LoneCrusader

The SOYO board that I referred you to will use up to a 3.06 GHz Pentium 4 with Hyper Threading Not to mention the fact that all of the drivers for this board also work with systems back to Windows 95 (with the one exception of USB 2.0). There are a multiplicity of Pentium III boards that support ISA, including some from Intel. The MOBOT website has a very good search system, you can look around there. I must confess I am unfamiliar with this issue.. Somewhere around here I have an AMD K6-2 570MHz chip, AFAIK it was the highest rated one, and very rare. I never actually used it on a daily basis, only experimented with it a couple of times. It POSTed properly on a Shuttle HOT 591P motherboard, I remember there was an odd setting that I had to figure out, as it required a different frequency than a 550MHz chip.

I have several computers with that same motherboard.. I used to collect them on eBay At that time I was still stuck using Dial-Up Internet, and insisted on being able to use my US Robotics 56k ISA modem if I upgraded my hardware further. This led me on a search for newer motherboards that supported ISA. There are several Pentium III motherboards that have ISA slots, including the DFI CB60-BX and CB61 and if you really want to bump up your hardware, there is always the SOYO P4 I845PE ISA. I have several of these boards, and I have never had a problem with any of them. Too bad SOYO no longer makes motherboards.

Yes, yes. I remember how much I hated Windows 98 when it was first released. I had been using 95B OSR2, and had never used 95/95A, so when I heard people complain about 95 and say 98 was such an improvement, I was like "you people are crazy." I had a friend who had a 98FE machine and it was constantly crashing just with simple and everyday things that I had no issues with. He called me up for the first time in years a few months back and he was surprised that I wasn't still using 95, haha

@larryb123456 - I can assure you that you have nothing to worry about in giving this patch a try. I have worked with RLoew before on a couple of projects, and his knowledge and expertise are invaluable. Follow the backup instructions dencorso gave you and give it a shot.

I agree with your point, was just pointing out that the issues do have a solution. Yes, I always just start work on a new system with 512MB of RAM installed. I know that some members here have been able to use more than 512MB by adjusting this or that setting or by using the USP, however, in my own experience none of these ever worked. RLoew's patch solves the problem in seconds and no more tweaking, hassle, what have you. Its the only method I recommend. As far has a typical user having > 512MB of RAM, it depends on what they expect to use their system for. The average computer user would probably not be willing to go through the process of setting up a Windows 9X machine today, so most people who are attempting this are not "typical" or "average." If the user intends to use their computer for gaming, I can definitely say that > 512MB of RAM is very beneficial, even for games that were originally released for Windows 9X (WarCraft III comes to mind here). I can also say that on one occasion before I installed > 512MB of RAM on this machine that I managed to crash the system by using up all of the available memory... on one single webpage with one window of Firefox open. It was some news article with thousands of comments, so not something you run across every day, but it is easily resolved by a RAM upgrade. IMHO, if your motherboard can handle it, by all means upgrade RAM to the max.

Although I do not believe that it is related to the OP's problem, it's worth noting that all of the problems that 9x has with processors > 2GHz have been solved. MS issued a fix for Win 98 FE {Here}, and I have created a program that fixes the issue for Win 95 {Here}. I can also confirm that I was never able to install vanilla Windows 98 SE with more than 512MB of RAM onboard. It should be possible using RLoew's patch and the associated method however.

The ATi Catalyst 6.2 drivers are the last official ones for Windows 98. Although ATi's driver search for 98/ME will not lead you to it, this driver package contains drivers for the X800 series up to the X800 XT Platinum Edition. I have not used these myself, so I cannot vouch for their operability. Have a look at this thread. I have a computer under construction that I plan to use a X800 XT Platinum Edition card in, if I can ever get the time to work on it.

No problem. I used 7-Zip to make the archive to begin with though...

Excellent! I will have to give it a try on a 95 install when I get my test system back up and running again. Following this same logic, I wonder if it is possible to use the same method on 98SE to defeat some sites that already want you to upgrade to Flash 10?

****UPDATE 4-23-2010**** Version 2.0 Released See the first post in this thread for a complete description of the changes. Get the new version here: FIX95CPU.ZIP

I use swap files instead of swap partitions on all of my Linux installs (the only exception being my first experiment with Linux). And, it is possible to move the Windows swap file to a different partition as dencorso pointed out. So what you are wanting should be possible, provided Linux and Windows don't have a problem using the same file.

I wonder if it would be possible to spoof the flash version reported to the website, just like how the User Agent Switcher can report a newer version of Firefox? I have a feeling this is a "false incompatibility" they have introduced. Anyone got an idea how to do this? EDIT: I did some searching and experimenting here on my 98SE/FF 2.0.0.20 system. (I recall seeing a website where someone had managed to get FF2 running on 95) I don't have a 95 test system set up at the moment. I downloaded a FF2 compatible version of "Flash Switcher" and it seems to work under 98, even though the author's website said it had only been tested under XP. I used it to switch my Flash version back to 7, and it did so without running an Adobe installer, or if it did use one, it was "silent". (Possibly might let you do an end-run around the OS version requirements for a newer flash version? ) Then I visited YouTube with Flash 7 and got the message you described. A quick look at the source code for the page yielded this: It would seem that it you can manage to get Flash 8 running on a 95 system, it would pass the compatibility check. I will run some further tests as soon as I can find the time.

