Tommy

Thanks for the info, dencorso. I was actually a bit worried when I saw that reading so I shut the computer off and haven't used it since then. lol I just wondered if it had anything to do with the problem I started experiencing. I thought at first it had something to do with RLoew's RAM patch because when I shut down Windows 98, I always get the error saying error writing to device AUX and the only thing I can do is shut the machine off manually because if I try to do fail or ignore, then it just start beeping and won't stop. Memtest didn't find anything wrong with the RAM and RLoew said there wasn't any bugs in his patch that he knows of so I thought maybe something is wacky with the CPU.

Okay, so I've been having a bit of a problem with my Windows 98 machine. Today while just poking around in the BIOS, I noticed the numbers we all good in the PC Health Section except for one, the CPU Vcore -5V was being reported around -61.69V. That's DEFINITELY not right. So, what could this be, a power supply issue or the CPU going bad? The computer itself seems to work okay most of the time except lately sometimes it seems to lock up for no reason. But I just put this board into a different case with a different power supply so I do not know the history of this power supply too much. So it could've been doing this with the other case and power supply as well but I do not know. Although the CPU seemed to be running a bit hot at almost 130F at idle. So what should I look into first? Suggestions? Edit: It's a Pentium 4 Northwood 2.6GHz processor. It was overclocked slightly at one time but I have since loaded optimized values in the BIOS and that made no difference to this issue. I've heard Northwoods were a bit fussy.

I believe the really early versions of Pale Moon will run on Windows 98SE without KernelEx, seems to be it follows Firefox so after version 2, it won't work anymore unless you use KernelEx. I'm a regular Pale Moon user myself, both on 98SE and 2000. On 98, I use the Portable version 3.6 and for the installed version, I use 6. 7 seems just a tad buggy for me but 6 is pretty stable despite the handicap of not memorizing websites or using favorites.

Probably because many don't like the garbage Microsoft has been cranking out lately. I don't look forward to Windows 10 at all. I don't need all that Cortona garbage or anything. I just want something that does its job and that's Windows 2000. In fact I've had more trouble with XP than I have with 2000. And while I'm on the subject of Windows 10....why is that new start menu necessary? I don't not like what I see in that at all. Who wants blocks of uselessness when the classic start menu of Windows 95 was perfect for years. Just more eye candy and new garbage to keep people buying new stuff because they're out of ideas on how to improve upon something that was already great. The way I see it, Windows 2000 could've been the last Windows ever just because of how awesome it is. I think they ran out of ideas after that and basically everything was recycled up until Windows 8 and then they decided to put all that tile garbage in just to call it new. But then I guess for the average computer user now, it's all about Facebook, Twitter, and the internet. I wouldn't call the first two productivity by a long shot. So while MS continues to release crap, I will continue to use Windows 2000 and have a nice clean interface that's not distracting.

I'll be 110 when 2099 hits, so I'm not too worried about the date. LOL I was actually ridiculed in 2005 that I was still using Windows 2000 and not Windows XP because Windows XP was still the newest and greatest! Because my new computer came with Windows XP Home Edition and I originally installed Windows 98 over it and then a few years later I installed Windows 2000 on it. I've been using Windows 2000 almost everyday since 2003-2004 just because it's really a great operating system. Because of the Kernel Extensions, it makes it very usable to me even to this day. There are only a few things that I have that don't work on it but it's not the biggest deal ever. But I plan on running Windows 2000 for as long as I possibly can alongside of Windows 98. Windows is a lost soul now and all that other junk that's come out since 7 especially is not Windows. Windows used to be simple and it got the job done. Now eye candy and piracy protection is more important than usability. Tsk tsk.

I've personally always preferred nVidia over ATI graphics myself as nVidia just seems more compatible and flexible than ATI. In my 2000 box I'm running an 8600GT card and it's been really good. I feel like eventually I could upgrade to something better, but the need has never arisen yet.

It's possible he still has it in production but it's just halted for the time being. I was hoping at one point he'd finish it but until then, at least we have the unofficial rollup packages as well. It makes life a lot easier especially since I don't really like any of the Windows versions past 2000. And to the people who said you can make XP look like 2000, looks =/= actual usability. Just because something 'looks' like it, doesn't mean it still works the same way. I personally feel with the unofficial updates, 2000 has surpassed XP because of the NT6 extensions added into the dlls.

