Tommy

I'm able to get the Standard Edition of Office 2007 fully functional on Windows 2000 as long as you slipstream Tomaz86's HF_SLIP compilation and a later version of UURollup, all I had to do was use Blackwingcat's KDW wrapper and set Office's setup.exe file to Windows XP compatibility and setup completes without a hitch. I can't say about any other version or in any other language though. And I believe the HF_SLIP compilation does have all the updates and even one of the very early UURollup packs, but I do know it has USP5.1 and Update Rollup 2 along with IE6 and DirectX 9. I also finally got an answer to my own question. It seems that I cannot make a hop skip and a jump to the June or September 2013 UURollup v11 without installing at least the weekly UURollup v11 March 2013 first, once I do that then I can install the daily June or Sept version and there's no problem at all. However, my trick to fix the audio issue no longer works with the later version so we need to find a fix for it. As I mentioned a long time ago, if you install a sound driver AFTER you install UURollup v11, the audio service is literally non-existent. I used to be able reinstall that UURollup v11 without uninstalling it first but now it doesn't work. In fact it seems that it doesn't really do anything anymore if it detects the same file versions in tact which I believe it didn't matter in the beginning of the year that it just installed a whole new copy of itself and then the audio service started working. Other than that, I haven't found anything that works to get the audio service running after you install a new audio driver.

It's probably pretty late in the game to be bringing this up but since I was forced to reinstall Windows 2000, I tried out the UURollup-v11 daily from Sept 02, 2013 and when the login is ready to come up, it hangs on preparing network connections and then NT Authority comes up saying it will shut down my system. I can log in via Safe Mode but not in regular mode. Any ideas as to why this happens? The older UURollup from March works fine but it seems like June and September's causes my machine to force a restart all the time and will not let me login at all unless I'm in safe mode.

I've come across the GCDROM solution but I'm not sure about how to go about using it, I've seen a few syntaxes you have to add and then I've heard changing the name to oakcdrom, which one is right or what is the right solution to using it?

This is a project I'm having a very hard time getting off the ground. Even if I can't get it fully functional, I'm trying to at least get Windows 98 installed on this computer. But there's a problem. I cannot get the install CD to recognize the SATA CD-ROM drive. I get that part. I do have the hard drive set as IDE and I know it is being detected as I'm able to FDISK it with no issues at all. So, my question lies with how can I get the CD-ROM drive to be recognized. I've already tried using I think it was called Magic Boot Disk V2 (It was this: http://hddguru.com/software/2006.02.10-Magic-Boot-Disk/) That doesn't recognize my CD drive, I've tried putting the installation CD on a flash drive, that didn't work, I've tried making a bootable flash drive and I couldn't get that to work either. Is there something else I can try to try getting this project rolling? Sadly this board has absolutely NO IDE channels on it except for floppy possibly but I don't even think it has that. I think it's a crappy Foxconn board that's so dumbed down. Going back to the floppy drive, that makes it harder because I don't have any floppy disks anymore and very few computers of mine have them anymore. But luckily this Dell can boot from a flash drive and also USB CD-ROM so I'm not totally out of things if I can get a few suggestions. Any suggestions is appreciated!

I've run into more issues on Windows 7 PCs that clients bring me to fix than I've had with my Windows 2000 PC. I use Advanced SystemCare v6, IOBit Malware Defender, Windows Defender and Avast! and very seldom do I run into something that's not good. So as submix8c said, you're as safe as you make your PC. I do the minimal on mine since I really don't have time for all this internet BS but if you ask me, it just really depends what you actually do on your computer. If you're downloading a bunch of crap you don't know what it is or you go to unfamiliar sites due to a search result on Google...well, good luck with that and not getting a virus/malware.

I'm an IT professional and I don't feel Windows XP is the past. Sure, it might be old, but doesn't it still work? Honestly, what does Windows 7 do that Windows XP can't do for a regular user? That's how I really look at a system. Does it do what is needed? If so, why bother changing it? If you love the eyecandy that Windows 7 provides, then by all means, go upgrade ASAP. But if you're looking for productivity, what's wrong with WinXP? On newer hardware, Windows XP is able to dominate due to its low spec requirement. It's like putting Windows 98 on a Pentium 4, it's a lot faster than having it on a Pentium Pro or Pentium II. And personally, I feel Windows 7 really slows down after using it for a few months. Maybe I'm more intense with my OS installs by doing big projects like video editing and n64 ROM hacking, but that's really beside the point. As for Office these days...it's a joke. It's not productivity, it's backwards as far as I'm concerned.

