Nomen

I've been running Office 2k premium on many Win-98se machines for about a decade now. My specific version of Outlook is Outlook 2000 SP-3 (9.0.0.6627) Corporate or Workgroup - Security Update. One thing you have to watch for is to not let any .pst file get larger than 2 gb. There is a Microsoft System Information utility (which I didn't know existed until now) that might tell you something useful. You can start it from outlook (Help - About Microsoft Outlook - System Info). It starts msinfo32.exe - seems like an interesting program. Gives a list of a KB updates installed, a list of all running tasks, list of 16 and 32 bit modules, a list of all kernel mode, user mode and ms-dos drivers, and more.

> If you have a newer Motherboard with Native Mode SATA, it's likely there is no 9x driver for it. Again I ask just how far you can go running win-9x on a motherboard made after 2006 or 2007? If we are talking single-boot OS, running win-9x natively on any system, why would you want to struggle with many drivers missing, ethernet, sound, video, usb - when there are many older boards available on ebay for almost nothing and you can build a system with pre-2007 hardware. If we are talking dual-boot OS (say, win-7 / win-9x) then you run 9x in a VM and no need to bother about driver issues (but you will have poor performance, possibly poor video resolution, but you obviously have some dire reason to run 9x so you have little choice here). > If you want to buy an Add-on Card for it, you can. But they are more expensive, take up vauable PCI slot space, > and waste the Motherboard Controllers. Many boards have many PCI slots. PCI slots are not "valuable" the way I see it. Any motherboard that has on-board SATA controller that you can't find 9x drivers for will be a motherboard that will be an absolute pain to run 9x on and certainly not worth the effort when you will almost certainly not have drivers for many other important motherboard sub-systems. > I heard the same kinds of arguments about my High Capacity Disk Patch and RAM Limitation Patch. Again, win-9x is very happy to run with 512 mb ram, and you can push that to 1024 mb very easily almost all the time without needing special patches. I don't know what the high capacity disk patch is or why someone would need it, but sata hard drives between 160 gb to 1 tb are very common, cheap, and most likely would meet the needs of 99.999% of people running win-9x today. > My customers clearly do not agree with you. I'm a win-98 "power user" and I certainly can get by very easily without any of your patches. Anyone investigating the use of win-9x should be aware of what their options are, and some of those options involve setting up systems that don't need your patches.

> > quick question but can windows 95 also use sata drives like > > ide devices the same way that you would do in windows 98 > > if you simply select the ide compatibility / legacy mode > > option in the bios? So let's consider this question. Is this person running win-95 "natively" - directly on the hardware in question and not in a VM? The answer would have to be yes, since we're talking about storage devices visible through hardware drivers to win-95. So what sort of hardware would someone running win-95 have? Must be old, probably does not have SATA controller on-board. But there are many motherboards made between 2002 and 2006 that have full win-9x/me support and have on-board sata controllers with 9x drivers. So if the OP has a motherboard that does not have SATA controller, then OP is using add-on PCI card. PCI cards, we believe, do not seem to have bios user interface that allows selection of Legacy IDE vs Sata (AHCI) mode operation. But many PCI cards use SIL SATA-1 controller chip for which 9x drivers are readily available. So someone running win-95 with PCI sata card will not be able to select IDE controller mode (but SATA drives will be accessible in DOS and will work in DOS compatibility mode when running win-9x) or SIL drivers can be found that allow proper Native/SATA/AHCI mode operation under 9x. > If you can select Legacy Mode rather than Native Mode > for your SATA Drives, Windows 95 will not know they > are SATA Drives and will work fine. If he has PCI SATA card, he most likely will not have the option to set working mode. But he will most likely be able to find 9x drivers for the card, and be able to use the SATA interface just fine with any hard drives up to at least 1 tb. If he has onboard integrated SATA controller, then again we presume that the OP is satisfied with the motherboard in terms of 9x driver availability, which again would mean that 9x drivers are almost certainly available for the SATA controller. > If not, you will need my SATA Patch. After typing all my various explanations above, I fail to see any reason why someone running 9x would need your SATA patch, because I can't see a use-case where OEM-supplied SATA drivers would not be available to them given the hardware that they *probably* have.