Tomasz86 at one point was in the process of making unofficial service pack 5.2 but has never finished it to my knowledge as he's quite a busy guy and has never even released a beta or anything to people like me to test it so unless that gets released or someone else very dedicated to 2000 comes along and decides to do so, I'd say your chances of seeing an USP6 made is very slim. And I really agree, Windows 2000 with unofficial updates is extremely usable in 2015. Unless a lot of things change, I'd say Windows 2000 will be usable until at least 2020.

The browser in itself might be too old. In fact when I try Facebook on Windows 98 using as late as Firefox 3, comments do some wacky things there too. They do show up but they tend to have weird characters placed in them and also when you go to type in text to post a comment, the text box doesn't drop down so you're limited to viewing one line as you type and so either you have to be lucky and not make any mistakes, or you have to type it in a word processor and then copy and paste to post. So I know it really doesn't answer your question but I thought I'd at least throw this in too as I think that version of Opera is older than Firefox 3.6 so it might be a standard that version of Opera might not support. Did you try going http://m.facebook.comto view it as a simple mobile site? It looks really bad but at least you could verify if comments show up then.

Here's an update: My await RAM came today and I was able to throw it into my machine and voila, it booted up fast and without problems! It recognizes all 2GBs of it. I'm going to throw in an actual AGP card and my Windows 98SE computer will be quite a decent one. I will post screenshots later when I get to it.

And my test is a success! My HP Pavilion Media Center edition had 4 slots on the motherboard and 512MBX4=2GBs less for the onboard graphics. Now I cannot wait to get the RAM for the computer this is to be used on. But it totally works! Thanks for the awesome patch, Mr. Loew! I love rockin' Windows 98!

I think part of my problem isn't from the mods themselves, but it seems temperamental to wireless network adapters. When I get a BSoD, it's usually something network related. As for Windows 98, I had a laptop I used a wireless network adapter on and I've never seen such problems. When I'd download something using the adapter, it seemed as though it was always corrupt or had a bad crc checksum. Even though they work, I don't think wireless networks were designed for anything under XP, but that's just what I think.

That's actually what I did, I found a 2GB kit on an auction for 4.99USD and it was nearly over and nobody bid on it so I did. I won it so aside from that and shipping, it was only 7.28USD. I didn't think that was too bad at all. If the need arises, I may even look for more kits like that. The surprising thing is, I'm starting to like Windows 98 more than Windows 2000. Windows 2000 is quite good to me but once in a while gets a bit temperamental and gets to the point I need to hit the reset button. I haven't seen a BSoD on Windows 98 in ages.

Thanks for all the help, guys! Dencorso, I actually have installed the patch already and I hopped down to my local computer shop just to see if they would have any 1GB DDR sticks but sadly, they didn't. But I might have a computer downstairs that I can try out with it that has 4 slots since I have plenty of 512MB modules. I didn't use the /M switch but I can always go back and fix that. I'm excited to have more than 1GB of RAM on Windows 98. I have a HP Media Center Pavilion that this could possibly work out on. I rescue many Pentium 4 and even a few very early Dual Core computers from the local computer shop and take them home instead of watching them go for recycle. But the sad thing is, many of them only have 2 slots on the motherboard which makes them hard to push past 1GB unless you have the 1GB sticks. Also about your disclaimer, I also unplug the machine from the wall and hold down the power button to help discharge the electricity going through it. It's amazing on MBs with lights on them, how long they'll stay lit, even after you pull the power cord.

I actually purchased the patch last night and Mr. Loew delivered it last night to my email. He's a very pleasant person to work with and honest so no worries about him taking your money and running. I have the patch installed but I do not have RAM that will push my 98 machine past 1GB yet so that's on order. So I want to know, will I need to mess around with vcache and maxfilecache with the RAM patch or no?