They are! If you get a computer that's more plastic than metal, you KNOW it's cheap. XD A new computer =/= better quality/better. If anything, I hate the quality of CD/DVD drives in computers now. It seemed impossible to break one long ago, now it seems the newest ones get jammed all the time and the feeder doesn't even seem as strong and powerful as some of the older drives.

Windows XP just works! That's why people are still holding onto it. Why fix something that's not broken? I don't use Windows XP anymore except for my laptop which its sole purpose is for Skyping with a webcam. Other than that my main systems are Windows 2000 and Windows 98 SE. But the fact is I really have no beef with Windows XP. It does the job fast and well. I remember when XP first came out though. I LOATHED IT! It crashed on me all the time and it was crap compared to my Windows 98 machine (back in 2002 of course ). The fact is the economy has taken a huge toll on people's wallets and they feel if Windows XP still does everything they need it to, why upgrade? Really, why? So you can keep up with the Jones'? I still think XP will be supported by hardware vendors for at least another few years. What doesn't XP have that hardware vendors can add to their products to render them completely useless? And with the fact that Windows Embedded which is based on XP will still be supported for a few more years, patches from MS can probably be ported right over to Windows XP (maybe). The fact of the matter is, not everyone is into all this upgrading and if they are, they're probably more concerned about their smartphones (which I truly hate and will never get one) and they spend their money upgrading that instead of their desktop PCs. As I see it, once MS hits the kill switch, XP will still be on desktop systems for many years to come. I still expect to see people running it up until at least 2020. Maybe not a ton of people will be using it, but I still suspect quite a few will. It works and that's what people care about. This machine I'm typing this on is a Windows 98 PC and it's running just fine and does what I want, so why upgrade?

I have an old Pentium Pro 200MHz HP Vectra XA that I still use on a semi-regular basis. I love the way it sounds when it starts up, it's just so classic. I really enjoy how robust systems were back then, so solid and heavy. Now computers generally feel like cheap, flimsy pieces of crap. I bet if I dropped my Vectra on the floor, it would suffer only minor damage and still work (aside from the shock on the hard drive maybe), but new computers are so cheap plasticy feeling that they don't feel very sturdy. I still prefer something older that is solid like a rock over something that feels like it'll fall apart the next time you touch it.

What exactly happened here? I've had major issues completely removing v11 and going back down to either stock or v10 which usually resulted in blue screen of death just before the bootup screen was ready to disappear and hand off control to the GUI.

Adblock Plus for Firefox works as far back as the late 3.6 versions which I still use myself as I don't like the newer versions so much. It seems to be trying to imitate Chrome a little bit too much for my liking that it just isn't as good to me and the fact that it seems anything too new doesn't work 100% on 98.

I second that. I've been using it since version 3 I believe it was and I've been using the paid version for 2 years now. It's well worth the price tag. A little tip though, get it around New Years, you'll get it for about $12.95 and a license for 3 PCs. Works wonders on Windows 2000! Pair it with SmartDefrag and you have a lean, mean, 2000 machine!

I can test it out on a real VGA, I'd just have to take it downstairs to my workshop though. I will do that and report back here what happens.

Alrighty, I basically tried what you said in that order submix8c and I'm still having the same issues. Maybe the TV itself is having some issues with the computer and it is causing it to do that since everything in safe mode is standard where in normal mode, drivers are in effect. It's hard to say I guess but I guess I can live with this. It seems to run better following your instructions though so I'll probably just live with it doing this. As for the updates, I have PROBLEMCHYLD's latest unofficial service pack 3 that I installed first and then I installed KernelEx 4.5.2 and that's pretty much it in the line of updates.

It's possible but it'll be difficult to find all the appropriate drivers. I doubt you'll even find XP drivers for it on their site so you might have to do a little digging online to find appropriate drivers. There are a good chance that you might find some XP drivers that will work with it but things like wireless network drivers are picky about it. You might be able to use the /PAE extension for being able to use all 4 gigs of RAM but not if you use an Intel Graphics adapter on the motherboard. Why not list all the devices in your system and we can go from there?

