worked to fix the problem:

Hello everyone.. hoping someone here can help me sort out a strange XP issue that I'm trying to fix on a friend's computer. First of all I have no idea how the system got into the shape that it's in now, so I have nothing to go on as far as what happened to it. This friend of mine always seems to have the strangest computer problems... I've never seen anything like this; but of course I never set up or deal with multiple user accounts on any operating system and always run as Administrator (and if that statement causes you any distress, I'm not interested in hearing about it). So, I set this machine up for my friend a few years back. The system is multi-boot but only XP seems to be having issues. It's XP Professional with SP3. When I set XP up, I entered my friend's name when it asks who will use the computer, so it associated his name to the "Administrator" account. I did not create any other accounts or set a password since he's the only person using it, so when the system boots it goes directly to the Desktop and does not ask for those things. Now, somehow he has managed to get "shut out" of his own account. I won't say "locked out" because it isn't really locked, there's nothing actively preventing access to the account, it just never allows the option to enter. When the machine boots up, it creates a brand new user account without asking or offering to switch users. This account reverts everything back to looking like a fresh installation... the default theme and background are set, there aren't any shortcuts to his programs on the Start Menu or on the Desktop, there aren't any files in the "My Documents" folders, etc etc. If I try to "Log off" and "Switch user," it only shows up his name and claims he is already logged in. An examination of the "Documents and Settings" folder reveals that his original account name folder, "Harold" shows up as it should, but a new user folder, "Harold.HLG" has been created as well. This folder contains the empty "My Documents" folders and such that I am seeing. If I delete this folder and reboot the same process happens again. "Harold.HLG" does not show up under the User Accounts panel, only the original "Harold". If I boot into Safe Mode and choose Administrator, I am still not able to see any more accounts other than the original "Harold." So, apparently the system believes that "Harold" and "Harold.HLG" are the same account, but how does one get back into the correct "user profile" and escape reverting back to the default new account?

You're welcome. I'm glad I was able to help!

Doesn't make much sense NOT to buy and use Rloew's patch for a setup such as this. What's $10 dollars for working SATA compared to the cost of the rest of the system? Same could be said for the RAM patch, but to each his own I guess. This is board specific. I have two ICH8 boards where USB2 works fine under 98SE. The only issue I have seen with it was on an Intel DP43TF ICH10 board. I think xRayer is the one who provided the other INF method.. unless MDGx had one as well? I have a more complete set of INFs that does support ICH10, but it requires slightly different handling than the set I released before. You may remember I had to trim out some irrelevant stuff from the final version that supported ICH7/8/9 because the INF was too large and caused errors during SETUP. ICH10 and later Intel systems increased the already large INF size exponentially, so I had to split the data into more INFs. MACHINE.INF and MACHINE2.INF can be directly replaced as with the previous set, and 98SE will automatically use these, but the MACHINE3.INF, MACHINE4.INF, and MACHINE5.INF required for all of the data may have to be copied manually or you may have to edit another SETUP INF file in order to have them copied automatically. I haven't tested them with "vanilla" 98SE, but I have used them successfully in my "full slipstream" build. Did you make certain that you had the latest BIOS version on your system? I had to update to the very latest BIOS to have support for the Q9550 on my Gigabyte GA-965P-DQ6.

%24% is a "LDID" reference to a specific directory. I'm not sure which offhand. They are not defined in the strings section. Common Windows directories are assigned a number, or "LDID" (Logical Directory ID) that remains standard and can be used during SETUP or when installing programs. %11% is SYSTEM, %22% is SYSTEM\VMM32, %12 is SYSTEM\IOSUBSYS, etc etc. Here's an excerpt from the INF file for a HotFix. It doesn't define %24% though. [DestinationDirs]; 10=Windows, 11=SYSTEM, 12=IOSUBSYS, 13=COMMAND, 14=Control Panel, 15=Printers, 16=Workgroup; 17=INF, 18=Help, 19=Administration, 20=Fonts, 21=Viewers, 22=VMM32, 23=Color, 25=Shared; 26=Winboot, 27=Machine, 28=Host Winboot, 30=Boot drv root, 31=Root of Boot drv Host; 00=Null (new) LDID, 01=Source drv:\path, 02=Temp Setup, 03=Uninstall, 04=Backup

Thanks for the reply. That might do the trick. For that matter even a later version might work; 3DMark03 is the last for 98SE according to Wikipedia. Now to find time to run tests...