My setting for dom.max_script_run_time was 5 - I changed it to 10. Looking at the error console, here's an example of what I see (if anything can be done about them...) Under "Errors" =============== Error: _.pf is not a function Source File: https:// apis.google.com/_/scs/apps-static/_/js/k=oz.gapi.en_(etc) Error: iframes is not defined Source File: https:// apis.google.com/se/0/_/+1/fastbutton?usegapi=1&_moz-userdefined=(etc) Error: window.googleapis has no properties Source File: https:// apis.google.com/_/scs/apps-static/_/js/k=oz.plusone.en_(etc) Error: a has no properties Source File: https:// apis.google.com/js/plusone.js Line: 43 ============== Under "Warnings": ============= Warning: Error in parsing value for property 'display'. Declaration dropped. Source File: http:// www.msfn.org/board/public/style_css/css_20/ipb_print.css The following all reference Source File: http:// www.msfn.org/board/topic/173990-firefox-2-and-unresponsive-scripts-what-purpose-do-they-serve/ Warning: Error in parsing value for property 'display'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Unknown property 'box-sizing'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Unknown property '-webkit-box-sizing'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Unknown property '-webkit-font-smoothing'. Declaration dropped. The following all reference Source File: https:// apis.google.com/se/0/_/+1/fastbutton?usegapi=1&_moz-userdefined (etc) Warning: Unrecognized at-rule or error parsing at-rule '@font-face'. Warning: Error in parsing value for property 'display'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Expected end of value for property but found 'rgba'. Error in parsing value for property 'border'. Warning: Unknown property 'border-radius'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Unknown property '-moz-box-shadow'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Unknown property 'box-shadow'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Unknown property 'box-sizing'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Unknown property 'transition'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Unknown property 'animation'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Unknown property '-moz-transform-origin'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Error in parsing value for property 'border-color'. Declaration dropped. ============== Under "Messages" : ============== Security Error: Content at https://apis.google.com/_/scs/apps-static/_/js/k=oz.gapi.en_(etc)may not load data from http:// www.msfn.org/board/topic/173990-firefox-2-and-unresponsive-scripts-what-purpose-do-they-serve/. Security Error: Content at https:// apis.google.com/_/scs/apps-static/_/js/k=oz.gapi.en_(etc) may not load data from http:// www.msfn.org/board/topic/173990-firefox-2-and-unresponsive-scripts-what-purpose-do-they-serve/. Security Error: Content at https:// apis.google.com/js/plusone.js may not load data from http:// www.msfn.org/board/topic/173990-firefox-2-and-unresponsive-scripts-what-purpose-do-they-serve/. No chrome package registered for chrome://navigator/locale/navigator.properties . No chrome package registered for chrome://navigator-region/locale/region.properties . No chrome package registered for chrome://communicator-region/locale/region.properties . =============== I don't know if any of the above are js related. ? Would be nice to have an add-on that can scan web content and re-write code items that don't conform to FF2 (such as the above) so that they either work correctly or are not executed if they can't be made to work.

My hosts file started with a version from MVPS some years ago and instead of updating it I've just been adding custom entries - probably hundreds - ever since. I'm also running something called the "Abyss" web server - it serves up (https only) any files that my hosts file would ordinarily block so long as I've gone out and gotten a local copy of said files and stored them within the Abyss web-server directory (c:\Inetpub\wwwroot). I note that the vast majority of these are .js files. I mention all the above in case it relates to the following: I have the firefox addon "yes script" (not "no script") which is a list of sites or hosts that are not allowed to run javascript. Yet I encounter, on a daily basis, brief browsing pauses followed by the message that "a script on this page is not responding". I cancel the script and the site or page continues to load - it is not apparent what is missing or what functionality is lost because the script did not run. So I'm asking here - what is the usual function of these nuisance scripts? What did I not experience because I blocked a script with "yes script" or I cancelled a "non-responding" script? Is Firefox-2 capable of running *ANY* java scripts that are found on a typical website today? Or is FF2 running *MANY* such scripts correctly and silently - I just don't know it - and these are scripts that are necessary and / or make the browsing experience with FF2 tolerable today? In other words, if I were to totally turn off javascript functionality for all sites on my FF2 browser, would I notice anything different other than not seeing any more "unresponsive script" messages?