That's about as confused as I feel with this particular subject. I used to use Windows 98 a lot back in the early to mid 2000s as my main operating environment and never ran into something like this. But then again, all of my processors were always Intel, not AMD so this is the first time I'm actually seeing how AMD plays with Windows 98. I've also always used nvidia cards as well and never had this problem with them.

Hey guys, thanks for all the replies! I'm starting to think it's the video driver myself. I tried following some of the things mentioned for running 98SE with more than 512MBs of RAM and disabling ACPI devices. Of course I had a few problems understanding what to do with a few things and so anything that was related to ACPI, I just removed from device manager all together. Since I never did this, I didn't know what to expect. Doing this took me down to absolute barebone drivers and so when I started back up, it started readding drivers back into the database. It was getting really late before I actually finished so the standard vga adapter driver is still listed as my card instead of the nvidia and surprisingly, it shutdown without a hitch. As for my TV, I can use the widescreen 1368x786 aspect ratio (not sure if the first number is correct but it's the max resolution my TV will support). I was extremely surprised with this but with the official December 2005 drivers, I can max out the settings with no problems, but I still have the Windows Protection Error problem. But it seemed the utility for the onboard Realtek AC'97 caused part of the problem. I don't know if it was a sound manager that loaded up at startup or what it was but disabling it via msconfig, I was at least able to start restarting to the computer with no issues since even restarting had problems at first. Now I'm just down to the problem with shutting down completely and I do believe shutting down directly from safe mode works just fine as well.

I'll have to check into what driver version is actually installed. I did try the unofficial drivers at one point but ended up reverting back because my display stopped working when I'd switch it to anything higher than 16 color. It's a Toshiba TV but it has a VGA input on it so that's how I use the computer. I believe the onboard graphics was an S3 of some sort but I'll have to look to be absolutely sure. Maybe I'm remembering wrong on when this exact problem began.

I'm looking into this now, but I really don't have much on the computer. I think I just reinstalled Windows 3 days ago and really don't have much installed. I think the stuff I have installed is Skype, MS Office 2000, The Weakest Link (game), Revolutions Pack 9, Windows Media Player, USP3, FireFox 3.6, and I think that's about it outside the normal Windows 98 defaults.

As far as I know, it's just running at stock speed, but I'll go into the BIOS as I think there's a way to underclock it, I think. As I said in my one thread, the BIOS on this machine is extremely limited in options. But I bought a new Gigabyte board for this computer, unfortunately I don't think I can use 98 as my main OS, just my secondary. Also, I dunno if this has anything to do with it or not but I have Skype 3.5 installed on it (3.8 doesn't work with voice for some reason like Kernelex says it can) but when I go to shutdown the system, if I don't close Skype completely first, I'll get a few illegal operations errors from it before it closes out and shuts down.

If it's not too much trouble, can you list the specs of your machine and what it has on the board as far as onboard adapters? But I'm curious just how awesome this machine really is.

I don't really know, but something more in the tune of this As for SMART, if I look fast it says that my hard drive is SMART compatible but is disabled, yet I can't enable it in the BIOS like apparently this one can.

I will get out of computing all together if Windows 2000/Windows 98 were to completely vanish into thin air. What Microsoft is doing right now is a load of crap and I completely despise Windows 8. I don't care how fast it is over Windows 7. I think anything VIsta on up is nothing but bloatware and a waste of resources. I want a clean OS that gets the job done and doesn't add a lot of extra malarkey that nobody wants anyway. And them adding the word 'App' to their software is enough to make me want to strangle them as I detest that abbreviation so badly. Windows 2000 does what I want it to and I tell people to save their breath when they tell me to upgrade to something newer. They can have their playthings from MS, I'll stick to a real OS thank you very much.

PAE seems to be extremely stable on my Asrock motherboard with the nVidia GeForce 8600GT video card. It seems to have a slight issue if you use an onboard Intel graphics controller as it takes away your colors and resolution and leaves you with 640x480x16. But at the very least even with that issue, I had my full 4GBs of RAM show up in Windows 2000 with PAE enabled.

Very awesome! Have you considered trying out the PAE extension if you have 4+GBs of RAM? This is awesome that Windows 2000 still works on very modern hardware. Now if only we can get all sorts of drivers to work with it as well.