Fair enough. Since you did talk to him, ask him whether or not the driver he was given was the 82.69 driver or a different version. If any version later than 82.69 exists for 9x, it needs to be collected and preserved.

What do you need him to tell you that is not already available here? You can use my INF's for ICH6/7/8/9 and you already know about the NVidia 82.69 driver. Whether or not the 512MB card works or not depends on many factors, but all 7xxx cards can work with the driver provided other conditions are favorable. There are some idiosyncrasies with getting the cards to work, but many of them are directly motherboard related and therefore system and configuration dependent.

Does anyone know of a Video Benchmarking program that will run under Windows 9x and has the ability to test Video RAM above 256MB?

Are your Intel processors Socket 478 or Socket 775? If you have good Socket 478 processors, I would recommend boards based on the Intel 865/875 chipsets, because virtually all of these come with full complements of Windows 98SE drivers and are known to be very stable and powerful. Examples: Intel D875PBZ Intel D865PERL MSI 875P Neo MSI 865P Neo2 (and other similar models) DFI Lanparty 875 (various models) SOYO P4-I875P Dragon 2 (these are my favorite but rather hard to find and prone to capacitor plague) If you have Socket 775's, there are a small handful of boards based on the 865/875 chipsets as well, but they are rare and usually only support an 800MHz Bus chip (i.e. no Core2 or later). In order to use a later Socket 775 chip you may need to look at 9xx or later chipset boards. Right now I am experimenting with some of these. Examples: MSI 865PE Neo3-F DFI Lanparty 875P-T MSI 965P Neo (still experimenting) MSI 975X Platinum (the one I have has strange issues, waiting for another one to rule out hardware probs) Gigabyte GA-965P-DQ6 (shows promise so far, still experimenting) Gigabyte GA-G1975X (ordered one of these, still waiting on it) If you want to go with AMD the only board I am familiar with that doesn't have some oddities is the Gigabyte GA-K8NS Ultra-939. I know everyone's experiences and opinions are different, but I have never seen a board made by Asus that was worth anything. I also prefer Award BIOS. Some developments have come up with regard to 512MB video cards. It looks as if only certain models are actually reporting 512MB and able to access it. Others may be limited to 256MB regardless of their actual onboard RAM. rloew can elaborate further on this. Since we're on this subject, does anyone know of a video benchmarking utility that runs on Windows 98 and can be used to test Video RAM above 256MB? EDIT: Moved my question to a new topic.

Are you looking to build a system just for 98, or are you looking to build a multiboot system that can be used for other things on later operating systems? Makes a lot of difference as to hardware choice, because if you want one strictly for 98, then I would recommend say, board x. But if you want a "higher performance" system for XP as well on the same machine, I would recommend board y. I'm in the process of experimenting with Windows 9x on post-9x supported boards, but unfortunately I don't have a lot of success to report so far. Whatever you do, do not attempt to use an Intel-branded board later than the D875PBZ. Some third-party boards based on Intel 9xx and later chipsets have possibilites, but not those built directly by Intel. Also, Intel or AMD, or does it matter? I don't have much experience with AMD since the good old K6-2 Super Socket 7 days.