I said earlier that I tried this 3.8.0.188 version on two different PC's (but each having the same make/model motherboard) and got the same results for both of them (skype complaining about having no audio device). Turns out the two systems (while they look identical) are slight varients of each other - one has AGP slot, the other had no AGP slot (but it has on-board video). Both based on same 845 chipset. However - the one with AGP has C-Media 8738 audio chip, whereas the other system has (in exactly the same place, same chip package) a Realtek ALC655 chip. I can select that as an audio device in Skype (Realtek AC97 Audio) but still get the same result (PROBLEM WITH PLAYBACK DEVICE) when trying to make a call. And with both systems, when skype starts and logs in, the traditional skype startup sound is not played (or - I don't hear it).

I've tried this skype 3.8.0.188 on two different win-98 systems. They both are running on the same type of motherboard - based on Intel 845 chipset with C-Media 8738 audio chip. Skype installs fine, is able to log in, is able to search for, find, and connect to other users, is able to have live text chats with other users. But Skype is unable to see or use the audio hardware on both systems. A google search using 8738 and skype turn up many instances of people reporting audio problems with skype. Some of these are in english forums where the problem mostly seems to involve various forums of linux / ubunto, while others are in russian or polish forums where the OS used is not clear. In some cases this specific version of skype is mentioned. Let me ask you this: Are you able to change the default Skype user picture to a custom image? As I've described above, I'm not able to do that, and I can't see how that could be related to my audio problem.

> SP3.x is not needed to run skype Then explain WHAT version is needed to be compatible with skype's current user database server. Because the version I was previously using (3.5.0.239) is not. (never mind - I just realized that "SP3.x" is not Skype 3.x). > Here is proof the sound is working in skype, I did this just for you Nomen: > You're welcome!!!!! Of what use to me is your proof? Have we not exchanged PM's - where I showed you that there is evidence that the sound chip on my motherboard (C-Media CMI-8738) is or might be incompatible with this particular version (3.8.0.188) of skype?

I have JRE 1.6_7 but I think the Jdownloader v2 installer includes and is trying to use JRE v8 based on what I see in the temp directory. I end up getting an error (after a long time-out) that the installer can't start the Java VM.

For what it's worth, skype version 3.8.0.188 appears to be the most popular download at oldversion.com, with over 1.2 million downloads. Other top downloads are Yahoo Messenger, Bearshare Lite, MSN Messenger, Winamp, LimeWire and IE 6.

> Thank you very much for the contribution. You don't actually say that you've tried it - and it works...

> Probably I never had sound with version 3.8 and also 3.6 and 3.7 > (PROBLEM WITH PLAYBACK DEVICE) So until or unless someone else running Win-98 natively (ie - not in a VM) can run this 3.8.0.18 version of skype with proper audio functionality, it should be considered non-functional for its stated purpose.

Would the fact that I have this in my registry: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion - Version = Windows NT - VersionNumber = 5.0 - Win XP version number = 5.1.2600 HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion - CurrentVersion = 5.0 - Version=Windows NT - VersionNumber = 5.0 be causing problems with skype 3.8.0.188 not seeing my audio hardware? Or causing this problem: If I try to set a picture for my skype profile, and I point skype to, say, the root of E drive and select a .jpg file located there, I get this: ----------- Cannot create file "E:\profile\pictures\some-picture.jpg" The system cannot find the path specified. ----------- If I create the directory "E:\profile" in explorer and then go into that directory, the file "shared.lck" is mysteriously already there - with the current date and timestamp. I then create the sub-directory "pictures" and go back to skype and repeat the profile-picture selection process. I select the same picture (located in e:\) and the picture shows up in the Skype Picture Library (its the only picture there besides the default picture). The new picture is selected, and I press the "apply" button. The skype profile window closes, and an error-window pops up with this message: -------------- Error Skype encountered an error accessing stored data. You have been logged out for protect integrity of your data. [ok] -------------- Skype interface reverts to login screen, showing "welcome to skype" and under that is "! Failed to mount skype database. Possibly another instance of Skype is using it" - but there is no other such instance running as far as I can tell. So I exit and restart skype, and it does an auto-logon and I get the green circle with the checkmark in it in the system tray (indicating that I have a working skype connection) and my profile picture is still the default picture.

