pangoomis

Does safe mode work? Install with "setup /p i", limit the RAM if more than 1152MB, do you install on IDE or SATA? If SATA, set it to Compatible if possible. Try also deleting ESDI_506.pdr from Windows/System/Iosubsys from pure DOS. I've succesfully ran Win98SE on a nForce 550 motherboard, on a SATA drive with these tips.

Phew! I've finally made it work! I basically did an clean install without 98lite, and just installing all the needed drivers/programs/addons. I made it work even with the latest version! Now I'll have to make it work with 98lite somehow...

I've took a look at the 249973usa8.exe. Inside, there are two more exe's of interest: ver153.exe and ver1200.exe Inside them are normal standard inf and files like in any other update exe. The files that they update are riched32.dll, riched20.dll (renamed: riched20.153 or riched20.120), and usp10.dll. Looks like these are two different versions of the same three files...why? I don't know. I guess one is for FE and other for SE? It's not clear at all. There's not hint as to what version to install.

I'm not interested in running older Flash version than 9, I want at least 10 or 11. Though I've tried your YouTube spoof, it does work, but I can't select anything better than 240p, and the player stays at previous video, when I click a link to another one. There's no resize to big window mode. I'm running Windows 98 SE.

If i set to XP SP2, Opera 11.64 doesn't work at all. Last official supported flash for 9x which is 9.0.289 does work properly, but it is too old, obviously. (YouTube player doesn't show buttons) If i try any newer version, even Flash 10.0, which should work with KernelEx without Kext, and is installed in the same way as Flash 9 (in plugins directory of Opera), I get nothing, as I've said before. I've tested every version on the about page, but only 9.0.289 worked so far. I've tried masking as Firefox, didn't do anything. My computer specs are as follows: Mobo: ASRock K8Upgrade-NF3 CPU: AMD Sempron 64 2500+ 1,4GHz (I can overclock it a little, if that might help) RAM: 512MB DDR 400MHz GPU: NVIDIA GeForce4 MX440 64MB DDR (128-bit) HDD: Samsung SP0822N 80GB IDE

Have you tried to install with ACPI disabled? "setup /p i"? Limit the amount of RAM using MaxPhysPage. These are the only things I need to install 98SE on my Lenovo IdeaPad Z510, maybe it'll work for you too.

Latest version of AIDA64 5.50.3600 still works perfectly without KernelEx. The installer only works with KernelEx and compatibility mode Win2000. But the zip version works without it.

I've tried for quite some time now, to run any version of Flash Player that will work on YouTube, and other sites. I've tried Opera 12.02, and 11.64 (I don't want older version, because they don't have extensions, and I don't want to use other browsers) I've tried all Flash versions from this site: http://kernelex.sourceforge.net/wiki/Adobe_Flash_Player And nothing. I always setup the KernelEx, the Kext, the ini files, the DirectX correctly...and all I get is absolutely nothing. I've tested not only on YouTube. The plugin is always correctly recognised by Opera, but it just doesn't work. Sites like this do confirm it's installed. Do YouTube flash player work for you guys? What version/browser/ini modifications/file addons you use? Do the graphic card matters? Do I need more than 512MB RAM? I've tested just recently on a real hardware with a SSE2 able processor, and a GeForce4 MX440, as well on a Virtual PC 2007 VM. I remember some time ago that I was able to make it work with no problems under Virtual PC, so I don't think it's the graphic card. It was 98lite fault, Flash Player requires ICM Color Profiles which can be removed under 98lite, who would have thought?

If you're lucky, the onboard LAN on this MoBo could work with Win98SE, depending on if the Hardware ID matches with this INF file. from these drivers.

I think the most common situation when you see such ghosts, are the built-in screensavers, when tested though Display control panel. They will almost always leave a ghost button at the taskbar (with or without a name).

I have finally done tests FAT32 vs NTFS on a 20GB partition. The difference is really negligible, I would say about +-5%, sometimes NTFS performed slightly better, sometimes FAT32, but in overall usage, it felt pretty much the same. I've done a boot time test, a copying files test, and a 3DMark test, all providing similar results within a margin of error.

So, the file is found, does it work?

http://www2.ati.com/drivers/Catalyst_62_ME_release_notes.html They claim BETA support for X8xx and X6xx cards. No X7xx mentioned, yet (only) in the C8_30314.inf they are clearly mentioned: http://s27.postimg.org/reh3gdpgj/Bez_tytu_u.png I think the X8xx/X7xx support was not completed, resulting in the errors you've encountered.

Why accdate=c- would speed boot time? Is it just like the NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate in NT systems?

I think the mentioned rt28709x.sys file is just a placeholder, and was probably never made. Lots of inf's have non-existent files, since it's easy to just change some bytes from an old inf, rather than write an entirely new inf. Though it seems lazy in this example.

So I guess I'll have to try this myself. Thanks for the posts, good learn.

This topic says the difference in cluster size is negligible. I'm talking about the overhead connected with the stuff NTFS have like security, compression, etc.

Let's say I want to multiboot Win98SE and XP, will using FAT32 on XP have better performance than using NTFS on a <20GB partition?

Fraps 1.9d, CamStudio 2.0, or even VirtualDub. All free. They should work without KernelEx, but I'm not sure.

Hmm...I just had an idea, try using VBEMP, or revert back to standard VGA 640x480.

The INF's in Intel Chipset drivers can be unpacked by using InstallShield Cabinet File Viewer: http://i.imgur.com/3NahrR5.png

I would recommend the old CCCP Codec Pack, and the included Media Player Classic there (don't use ZoomPlayer): http://www.cccp-project.net/stuff/Combined-Community-Codec-Pack-2007-02-22.exe It doesn't even need KernelEx

Try different graphic drivers, or if you can, try different graphic cards. About the AGP Texture Acceleration in DxDiag: http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/sb/CS-009689.htm and https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/810772 It seems it's not needed at all, and is just for the show.

It's not a patch, more like a fix for a potential vulnerability...though in 2015 why should we care about 9x malware?

Try there audio drivers: https://www.sendspace.com/file/7k7wx3