The easiest way to do it is this: keep the old version of explorer.exe renamed to any other extension (.ori will do OK) in any convenient folder of your liking or even in c:\windows. Then right-click the desktop and find the tab that shows the especial icons. Select the icon you want to change and point it to the old icon in the old explorer file. If this generic explanation is too vague, I can give you a step-by-step one as soon as I'm using 98SE (but, at the moment I'm on XP). While we're on this subject, I have a question. I have been trying out some of the various "updates" that are available here on a test 98SE system (USP, 98SE2ME, etc) in preparation for the new system I'm building. While I love the idea of adding new functionality, I (in most cases) do not care for changing how my system looks. I might be able to get used to some of the Windows ME desktop icons, but there's one specific thing that really irks me... I do not like the Windows ME Recycle Bin icon. I know how to change the ones on the desktop with the same method described here, but that does not change the one on the tree view inside Windows Explorer. Is it possible to change this?

I was running VMware Workstation when I saw the error. (May use the same driver(s) as VPC, I'm fairly new to VM's so I don't know, , thought I should mention it though.) @mjdbb1 Please specify whether or you were running in a VM or a real machine.

I have also seen this error. I did not post about it because I do not have any screenshots from it, I was only testing KEX in a VM for the first time. I was running a clean install of 98SE with only Plus! 98, DX9 (Dec2006), IE6SP1, WMP7.1, and specific updates required for KEX installed. I was using Firefox 3.0.18, and no text would be visible at all in the menus, or on visited websites. What was more bizarre, is if I watched very closely, when I first opened Firefox, the text would be there. Then it would shrink down into the "underlines" as if it were being squashed Rebooting the VM would sometimes partially fix the text, but "null characters" would still be visible in some places, especially in the menus, there was always one at the end of each item in a menu.

I have a C:\WINDOWS\UserData folder on my machine. It seems to contain a few garbage XML files containing references to google.com, yahoo.com, cnn.com, etc. One link that is referenced that stands out is: www.google.com/IsOnIE6tbPromo this leads me to believe it must be somehow related to IE6. I would think there should be no ill effects from deleting this junk.

My own personal experience with more than 512MB of RAM has led me to believe there is only one "good" solution - buy rloew's RAM patch. Before doing so I tried some of the other methods described in those threads you referenced, including the Unofficial Service Pack, and my system either would not boot with more than 512MB of RAM, or was unstable. Maybe some of the other members can help you if you wish to experiment further with the free methods. You should post exactly which methods you have tried, and what the results of each experiment were so they will know how to advise you.

Linux will "see" all partitions on your disk whether they are hidden or not. As far as I know, the location of the swap partition does not matter. I know someone is going to disagree with this or say it's the "wrong" way, , but it is also possible to create a swap file instead of a swap partition if one so desires. I have a swap partition for my Linux on this machine, but I have started using a swap file on other systems I set up.

Yes, we have quite an assortment of 9X'ers here, and we all stick together. Look around, you'll be amazed at all of the things you can make 98 do with the tools floating around this forum and/or created by it's members. It should be possible, although I would not recommend it. It is dependent on several factors, the software you plan to use for resizing mainly. I am not familiar with Ubuntu's current setup, I have used it before on a test system, but I didn't particularly like it. Maybe some other member will have more insight on this.

dencorso is right First, be 100% sure you have BIOS support for HDD's >137GB. Second, make sure you have an updated 98 driver for the >137GB HDD. Once those are done, the rest can be sorted out.

Check out this thread on Hard Drives Larger than 137GB. While I have not attempted a setup exactly like yours, I run a multi-boot system with 98SE, XP, and RedHat Linux 9, using VCOM System Commander as my bootloader. There are several alternatives when it comes to bootloaders. My system is partitioned like this: 1st Primary - 98SE 2nd Primary - XP Extended - Logical 1 - RedHat 9 - Logical 2 - Swap with storage partitions on a second drive. My own personal recommendation is that you set up your partitions manually and not allow any OS to "modify" another OS's partition, this can lead to unforseen errors. if you decide to take this route, you may want to check out these tools: Ranish Partition Manager & XOSL

It does not matter what size the partition you create for 98 or any other OS is, a hard disk larger than 137GB will eventually be corrupted unless you have a patched driver for your Windows 98 install. EDIT: Excepting the scenario described by rloew above.

Based on what I have been able to find, the TV Wonder Pro does seem to be the last ATI card officially supported on 9X. If someone knows otherwise, please advise. I hardly ever watch TV either, I've just been considering adding one to the new system I'm building in case I do decide to watch something, or more likely wish to record something. I suppose it would not HAVE to be ATI, so long as it could be configured to function properly and suitable software could be found...

Hmmm.. Interesting. I had been under the impression that such a program would depend on the OS for access to a partition, and that partition would have to be "recognized" by the OS for this to occur. (i.e. NT and Linux systems see all partitions whether they are assigned a letter/mounted or not) Definitely something to think about. Thanks again.

I'd like to undermine , at least partially , your certainties about "safety" of hidden partitions. Please read this: http://homepages.tesco.net/J.deBoynePollard/FGA/determining-filesystem-type.html and this: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10169 In NT based systems a hidden partition is not much different from having a partition with no letter attached. jaclaz should + may /= certainties I have very limited experience when it comes to malware problems, having only gotten a virus once in my lifetime of computing experience even though I do not use Antivirus software. So I normally do not address the subject, I only did so in this case because the discussion was directed toward me. Thanks for the info though, especially concerning NT. XP (along with other NT-based Windows) is only a "means to an end" for me on any of my systems. I have it for two reasons only - for playing games that require it or running specific programs that require it, and occasionally for dealing with >4GB files. I would never dream of using it on the internet. When the day comes that my 98SE cannot take me wherever I want to go online, I will use Linux.