LoneCrusader

Update...This issue only seems to get stranger the more I work on it. The 98SE HotFix version of SYSDM.CPL that I tested in the quoted experiment worked fine for displaying the CPU info - on an AMD system during a clean installation ONLY. It is broken on an Intel system under ALL conditions.

Any Firefox beyond 3.6.28 is, IMO, garbage. I used to love Firefox, but the interface changes after the 3.x line and the idiotic "fast release" cycle have turned me off completely. I don't know for certain what has been changed after the 5.x versions, I did test some of these at one time, but I was so disgusted with it that I scrapped the testing and decided to keep 3.6.28 to the bitter end, lol. I was able to recover most of the buttons on those versions and re-enable the Status Bar with an Addon, so you may be able to recover some of that functionality by exploring all of the settings and searching for Addons... EDIT: Search for these addons: Status-4-Evar Firefox 3 theme for Firefox 4 Old Location Bar

Disabling multiple cores (or HyperThreading) on processors is NOT necessary. I have run Windows 95 on HyperThreading P4's and some later dual/multi core processors as well with no issues. The extra cores are simply ignored, and there is no reason to disable them, especially in a multi-boot environment where other OS'es can use them. If you want a "performance" Windows 98SE system, look for a system (desktop or laptop) with a motherboard based on the Intel 865/875 chipsets and with a 3+ GHz P4 processor. Virtually all systems with this configuration should have working drivers (or drivers should be available that can be adapted).

I wouldn't call this laptop 98SE friendly by any means... There aren't any existing 98SE compatible drivers for your hardware. But, if you are determined enough, you can probably get everything to work under 98SE except the Video (you'll be stuck at 640x480x16, maybe fixable with VBE9X depending on the intended use), Audio, and Networking functions. Bluetooth is a toss up if you can find a 98SE compatible stack that works with your hardware. It really depends on what you want to use 98SE on this machine for.

Reproduced this error on a VM. I have removed some unnecessary entries for testing and it prevents the error on my VM. This is the first such problem I have seen with an INF size smaller than 64KB. The real "limit" must lie somewhere in between 63KB and 64KB. I did some experiments the other day to try and pin down the exact "INF size limit" in bytes. Unfortunately, an exact byte limit does not seem to be the problem. Apparently, any text coming after a "comment" ( ; ) is either NOT counted toward whatever limit is being triggered, or is counted differently than text that is not commented, so the actual file size byte count may not be a reliable indicator of whether the INF will work or not. I removed similar amounts of "commented" and "uncommented" text from the earlier INF that had the problem, and got different results for each experiment despite the overall size reduction being similar. More experiments might be revealing in the end, but it looks like this may be a "trial and error" issue for any future changes to this project or other INF projects.

I know what you mean, I've seen it (and fought against it) on other forums as well. Rest assured, you will get none of that rubbish here. Welcome to MSFN! In your case you will obviously need a motherboard that does have Windows 98SE compatible drivers (more on that below). But first, realize that many of the so called "limitations" of Windows 9x have long been fixed. You do not have to limit your CPU speed (I have 3.4GHz Windows 95 systems). If you are willing to purchase some of RLoew's patches, then you can use up to 4GB of RAM and you can use HDD's larger than 137GB (this is the limit without a patch) and you can also use SATA drives. Now, on compatible hardware. Do you wish to build an Intel system or an AMD system, or does it matter? I am much more familiar with Intel systems, so I can help with those, but not so much with AMD. If Intel, then I recommend a motherboard based on the 865 or 875 chipsets. These chipsets have Windows 98SE compatible drivers and can use P4 Socket 478 CPUs up to 3.4GHz (slightly higher LGA775 P4's on 865/875 LGA775 boards, but these are more rare). These boards also typically support up to 4GB of DDR RAM and have AGP8x slots. Some have Gigabit LAN chips as well. Look up the Intel D865PERL and D875PBZ boards for examples, but there are many of these made by other manufacturers besides Intel. For video cards, I am much more familiar with ATI than NVidia, and the last 98-supported AGP 8x ATI card is the X850 XT Platinum Edition. The slightly older 9800 XT is still a very good card as well. PCI-E under 98SE is very "iffy" - it works for some and not for others, but in your case you will need proper driver support for your video card for games, and only a very small handful of PCI-E cards have 98 compatible drivers.

*EDIT: This works ONLY with an AMD processor. Does NOT work for an Intel processor.* This is possible, but requires full slipstreaming rather than a Service Pack. In the case of SYSDM.CPL and the CPU info, you can solve this one issue by placing a copy of the updated SYSDM.CPL (v4.10.2224 I believe?) in the \WIN98 folder that you install from (by copying it to the HDD and installing from there, or creating a new CD) along with the 98SE CAB files and then use this folder to do a new installation. The updated SYSDM.CPL will be used rather than extracting the older one from the CABs. (This works for any file that gets extracted from the CABs.)