Hey, thanks for the information you two. I don't know how to answer your last question Dencorso since I stopped eating fast food about 5 years ago but I imagine it's a bit up there these days. I really would like to max out my Win98 machine as much as I can and maybe even start using it more as a main machine instead of a secondary one since it takes less power being a Pentium 4 as opposed to Athlon 64 X2. RLoew seems awesome as hell when it comes to making 9x a lot better so probably soon I will take the dive in and get the patch. I remember when I ran Windows 98 in 2002 with only 384MBs of RAM, seems quite paltry now. lol

Okay, so I'm on the fence with this one and I'm thinking about purchasing RLoew's RAM patch. I'm currently sitting at 1GB as it is and my motherboard can support 2GBs maximum. I really don't do much with the computer except for working with MS Office, IRC, Project 64, and a bit of internet browsing. So what I want to know is, would I honestly benefit from having the extra gig installed with the patch or will it basically be a worthless upgrade? I feel trying to locate 2GBs of DDR RAM and being able to test it out for only 10 minutes at a time wouldn't suit my fancy so maybe a few others who have this installed would be able to help me out here.

You do need service pack 4 + Update Rollup 1 for AVG to work though, so I dunno when they say vanilla if they mean the absolute original or if they at least have SP4 installed.

I've been using Windows 2000 for the better of 12 years. I'm still running on my main home computer to this day and I think it's quite stable and using the unofficial updates by blackwingcat and tomasz86 turn it into one hell of a good machine. Along with that, it doesn't take a lot of resources like Windows NT 6 does. I really never use XP anymore simply because I think with unofficial updates, Windows 2000 is far superior to Windows XP as far as extensions and support goes, except for a few programs and some drivers. But if you want something that's solid, stable, and works well even in today's world without the headaches of activation and the new themes, Windows 2000 is definitely worth it. I've given Windwos 7 a spin the last few days and honestly....I really don't like it. I hate how it handles updates for one thing, especially when the computer needs to reboot once or twice each time you start up the computer, that just plain sucks. That and the fact that it looks fuzzy on this monitor. I don't run it at the native resolution because I can't see it that well, but I run the next one under it so I run at 1440x900 and under 2000, it looks very good. But under Windows 7, it looks a bit like garbage, it's unclear and icky. Aero is kinda cool but too resource hungry for me to care about the eye candy. But before I rattle on too much about Windows 7, I'll just say that it's still my favorite and I still prefer it over XP, Vista, 7....and I'm not even going to say 8....

Hey buddy, how's it going? Well, I'm using the drivers that came with the sound card itself. I tried installing the XP version which has worked in the past but this time it just froze my machine. I'm working with Professional as well so I might try the XP drivers on the professional version because I know it always worked if you extracted the drivers with WinZip. But doing the PAE enabling even on professional produces the same results. So I'll go ahead and try the updated drivers.

I'm experiencing some weird artifacts from enabling physical address extension on my computer. I have 5GBs of RAM installed and Windows 2000 Advanced Server with is suppose to support up to 8GBs of RAM but it doesn't seem to unless you enable PAE. However, enabling PAE seems to have one very very vital flaw on my machine. Upon booting and the sound driver is enabled, all I get is constant static. This happens even during booting and will not quit until I get out of Windows completely and into the version that doesn't have PAE going. If I go into the non-PAE version, sound works just fine, but I'm limited once again to 3.2GBs of RAM. What's going on here? I've been thinking about switching to Windows 7 Pro and I've even played around with it a bit, but it's still not my beloved Windows 2000. But I would like the extra RAM working which is why I gave Advanced Server a try. Checking Blackwingcat's blog, he apparently has a Win2000 Advanced Server machine with 8GBs of RAM so there must be a way for me to get this working.

Blackwingcat, how can I use the disable server function on the KDW wrapper tool fcwin2k? I'm running Windows 2000 Advanced Server and I want to install AVG9 however, it will not install due to it being a server product. But the disable server function is always grayed out and I cannot check it, even on Advanced Server. How can I go about doing this?

Sounds good. I just wanted to warn you ahead of time so your hard work isn't erased accidentally.

The only thing is, I believe everytime you install a new kernel update, this will be replaced so make sure you keep a backup of it so you can put it back after you're done with the update.

I think Blackwingcat has this listed on his blog at http://blog.livedoor.jp/blackwingcat, I remember Outlook 2007 having issues as well but since I only had the standard edition, I never got to try it out. I did like how Office 2007 has the blue toolbars in it like Office 2003 is suppose to have but doesn't on Windows 2000 due to the classic theme not being the luna theme.