Tommy

Can anyone verify this? I clicked on both links and both produce dead results.

Debatable on that front; I wouldn't recommend the USP to someone unless they were familiar with backing up their system before attempting it and subsequently knowing how to verify that everything still works as expected once it's installed. I'm not trying to start an argument here, but some of the files contained in it do not work as intended with all systems; the later versions of the 2K USB2 stack drivers in particular. I've always personally had good luck. But at least I really like the main updates feature, that at least should get you much more updated files than a vanilla version of 98SE.

The problem is, a lot of people think they can use lots of RAM or even newer motherboards and get away with not having to use Rloew's patches. While you might luck out on some of it, if you're serious about using over a gig of RAM with Windows 98, then his RAM patch is a must. But running more than a gig without his patch will produce the same effect, no matter what motherboard you use. But like I said, if you're serious about this, it's really worth the investment and if you have any problems, he will answer you. So he's not a shady character to be careful of. Basically if you're going with add-on video, sound, and network, then you're really not *too* limited on motherboards. Although I just recently built a machine with a Gigabyte GA-965GM-S2 Rev 2 motherboard and even though it had an IDE port and even could run in IDE mode, Windows 98 still didn't like it and I ended up having to get Rloew's SATA patch as well which wasn't too bad either since it just installs like a regular driver. You could run it in compatibility mode but it's slow, unstable, and just not a good experience. But for a $32 investment for those two patches, it's really worth it in my opinion. A small tip of advice, if you happen along an NVIDIA Quadro FX1500 card which will work with Windows 98 and the fan is really really loud, there is a BIOS update for the card itself and once you flash it, it will quiet the fan down considerably, since before it ran on full throttle mode constantly. Just a little FYI there. I honestly didn't install any chipset drivers for my build. USB worked out of the box, and the way the BIOS works, my USB wireless mouse and even if I left a flash drive plugged in, they both worked in safe mode and the flash drive was just recognized as a hard drive, not a removable drive, but still useful! So yes, USB worked out of the box. I had add-on video and sound. I have a USB wireless adapter for internet/networking so I didn't need the onboard LAN to work. I did need the SATA patch because of the mentioned above. I'm also running the RAM patch since I have 4GBs of RAM installed but only a little over 3 gigs is recognized by the OS itself because hence, it's 32-bit, and that's just how 32-bit rolls. But when you look for a motherboard, as mentioned above as well, definitely go with Award. Gigabyte is pretty much a safe bet since they didn't switch to AMI until this dumb UEFI BIOS garbage came along. Like seriously...why is it necessary in the first place? But anything socket 775/socket AM2+ and possible AM3 should pretty much be Award. But to be sure, an example. http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=2617#sp(This is actually my 98 board) You will see in the specs, that it uses Award. Stay far away from AMI for Windows 98. (Or completely in my opinion teehee) Of course you're free to use whatever brand board you wish, but Gigabyte has been a personal favorite of mine, I've owned four so far. I've heard some MSI boards use Award but many use AMI from what I saw. Biostar used to use Award for quite a while but I think after the early socket 775 models, it switched to AMI as well. ASRock will always be AMI, and Asus is pretty much AMI as well from what I heard, although some Asus boards from OEM seem to use what I call an Award/Phoenix hybrid BIOS. (Award was purchased by Phoenix, but if you're familiar with BIOSes, then you'd know what I was talking about). So yeah, if you can even get your hands on like the original Sound Blaster Audigy, it works with Windows 98 as well, X-Fi and Live 24-bit are completely out as far as I know. But keep posting in this thread, I'll do my best to help you out since I've had quite a few experiences with Windows 98 and getting it to run so now I'm a lot more knowledgeable with running it as well. Of course once you get Windows 98 installed, USP3 is pretty much a must. Edit: Also, his patches are completely software related, so theoretically, they should work with ANY motherboard. You can even use his RAM patch on machines that only have 512MBs and below. SATA is pretty much 'about' guaranteed to work but if you're not sure, talk to him, he'll help you get up and running one way or another. Rloew might even chime in on this thread later on and explain more.