This is a known bug when updating SYSDM.CPL after Windows 9x has been installed. As far as I know, there is no fix at the moment. It is NOT a bug in the new .CPL file, because if the new .CPL file is used during original SETUP, then the CPU info is displayed normally. The CPU info display under System Properties is very "finicky" and sometimes behaves strangely.

MSAA 1.3 SDK

Thanks! You're becoming the new MDGx for Windows 9x.

You might try using RLoew's DLLHOOK program to redirect the FlashWindowEx call to another function...

Qshare seems to be dead. I have uploaded it to zShare, but who knows how long that will last either. EDIT: New link: INTEL_INF_98SE.ZIP - 44.9 Kb

I'm sure there is, but that's not the right way to do it, and I have never tried to do so. Besides, once those devices are identified, it triggers the detection of others. That's what is supposed to happen. I suggest you start from the beginning. Install Windows 98SE, then install the Intel INF package I linked before doing anything else. If 98SE hangs on shutdown, give it a minute or so and press RESET and allow everything to continue. Sometimes you will see shutdown problems under 9x on newer systems. Once the drivers are installed, it should not be a problem, but if it still is I suggest you download and install the 98SE Shutdown HotFix.

You have to use the last 98SE compatible version of the Intel Chipset INF utility. The version provided by Intel for that board incorrectly claims 98 support. All of the other provided drivers do work.

The problem with simply redirecting the installer to 127.0.0.1 or another site would be if the installer actually expects a certain response. It's worth trying, but I think that the installer would eventually run when the machine isn't connected to the Internet if it were that easy...

Hmmm... It must have a URL coded into it somewhere to check. You might be able to hex edit that, but if it waits for a response no matter what then I don't know how much good it would do. The trick would be giving it the response it expects - maybe the version check mechanism could be broken, but that's over my head. You might also try searching for command line switches for the installer, there's always a possibility that some existed. If you could get the package to install silently or even just extract itself it might be a step in the right direction...

If that is the first thing to appear, it suggests that the installer is automatically checking for updates. Have you tried running the installer while not connected to the Internet?

Still depends on the game. WarCraft III for example was designed to run on Windows 98, but can sometimes still get laggy with 2GB of RAM depending on the number of players, etc. You can never have "too much" RAM, provided you have the right patches to handle it.

Definitely a hardware issue. Probably the 512MB SDRAM module is somehow incompatible with the motherboard, or possibly the CPU. A look at the manual reveals that there are some potential issues. If the DIMM has more than 18 chips it is not supported. Assuming the 512MB DIMM is PC-100 or PC-133, then the CPU FSB must be either 100MHz or 133MHz also.

You should be able to use any generic USB Hub and it should be supported by default, or if not, it should work with a USB2 stack loaded. However what you're describing can be achieved with a couple of extension cables. I have used this method myself recently during a project I've been involved in that required extensive testing/connecting/disconnecting various USB devices.

I don't consider myself "expert" enough to answer your question with a definite "yes or no," I have not actually used more than one HDD for booting purposes in a multiboot setup. But I will point out another issue that you will need to make a decision about before you actually install OSes. Do you want each of these OSes to be able to access the other OSes' partitions? In other words, do you want to be able to access the Windows XP C: partition from Windows 98SE, or the 98SE C: partition from XP? - etc etc. I know I will catch flak for this from some of the other users participating in this thread , but I always hide each operating system from the others. If I want files to be accessible in multiple OSes I create "shared" partitions that are accessible to all the desired systems. I never allow 2K/XP in particular to see my Windows 9x partitions and infest them with NTLDR, etc. If some problem arises that requires the access of one OS partition in another OS, I can always go and make it visible for that particular occasion.

I use UltraEdit and UltraCompare. Any idea how those measure up?

Hmm.. really? For the record, I never stated or argued that MSCDEX was better. I simply refused to blindly accept the statement that SHSUCDX was better, as I have never had a problem with MSCDEX. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. Oh, the arrogance...

Offtopic: Even though I'm considered rather computer-abled for my age, my brain BSOD'd while reading the documentation for RFDISK So with the information that I've gathered from your post and the docs, I'm lead to understand that RFDISK can 'hide' partitions so that OSes can't see them. Is that true? I do multiboot setups on virtually all of my machines, and I personally use the "GUI" boot mangers System Commander 8 or BootIt NG to manage different operating systems. I do have a copy of RFDISK though, and have done some experimenting with it. Despite the well intentioned advice given here about GRUB4DOS, I would have to put in a vote against it. If you find RFDISK confusing, then GRUB4DOS will be as well. There are some good things to be said for GRUB4DOS, but I am not a fan of it.

Windows 98FE never gave me anything but trouble. It was never stable in any configuration that I have seen. IMO, 95 OSR 2.x is a better choice than 98FE. There is no reason to use 98FE over SE unless you have some specific attachment to FE. Being a 95 OSR2.x lover , even after using 98SE, I do understand if you have some attachment to 98FE, so I'm not bashing your choice, but just pointing out my experiences on the matter.