When I installed this modified version of skype (3.8.0.188) I chose to install it to c:\program files \skype2\ because I wanted to keep the existing installation (version 3.5.0.239) which was located in c:\program files\skype\. I just ran the older 3.5.0 version, and it gets hung up trying to login. I can cancel the login but the application comes up and I get the green circle with the checkmark in the system tray. I *can* make a skype test call, and the audio works fine! And in the audio settings, there is no play arrow. In the Sound settings, there is a small play arrow, and I can play any of the selected sounds. So I closed the old version and ran the modified version directly from the directory where it's installed in (\skype2\.App\). It behaves differently vs when it's launched from the desktop shortcut (SKYPEL.BAT). It logs into my old user-name - and it seems to do that smoothly / automatically. But if I try to "View Account", I get a screen showing a padlock and the message "Loading (old account name)" and then it says "unable to launch web browser". I still get "problem with playback device" when trying to make a test call. I've set the Kex properties for skype.exe to "disable kernelex extensions" but that does nothing. Still get "problem with playback device". If I start this modified skype with the desktop shortcut (SKYPEL.BAT) it logs in with the new skype username, but when I try "view account" I still get "unable to launch web browser" and making a test call still gives "problem with playback device". What is known about this modified version of skype (3.8.0.188) and installing it in a non-default directory location, and installing it when a previous version of skype (with all it's settings stored somewhere) still exists?

I was trying to bring this website up using IE6 (win-98): https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/viewMyClient.html and was getting the standard message you get if you try to access a non-existant domain: The page cannot be displayed The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings. I also get the above message when I try to bring up https://www.msfn.org/ with IE6. Trying that URL with FF2, after dismissing a couple of certificate messages I get redirected to https://www.msfn.org/cgi-sys/defaultwebpage.cgi. On IE6, trying https://www.google.com gets redirected to https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl but otherwise the page seems to function just fine. So what's happening with https sites and IE6? Do some sites test for user-agent and give an immediate null response to https requests? Setting my FF2 user-agent to replicate IE6 like this: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1) Doesn't seem to matter or interfere with connecting to https sites (like ssllabs.com). Although a check of my IE6 shows that it's identifiying itself as: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; Avant Browser) Which now has me wondering how to untangle or remove the "Avant Browser" thing from it. ?

The previous version of skype that I had (that used to work a year ago before Skype changed something with their contact server) was 3.5.0.239. Also, I'm blocking ui.skype.com in my Hosts file (I read somewhere that it would help get skype working again). Should I unblock it? According to this screen capture: http://forums.logitech.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/8659i30B1770A931883BB/image-size/original?v=mpbl-1&px=-1 I'm supposed to have a small green "Play" arrow beside the Speaker setting drop-down box. I have no such arrow.

I downloaded and installed the skype package created by Oerg866, and it is working on my win-98 system with kex. I was able to create a new skype account and send a contact request to someone and it was accepted and I can conduct a skype chat session with them. However, regardless if I try a call to the contact or to the skype test account, I get a message (in big red letters) PROBLEM WITH PLAYBACK DEVICE. Under Tools - Options - Audio Settings, for each of Microphone, Speakers and Ringing, a dropdown box for each of those has 2 choices - Windows default device and C-Media Wave device. Regardless which one I choose - this Playback Device problem exists. I have all inputs in my taskbar speaker/volume control selector un-muted. I do not currently have a microphone plugged in - but I wouldn't expect that would cause this problem. ? Under Tools - Options - Sounds, the "play this sound" function does not result in any audible sound. Does the actual program file (skype.exe) require any specific kernelEx setting? Does the .bat file that invokes skype (or any of the custom .cmd files that are present) require modification to restore audio functions?