I don't see why there'd be a problem unless you claim it was all your own work finding them. Having up-to-date Windows 2000 resources is a great idea, it makes it much easier on all of us to find stuff rather than having to spend hours looking for updates. Man, I remember when Windows NT still had a place on Microsoft's website...talk about how time flies now that XP and 2000 links are disappearing.

Archived downloads is good, they seem to work okay on my end. I do like it actually. I'd almost like to create a separate thread for all those kinds of links and then add it to my thread of important links to Windows 2000 topics.

If you're going to use widescreen, I'd definitely suggest NVIDIA. ATI doesn't seem to do well with widescreen as I've been battling that for quite some time and I ended up just finally getting an NVIDIA card since this is hooked up to my television. So, when you said "fully compatible" do you mean that you want everything to work straight out of the box, or at least get a machine that's working with Windows 98? I'm supposing the former but I like to be sure.

Contact Rloew http://rloew.x10host.com/ or http://rloew.x10host.com/Programs/Patchm.htm (more specifically with information to his patch) He'll get you set up. I highly recommend his patch. It's $21 but well worth it and actually pretty much necessary for using over a gig of RAM. But please note that the link on his site is only for a demo, but it at least gives you enough time to test out the patch to make sure it works out for you.

Personally, I do not like virtualization of machines. It doesn't always run the programs you want it to, especially if it's 3D related. MS Virtual PC I don't think runs 3D at all. But I was also thinking it's probably DirectX related or the "virtual hardware" isn't capable of running those games.

About time people start wising up a bit!

For the life of me, I can't figure out why you'd want to control a toilet with your smartphone, but there you go... Merely the thought of installing an operating system on a commode just boggles the mind. Imagine the possibilities if it were Windows 10 IoT Core, phoning home. Do we really want to be that connected? Your toilet needs some updates and needs to restart.We've scheduled a time we think is convenient for you.--JorgeA This honestly....is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. I think we can safely say that the only reason you'd ever want to control your toilet with a *shudders* smartphone....is because you can....

I recently installed Windows 98 on a 965GM motherboard and it was a bit tricky. Does your computer have all SATA or does it have some IDE ports? SATA might be a problem and you might need Rloew's SATA patch in order for your drives to work correctly or at optimum performance. You might not need anything important as far as drivers goes for the motherboard. From what I'm seeing, it's a gray area for 945 chipset drivers but I really didn't install any chipset drivers on my machine and it still works just fine. But I too had to install a separate video card and sound card. Could you give us a bit more information on the actual motherboard since all boards are just a bit different? Like I said, knowing if it has IDE/SATA will help also give us an insight of what you'll need to get up and working properly. Also, on a computer like that, I always recommend using the /p i switch when starting setup because of ACPI issues with Windows 98 and newer computers.

Really?? That's interesting because I could've sworn that NVidia sets it at 1360, but maybe I'm just remembering wrong. That or it just sets it as that. I've never used any other OS with it either. From what I can tell *at this point*, that 1024x768 is UNSTOPPABLE! Super VGA 1600x1200, no difference, I even used monitor drivers from Windows 2000 which actually *seem* to work and even has the Chicago signature on it and it even references Windows 95 still. But even that made no difference. I can try PowerStrip and see what I come up with. I ordered an NVidia Quadro X1500 from another seller and it should be here Monday, but I'd still like to at least figure out what is going on here. Windows 2000 doesn't seem to have this quirky problem. But something I found interesting is when I'd go into the registry and change the key for the ATI Control Panel's "quick resolutions", I'd either add or change 1024 to 1360...and upon reboot, it silently changes it back or deletes the key if I added it in.

I always use 60Hz for the refresh rate. The model of the TV is Toshiba 32C120U1. I sort of tried the super vga monitor driver but it was before I actually removed all the other "monitors" hooked up to the system so I'm going to try that again and see what happens. Like I said, NVidia works perfectly out of the box, no configuration needed, but ATI just has this weird problem.

Is there a benefit to using FAT32 with a Windows 2000 installation, particularly if you're not using 9x? I'm just curious as to why you went with FAT32 instead of NTFS for Windows 2000, or did you use something else to make the partition?

DirectX 9.0c will be the only version you'll need, or can install actually. You can't go backwards since the installers will tell you there is a newer version available. And if you go from old to new, the installers will just overwrite the old version. USP3 from Problemchyld also includes a version of DirectX 9.0c in it which I think might be the gaming version but I wouldn't say for sure.