Temperamental is certainly a good description. Now we know 512MB video cards can work under 9x. But apparently it depends critically on the hardware, so they are far from being a sure bet. I set out on a mission to get to the root of the issue a couple of months back, but I wonder just how deep does the rabbit hole go? I'm also seriously questioning the value of the tradeoff required in order to use a 512MB card. For example, I can use a 256MB card and have 3712MB or 3584MB of RAM available to Windows when running rloew's patch + 4GB of RAM. When I switch to a 512MB card, the available memory in Windows drops to 3328MB or 3072MB, depending on the board. So, in order to gain 256MB of video memory, one must sacrifice 512MB of system memory. Unless a solution to the aperture setting differences mystery (or a way to control BIOS memory allocation for the cards) is found to alleviate this, this almost makes it not worth the trouble. I'd hate to see what a 1GB or larger card would do to the system memory... For a long time I was unable to get any 512MB card to work at all under 98SE. Then one day they started working if I set 256MB AGP Apertures. Anything less and they will fail, contradictory to what loblo and others have observed on their own machines. The slightest change to any part of the Windows configuration can cause the card to stop working, and it's a nightmare to get it going again. I've had this happen on two machines, one of which I still haven't managed to cure. Then we enter the realm of PCI-Express cards. Since PCI-E boards don't have AGP Aperture settings, it gets even more convoluted. I have one machine where neither a 256MB or 512MB 7950GT PCI-E will work under 98SE, but they both work under 95. The most interesting discovery at this point is that the 82.69 driver (and presumably 82.16 as well since 81.98 does) works with Windows 95, and Windows 95 will use the 512MB cards with only a 64MB AGP Aperture setting, when 98SE will not.

rloew's patch has an /A option for handling certain older graphics drivers, but it apparently has no effect on systems using the latest version of the nVidia or ATI drivers (reported this and discussed with rloew). I do recommend the RAM patch regardless though. In my case any AGP Aperture setting less than 256MB will not work at all for any 512MB card that I have tried under 98SE (7200GS/7600GS/7950GT). There doesn't seem to be much logic to this, it apparently varies significantly by hardware. The real mind bender is that Windows 95 will work with the 512MB cards, with a 64MB AGP Aperture set.

The AGP Aperture and the size of the card are not the same thing. I wouldn't expect you to change the AGP Aperture to 512MB as most systems don't even allow this. I meant that in order to use a 512MB card, you will probably need to set a 256MB AGP Aperture in the BIOS. If it works like this, then you can experiment with smaller aperture settings.

What size is the AGP Aperture setting in the BIOS? Try setting it to 256MB and then remove the card in Safe Mode and reinstall the driver. 512MB video cards under 9x are very, very temperamental.

From all the info I've found it's almost impossible to mod an Intel BIOS in any meaningful way. Intel provides some tools for modifying the default settings for options that they have graciously already provided, but nothing whatsoever that would allow "pro-legacy" modifications. One tool I used to examine the BIOS files seemed to indicate that Intel BIOS'es are modified AMI BIOS'es. Another step in the wrong direction... I have yet to see an AMI BIOS that was comparable to AWARD. From just about all of the experiments I have run on post-9x hardware in the past two years, and from a handful of threads about similar hardware I've seen posted here, the lesson learned and the motto to be remembered is "Thou shalt not attempt to use an Intel-branded motherboard later than the D875PBZ with Windows 9x." Third-party boards based on Intel chipsets are sometimes OK, but the Intel-branded Intel-BIOS ones are junk from a 9x standpoint.

I have a custom INF set that provides 9x INF's for ICH10 chipsets, I just never got around to releasing it. It's an update of the "Slipstreamable" Intel INFs that are posted here somewhere. (The original set only goes to ICH9.) Currently it should wipe out all unknown devices except those associated with Intel Active Management/Management Engine. The bad thing is I have run several tests on an Intel DP43TF motherboard (ICH10) and it is an absolute nightmare to get anything working properly. Most of this appears to be due to the Intel BIOS (which is garbage and leaves the user virtually no control options). I'll wager that a third-party ICH10 board with an AWARD BIOS would function much better. There are many problems, but one specifically - I was unable to load any USB2 driver on this board, it will always cause Windows 98SE to hang during boot. This happens with or without using "SETUP /p i" to kill ACPI, and happens whether one uses the Microsoft Win2K USB2 stack or the OrangeWare USB2 stack. I wouldn't even make an attempt on such a project without rloew's RAM and SATA patches though.

You're welcome. I'm glad it's working for you and you're getting some enjoyment out of it. Good luck!