Would the program "HD Sentinel" (hdsdos.exe) found here: http://www.hdsentinel.com/hard_disk_sentinel_dos.phpbe of any use in exploring these AHCI issues? I ran it on my system and for my sata drives it reported both drives as: Interface: S-ATA II ATA Information ATA Revision: 7 Maximum UDMA Mode: 150 MB/s (6) Active UDMA Mode: 150 MB/s (6) ATA Control Byte: Valid Serial ATA Features S-ATA Compliance: Yes S-ATA I Signaling Speed (1.5 Gps): Supported S-ATA II Signaling Speed (3 Gps): Supported There is nothing in the lengthy report indicating AHCI status (unless it goes by another name) so I don't know if that can be determined by anything in the report generated by this program. The SATA controller on this win-98 system appears in Device Manager under the heading "SCSI Controllers" as Silicon Image Sil 3512 SATARaid controller. There's nothing obvious in the properties of that object, nor for the properties of the SATA disk drives themselves, that indicates AHCI status. I have a "Silicon Image SATA Controllers" control panel applet, which again says nothing about AHCI status - but it does tell me that the current transfer mode is "Ultra DMA mode 6" and the ATA version is "ATA/ATAPI-8". The BIOS on the SATA PCI card (accessible by pressing control-S or F4 during boot) only seems to give the ability to configure RAID sets, with no option to set operating mode (IDE/legacy/native etc).

rloew said: > There is no "Emulated" Mode. SATA uses a superset of the PATA Protocols. When you set the bios to IDE/Legacy for the SATA controller, aren't you telling the controller to cause SATA drives to appear to the installed OS as an IDE/PATA drives? Aren't you telling the SATA controller to pretend that it's an IDE controller? Does none of that qualify as a form of emulation? > You cannot choose between PATA and SATA. They use separate connectors and Controllers. Do you really think I don't understand that SATA and PATA are physically different? Did I really have to explain what I keep on saying about the bios EMULATING an IDE/PATA controller/drive? > Unmodified Windows 9x will use ESDI_506.PDR for all drives in IDE Mode. If a SATA drive is not in "IDE Mode" (and it is not in Raid mode) - then what mode is it in? Is it in AHCI mode? Does Native/Sata mode = AHCI? That's all I'm trying to get an answer to. If my win-98 system is not using ESDI_506 to access my SATA drives, and if I know the drives are not in DOS/compatibility mode, then I must be accessing the drives through AHCI - yes? Which nobody running win-98 should have any problems doing if the controller is SIL3112 or 3114 or potentially any SATA-1 type controller. If (as I suspect) anyone can run win-98 with Sata drives under AHCI if the controller is Sata-1 type (because I believe there are win-98 drivers for all SATA-1 controllers) then I suspect your AHCI project is for people with SATA-2 or SATA-3 controllers. If this is true, then I would submit that anyone with a SATA-2 or SATA-3 controller on their motherboard would also have many other aspects of the system that win-98 is not compatible with at the driver level.

> If an option is listed, it must be AHCI or possibly RAID for the AHCI FIS Structures to be used. > Native Mode does not imply AHCI. In a situation where Native Mode does not imply or does not mean AHCI, then what else can it mean other than emulated IDE/PATA? Is there a third meaning or interface type? > I answered your Second question before. You can be in ANY Mode and still not use ESDI_506.PDR. How can a SATA controller be set in the BIOS to emulated/PATA mode, and NOT be accessed through ESDI_506 by win-98? (other than the obvious case where you removed the file from use by win-98). Regardless if the original or a modified version of ESDI_506 is availble to the OS, in what circumstance would win-98 choose to use another driver to access a SATA drive if the SATA interface is set to Emulated/PATA mode in the bios? Can the Intel SATA drivers (from the IIA package) be used if the bios is set to Emulated/PATA mode? I'm trying to understand how a Native/Sata mode bios setting does not imply (or is not equivalent to) AHCI mode. Can AHCI be utilized or invoked even if the bios is set to emulated/PATA/legacy mode?

I'm simply asking if by using the on-motherboard SATA controller in "Native" or "Sata" mode (and NOT in IDE/legacy/PATA mode) - is that the same as saying "AHCI" mode. ? Or to ask that question another way: If I know that I am NOT using ESDI_506 to access my SATA drives in Win98, does that mean I therefore must be using AHCI mode. ?

Sorry - I was confusing AHCI with UEFI - along the lines of a motherboard with UEFI bios (or operating in UEFI mode instead of regular "BIOS" mode - what-ever that's called) would be very incompatible with Win-98 in a number of ways. Regarding AHCI - would it be correct to say that if on any given system running 9x/me, that if access to a connected SATA drive is NOT facilitated by ESDI_506.PDR, then that *must mean* the SATA controller is operating in AHCI mode? Does AHCI mean that the SATA drive is not appearing to the system as an IDE/PATA drive? If so, then what exactly is the problem with Win-98 and AHCI? Are there problems if the controller is a SIL3112 or 3114? Or any other SATA-1 type controller? Or does this quest to improve Win-98 compatibility with AHCI pertain only when the SATA controller in question is a type 2 or 3?