I've been looking but I haven't noticed any. And I kinda knew that already because I had a Radeon 9550 that also did this stupid thing. I'm tempted to go into the monitor.inf file and manually change anything that says 1024 to 1360 and see what happens. Can't hurt anything I don't imagine.

Hey jumper, I think you might be on the right track, but it still seems like I'm stuck at 1024x768. I went into safe mode and removed all my monitors so it would detect it fresh. Now it does detect it as a Toshiba-TV, but it's still not letting me go higher than 1024 without this panning crap.

That's one reason why I hate widescreen monitors, because of native resolutions. 4:3 LCD monitors are a bit more forgiving but I have a cheaper monitor from 10 years ago that unless it was at the native resolution, text was all jagged and cut off and just generally bad looking.

Okay, I see exactly what you're saying now. I actually didn't install the control panel this time so I'm wondering if there is a registry key that can change that problem.

Hi, thanks for the reply guys. Now, here is where the real problem lies. I have the option now to change to 1360x768 (I actually modded the registry the first time but this time I followed the instructions to add the option to the drivers themselves which I sort of started to begin with) but what it's doing is only showing 1024x768 pixels at a time. So in order to show the rest of the pixels, when you move your mouse pointer, it pans in that direction to reveal the other pixels cut off from the 1024x768 limit. So what's going on here is that even though I forced it to 1360x768, it's not a true "fit" and only pans instead. It's very irritating. NVidia works just fine, never had an issue with that on this television, ever. But I'd still like confirmation if those cards I listed above work, in case I'm able to get a different card due to the one being shipped being no good.

'kay, so my NVidia Geforce came today and it's a dud, I think the pins are damages so the motherboard won't pick it up. So while I'm waiting for the seller, here's my question. I have an ATI Radeon X600 PCI-E card that works just fine under Windows 98. It actually has the nonstandard DMS-59 connector on it but that's not important. What is important is...getting 1360x768 resolution working. Now, I've ebbed away from Radeon since Windows 98 doesn't seem to play nicely with widescreen and ATI, at least from what I can tell. So, apparently the control panel recognizes my monitor as being 1024x768, it's actually a 32 inch Toshiba television capable of 1360x768 and that's the resolution I'm aiming for. Now this is why I always go for NVidia because it seems to work perfectly with this resolution. Now when I go ahead and try forcing it to use 1360x768, it does this stupid screen panning thing. All the information will not stay on the screen at once. It seems to work just fine but I need it instead of panning, to just have it fit completely on the screen. Now, I cannot figure out how to do with this the ATI Control Panel, there doesn't seem to be an option. But this was the deal with my Radeon 9550 as well. In Windows NT+ it supported widescreen just fine, but in Windows 98, no dice, it wasn't even an option. The only reason I think it was here because I took out an NVidia to begin with so my default settings were at 1360x768. So obviously it is capable of it, but something in the software is limiting it from happening. I've read it's about the driver for the monitor but that can't be, I believe the driver is the same on the GeForce. And also since I'm at it and waiting for the seller, since he has no more 6800s that I can see, would a NVIDIA Geforce FX 1300 or Nvidia Quadro FX3450 work with Windows 98 since those are for sale?

thanks for your reply i appreciate that whats your opinion on 1280x1024 5:4 Ratio I would think that'd work just fine. I don't use that resolution but I see no problem with it. What kind of old school games are you thinking about playing?

For playing old school Windows 98 games, I'd recommend a square monitor and not a widescreen one otherwise your games will look stretched unless they supported widescreen. I'd check eBay or Amazon, they'll probably have decent LCD panel monitors like that. Heck, I found a 17" Dell Monitor at Goodwill for $20, that was one heck of a price and it's in perfect condition too. As for resolution, I'd say 1024x768 would be a great resolution for most things.

If we can, let's try and keep this thread just to Windows 2000. Although starting a thread like this in the XP forum would be a great idea as well for those who are looking for these old links and cannot find them on the regular web. But that way it's easier to find when it's in the right forum.

Five Nights at Freddy's 3 appears to work flawlessly with KernelEx installed, it will not launch if disabled so it needs to be kept on enabled mode.