Is there any value in running (or attempting to run) win-9x on a motherboard with AHCI bios, given the likely situation that there will almost certainly be no win-9x drivers for (some/most/many/all) motherboard components - north/south bridge, onboard graphics, PCIe video cards and other controllers, etc. ?

> ok. then i will change back to sata then. its hard to know when you never have dealed with this this before, > but i ahve one pation now at 125 GB and hide the other one. is this ok. are kinda tired to reinstall win98 > i ahve already done that liek 5 times. If you have a SATA drive (the drive itself, not a particular volume) that is larger than 128 gb connected to a win-98 system, and: 1) the drive is (or you want it to be) partially or totally formatted as FAT32 (regardless if single or multiple partitions or logical drives) 2) you have or can obtain Win-9x drivers for the SATA controller Then the motherboard bios should set the drive for Native/Sata mode access, NOT IDE/emulation/compabitlity mode access. > i just wonna know what i do wrong. It's not that there is something wrong - there are just easy ways to do things, and hard ways to do things. Golden rule of thumb for SATA drives and win-98 is that you do not want the native Windows hard drive controller (ESDI_506.pdr) to have ANY involvement with a sata drive that's connected to a win-98 system. There is one exception to this - that you have obtained a modified version of ESDI_506.pdr and replaced the original with the modified one. But doing this during win-98 install can be tricky. If you have an IDE (aka PATA) drive larger than 127 gb that you want to connect to (or use as a primary drive) for a win-98 system, or if you have a SATA drive larger than 127 gb that you want to use in BIOS IDE/Compabitility mode, the above-mentioned modified ESDI_506.PDR can be used - OR - if the system has certain Intel chipsets, the Intel Application Accelerator software package will replace the faulty ESDI_506.pdr with a different driver that does not have the 128 / 137 GB hard-drive access problem. Do you already have a working Win-98 system? With SATA port? It really helps to be doing all this (preparing a new windows-98 install) if you already have a working win-98 system. And oh yea - never install win-98 on a machine with more than 512 mb of ram. After win-98 and all drivers are installed, you can experiment with adding more ram, but just don't start with more than 512 mb during installation. PS: My memory is a bit fuzzy on this, but I seem to recall having to remove (ie - move or rename) the windows 32-bit floppy driver (hsflop.pdr?) on at least one system because it was causing windows to hang during startup.

Wow. I can't believe the convoluted crap that's being posted here. Any socket-478 motherboard with onboard SATA will be perfectly fine to install win-98 on, using SATA drive. Set the bios to SATA mode for the drive. NOT compatible / IDE emulation mode. When you install 98, it will not use ESDI_506.pdr, and hence the drive will be used in DOS-access (16-bit BIOS) mode. Which is OK initially - you will see the entire 250 gb drive just fine. When you install drivers, you will install SATA controller, and it will appear as SCSI adapter in Device manager. After that, the SATA driver will be accessing the drive using 32-bit drivers with full speed DMA access, so you will be fine. This is where win-98 is superior (or easier) than XP when installing to SATA drive - you must use IDE mode in bios or have SATA driver on floppy and ready to give to XP during install. We have established here that FDISK.exe and Format.com is fine (works correctly) for any drive up to what- 1 tb in size? I have formatted large SATA drives with FAT32 using third-party tools such that cluser size stays at 4 kb regardless the volume size and win-98 works fine with that - to a point. The best way to install 98 on a "new" computer is to start with an existing (already running) win-98 system and slave a new drive to it and prepare the drive for the new install by formatting it (format drive so it will boot dos) and then copy win-98 cd to the new drive. Seek out all drivers available for new computer and copy them to new drive. Then take new drive to new computer, set SATA mode in BIOS to Native or "Sata" (NOT compatible or IDE emulation) and boot into DOS, then run win-98 setup. 10 years since having SATA drives and we still don't know how to handle them with win-98?